You should ask actual children which land they prefer. TSL is rather popular with my kids. And DL’s Fantasyland is an unfair comparison. They build nothing like that anymore. Even Disneyland took 3 decades to build all of those rides. Pinocchio wasn’t until the ‘80s! Our TSL has been open 3 1/2 years and is receiving updates and expansion already. That’s pretty good for Disney.
Also, ever been in DL’s FL on even a moderately-busy day? It’s jam-packed with people.
Are we really comparing those tiny Bug’s Land rides to TSL’s rides?
While it's true that Disney doesn't build lands like DL's Fantasyland any more, and that Pinocchio wasn't added until the 1983 renovation, it's a little disingenuous to say that it took decades to build all the rides.
With the exception of it's a small world (1967) and Pinocchio's Daring Journey (1983), all of Fantasyland's rides were in place by 1959, 4 years after the park opened. Additionally, Pinocchio replaced the Mickey Mouse Club Theater (later renamed the Fantasyland Theater) which showed cartoons, so although it was an additional "ride," that space always housed an attraction.
FL's 1959 attraction roster was at least as strong in 1959 as today. It included most of the rides that exist today along with the Fantasyland Autopia, Midget Autopia, Motor Boat Cruise, Skyway (all of which closed by the mid-90's), and a railroad station that was officially in Fantasyland (the current one is technically part of Toontown). The only rides missing would be Pinocchio and it's a small world; the Matterhorn was officially in Tomorrowland at that time, but was still part of the park
Furthermore, I think there's a difference in true expansions and additions to meet growing demand, compared to simply fixing things that should have been included in the opening day roster. Shade structures, a gift shop, and a restaurant are all basics that are part of the infrastructure required in any theme park area. They're neither additional headliners to draw people in, nor are they diversions to absorb existing crowds; like restrooms, they simply fill out the menu of infrastructure that allows an area to be visited for more than short periods of times. They're correcting basic oversights that should have been there from the start.
It's also very important to consider the context in which both lands were built. 1950's Disney was a small company with no experience operating theme parks, which invested literally every dollar possible (and then some) in the park to get it up and running, and continued to invest once additional funding became available. 2018's Disney was a multi-billion dollar entertainment conglomerate with 60+ years experience operating theme parks, including 29 years operating the park where TSL was built. All logic would imply that the bigger, more experienced company should create the more complete and fulfilling land, yet that's the one that struggles to meet the basic design criteria that the very same company has trained its customers to for decades.
As for why DL's Fantasyland is jam-packed with people? Perhaps it's because its content remains popular 67 years after opening (39 years after the major overhaul) and people still enjoy it. And although the walkways may be crowded, attraction wait times tend to be pretty reasonable, which seems like a strong argument for more attractions to absorb crowds (particularly when individual attractions have low capacity), rather than spacing them farther apart; if given the choice, I think most park guests would prefer short waits and crowded paths to the inverse.
