What are you taking about? What piece of bad information did I give in a monorail debate?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Walk Around the World to be removed.
- Thread starter s8film40
- Start date
So in other words you agree that the land is suitable to build on, but will require considerations to adapt to the individual characteristics of the site Just as every other construction project on WDW property has. I'm glad we can now put this myth behind us.
Well to be exact Disney uses a more vague reference to theme park sites, they designate certain areas of land as future attraction areas. These usually become theme parks some of the smaller water parks or other various "attractions". To the best of my knowledge the area to the west of the MK has never been designated as an attraction area. There are two fairly large ones one opposite the Studios across world drive and another north of the sports complex. There is another large plot of land south of 192 that on the land use plans over the years seems to shift back and forth from attraction use to Celebration expansion. The land use plans for some time now have showed an eventual expansion of the seven seas lagoon to the west just north of the GF with at least 3-4 more hotel sites there.
vonpluto
Well-Known Member
If I may chime in with info that comes strictly from the RCID 2008 Comprehensive Plan.
http://www.rcid.org/
Regarding the area east of the MK, Figure 2-5 (which s8film40 posted) shows part of it suitable, part of it marginally suitable. Figure 2-4 (see below) shows the area as partly undeveloped and partly resource management. IIRC, the 2008 Comp defines resource management as suitable for recreational use. (golf, horse trails, etc)
There is no mention in the 2008 Comp that I saw of a 6th park or numbers of hotels. The closest thing I found is this:
Hotel/Motel: 1998 Base, 25,015 rooms; 2008 Increment maximum, 18,100 rooms
Other resort (DVC): 1998 Base 2,073 rooms; 2008 Increment maximum, 1300 units
Golf Courses: 1998 Base. 99 Holes; 2008 Increment maximum, 36 holes
Major Theme parks: 1998 Base, 4 Parks; 2008 Increment maximum, 1 Park
Minor Theme Parks: 1998 Base 4 Parks; 2008 Increment maximum, 3 Parks
I take "increment maximum" to mean in addition to the 1998 base.
Remember, this Plan was drawn up in 1998, and updated in 2003. s8film40 wrote that updates are available at the RCID offices, if that is so, and they are newer than 2003, there could be some interesting info there.
Why you should take the Comp plan with a grain of salt:It called for Vacation Club Way (formerly Community Drive) to be widened to four lanes by 2008. Never happened.
The map you have posted is current land use not future land use. The area I mentioned as an attraction area south of 192 is not within the district boundaries and so this plan does not cover it in any way. Like I had said before it has shifted between use as Celebration expansion and "Attraction" and was included in the land that was de-annexed from the district to build Celebration. I think it's likely that if they ever decide to build a park there they would probably Re-incorporate it back into the district. Most of the land that is listed as conservation or resource management is not owned by the Disney company.
Considerable adaptations that make building a resort economically unviable. Like I said you can build almost anywhere if and only if someone pays for it. Would you build a house worth $200k in a location where it would cost you an additional $400k just to build the foundation?
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
UFO hot spot
As relevant as all the other maps being posted, and as accurate.
I assume you are talking about a need for deep piles, That hasn't stopped Disney from building in other locations or made other construction projects at WDW economically unviable.
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
Piles are no laughing matter, deep or otherwise.
kramden88
Member
Unfortunately we're not talking about the same Disney Co. Based on the past ten years, they're no longer willing to go above and beyond in that manner.
Well yes I can agree with that, they seem to be in a state of sustaining not development. It could be that the development of WDW reached it's peak, there is always room for future growth but only time will tell if they pursue it.
kramden88
Member
Under the current master plan about 1/3 of the total land is still slated for eventual development. I'd rather they hold off and overhaul what they have already, and do it the right way.
The prime is example for me is DCA: Eisner pushed through a very cheap, watered-down second gate that amounted to a glorified carnival and it flopped. I think many would agree that the money would have been better spent renovating and expanding the aging DL.
I just don't want to see WDW covered with a bunch of WWoS while we're perpetually stuck with half-baked attractions like Sound Dangerous, JII, SGE, the SE descent, BLT, WoL, etc. :hammer:
Main Street USA
Well-Known Member
Ugh. It's not "ripping people off" if people voluntarily bought something. Someone pays $100 plus to have a brick in the ground....you get your brick in the ground for a guaranteed amount of time....now it's done. Ripped off? What?
I think it's a little less than 1/3, and at the rate their selling it off I don't think there will be very much left, if and when they want to develop more.
vonpluto
Well-Known Member
dougmacmickey
New Member
Missing Bricks
We bought a tile in the mid 80,s my kids loved it sorry to here they are going to lift them but its Disney prepare for anything.
Anyone given a thought to buying them, just an idea.:hammer:
We bought a tile in the mid 80,s my kids loved it sorry to here they are going to lift them but its Disney prepare for anything.
Anyone given a thought to buying them, just an idea.:hammer:
The Conundrum
New Member
"ripping off" is a saying we have here in America that is said when the price is far higher than the actual value. Example:
"Their charging $200 for a pair of jeans. What a ripoff"
"I just spent $5 for this small milkshake. I've been robbed"
"Disney is charging $10 for bottle watter. That's highway robbery"
Pile driving won`t cut it on the Seven Seas site. SSEs 3 main foundation anchors are solid 180ft down, American Adventure at 220ft, but for the lagoon site last I heard was they got to 250ft and the pile vanished. Anything is possible, depending on how much they want to spend before beginning above ground construction.
You really think the BLT would be where it is now if the Venitian site was usable?
WDW Vacationer
Active Member
How did we go from walk around the world to land suitability?