CaptainWinter
Active Member
Does anyone know if there are restrictions on what can be developed on the sold land? I'd be shocked if Disney didn't enact some strict stipulations on how the property was to be used.
-
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
TheBeatles
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.
just because there is land doesn't mean it should be explored. if disney isn't careful, sightlines will be ruined, properties will be built too close and crowd one another, or the overall ambiance and escape of WDW and it's wilderness will be lost.
also, that land below 192 won't ever be developed for wdw.
Tigger1988
Well-Known Member
I took the Inspiration Through Walt's Eyes tour last week and the guide told us that roughly 1/3rd of the land was protected and could not be developed. 1/3 is currently developed and there was still 1/3 that could be used in the future.
If those estimates are accurate, I have no idea. But that may give a rough idea of how much land is used/ available for use.
muteki
Well-Known Member
Looking at the map, and comparing it to aerial photographs, it appears as though everything that is undeveloped forest today is slated for "conservation" according to the map. Hopefully that will be the case.
MarkTwain
Well-Known Member
Right, pretty much the entire lower half of that graphic won't be developed for WDW. Judging by the looks of things, it looks like they have room for maybe one or two theme parks (maybe more, if they build them as small as DHS), and a few hotels/DVC.
And I agree, much of the land NEEDS to be conserved, because the wilderness is vital to the escapist, "oasis" atmosphere of WDW.
Mickey is King
New Member
AGREED.... WDW had some of it's biggests and best years under Eisner.
nuff said
Mickey is King
New Member
There is still PLENTY of room for more parks and parking.
You won't see it anytime soon though, probably anyway.
janoimagine
Well-Known Member
It is my understanding that Golden Oak was part of the 900 acres the four seasons bought, also the hotel will only comprise +/-300 acres and include the golf courses. Half of the land they purchased is to be left undeveloped as part of a nature conservatory. So in reality, to me it is not as bad as it sounds.
Getting that elusive 5th star for a resort is the reason. Getting that 5th star is unfortunately more involved that simply following a check list of specifications. Because the Disney name associates primarily with children a resort built and more importantly operated by Disney will more than likely never receive a 5th star. The Four seasons on the other hand will be able to get that 5th star.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.
One word Celebration.
Grizzly Hall 71
New Member
Why? It's in a great location. Especially the area east of World Drive and West of I-4.
It looks large enough for a park
muteki
Well-Known Member
I hope that land south of 192 never gets developed, not necessarily because of its location, but because of the precedence it would set. Since all the undeveloped land between EC and MK and the surrounding areas is classified (apparently) in the same manner as the land south of 192, then if that is developed then it opens the door to any and all bits of WDW to be developed, which I definitely don't want to happen. Then it's just DL all over again.
janoimagine
Well-Known Member
What I find the most interesting in this is the fact that the ownership of the 4 Seasons Hotels is split between Bill Gates and Saudi Prince Alwaleed, the same Prince Alwaleed who owns 24% of Disneyland Paris ... I don't think it's to big of a stretch to say that he may have leaned on Disney a bit or influenced them enough to have this resort built. I have to believe that if Disney wanted to, they could deliver a true 5 Star resort on their own.
Grizzly Hall 71
New Member
If they can dream it, they can build it.
Grizzly Hall 71
New Member
Where do you think the best location for a 5th gate is?
They can dream it a build it all they want but those that seem to make the decisions in this matter will more than likely never give a Disney resort a 5 star rating.
muteki
Well-Known Member
I don't even want to start thinking about a 5th gate. Until they can show me that they can properly run and operate 4 parks, they don't need a 5th.
Still upsets me because I do see a bit of a decline at the Grand Floridian from what it was in the years after it first opened until about the mid to late 90's. Room service used to have more variety, mousekeeping was better, and so was Gasparilla to nitpick a bit, but their is more that I saw last year that is different and not for the better.
I always thought that this was the most beautiful hotel and couldn't imagine how spectacular and even more grander another resort would be if Disney tried to surpass it.
Walt would never have done this, and even dare I say it, I agree that even Eisner would not have been this foolish and sell off land to an outside company.
I always thought that this was the most beautiful hotel and couldn't imagine how spectacular and even more grander another resort would be if Disney tried to surpass it.
Walt would never have done this, and even dare I say it, I agree that even Eisner would not have been this foolish and sell off land to an outside company.
Grizzly Hall 71
New Member
Who wouldn't want to see a fifth gate, but a business deal like this seems to tell me that they aren't interested in that. And for now that may be a good thing because of the way they are handling the other 4 parks. We have MK that has at least 3 underdeveloped lands, and 1 land and debatably a second, with an identity crisis. We have the struggle at Future Word and the long term underdevelopment of WS. Animal Kingdom looks good for its theme but there is more to be done there. I think another area could be added and join Africa, Asia, etc., and Hollywood Studios, always a special place in my heart, also needs further development. With a name change, the thwarting of it as a working studio, the possible death knell of the backlot tour, and the failure to promote and expand its original theme of Art Deco and the Golden years, it is suffering and being overlooked. Pixar additions are fine but the neglect of the Muppets expanison is not. I so feel for Jim Henson.
And the removal or changes and lack of preservation to tried and true classics are alienating a staunch crowd that looks forward to returning to WDW only to see their favorites are no longer there, and countless blows to fond memories and desires to ride old attractions can't be good. I'm still upset over Horizons, Toad, Leagues, and much more, and even youtube footage doesn't make it go away nor fill the void.
And tampering is alienating also. I'm not happy with SSE, JII, Cabelleros, TTA, to name a few. But their ruination and hacking away can be vented about on other threads so I digress.
And the removal or changes and lack of preservation to tried and true classics are alienating a staunch crowd that looks forward to returning to WDW only to see their favorites are no longer there, and countless blows to fond memories and desires to ride old attractions can't be good. I'm still upset over Horizons, Toad, Leagues, and much more, and even youtube footage doesn't make it go away nor fill the void.
And tampering is alienating also. I'm not happy with SSE, JII, Cabelleros, TTA, to name a few. But their ruination and hacking away can be vented about on other threads so I digress.