West gate Development

[TheBeatles]

Drive to Animal Kingdom or Kidani and enjoy 192 peeking over tree tops.

Or go to the top of the stairs in Canada and enjoy the hotel that looms over Germany.

Or go to the top of Typhoon Lagoon and check out the row of generic looking hotels.

 

[Ignohippo]

What was this thread about again?

 

[DisneyRoxMySox]

Drive to Animal Kingdom or Kidani and enjoy 192 peeking over tree tops.

Or go to the top of the stairs in Canada and enjoy the hotel that looms over Germany.

Or go to the top of Typhoon Lagoon and check out the row of generic looking hotels.

Exactly! I just don't get it...

 

[jt04]

Drive to Animal Kingdom or Kidani and enjoy 192 peeking over tree tops.

Or go to the top of the stairs in Canada and enjoy the hotel that looms over Germany.

Or go to the top of Typhoon Lagoon and check out the row of generic looking hotels.

If you look at Walt's original Epcot city designs it is obvious he did not buy all the land to isolate his project. It was designed to take up most of the property and would have been quite visible from off property. More importantly it would have spurred growth in the area that would have been quite visible from EPCOT.

The visual intrusions mainly conerned Walt at the theme parks and would be especially problematic at the castle parks. Disney has done a great job at WDW avoiding visual intrusions in the parks without killing growth. Your obviously just looking for something to fuss about.

I need to add this to the talking points of the usual suspects....

Fantasyland expansion is too girl centric

WDW does not do seasonal overlays cause it will ruin vacations

You can see a hotel on the distant horizon if you look at just the right angle from the top of the stairs of the Canadian pavilion in world showcase at Epcot because TDO is cheap and Jay Rasalou likes to build DVC's.:lookaroun

 

[DisneyRoxMySox]

If you look at Walt's original Epcot city designs it is obvious he did not buy all the land to isolate his project.

So, since that plan died with Walt, why not keep the isoltaion. I doubt it's saving them that much money. And that the surrouding area around the property needs more hotels.

Your obviously just looking for something to fuss about.

I really don't fuss about much, so I don't think its a big deal. I am usually very happy including the expansion. I also think it would be a great idea to do overlays, espeicailly where it is easy.

You can see a hotel on the distant horizon if you look at just the right angle from the top of the stairs of the Canadian pavilion in world showcase at Epcot because TDO is cheap and Jay Rasalou likes to build DVC's.:lookaroun

I beleive that hotel you can ssee over Germany is a Marriot. I don't know what that has to do with TDO or Jay exactly. :shrug:

 

[jt04]

So, since that plan died with Walt, why not keep the isoltaion. I doubt it's saving them that much money. And that the surrouding area around the property needs more hotels.



I really don't fuss about much, so I don't think its a big deal. I am usually very happy including the expansion. I also think it would be a great idea to do overlays, espeicailly where it is easy.




I beleive that hotel you can ssee over Germany is a Marriot. I don't know what that has to do with TDO or Jay exactly. :shrug:

My post was for Beatles. And the last part was a bit of sarcasm. Just having fun.

 

[DisneyRoxMySox]

My post was for Beatles. And the last part was a bit of sarcasm. Just having fun.

Well..then..as you were..

:lookaroun

 

[Wilt Dasney]

So, since that plan died with Walt, why not keep the isoltaion. I doubt it's saving them that much money. And that the surrouding area around the property needs more hotels.

In the specific case this thread talks about, they're looking to make money by selling the land, not save money.

I've never noticed the visual intrusions in WDW people talk about in this thread, which tells me I'm either not very attentive, or some of you guys pay too much attention. I won't weigh in on which of those might be the case. :lol:

But as for your question of why...I'm guessing that Disney just isn't interested in being dogmatic about keeping the sightlines from every vantage point on property free of outside intrusions.

There's a big difference between having neon restaurant and hotel signs visible from inside Tomorrowland because they're erected over the berm literally a few feet outside the park (which was apparently the case with Disneyland for a while) and being able to see a hotel tower off in the distance from the highest point of Epcot.

I can't know for sure, but I would guess all the land in Florida was bought more to ward off the first type of intrusion, not the second type.

 

[RandySavage]

The selling of undeveloped WDW land to developers in order to pad short-term profitability (and bonuses for execs) could not be more horrible, shortsighted, frustrating or infuriating.

The following photos summarize the last 60 years of America surbanization as forests, farms and town centers gave way to cookie cutter development, total automobile dependency, big-box stores, etc, as exemplified to what happened to my town over 15 years.

Woods to Housing Developments:

Woods/Farms to housing developments:

Top: Remnant town center - where most daily commercial activity once took place. Bottom: super market/strip mall - where most commercial activity currently takes place.

In England, civic leaders with foresight enacted Greenbelt Initiatives, which limited development around urban centers:

In America, with vast stretches of real estate in which spread out, few leaders gave thought to mandating limits on our sprawling suburbs (one visionary who did was Walt Disney, who planned a green belt around his Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow).

We know what has happened to Orlando since Walt Disney World opened:

Development in Florida will continue to skyrocket in the next 50 years:

WDW is supposed to be an oasis, escape or refuge from reality. Reality is suburban sprawl and all the ills that are associated with it (auto/oil dependency, obesity, illegal immigration, subprime crisis, collapse of banks and subsequent bailout, loss of wildlife habitat, overconsumption, energy inefficiency, etc.). Leaving the airport and driving down I-4 we are surrounded by the same sprawl of highways, malls, Outback Steakhouses, Ramada Inns and housing developments that have covered all suburban areas around the United States.

Once you hit WDW you should feel like you are in a different place. Fort Wilderness/Wilderness Lodge should let you imagine you are in the Wilderness. Visiting Typhoon Lagoon, it is possible you are on a Caribbean Island. In AK or AKL, you are in Africa or Asia. Etc., etc. Instead of keeping its undeveloped land as a green buffer against the real world, the philistines who run WDW have invited the sprawl onto the property or just sold it off.

It is a tragedy.

 

[_Scar]

You guys are jumping the gun. Just because you see buildings from the tallest point on Typhoon Lagoon, which is on the fringe of WDW, you think that WDW is becoming less immersive?

 

[DisneyRoxMySox]

You guys are jumping the gun. Just because you see buildings from the tallest point on Typhoon Lagoon, which is on the fringe of WDW, you think that WDW is becoming less immersive?

That's just one of a few examples. It shows steps in the wrong direction.

I just don't but the plan at all. Its been said that, since Disney doesn't want to get into the value hotel market that this was a great idea? Well, who is stopping those particular hotel brands from building off property? It's not as if the guests staying at those properties off-property aren't going to visit Disney. I don't see any benefit, the money they received from selling the land outright doesn't even but a dent in their balance sheet. In fact, I'm sure they would have made more money if they kept the land and leased out buildings and such.

 

[TheBeatles]

You guys are jumping the gun. Just because you see buildings from the tallest point on Typhoon Lagoon, which is on the fringe of WDW, you think that WDW is becoming less immersive?

Yes, because it contradicts everything else you see in Disney World.

It makes me a little nervous for the future because if things like this can keep coming onto property in small doses and the mindset is "oh well, it's on the edge" or "they don't need this land," then I fear for the possibilities of what the outside will implant inside WDW borders.

I realize not everyone agrees with me and that's cool, but I just believe WDW should be unique and free of outside influence and ownership. This land is something really special in today's age and I don't want to see it give way to the less imaginative.

 

[Walt 1901]

Maybe this could be a statement that the current disney mangement team does not want to spend the money to build hotels anymore. Mike Eisner to a fault wanted control of everything Disney and that included the property. We may be seeing a new vision from the upper team at disney.