Can anyone point out what tract of land was sold to the Four Seasons an how much land, exactly? Did it significantly cut into available land at the resort??? Thanks for any info.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
What and How much land sold to Four Seasons???
- Thread starter CaptainJackNO
- Start date
Grizzly Hall 71
New Member
I heard it was around 900 acres.
I don't like the idea myself, I feel that land was bought for a different reason than to put a resort on but hey.
floridabill
New Member
I can't believe they did that!:hammer: 900 acres really, acres that they can never get back! What were they thinking!!??! Oh well what's done is done! You would think they would be smart and lease the land for long term money, and not a one shot money deal. This may come back to bite them who knows.
JafarMaleficent
Active Member
this post got me thinking, how much of the central florida did walt buy? how much is still owned by disney and not 3rd party? and how much is left for expansions?
floridabill
New Member
30,000 acres bought, 23,000 still owned, and none!!
toolsnspools
Well-Known Member
They bought this parcel that has been cleared -
You can see it clearly from google/maps (where I snipped this picture). It's basically due North of Epcot and/or just East of Fort Wilderness.
The WDW property line is the North/South line on the right, so they are on the border. This also includes the new residential lots that are gong up for sale.
You can see it clearly from google/maps (where I snipped this picture). It's basically due North of Epcot and/or just East of Fort Wilderness.
The WDW property line is the North/South line on the right, so they are on the border. This also includes the new residential lots that are gong up for sale.
Er, so, let me get this straight....(picks self off floor and returns to chair.) If the Four Seasons decided for some reason many years from now to sell their acres or even now a part of it to anybody...there is no telling what would be on Disney property.
Am I getting this right?:brick: Please tell me I am wrong.
And if I am... that is just about the dumbest, incomprehensible business move for protecting your brand...ever. Not what Walt wanted when he purchased Florida after CA.
Sure they got loads of money for it but still...
Perhaps a special contractual clause that Disney has first option to buy the property back or some other miracle?
Am I getting this right?:brick: Please tell me I am wrong.
And if I am... that is just about the dumbest, incomprehensible business move for protecting your brand...ever. Not what Walt wanted when he purchased Florida after CA.
Sure they got loads of money for it but still...
Perhaps a special contractual clause that Disney has first option to buy the property back or some other miracle?
MarkTwain
Well-Known Member
Well... except that it's not really Disney's property anymore.
...
I would assume there were specifications in the contracts that will prevent such things (hopefully), but for the most part, I agree, it is a very, very dumb long-term decision. It's very a large sum of land (4% of the whole property, gone), but more importantly, it's right at the heart at WDW, just a stone's throw away from anyone driving to the Magic Kingdom and Contemporary. Walt bought 44 square miles in Central Florida so he could escape the garish, over-commercial industrialization which had invaded Disneyland, and now Disney is selling it all back, piece by piece, bringing that same industrialization into the heart of the property.
Some would argue that the development of this resort is a good thing, allowing Disney to take advantage of the wealthiest demographic, etc. And I agree that's a smart business move for Disney. But my question is, why didn't they do this on their own? Disney is more than capable of building deluxe accomodations; they've done it with their cruiselines, with the Disneyland Hotel in Paris, and the Hotel MiraCosta at Tokyo, as well as other resorts around the world. So what's preventing Disney from building a luxurious Italian Renaissance-themed resort, or a Beaux-arts style Parisian resort at WDW? I could easily see the very wealthy staying at resorts like these if they were beautifully constructed and well-accodomated.
I'm guessing the reason is thi$ $tuff.
I know that Disney has outsourced a lot of things lately, but outsourcing the WDW property is a bit too far.
... Sorry, this is one of my really big hot-button issues.
floridabill
New Member
Well... except that it's not really Disney's property anymore.
...
I would assume there were specifications in the contracts that will prevent such things (hopefully), but for the most part, I agree, it is a very, very dumb long-term decision. It's very a large sum of land (4% of the whole property, gone), but more importantly, it's right at the heart at WDW, just a stone's throw away from anyone driving to the Magic Kingdom and Contemporary. Walt bought 44 square miles in Central Florida so he could escape the garish, over-commercial industrialization which had invaded Disneyland, and now Disney is selling it all back, piece by piece, bringing that same industrialization into the heart of the property.
Some would argue that the development of this resort is a good thing, allowing Disney to take advantage of the wealthiest demographic, etc. And I agree that's a smart business move for Disney. But my question is, why didn't they do this on their own? Disney is more than capable of building deluxe accomodations; they've done it with their cruiselines, with the Disneyland Hotel in Paris, and the Hotel MiraCosta at Tokyo, as well as other resorts around the world. So what's preventing Disney from building a luxurious Italian Renaissance-themed resort, or a Beaux-arts style Parisian resort at WDW? I could easily see the very wealthy staying at resorts like these if they were beautifully constructed and well-accodomated.
I'm guessing the reason is thi$ $tuff.
I know that Disney has outsourced a lot of things lately, but outsourcing the WDW property is a bit too far.
... Sorry, this is one of my really big hot-button issues.
It was soo dumb!! Because now lets say even 50 years down the road those houses and hotel can turn into anything and it is out of Disney's control!! And you could end up with a walmart in the heart of disney world!! Stupid business execs!!!:fork::hurl:
Grizzly Hall 71
New Member
The 4 seasons is still on Disney Property along with the golf course.
And yes I'm fully with all of you all. STOP SELLING THE LAND THE MAN BOUGHT!
CELEBRATION IS UNDERSTANDABLE, BUT THIS IS REDICULOUS!
And yes I'm fully with all of you all. STOP SELLING THE LAND THE MAN BOUGHT!
CELEBRATION IS UNDERSTANDABLE, BUT THIS IS REDICULOUS!
Grizzly Hall 71
New Member
I only hope that the project gets cancelled. It suppose to include Four seasons, a new golf course, and vacation homes. I can't take this anymore, at this rate a 5th park doesn't seem likely.
Grizzly Hall 71
New Member
They bought this parcel that has been cleared -
You can see it clearly from google/maps (where I snipped this picture). It's basically due North of Epcot and/or just East of Fort Wilderness.
The WDW property line is the North/South line on the right, so they are on the border. This also includes the new residential lots that are gong up for sale.
This is still going to be on Disney property.
Golden Oak was sold off.
Yes, this is disgusting. I hate that these pinhead business, baby boomer buffoons had the audacity to sell this land for a small uptick in profit at a small glimpse in time. This will have no positive effect on the Company long-term. And, as others have stated, why couldn't WDW have built a 5 star resort themselves rather than pimping it out to an outside company?
I rue the day I began pounding the drum for Eisner's ouster. He NEVER would have done this. He, at least, understood Walt's original dream for WDW.
I rue the day I began pounding the drum for Eisner's ouster. He NEVER would have done this. He, at least, understood Walt's original dream for WDW.
Grizzly Hall 71
New Member
Yes, this is disgusting. I hate that these pinhead business, baby boomer buffoons had the audacity to sell this land for a small uptick in profit at a small glimpse in time. This will have no positive effect on the Company long-term. And, as others have stated, why couldn't WDW have built a 5 star resort themselves rather than pimping it out to an outside company?
I rue the day I began pounding the drum for Eisner's ouster. He NEVER would have done this. He, at least, understood Walt's original dream for WDW.
People can say what they want about Eisner but he sure made great buisness moves that helped the company long term.
He wouldn't have agree to all this selling off with land.
Down with Iger bring back Eisner.
Down with Iger bring back Eisner.
Down with Iger bring back Eisner.
Down with Iger bring back Eisner.
muteki
Well-Known Member
I was under the impression that a vast amount of undeveloped land at WDW was protected wildlife/nature preserve area and as such couldn't be developed anyway? Or is that not the case? What amount of land that is left could realistically be developed?
I thought I remembered a thread here regarding this but would have been ages ago.
I thought I remembered a thread here regarding this but would have been ages ago.
Grizzly Hall 71
New Member
I wonder the same. The only places that look available for huge development are:
North of Epcot
And south of the car center/ west of world drive
As I understand it, half of all the property at WDW was to remain in its natural state. That was when WDW owned 27,400 acres (43 square miles). Now I believe they are up to 29,960 acres, or 47 square miles (of course minus the 900 they sold to the four seasons.)
Grizzly Hall 71
New Member
So about 14,000 is to remain undeveloped.
110 for Mk
300 for Epcot
135 for MGM
500 for Ak
200 for Downtown
700 for Fort Wilderness
200 for Carribbean beach
500 for Bay Lake
I don't know about the other resorts but this is based of my
knowledge. That's about 2,600 acres so unless the resorts altogether take up 12,000 more acres there's still room.
muteki
Well-Known Member
Found some good maps at http://www.rcid.org/
Check 2008 Comp Plan -> Future Land Use. Big PDF with a lot of maps:
If what is in green is truly never developed, it doesn't look as bad.
Check 2008 Comp Plan -> Future Land Use. Big PDF with a lot of maps:
If what is in green is truly never developed, it doesn't look as bad.