Kevin newburn
New Member
Hi all,
I'm new to this forum but this is my opinion on the whole Star Wars land, nostalgia thing etc.
I think the reason Disney chose to put Star Wars land behind Rivers of America and Big Thunder Ranch is because they simply need more acreage in the park. The Magic Kingdom in Florida as we all know is larger in every respect that matters when it comes to handling large numbers of people. Disneyland was never designed for a fraction of its current annual visitation. Adding new land onto the back of the park allows more room for more people. I would imagine theoretically that Disney could continue to expand the park all the way back to Ball Road and move the infrastructure to the other side of one of the main roads with a tunnel for access to the park, if it wanted to.
As for reducing the size of the River, I'll admit I was quite sad when I heard that, because I love sitting on the Country Bear restaurant deck and watching the river, the calm, the wildlife. Even though there's nothing natural about it, like Central Park in NY, it just feels so real, so right. I hope that will still be there to some extent in the future, even if somewhat different.
On the other hand, with the exception of some limited views on the Railroad, and the CB restaurant deck, you can't see much of the back of the river anyway unless you take one of the boat rides. The back third of Tom Sawyer island is off limits, so that's useless. These's no foot access to that whole back corner of the park. In a park that's bursting at the seams with visitors I can see why the decision was made to stir things up. There has also been the annoying dead end in Critter Country that goes nowhere. Expanding the park back there will eliminate that problem finally, one of the biggest bottlenecks in the park.
Why not build Star Wars land where Toontown is or in Tomorrow Land? I think for the same reason mentioned above. They need more space. Killing Toontown only takes the existing people out of one land and puts them in another with the same amount of space, plus they wouldn't want to close Star Wars land every night for fireworks. Can you imagine shutting down half or more of Tomorrowland for 2 or 3 years while it's being rebuilt. What makes more sense to me is building out Star Wars Land, then taking advantage of that extra space to go into existing parts of the park to renovate them, i.e. Replace the subs, autopia, people mover, Fantasyland expansion or whatever else.
My opinion on changing Walts park is this. I don't think he would be too upset with how things have changed in the park. After all, he had barely finished Disneyland and he was already trying to figure out how to change all the things he didn't like about it when designing the Florida park. There are certain things that will most likely never change, Main Street is very much the same, as is the castle, the Hub where his statue is. While I can see parts of the Haunted Mansion and Pirates rides continuing to change I don't see the rides themselves disappearing any more than I see the railroad disappearing. The River itself defines the park as much as the castle does so I don't expect it to look much different except on the back side of course. The world could be destroyed by a giant meteor and Its a Small World will still be running.ha
My personal issue with looking at things just from a nostalgia standpoint is that you risk changing the park from "the place to go" where you will pay a small fortune for the experience to go, to a museum where you get bored because nothing ever changes. As an example, this last year I went to the Santa Monica Pier for the first time in more than 20 years. Having gone there again I feel no need to go back for another 20 years. Why? There's nothing new, never mind that the buildings don't look like they've had a coat of paint since I was a kid. Imagine if your favorite mall now was still the same 20 years or 30 years from now, or Las Vagas had the same attractions, restaurants, and shows as years earlier. Times change, our expectations change, interests change. Look at Sea World, they're not changing with the times and they're paying the price. The world around us continues to change, like it or not, and if we don't change ourselves we risk being left behind. That's true for individuals as well as companies. Microsoft didn't see the mobile revolution coming and look how relevant they are now compared to a decade ago. Disney is trying to give you an experience that is unique, current, interactive, and nostalgic all at the same time...not an easy task to accomplish.
Myself, I still miss the sky buckets through the Matterhorn and the people mover.
Why not put Star Wars land in DCA? There is only one lot left for development and they will be tapped out on all sides by the streets around the park. There is almost no backlot/warehouse space around DCA for future development. Disneyland has a lot of space still if they choose to use it.
I personally think Disney/Eisner made a big mistake putting the Grand Californian hotel where they did. It would have added a lot of extra acreage for park development if they had built the hotel in one of the parking lots across the street with a bridge for access to the park. Eisner obviously didn't learn from the limited space of Disneyland either. Oh well....
What about a third gate? I seriously doubt it. As we all know, just because the first gate is an amazing success in every respect doesn't mean the second...or third, will be. DCA is finally getting better but I don't know how much better it can get when they've already run out of room. Disneyland still has space 60 years later if it wants to use it.
I think Disney knows that the only way to expand the Disney property on any scale is at Disneyland. That's what the people want, that's where the land is. They've raised entrance fees immensely in recent years and are still experiencing record numbers of visitors. Do you try to build another park that will take years to do, plus years more to build up loyalty, to say nothing of the billions of dollars in investment or do you reinvest in your current property that most will agree has been neglected in recent years to instead push expansion overseas.
Fantasyland hasn't had an upgrade since the early 80's, the people mover tracks still sit empty, the Mission to Mars building is filler space for anything they don't know where to put, the submarine ride leaks 10's of thousands of gallons of water a day due to cracks in the lake, autopia, as much as I like the nostalgia, uses a ton of space for little benefit. Maybe Google can put they're self driving cars on the track for people to see. That might be cool.
Sorry, didn't mean to write a dissertation. Ha
I'm new to this forum but this is my opinion on the whole Star Wars land, nostalgia thing etc.
I think the reason Disney chose to put Star Wars land behind Rivers of America and Big Thunder Ranch is because they simply need more acreage in the park. The Magic Kingdom in Florida as we all know is larger in every respect that matters when it comes to handling large numbers of people. Disneyland was never designed for a fraction of its current annual visitation. Adding new land onto the back of the park allows more room for more people. I would imagine theoretically that Disney could continue to expand the park all the way back to Ball Road and move the infrastructure to the other side of one of the main roads with a tunnel for access to the park, if it wanted to.
As for reducing the size of the River, I'll admit I was quite sad when I heard that, because I love sitting on the Country Bear restaurant deck and watching the river, the calm, the wildlife. Even though there's nothing natural about it, like Central Park in NY, it just feels so real, so right. I hope that will still be there to some extent in the future, even if somewhat different.
On the other hand, with the exception of some limited views on the Railroad, and the CB restaurant deck, you can't see much of the back of the river anyway unless you take one of the boat rides. The back third of Tom Sawyer island is off limits, so that's useless. These's no foot access to that whole back corner of the park. In a park that's bursting at the seams with visitors I can see why the decision was made to stir things up. There has also been the annoying dead end in Critter Country that goes nowhere. Expanding the park back there will eliminate that problem finally, one of the biggest bottlenecks in the park.
Why not build Star Wars land where Toontown is or in Tomorrow Land? I think for the same reason mentioned above. They need more space. Killing Toontown only takes the existing people out of one land and puts them in another with the same amount of space, plus they wouldn't want to close Star Wars land every night for fireworks. Can you imagine shutting down half or more of Tomorrowland for 2 or 3 years while it's being rebuilt. What makes more sense to me is building out Star Wars Land, then taking advantage of that extra space to go into existing parts of the park to renovate them, i.e. Replace the subs, autopia, people mover, Fantasyland expansion or whatever else.
My opinion on changing Walts park is this. I don't think he would be too upset with how things have changed in the park. After all, he had barely finished Disneyland and he was already trying to figure out how to change all the things he didn't like about it when designing the Florida park. There are certain things that will most likely never change, Main Street is very much the same, as is the castle, the Hub where his statue is. While I can see parts of the Haunted Mansion and Pirates rides continuing to change I don't see the rides themselves disappearing any more than I see the railroad disappearing. The River itself defines the park as much as the castle does so I don't expect it to look much different except on the back side of course. The world could be destroyed by a giant meteor and Its a Small World will still be running.ha
My personal issue with looking at things just from a nostalgia standpoint is that you risk changing the park from "the place to go" where you will pay a small fortune for the experience to go, to a museum where you get bored because nothing ever changes. As an example, this last year I went to the Santa Monica Pier for the first time in more than 20 years. Having gone there again I feel no need to go back for another 20 years. Why? There's nothing new, never mind that the buildings don't look like they've had a coat of paint since I was a kid. Imagine if your favorite mall now was still the same 20 years or 30 years from now, or Las Vagas had the same attractions, restaurants, and shows as years earlier. Times change, our expectations change, interests change. Look at Sea World, they're not changing with the times and they're paying the price. The world around us continues to change, like it or not, and if we don't change ourselves we risk being left behind. That's true for individuals as well as companies. Microsoft didn't see the mobile revolution coming and look how relevant they are now compared to a decade ago. Disney is trying to give you an experience that is unique, current, interactive, and nostalgic all at the same time...not an easy task to accomplish.
Myself, I still miss the sky buckets through the Matterhorn and the people mover.
Why not put Star Wars land in DCA? There is only one lot left for development and they will be tapped out on all sides by the streets around the park. There is almost no backlot/warehouse space around DCA for future development. Disneyland has a lot of space still if they choose to use it.
I personally think Disney/Eisner made a big mistake putting the Grand Californian hotel where they did. It would have added a lot of extra acreage for park development if they had built the hotel in one of the parking lots across the street with a bridge for access to the park. Eisner obviously didn't learn from the limited space of Disneyland either. Oh well....
What about a third gate? I seriously doubt it. As we all know, just because the first gate is an amazing success in every respect doesn't mean the second...or third, will be. DCA is finally getting better but I don't know how much better it can get when they've already run out of room. Disneyland still has space 60 years later if it wants to use it.
I think Disney knows that the only way to expand the Disney property on any scale is at Disneyland. That's what the people want, that's where the land is. They've raised entrance fees immensely in recent years and are still experiencing record numbers of visitors. Do you try to build another park that will take years to do, plus years more to build up loyalty, to say nothing of the billions of dollars in investment or do you reinvest in your current property that most will agree has been neglected in recent years to instead push expansion overseas.
Fantasyland hasn't had an upgrade since the early 80's, the people mover tracks still sit empty, the Mission to Mars building is filler space for anything they don't know where to put, the submarine ride leaks 10's of thousands of gallons of water a day due to cracks in the lake, autopia, as much as I like the nostalgia, uses a ton of space for little benefit. Maybe Google can put they're self driving cars on the track for people to see. That might be cool.
Sorry, didn't mean to write a dissertation. Ha
