Walk Around the World to be removed.

[Biff215]

I don't have a stone, but personally I am shocked to hear of their possible removal. While they may be more difficult to maintain, they certainly add some character and a human element to those walkways. It would be a terrible shame to see them go.

I do have a few LaL tiles and won't be a bit surprised when they go. I don't mind the so-called "tombstones" but do agree the old, greener entryway was a much better fit for Epcot.

As far as DVC being lumped with these two as "gimmicks" I'd have to disagree. Timeshares are a business that have been around before DVC and will most certainly be around far into the future. Disney was very smart entering this market as they have something no other company can offer: resorts within WDW. Why would they let the Marriotts capitalize on that market when they could have a piece? Just good business IMHO.

Owning a LaL tile may mean very little, but my DVC membership (and deed) actually accounts for something.

Sorry for getting off topic, back to talk about the bricks (which I wish I had)!

 

[SeaCastle]

Pretty sure, I've always heard the same thing as well but never seen any proof that the land was unsuitable. It always seems to be someone hearing from someone else that they tested the land and found it to be unsuitable, if this were the case I'm sure they would remove it from their land use plans but it still seems to be there. There are lots of myths associated with WDW, until I see something outside of second hand information I don't buy it. See map below you may also note that there are three categories they use: Suitable, marginally suitable, and unsuitable. I would think that if there were any issues with the land that it would at least be listed as marginally suitable but this isn't the case.

I stand corrected; thanks for the graphic.

By the way, if you notice in the area North of EPCOT where it says "Suitable" or "Marginally Suitable" those areas already seem cleared.

Also of interest is that the Land Suitability map is almost a decade old now. Perhaps things have changed since then.

 

[Mr Ferret 75]

But at least WAtW is a practical thing. A walkway. It is not unsightly like the Graveyard.

Perhaps TDO is one upping Eisner:

"That's right Disney fans, on your next visit to the Walt Disney World Resort, stop by the Walk Around the World Reclamation Station located at the entrance to the Magic kingdom.

For only $$$$, you can reclaim your Walk Around the World Brick. Take it home! (Removal, shipping &handling not included)

Want to repave your driveway? Blank bricks available!

Want to tick off that ex-old friend?
We'll sell you their brick!

All sales final.
Installation available on request.
Not available to residents of the Channel Islands."

Why the hating on the Channel Islands???

 

[Master Yoda]

Pretty sure, I've always heard the same thing as well but never seen any proof that the land was unsuitable. It always seems to be someone hearing from someone else that they tested the land and found it to be unsuitable, if this were the case I'm sure they would remove it from their land use plans but it still seems to be there. There are lots of myths associated with WDW, until I see something outside of second hand information I don't buy it. See map below you may also note that there are three categories they use: Suitable, marginally suitable, and unsuitable. I would think that if there were any issues with the land that it would at least be listed as marginally suitable but this isn't the case.

I agree. I first heard of the "My God the piles are disappearing!" scenario on RADP in '97 or '98. It baffled me then and still does. Either the story is total brown sky, or somebody got it sideways.

If the foundation is the problem, here is one possible reason: soil bearing tests have shown that foundation requirements would put that part of the cost out of balance with the cost of the total project. Structural engineers usually spec pile load in one if two ways, either driven to refusal or to a specific bearing load normally spec'd in tons. (see attached below, original CR Tower piles were driven to bearing(refusal))

It would seem to me that soil bearing tests had to be done way back before Phase One to identify suitable building areas. I would think that before the Venetian was designed, the site was found to be usable and cost effective for hotel construction. Something must have changed over time, one possibility is that construction minimums have risen since 1970.

Not having any inside info, the foundation cost effectiveness seems the most likely scenario. But, since Disney is so tight-lipped about all things past, present and future (shades of Mintz and Powers), the reason nothing has happened at that site is something no one has considered.

Below is a scan of foundation support plans from the plan package for BLT that was posted on the county site last year. Note that it spells out the pile support for the CR Tower, and two possibilities for BLT. If it works there, you would think it would work for the Venetian/Med site.:shrug:

Note: I am not an architect or engineer. I'm a general contractor, been in the biz since '72. I live on a barrier island and my house is on 40' piles, driven to refusal.:wave:

This is one particular are in which I do have a bit of insider knowledge as I worked with one of the engineers that did the site survey for the piece of land in question. The area suffers for a condition called negative skin friction. Instead of the soil pushing against a foundation pile it actually sucks it down. From the numbers I was told they were looking at having to drive piles as deep as 180'.

For evidence of the unfavorable building conditions of this site you need to look no farther that the piece of land itself. It is arguably the most valuable piece of undeveloped resort property in all of WDW and yet nothing is there. WDW has built over 20 additional resorts since the opened their doors nearly 40 years ago and still this prime piece of real estate remains undeveloped. Why would they demolish a wing of the Contemporary and build BLT if they had another suitable piece of land in which to build on that was on the monorail beam.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Perhaps the bricks are not suitable to sustain the weight of your average ECV and its pilot. :drevil:

 

[s8film40]

This is one particular are in which I do have a bit of insider knowledge as I worked with one of the engineers that did the site survey for the piece of land in question. The area suffers for a condition called negative skin friction. Instead of the soil pushing against a foundation pile it actually sucks it down. From the numbers I was told they were looking at having to drive piles as deep as 180'.

This is yet another great second hand piece of information that adds to this myth. I'm not saying this isn't true but on one hand you have documents from a government entity and the Disney company stating it's suitable to build on and then on the other hand you have someone saying "but my friend said it's not suitable for building". My question to this would be if it is unsuitable to build on and tests have been done to determine this then why to this day would RCID and WDW both have this area listed as suitable to build on and designated as a future hotel site.

For evidence of the unfavorable building conditions of this site you need to look no farther that the piece of land itself. It is arguably the most valuable piece of undeveloped resort property in all of WDW and yet nothing is there. WDW has built over 20 additional resorts since the opened their doors nearly 40 years ago and still this prime piece of real estate remains undeveloped. Why would they demolish a wing of the Contemporary and build BLT if they had another suitable piece of land in which to build on that was on the monorail beam.

The fact that they haven't used the land does not prove that it is unsuitable to build on. Disney has not used the land for the 5th and 6th parks either this doesn't mean that the land there is unsuitable they have just chosen not to develop to that degree yet. This land is only one of about 4-5 future hotel sites around the lagoon if they want to expand the hotels in that area this piece of land is not the only option. I think the better answer to why they have chosen not to use it is that they can still add to existing hotels, adding the BLT allows them to add more hotel space in that area with very little support for it, it is much less expensive to operate an addition to a hotel than a standalone hotel.

 

[unkadug]

This is yet another great second hand piece of information that adds to this myth. I'm not saying this isn't true but on one hand you have documents from a government entity and the Disney company stating it's suitable to build on and then on the other hand you have someone saying "but my friend said it's not suitable for building". My question to this would be if it is unsuitable to build on and tests have been done to determine this then why to this day would RCID and WDW both have this area listed as suitable to build on and designated as a future hotel site.


The fact that they haven't used the land does not prove that it is unsuitable to build on. Disney has not used the land for the 5th and 6th parks either this doesn't mean that the land there is unsuitable they have just chosen not to develop to that degree yet. This land is only one of about 4-5 future hotel sites around the lagoon if they want to expand the hotels in that area this piece of land is not the only option. I think the better answer to why they have chosen not to use it is that they can still add to existing hotels, adding the BLT allows them to add more hotel space in that area with very little support for it, it is much less expensive to operate an addition to a hotel than a standalone hotel.

But it was first hand information when Richard heard it and that's good enough for me.

Methinks you just want to argue to suit the old artwork that you uncovered on the internet.

 

[s8film40]

But it was first hand information when Richard heard it and that's good enough for me.

Yes that makes it second hand information. The problem with secondhand information is you cannot question it, you only have the one little bit of information that the one person remembers hearing in the conversation. That's not to say it's bad, secondhand information is better than none at all, but in this case we do have information officially released from RCID and WDW.

Methinks you just want to argue to suit the old artwork that you uncovered on the internet.

I don't want to argue I just don't understand why I am supposed to believe what someone heard from a friend over official documents.

 

[TinkerBell9988]

My family would be very upset to see our brick go...

 

[unkadug]

These official documents that you refer to is from a government entity created by and for Disney and is still controlled by Disney.

Disney really doesn't have the best track record when it comes to information dissemination. Just take a look at their website.

Obviously you will never believe this information until you get official confirmation from Disney, which will never happen, as they have no reason to release the information nor update land usage maps printed on the internet.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

My family would be very upset to see our brick go...

They should let you keep the bricks of they are just going to scrap them.:shrug:

Pay a extra fee to have is sent to you.:shrug::lol:

 

[WDW Vacationer]

They should let you keep the bricks of they are just going to scrap them.:shrug:

Pay a extra fee to have is sent to you.:shrug::lol:

Like I said,not all will come out in 1 peice. also,they would hire a consruction firm,who could care less about keeping track of them...most would end up not being able to be identified.

 

[s8film40]

Obviously you will never believe this information until you get official confirmation from Disney, which will never, as they have no reason to release the information nor update land usage maps printed on the internet.

I have official confirmation from Disney and RCID that the land is suitable to build on, I don't have any evidence to the contrary with the exception of something that someone's friend said. Anyone who wants to can go to the RCID planning and engineering office and obtain updated copies, it isn't just something posted on the internet. RCID land use plans are based on Disney's long term projections which in turn are based on RCID's land suitability plans, obviously Disney still believes they can build a hotel there, maybe someone should go tell them not to build it because they heard from a friend it will sink into the ground if they do.

 

[TinkerBell9988]

They should let you keep the bricks of they are just going to scrap them.:shrug:

Pay a extra fee to have is sent to you.:shrug::lol:

Whatever... the purpose of us buying the brick (and then having a new one put in when my brother was born) was to create a lasting memory (however corny that sounds) for us in WDW. Seems like the brick removal will be a large project... so many of them exist at the TTC, bus stop at MK, pathway to Contemporary, etc... :shrug:

I say... get rid of LaL before touching the bricks. At least the bricks don't block any kind of beautiful, harmonious park entrance. :zipit: :animwink:

 

[vonpluto]

This is one particular are in which I do have a bit of insider knowledge as I worked with one of the engineers that did the site survey for the piece of land in question. The area suffers for a condition called negative skin friction. Instead of the soil pushing against a foundation pile it actually sucks it down. From the numbers I was told they were looking at having to drive piles as deep as 180'.

For evidence of the unfavorable building conditions of this site you need to look no farther that the piece of land itself. It is arguably the most valuable piece of undeveloped resort property in all of WDW and yet nothing is there. WDW has built over 20 additional resorts since the opened their doors nearly 40 years ago and still this prime piece of real estate remains undeveloped. Why would they demolish a wing of the Contemporary and build BLT if they had another suitable piece of land in which to build on that was on the monorail beam.

Thanx for that Richard, it's the first explanation that makes sense.

I guess that my shot in the dark as to why nothing has been built there could be close to the mark. It would not be cost effective.

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

Are we really bashing someone for providing and believing solid evidence over second-hand information? That's like if someone provided photographic evidence of New Fantasyland being built, and no one believes him because Lee says one of his sources told him that the project isn't happening. For all we know, this engineer could be where Master Yoda gets all of his inaccurate transportation info from, too.

 

[unkadug]

For all we know, this engineer could be where Master Yoda gets all of his inaccurate transportation info from, too.

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

Just referring to some thorough Monorail debate. Admittedly teasing him a bit.

 

[Master Yoda]

Thanx for that Richard, it's the first explanation that makes sense.

I guess that my shot in the dark as to why nothing has been built there could be close to the mark. It would not be cost effective.

You hit the nail on the head. As you know you can build anything anywhere if and only if someone is willing to pay for it. Building a resort on this site would simply not be cost effective at this point. Who knows what the future will bring. We may yet see something built on this property. Someone just has to figure out hot to shut off the giant vacuum under the ground that keeps s__________g down piles.:lol:

 

[SeaCastle]

The fact that they haven't used the land does not prove that it is unsuitable to build on. Disney has not used the land for the 5th and 6th parks either this doesn't mean that the land there is unsuitable they have just chosen not to develop to that degree yet. This land is only one of about 4-5 future hotel sites around the lagoon if they want to expand the hotels in that area this piece of land is not the only option. I think the better answer to why they have chosen not to use it is that they can still add to existing hotels, adding the BLT allows them to add more hotel space in that area with very little support for it, it is much less expensive to operate an addition to a hotel than a standalone hotel.

Do you know where this 6th theme park site is? I know the 5th is the area immediately west of the Magic Kingdom, but I haven't heard of any other sites.

Can you also show where the 5 other plots of land for proposed hotels would be? I had a hard time finding more room.

Then again, just because something is marked as "suitable" doesn't mean that anything is being built there.