flavious27
Well-Known Member
The only area that could fit a park is not large enough, nor is it zoned for it.
Now if the rules on what rcid and disney does, this could be done.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Will There Every Be a 5th Major Park?
- Thread starter H2Opolo15
- Start date
The only area that could fit a park is not large enough, nor is it zoned for it.
Now if the rules on what rcid and disney does, this could be done.
Duckberg
Active Member
They would build a big, layered parking structure.
Please NO multi story parking structures:brick: @ WDW just think of park dump @ closing time Duckberg
Bonemachine
New Member
Yep.
You could fit in a few parks just on the space occupied by golf courses. 25,000 acres is indeed a massive plot of land. If they really wanted to, they could probably fit about 15 parks in there.
disneydaft
Member
Isn't Reedy Creek essentially Disney anyway? Couldn't they just rezone areas if they wanted?
i am under the impression that the 'conservation' areas are based upon deals Disney makes (made) with the EPA and/or Army Corp of Engineers related to wetlands.
When Disney started WDW you were allowed to fill, drain, fiddle with the wetlands almost at will.
But now a days you typically you can't fill in wetlands in a wholesale manner without replacing wetlands someplace. I think Disney made some sort of deals that they can develop X acres as long as they keep Y acres as 'conserved'.
If I remember correctly they've also made deals in the past to preserve cow farms and whatnot on the other side of 4 for that purpose.
anyway- bottom line is they can probably develop that stuff if they wanted- they just have to make another deal with the EPA to replace that land. I'm not sure exactly what the rules are about how close the newly replaced wetlands need to be to the developed ones-but i suspect with enough money you can do whatever you want on the majority of land in Disney owns.
edit: here's a link to an article about one of the deals they made years ago- basically they bought an 8500 acre ranch- fixed ~1300 acres of wetlands in it and that gave them the rights to fill 600 acres of wetlands to built celebration in it- 1992 and it cost them 30 million for the ranch and a million to fix it. So if they want to plunk down some big old park in the middle of their conserved wetlands there's precedent for them to buy their way out of the problem.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...10763_1_walker-ranch-disney-preserve-wetlands
i seem to recall more recent deals- but might just be my mind remembering that one...
page 31 in the reedy creek conservation plan gives more details of their permits and the above deal:
http://www.rcid.org/uploads/Conservation%20Element.pdf
When Disney started WDW you were allowed to fill, drain, fiddle with the wetlands almost at will.
But now a days you typically you can't fill in wetlands in a wholesale manner without replacing wetlands someplace. I think Disney made some sort of deals that they can develop X acres as long as they keep Y acres as 'conserved'.
If I remember correctly they've also made deals in the past to preserve cow farms and whatnot on the other side of 4 for that purpose.
anyway- bottom line is they can probably develop that stuff if they wanted- they just have to make another deal with the EPA to replace that land. I'm not sure exactly what the rules are about how close the newly replaced wetlands need to be to the developed ones-but i suspect with enough money you can do whatever you want on the majority of land in Disney owns.
edit: here's a link to an article about one of the deals they made years ago- basically they bought an 8500 acre ranch- fixed ~1300 acres of wetlands in it and that gave them the rights to fill 600 acres of wetlands to built celebration in it- 1992 and it cost them 30 million for the ranch and a million to fix it. So if they want to plunk down some big old park in the middle of their conserved wetlands there's precedent for them to buy their way out of the problem.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...10763_1_walker-ranch-disney-preserve-wetlands
i seem to recall more recent deals- but might just be my mind remembering that one...
page 31 in the reedy creek conservation plan gives more details of their permits and the above deal:
http://www.rcid.org/uploads/Conservation%20Element.pdf
juniorthomas
Well-Known Member
The only area that could fit a park is not large enough, nor is it zoned for it.
Now if the rules on what rcid and disney does, this could be done.
It took me a second to figure out that map you made. I don't think they'd use the speedway land anyway. They'd have to figure out a way to use some of that conservation space if they want to make the 5th gate feasible.
That's just what I'm thinking though. I figure they wouldn't want two parks to share one parking area, though it would be a better use of land. If they did share parking, there would be A LOT of traffic in that area.
menamechris
Well-Known Member
I am not going to pretend to be a land surveyor or analyst. But I do know one thing. Disney has certainly considered a 5th gate before - so the land must be there. Second, if its not there - we are talking about one of the largest companies in the world. They will find, buy, or modify whatever land is necessary if they can see that it will make them more money. I certainly don't think they are holding onto all of that land for the fun and expense of it. Though there may be no plans for the land now, they clearly see it as being in their best interest to hold onto it for the future...
rct247
Well-Known Member
The only area that could fit a park is not large enough, nor is it zoned for it.
Epcot is a very large theme park. That area can however house a theme park that is between the size of the Magic Kingdom and Disney's Hollywood Studios. The ESPN Wide World of Sports Complex could also be removed and redeveloped using available expansion land to create a large theme park. The small plot across from the campgrounds (south of the campgrounds) is about the size of a waterpark like Blizzard Beach or Typhoon Lagoon.
The Night Kingdom/Jungle Trek concept did not sound interesting to me at all. It would mostly cater to rich guests and corporations that can afford $300 a night to look at animals - yawn. From what I understand, some of the ideas are being folded into the Wild Africa Trek at DAK. If they're going to make a 5th park, then make one that everyone can enjoy - a real theme park.
juniorthomas
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I agree. Anyone who doubts whether Disney would be able to do a 5th gate is in for a surprise.
A 5th gate will happen, its just a matter of when. OP said within 5 to 10 years. I think within 10 we'll see a new park.
tikiman
Well-Known Member
The Night Kingdom/Jungle Trek concept did not sound interesting to me at all. It would mostly cater to rich guests and corporations that can afford $300 a night to look at animals - yawn. From what I understand, some of the ideas are being folded into the Wild Africa Trek at DAK. If they're going to make a 5th park, then make one that everyone can enjoy - a real theme park.
I agree that it is not their best ideas but I have seen stuff for it and they say there is a chance it will come back to life. That was their plan for the 5th park and all the items still remain in a warehouse in California.
CrescentLake
Well-Known Member
Who is they? Everyone on these boards says that Night Kingdom/Jungle Trek is deader than disco.
And what items can possibly still be in a warehouse in California no less? Jungle Trek was going to be a smaller park in which you could view animals up close, at night, and climb rocks and stuff. It seems to me that Disney would have enough foresight not to order that infrastructure until the park was green-lit and construction had began. I mean now you just sound ridiculous...NK/JT is dead.
flavious27
Well-Known Member
The second map is just to illustrate the size requirements of a 5th gate, and that the only large space on rcid's map still isn't large enough for a 5th gate.
flavious27
Well-Known Member
True, epcot is large but a 5th gate would need to have room to expand and I think we can all agree that it will be the last real gate that will be built at wdw.
I don't think that disney is going to demolish an area that cost $100 million to build and has been added onto since.
The size is right, about 120 acres but the shape isn't what they used in either BB or TL though the shape is similar to RC. They could build a larger RC / wilderness themed water park.
tikiman
Well-Known Member
You don't have to believe me. I won't be hurt but it had a green light and a start date for construction. The items for it were made overseas and put in a wearhouse in CA to be moved to the park when ready and while I would have believed the same thing about it being dead I am just sharing what I was told from someone working on the project. It is not for sure that it is coming back but I was told there is a chance. It was very close to starting construction back a few years. The stuff looked amazing that they were going to put into the park so if it does not come back to life I hope they find a good use for it somewhere else.
No need to name call. People on here that know me know I don't make up stuff.
CrescentLake
Well-Known Member
The fact that you're deliberately being vague means you're lying. What "stuff" did they have?
And for that matter, why in God's name would they pay to have this "stuff" shipped from oversees to California, only to ship it again to Florida? Seems like a huge waste of money, space, and time.
tikiman
Well-Known Member
I am not going to discuss this with someone who feels the need to call me a liar so feel free to believe what you want. I am not really concerned with what you think but thanks for sharing your opinion.