Upcoming/Rumored Projects

[danlb_2000]

Keep reading past the Jim Hill stuff. I even said in the message that got deleted for people to read past the Jim Hill bit, as I know most will stop reading at that point. Read the whole thing!

I did, and although the article addresses the issues surrounding the creation of a fifth gate it actually downplays the possibility. The question is can the crowding and repeatbility problems be solved by expanding the existing gates instead of adding a new one. The big downside to addiing a fifth gate is that it would cost signficantly more to build and operate then if these same attractions were built as park of the existing parks.

 

[PeterAlt]

I did, and although the article addresses the issues surrounding the creation of a fifth gate it actually downplays the possibility. The question is can the crowding and repeatbility problems be solved by expanding the existing gates instead of adding a new one. The big downside to addiing a fifth gate is that it would cost signficantly more to build and operate then if these same attractions were built as park of the existing parks.

I get your point. And you do make a good argument. I have an analogy that should make things clear.

Take I-4. Under current state funding, there's enough money to keep it maintained, but not enough to keep up with future growth, which demands that new lanes get built. Instead of letting area growth squeeze I-4 traffic congestion to intolerable levels and hope that at some point in the future - years from now - that the state could and might get federal assistance to add lanes, they've decided to do something radical. They are forging into a private-public partnership that will lay out the billions necessary to reconstruct I-4 with the maximum amount of lanes possible. The new lanes will be what is called "managed lanes". In other words, toll lanes. The tolls will be paid out to the companies that helped lay out the billions needed to do the entire project.

Think of the current parks like the current lanes on I-4. Think of new attractions as the new lanes. In order to collect the toll for those lanes, there must be toll booths. Here, the toll booths are called turnstiles (ie "gate"). This allows Disney to continue to maintain and manage the old, while having a mechanism in place to finance the new.

 

[unkadug]

I get your point. And you do make a good argument. I have an analogy that should make things clear.

Take I-4. Under current state funding, there's enough money to keep it maintained, but not enough to keep up with future growth, which demands that new lanes get built. Instead of letting area growth squeeze I-4 traffic congestion to intolerable levels and hope that at some point in the future - years from now - that the state could and might get federal assistance to add lanes, they've decided to do something radical. They are forging into a private-public partnership that will lay out the billions necessary to reconstruct I-4 with the maximum amount of lanes possible. The new lanes will be what is called "managed lanes". In other words, toll lanes. The tolls will be paid out to the companies that helped lay out the billions needed to do the entire project.

Think of the current parks like the current lanes on I-4. Think of new attractions as the new lanes. In order to collect the toll for those lanes, there must be toll booths. Here, the toll booths are called turnstiles (ie "gate"). This allows Disney to continue to maintain and manage the old, while having a mechanism in place to finance the new.

The problem with this thinking is that the fifth gate will simply cannibalize the attendance at the current parks. They really wouldn't have any net gain in attendance.

And what makes you think that Disney will "continue to maintain and manage the old," when history shows us that is not the case.

 

[PeterAlt]

The problem with this thinking is that the fifth gate will simply cannibalize the attendance at the current parks. They really wouldn't have any net gain in attendance.

And what makes you think that Disney will "continue to maintain and manage the old," when history shows us that is not the case.

Read the link I posted above. The article addresses that.

 

[danlb_2000]

I get your point. And you do make a good argument. I have an analogy that should make things clear.

Take I-4. Under current state funding, there's enough money to keep it maintained, but not enough to keep up with future growth, which demands that new lanes get built. Instead of letting area growth squeeze I-4 traffic congestion to intolerable levels and hope that at some point in the future - years from now - that the state could and might get federal assistance to add lanes, they've decided to do something radical. They are forging into a private-public partnership that will lay out the billions necessary to reconstruct I-4 with the maximum amount of lanes possible. The new lanes will be what is called "managed lanes". In other words, toll lanes. The tolls will be paid out to the companies that helped lay out the billions needed to do the entire project.

Think of the current parks like the current lanes on I-4. Think of new attractions as the new lanes. In order to collect the toll for those lanes, there must be toll booths. Here, the toll booths are called turnstiles (ie "gate"). This allows Disney to continue to maintain and manage the old, while having a mechanism in place to finance the new.

If people decide to add an extra day to their vacation to see the fifth gate, with Disney's ticket pricing structure, they won't be paying much for that ticket so the "toll" analogy doesn't hold up. Everything else they earn from the guest, hotel nights, souvenirs, food, etc. would be the same if people spent more time in the existing parks as it would be if they went to a fifth park.

Read the link I posted above. The article addresses that.

I don't think it addresses that point well. It says a fifth gate will give people a new reason to come and a reason to stay longer, but additions to the current parks would do the same thing. You also are going to reach a point of diminishing returns when you add parks.

 

[PeterAlt]

If the pace of the recovery doesn't pick up or we have another recession, fifth gate planning probably will be pushed to the right of planning charts by five (or 10 if there's another recession) years.

 

[PeterAlt]

If people decide to add an extra day to their vacation to see the fifth gate, with Disney's ticket pricing structure, they won't be paying much for that ticket so the "toll" analogy doesn't hold up. Everything else they earn from the guest, hotel nights, souvenirs, food, etc. would be the same if people spent more time in the existing parks as it would be if they went to a fifth park.



I don't think it addresses that point well. It says a fifth gate will give people a new reason to come and a reason to stay longer, but additions to the current parks would do the same thing. You also are going to reach a point of diminishing returns when you add parks.

My gate analogy still holds up because its the one-day visitors who will be paying the tolls. The fifth gate probably won't make people stay longer, but it gives them another reason to stay period. It also gives them another reason to spend all their time at WDW versus spending a day at an another Orlando-area attraction.

 

[PeterAlt]

Like I-4, growth is inevitable. Adding attractions or building new gates is the only way to fix it. The difference is adding gates is paid for and adds to the long term bottom line. To avoid current parks from getting stale, they should do both.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Reedy Creek's land owners (hmm I wonder who that might be) wouldn't ask them to plan for it if they themselves weren't planning on planning it.

Disney did not ask for the plan, it is a requirement from the state of Florida for all governing bodies with such jurisdiction. These types of documents are always very vague and will always [almost instantly] have variations between the plan and what actually gets built.

 

[PeterAlt]

Disney did not ask for the plan, it is a requirement from the state of Florida for all governing bodies with such jurisdiction. These types of documents are always very vague and will always [almost instantly] have variations between the plan and what actually gets built.

Everything you said is true. Do I have to remind people the definition of unknown? These are the things that we don't know about. What we don't know are the things which are unknown. If we knew about these unknowns things, we would know about them and Disney's PR engine would be promoting them. Anything unknown doesn't exist, according to Disney's official line, except they don't recognize unknowns as for what they are (unknown information to the public) and, thus, the official line: denial of the existence of unknowns without calling them unknows. Acknowledgement of the existence of unknown acknowledges its existence and, hence, the unknown would no longer be unknown and become known. To deny the existence of anything unknown is to repeat the company's official line and the Disney PR engine works well.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Everything you said is true. Do I have to remind people the definition of unknown? These are the things that we don't know about. What we don't know are the things which are unknown. If we knew about these unknowns things, we would know about them and Disney's PR engine would be promoting them. Anything unknown doesn't exist, according to Disney's official line, except they don't recognize unknowns as for what they are (unknown information to the public) and, thus, the official line: denial of the existence of unknowns without calling them unknows. Acknowledgement of the existence of unknown acknowledges its existence and, hence, the unknown would no longer be unknown and become known. To deny the existence of anything unknown is to repeat the company's official line and the Disney PR engine works well.

 

[cslafferty]

. . . and the meaning of that was . . . unknown.

 

[danlb_2000]

I stopped reading after the third unknown.

 

[OGMickey]

Has anybody talked further about the possible star wars themed land at DHS??????

 

[wm49rs]

Has anybody talked further about the possible star wars themed land at DHS??????

A little, here and there.....

http://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/star-wars-land.864814/

 

[Future Imagineer]

That would be cool to have a cars land and a monster inc to Hollywood studios

 

[devoy1701]

That would be cool to have a cars land and a monster inc to Hollywood studios

I can see it now....a place where multiple Pixar creations are gathered together... We could call it... "Pixar Place".

Oh wait...

 

[PeterAlt]

I stopped reading after the third unknown.

...for reasons unknown...

 

[PeterAlt]

I don't understand why John Lasseter would ask Disney's Board for all these big projects weeks before D23 for an announcement some time later... The days when things used to make sense are behind us... Welcome to A Brave New World...

 

[Captain Neo]

I don't understand why John Lasseter would ask Disney's Board for all these big projects weeks before D23 for an announcement some time later... The days when things used to make sense are behind us... Welcome to A Brave New World...

What does Lasseter have to do with this? Do you mean Bob Iger?