The addition of the store(s) pays back the cost of adding the path and the relocation costs for the existing infrastructure. If this location is considered secondary, wouldn't every store location not on main street also have the same distinction? As for businesses preferring main street over a side street, disney owns both streets and will get all of the business. Also this street will have traffic, it isn't leading to nowhere.
You're missing the point. You don't put secondary shops on the last path out of the place. Sure there's retail locations elsewhere....but the ones on main street are most important to the cash count every night. As far as the whole ownership thing goes, you're missing the main point to argue over one that doesn't exist.
The fact of the matter is that your last chance at your guests wallets better be the best chance. You're going to do that with a side-street and 'secondary retail' in your #1 theme park in wdw? It doesn't make sense.
Why do you think that half of the foot traffic that enters the park will take this path? TL isn't half the draw for the park, nor would it be the path to get to FF/FLE. As for a bottleneck being caused, the square is large enough to handle the traffic that will come from TL. The bottlenecks are caused at the hub because most of the park is being funneled to that spot and then it is directed through the narrow passage of Main Street.
My point was piggybacking on the fact that it doesn't make sense to cut this path unless you make the diversion a significant one with significant retail spots along the way. ONCE you make it a significant path, you are by force of nature, encouraging a significant portion of park guests down the diversion.
You're clearly not thinking about the unintended consequences of diverting significant guest traffic into and out of Tomorrowland. You're still going to have a bottleneck at the hub, but you're going to add a worse at the square. If you think the square can handle it, when it clearly can not, we've no point in discussing this further.
What? Those shops aren't getting supplies during the day, they stock up at night. The deliveries to the hotel gift shops aren't waiting for guests when they get back an hour later, what vehicle access to the shops desperately need?
Listen, my statement is based on the concept that the stores there need some vehicular access....or else there would not be roads into those buildings to begin with. Are there deliveries, pickups, employee access to those areas during the day? I don't know, as I don't work in them (do you?) but based on the layout it appears extremely logical that there are. My point, is that
if access is needed there, you're removing it while increasing the load. Again, not smart. Can it be a non-issue? sure! you're still not talking yourself out of the other points I've highlighted....
The castle draws in guests, first time guests will walk towards it. Also, if imagineers wanted to maintain the hub and spoke, explain Tokyo Disneyland.
If Imagineers didn't want to maintain hub and spoke, explain why they built access roads to the backends of each side of main st?
Sorry, I know nothing about TDL, but I can tell you this. They are two different parks, in two different countries, with different cultures and needs. If the imagineers felt they could design TDL a certain way, that's great. WDW's MK was designed a certain way. This plan violates it.
The problem won't be solved by widening or making the hub larger because guests will still funnel down main street.
Are you a logistics expert? Because the idea of replacing one bottleneck with a worse one suggests that you are not.
You want to reconstruct main street to decrease the square footage of the shops?
Exactly when did I say that I want to decrease the square footage of the shops?
