Possible Frontierland expansion

MerlinTheGoat

MerlinTheGoat

Well-Known Member
Didn't I read somewhere that Small World in Tokyo suffers from structural issues, and that is the leading reason that has prompted its "move" (rather than a real desire to do so)? Issues that apparently do not affect Magic Kingdom's version.

Also, people shouldn't need reminding at this point about the massive discrepancies of spending and investment habits the owners of TDL have towards their resort (regarding maintenance and new attractions) compared to Disney itself. OLC's will to spend money and open-mindedness towards upper tier WDI ambition has been infinitely greater than Disney's own for quite a long while now. Look no further than Frozen at Disney Sea vs Frozen at EPCOT for a perfect example...
 
Last edited:
ABQ

ABQ

Well-Known Member
marni1971 said:
As far as I know it was a measuring error.
Click to expand...

articos said:
Yep.
Click to expand...
Let me know where and I'll send them my autographed copy before they build anything else:
51ul2vR5tiL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
 
MerlinTheGoat

MerlinTheGoat

Well-Known Member
While I never had the opportunity to experience it personally, what i've seen from the World Fair version of Small World indicates that it was designed considerably different from the other versions. At Worlds Fair it was a temporary attraction, and likely built as such. It's probably fair to say that they designed it with less longevity in mind, and for parts to be easier to take apart and move. I would imagine that when it arrived at Disneyland for its final destination, construction crews likely built it so it would last longer and be more difficult to move.

Also, unlike the Disneyland/WorldsFair version, the other versions of Small World all use flooded showbuildings. The water remains inside the narrow flume the boats travel along. I would imagine this fact also made track assembly/disassembly and transport easier when the ride was moved out to Disneyland.
 
PhotoDave219

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
jt04 said:
My statement was not limited to geography or type of attraction or venue. Only that stuff gets relocated when that was once, mysteriously, not considered. Must be the mouse getting wiser in his advanced years.
Click to expand...

Well when Small World on Florida develops structural issues and requires moving like the one in Tokyo, drop me a line.

Until then, won't happen. Tho you could probably try a kickstarted.....
 
MerlinTheGoat

MerlinTheGoat

Well-Known Member
PhotoDave219 said:
Well when Small World on Florida develops structural issues and requires moving like the one in Tokyo, drop me a line.
Click to expand...
Thanks for confirming that, I thought I read somewhere that Tokyo's Small World had structural issues but couldn't find the post.

I doubt even Tokyo and their less stingy owners would have bothered moving Small World had there not been a serious problem. But since it was being torn down and rebuilt anyways, imagineering jumped at the opportunity to more thoroughly rearranging the land.

I've yet to hear of any structural issues with MK's, I assume the building is still in good shape going by your comment and the lack of any contradictory info. Though who wants to start bets on when JT changes tactics and starts pulling out asinine claims that MK's also has similar issues?

I do wonder what caused Tokyo's structural issues in the first place. Their maintenance crews are reportedly immaculate compared to Disney's own, so I really can't fathom it being a lack of proper upkeep that caused it. I would guess it was probably a relatively sudden and possibly unavoidable event, perhaps the earthquakes in recent years?

Florida doesn't experience quakes, we have sinkholes but none seem to be present in Small World's vicinity to compromise its structural integrity (only sinkholes i've heard of in close proximity to or under rides have been Tower of Terror and Universe of Energy, none serious enough to cause real problems). And if a dangerous enough sinkhole were to open in the area to compromise Small World and prompt its demolition and move elsewhere, I also doubt modern Disney execs would be very eager to want to use that old plot of land (and immediate surrounding area) again.
 
jt04

jt04

Well-Known Member
MerlinTheGoat said:
Thanks for confirming that, I thought I read somewhere that Tokyo's Small World had structural issues but couldn't find the post.

I doubt even Tokyo and their less stingy owners would have bothered moving Small World had there not been a serious problem. But since it was being torn down and rebuilt anyways, imagineering jumped at the opportunity to more thoroughly rearranging the land.

I've yet to hear of any structural issues with MK's, I assume the building is still in good shape going by your comment and the lack of any contradictory info. Though who wants to start bets on when JT changes tactics and starts pulling out asinine claims that MK's also has similar issues?

I do wonder what caused Tokyo's structural issues in the first place. Their maintenance crews are reportedly immaculate compared to Disney's own, so I really can't fathom it being a lack of proper upkeep that caused it. I would guess it was probably a relatively sudden and possibly unavoidable event, perhaps the earthquakes in recent years?

Florida doesn't experience quakes, we have sinkholes but none seem to be present in Small World's vicinity to compromise its structural integrity (only sinkholes i've heard of in close proximity to or under rides have been Tower of Terror and Universe of Energy, none serious enough to cause real problems). And if a dangerous enough sinkhole were to open in the area to compromise Small World and prompt its demolition and move elsewhere, I also doubt modern Disney execs would be very eager to want to use that old plot of land (and immediate surrounding area) again.
Click to expand...

I am saying that it is the only way to expand the park substantially that I see. HM is not going anywhere anytime soon. And I have seen artwork in the past that showed iasw removed and fantasyland expanded. If it was fan generated it was very sophisticated work. Looked official to me. Not that this means it is approved. Though I think it will be in the next 5 to 10 years. Just my opinion. Nothing more intended.
 
danlb_2000

danlb_2000

Premium Member
jt04 said:
I am saying that it is the only way to expand the park substantially that I see. HM is not going anywhere anytime soon. And I have seen artwork in the past that showed iasw removed and fantasyland expanded. If it was fan generated it was very sophisticated work. Looked official to me. Not that this means it is approved. Though I think it will be in the next 5 to 10 years. Just my opinion. Nothing more intended.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out already they are using the area behind IASW for parking and infrastructure which will landlock the plot of land that IASW sits on. So I doubt there are any plans to move IASW in the near future, otherwise they wouldn't be locking themselves in like this.
 
jt04

jt04

Well-Known Member
danlb_2000 said:
As I pointed out already they are using the area behind IASW for parking and infrastructure which will landlock the plot of land that IASW sits on. So I doubt there are any plans to move IASW in the near future, otherwise they wouldn't be locking themselves in like this.
Click to expand...

I'd be better able to judge this once we get new overhead pics of the work. Plans can and often do change. Get scott on your dragon phone please.
 
EPCOTCenterLover

EPCOTCenterLover

Well-Known Member
I'll admit that the first time I saw IASW at WDW, I looked at the building and its placement and thought it was very odd. Even as a teen, it seemed off to me, and not befitting such a great attraction. I do like the flooded building approach though. Gives the ride an amazing feel.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom