Why is DAK so far away???

[SoFlaDisneyFan]

Map.Live.Com is FAR superior to Google Earth. The "Bird's Eye View" alone is worth the trip. You TRULY feel like you are there!

Plus, many of the views are far more updated than Google Earth.

Sorry, just thought I'd throw that in there! I know there are many of us who use Maps.Live...but I'd thought I'd share just in case there is anyone here who has yet to discover it's awesomeness!:kiss:

 

[automagic]

I defer to you as I do not for a second claim to know the details of land readiness on the Disney property. I do know that detailed work is done before building any structure, and that for significant structures, locations are carefully chosen, and even then they require significant supplemental foundational work.

When I saw the term "geologically stable" to describe the area it grabbed my attention. That term usually implies something about the underlying geological framework and processes and not necessarily soil stability; except maybe in the case landslides. As far as water goes, I suppose it's no secret that most of Disney's property is classified as a wetland, marsh, swamp, or bog on hydrologic maps. The underlying geology is fairly uniform throughout the Disney property when you look at various geological maps. Although there may not be much water at the at the surface around certain areas of Disney, those upland portions are merely relatively thin veneers (layers) of sediment with the water table being very close at shallow depths. Hence, a lot of projects will require fill material to build up the topography to give it substantial elevation.

The idea of Disney building a park in a region that is geologically stable on their Florida property is interesting. I would love to see how they factor in the underlying geologic framework in their planning. It would be neat to see a ground collapse (sinkhole) risk map or some high resolution seismic maps of the area to delineate faults and fractures in the rocks. Sinkholes are a risk here in Florida due to the dissolution of the underlying limestone rock units.

 

[DisneyJoe]

Hence, a lot of projects will require fill material to build up the topography to give it substantial elevation.

From disneyworldtrivia :

"Sixty dump trucks of dirt were delivered to Disney's Animal Kingdom construction site every day for two years straight, equaling 4.4 million cubic yards of dirt."

 

[automagic]

From disneyworldtrivia :

"Sixty dump trucks of dirt were delivered to Disney's Animal Kingdom construction site every day for two years straight, equaling 4.4 million cubic yards of dirt."

That's pretty awesome and it doesn't surprise me one bit. I wonder how much they paid per cubic yard of dirt. I don't know what kind it is but the Tree of Life sure is growing quite well in it :lookaroun

 

[TheBeatles]

For the same reason Isla Nublar is in a remote location in Jurassic Park: so any escaped animals won't GO AND EAT EVERYONE AT THE MAGIC KINGDOM! AHHH!!!

Awesome.

 

[WDW Monorail]

The area being discussed in this thread that is to the NE of AK is listed as 'Conservation'.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

it was blown over there following a hurricane in 2001

 

[Captain Hank]

When I saw the term "geologically stable" to describe the area it grabbed my attention. That term usually implies something about the underlying geological framework and processes and not necessarily soil stability; except maybe in the case landslides. As far as water goes, I suppose it's no secret that most of Disney's property is classified as a wetland, marsh, swamp, or bog on hydrologic maps. The underlying geology is fairly uniform throughout the Disney property when you look at various geological maps. Although there may not be much water at the at the surface around certain areas of Disney, those upland portions are merely relatively thin veneers (layers) of sediment with the water table being very close at shallow depths. Hence, a lot of projects will require fill material to build up the topography to give it substantial elevation.

The idea of Disney building a park in a region that is geologically stable on their Florida property is interesting. I would love to see how they factor in the underlying geologic framework in their planning. It would be neat to see a ground collapse (sinkhole) risk map or some high resolution seismic maps of the area to delineate faults and fractures in the rocks. Sinkholes are a risk here in Florida due to the dissolution of the underlying limestone rock units.

Admittedly, not the best choice of words on my part. By "geologically stable," I meant that I assumed the site likely needed less site prep before construction started. Sinkhole/stability problems plagued both the TTC and Epcot construction sites, along with several proposed resort sites. thus, I'd assume that this site was chosen over other sites partially because the soil was comparatively more stable.

 

[unkadug]

This is a little off topic but that fake tree is the ugliest and fakest looking thing at all of WDW. Bad Show! :wave:

Which would you prefer ?

 

[MousDad]

This is a little off topic but that fake tree is the ugliest and fakest looking thing at all of WDW. Bad Show! :wave:

Holy macaroni, for about 5 minutes I thought you were talking about the Tree of Life. :dazzle:

 

[automagic]

Admittedly, not the best choice of words on my part. By "geologically stable," I meant that I assumed the site likely needed less site prep before construction started. Sinkhole/stability problems plagued both the TTC and Epcot construction sites, along with several proposed resort sites. thus, I'd assume that this site was chosen over other sites partially because the soil was comparatively more stable.

No problem...I think it's cool that you even mentioned the term. I was just wondering what you meant. :wave: