Why Walt Disney World Needs a 5th Theme Park By 2025

[FettFan]

I think we'd be more likely to see a third water park instead of a fifth theme park.

 

[fradz]

And would that have lead to less profit per dollars spent??

...interesting question, no?

You also need to grow the market to have more dollars spent. Even if Profit/dollar spent is sligthly lower, it will be offset by the huge amount of additional dollars spent. (just my 2cents, I don't have a public opinion on whether a 5th gate is a good idea financially or not)

 

[Disstevefan1]

To date, Iger’s revenue growth has come at the expense of ‘Guests’, who pay more for less as Disney has focused on higher prices and cost cuts rather than growing the business organically to improve margins. A business can’t thrive on price increases and quality cuts alone.

This is spot on!!!!!! Disney will continue to do this until for whatever reason they cant.

 

[UpAllNight]

Disney need a 5th Park. If they are serious about improving the guest experience (which I like to believe they’ve accepted is an issue due to the sheer quantity of expansion projects announced) then they need to forget this talk about ‘cannibalising’ and give people the choice. The graphs on previous pages predicted a 1% YoY growth...I’ll buy a hat and eat it, if that’s the extent of the Star Wars bump. And then there’s the 50th. The expansion into rides such as Guardians...big IP draws to a park the demographic may not have been interested in prior. Additional hotel capacity. The parks are already chaos and things are about to get much much worse.

The new park absolutely shouldn’t be at the expense of sorting issues out in all 4 parks. Magic Kingdom is short of attractions compared to Disneyland by quite some distance. Epcot is a mess. The Studios is 2 lands minimum short of being the park it should be over 3 decades into its existence. Animal Kingdom needs several new rides to round it off.

I’ve said it prior, but you could take 25% of each parks attendance now and place them in the new park, and you would still have 5 very busy parks without accounting for any growth at all....that’s how busy, and insufferable the place can be for visitors.

There’s no easy fix. They need to spend the money they should have spent over the past 25 years to atleast make an attempt to correct the situation.

 

[Seanual757]

If Eisner was still in charge, you can bet your "tookus" that a fifth gate would be opening soon. He called for MGM because Universal was opening. He greenlit Animal Kingdom because Busch Gardens was opening. With a third (fourth if you're a wand-waver) Universal Gate is opening in the near future, we would definitely have some kind of 5th park on the way. I bet that any competitive drive Iger has against Comcast/NBC/Universal has been satiated for now by beating them in the bidding war for Fox.

Also, even if The Last Jedi was the greatest film ever made, and Solo made Avatar money, making a 5th Gate the Star Wars Park would be a horrible idea.

They are well underway on the 3rd gate too it's right across from my work, the green fences are up the site work has been going on for the past 2 months.

Disney needs to evolve you can only expand existing parks so much a 5th gate is needed and I would not be surprised already in the works.

 

[rickdrat]

It would hurt in that it would draw more people into the park with an infrastructure is already strained. You just made the case the MK should add things that don't draw in extra crowds. An E-Ticket draws in extra crowds (see Flight of Passage).

I was thinking about this the other day. At what point does adding E Tickets to the parks (as oppsosed to replacing existing attractions) become counterproductive? MK and Epcot already have attractions squishing outside the original design boundaries. Yes, the new attraction may be a crowd eater, but the underlying infrastructure remains largely unchanged. That means more people parking, more riding monorails, more on Main Street, more in the restaurants and bathrooms, etc.

 

[ghidorah97]

Long-time lurker that truly appreciates the information available on these forums. The debate about a potential 5th gate is fascinating to me. As others have stated, I lean toward the idea that TDO really needs to improve/increase the # of attractions at the existing parks first. While MK will always be that "must" park on any average family visit, continued improvements to the other three should help reduce the repeat visits to MK (which is sorely needed).

One question on the 5th gate idea though. Besides the debate about what the "theme" should be (I personally love the Villains concept!), the one thing that has puzzled me the most is where it could possibly be located. Looking at Google Maps, I see only three places that seem to make logical sense to my untrained, unknowledgeable eye (as noted on the screen cap). Would any of the experts care to weigh in on this question? Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Long-time lurker that truly appreciates the information available on these forums. The debate about a potential 5th gate is fascinating to me. As others have stated, I lean toward the idea that TDO really needs to improve/increase the # of attractions at the existing parks first. While MK will always be that "must" park on any average family visit, continued improvements to the other three should help reduce the repeat visits to MK (which is sorely needed).

One question on the 5th gate idea though. Besides the debate about what the "theme" should be (I personally love the Villains concept!), the one thing that has puzzled me the most is where it could possibly be located. Looking at Google Maps, I see only three places that seem to make logical sense to my untrained, unknowledgeable eye (as noted on the screen cap). Would any of the experts care to weigh in on this question? Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere.

You'd want to check out this thread. It has maps that show the likely future building. Technically, they can build anywhere with enough conservation offsets, and metric tons of dirt... but they'd likely tap the areas already identified for building...

https://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/maps-of-the-reedy-creek-2010-2020-plan.935133/

 

[EricsBiscuit]

I think all 4 parks need more rides before you can justify a 5th park. Disney can get more bang for their buck now by investing in the current parks because they don't need to spend money on new infrastructure. Expand the current parks.

 

[Tavernacle12]

I agree with the idea that they need to get Epcot, HS, and AK on more even ground before they can justify a 5th gate. It'd also likely be cheaper to improve them than build an entirely new park. I would imagine a 5th gate would either be inevitable or already announced by 2030, but it might not open for awhile after that unless Universal actually overtakes Disney overall in attendance.

With the price figures and timelines for things like TSL, Avatar, and Star Wars, which combined have six rides, I'd be terrified of the price tag of a 5th gate and how long it would take to build.

 

[Willmark]

I think all 4 parks need more rides before you can justify a 5th park. Disney can get more bang for their buck now by investing in the current parks because they don't need to spend money on new infrastructure. Expand the current parks.

All that does is ensure that attendance continues to stay high at the existing parks.

 

[ghidorah97]

You'd want to check out this thread. It has maps that show the likely future building. Technically, they can build anywhere with enough conservation offsets, and metric tons of dirt... but they'd likely tap the areas already identified for building...

https://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/maps-of-the-reedy-creek-2010-2020-plan.935133/

Thank you very much for the link. I'm definitely a novice in reading those maps, however I can clearly see that the three areas I circled are all listed as Conservation for future use and Unsuitable for building. All of which would seem to make it unlikely that they would be the site of a 5th gate. I actually didn't really see any other area that was large enough for a 5th gate, but that's probably my limited knowledge at work.

 

[Willmark]

Thank you very much for the link. I'm definitely a novice in reading those maps, however I can clearly see that the three areas I circled are all listed as Conservation for future use and Unsuitable for building. All of which would seem to make it unlikely that they would be the site of a 5th gate. I actually didn't really see any other area that was large enough for a 5th gate, but that's probably my limited knowledge at work.

The Reedy Creek area includes almost the entirety of WDW property. If Disney wants something they are going to get it as Disney IS Reedy Creek.

Uncle Walt set it up that way to avoid the space issues of Disneyland.

Basically Disney is the local government. And in zoning issues most local municipalities hold near total, extraordinary powers with little recourse of complaints.

 

[MisterPenguin]

The Reedy Creek area includes almost the entirety of WDW property. If Disney wants something they are going to get it as Disney IS Reedy Creek.

Uncle Walt set it up that way to avoid the space issues of Disneyland.

Basically Disney is the local government. And in zoning issues most local municipalities hold near total, extraordinary powers with little recourse of complaints.

They still have to abide by county, state, and federal laws regarding the use of the environment. They can't just kill every alligator within their district. They can't just build wherever and whenever they want without water-management permits approved by the state. The buildings they build have to meet codes that they don't set. And the land they have marked conserved can't be touched without conservation off-sets elsewhere which require permission from non-Reedy-Creek authorities.

 

[Willmark]

They still have to abide by county, state, and federal laws regarding the use of the environment. They can't just kill every alligator within their district. They can't just build wherever and whenever they want without water-management permits approved by the state. The buildings they build have to meet codes that they don't set. And the land they have marked conserved can't be touched without conservation off-sets elsewhere which require permission from non-Reedy-Creek authorities.

Wow Artie McStrawman says hi. Killing alligators? Really?

I pointed out that Disney is the local government. Fact remains if Disney wants something in the State of Florida they are going to get it one way or another.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Wow Artie McStrawman says hi. Killing alligators? Really?

I pointed out that Disney is the local government. Fact remains if Disney wants something in the State of Florida they are going to get it one way or another.

That's a lovely conspiracy theory.

 

[Willmark]

That's a lovely conspiracy theory.

So double down on the strawman? Good show.

 

[MisterPenguin]

So double down on the strawman? Good show.

I provided examples of needed compliance. You provided nothing except 'cause I say so.' Good show to you.

 

[Willmark]

Actually all you did was argue against a point you implied I made (strawman) then went argument to absurdity (alligators).

 

[danlb_2000]

Wow Artie McStrawman says hi. Killing alligators? Really?

I pointed out that Disney is the local government. Fact remains if Disney wants something in the State of Florida they are going to get it one way or another.

Yes, Disney can probably get what they want, but for some things it's not easy. If have seen permit applications to the South Florida Water Management District go back and forth for months and even years before the work was approved. Not to mention that there are practical challenges with building on certain sections of land.