-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Wookies, & Rebels, & Droids... OH WHY?! The Anti-SWL in Disneyland Thread
- Thread starter Californian Elitist
- Start date
No Name
Well-Known Member
Right but I don't know if the second park causes that to happen even in the long term. Maybe Disneyland Park attendance would be even higher without DCA. I don't know.
spacemt354
Chili's
Haha that's more importantI’m not sure I’m following (and I’m also running after my 2 year old)
I wasn’t saying DCA added capacity at DL. I’m saying that attendance increased at DL because of DCA (as well as the Grand Californian and DTD) and that that increase didn’t break Disneyland’s infrastructure. I would imagine that Disneyland has seen more guests due to DCA being next door than they will see from Star Wars Land. Granted DCA added a lot of capacity but a lot of those guests do a few of their favorites at DCA and seem to spend the majority of the day at DL.
You're right, attendance increased with DCA. But while DCA contributed to an increase in DL's crowds, it's more of an indirect impact since a majority of the new crowds were in DCA and you can't be in DCA and DL at the same time.
With SWGE, I think it'll have more of a direct impact on DL since the new crowds will all be in DL for the new land, rather than being there for another park.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Haha that's more important
You're right, attendance increased with DCA. But while DCA contributed to an increase in DL's crowds, it's more of an indirect impact since a majority of the new crowds were in DCA and you can't be in DCA and DL at the same time.
With SWGE, I think it'll have more of a direct impact on DL since the new crowds will all be in DL for the new land, rather than being there for another park.
One important point when talking about crowds, and its been said before in other threads. TWDC doesn't set the capacity levels of the parks itself, the Anaheim fire marshal does. These levels are set by the total available usable space in the parks, that won't really change that much with SW:GE. Because with the two large buildings and other shops, etc., you won't have that much added usable space for people to go. The fact that ride capacity will have increased in DL has no bearing on that. Those are DL numbers and aren't part of the number of physical people allowed in the parks at any one time.
Also there have been rumors of complete AP block out (especially the lower tiers since it'll be summer anyways), for the first couple of months of SW:GE opening. So that will have a big impact in a good way as well.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
Interesting discussion! Plus it's mostly staying civil despite strong opinions, so pat yourselves on the back.
Re: HP and single IP lands.
People often forget Carsland was actually announced before Uni announced Potter. This is not to say Disney clearly didn't know about Potter, nor do I want to say Disney really underestimated Potter and the power of IP based lands. Nor did Universal even know what they had their hands on to be frank. Neither had a clue how well it would do! Or even that Pandora and SW:GE were forced into existence indirectly because of Potter.
All of that is to say Disney still quite independently developed a very successful IP-based land in concert, they just take forever to build things. I don't think Pandora would have happened if Potter failed to exist, I do think Carsland would have still eventually lead to Star Wars. I think more likely the diminutive 1.0 version would have been approved rather than the board demanding something much bigger to compete. But Carsland very much woke Iger up to park synergy, not just Potter.
I'd say each ride can independently and likely will hold between them a good 8k people. What's important is that 6 - 8k or whatever will be physically held up in queues and out of quite literally any other area in the park - including the walkways of SW:GE itself.
Interestingly, there are actually diminishing returns of "occupied" guests with higher ride capacity. Sure, Pirates can theoretically take on 3k people an hour, but at any given point in time are there actually 3 thousand people in line and on the ride? No, not usually, because lines remain diminutive simply because the capacity is so high and everyone who wants to ride can.
A ride like the battle escape is both shorter and perhaps even half the theoretical capacity. But a two hour line at any given point in time is legitimately holding 3k people, "occupying them". A show like Frozen is different in that the daily capacity is nothing like Pirates, but during showtime a packed theatre is actually occupying a large number of guests for a long period of time. Its occupancy of guest time is reasonable as a result.
Beyond that, the land itself will easily offer a multi-thousand guest free range space. Conceivably, a quarter to third of the parks daily visitors can easily be shoved into that land. If it's overcapacity? Still good, guests are cordoned off into waiting pens to get in.
To conclude my now mini-essay, I earnestly believe Disneyland prime will actually be more pleasant than it is today, unless attendance soars in excess of >3 million. I've been around enough recently opened lands (Pandora, Diagon Alley) that I've found while the new areas are banana's, the park itself is actually super pleasant to visit; simply because so many guests are busily occupied and out of the way in the new thing. That only happens with new areas and not a one-off popular attraction in an old area.
The biggest concerning times may be Fireworks and Fantasmic. SW:GE may need to offer a nighttime draw once the allure of line reduction during showtimes fades.
To answer your original question, 15k seems reasonable. 10k would be my guess for how many people will typically be found in there at any given time. That's a ton of people occupied.
And of course parking and guest arrival to the resort area... THAT's the real bottleneck.
Re: HP and single IP lands.
People often forget Carsland was actually announced before Uni announced Potter. This is not to say Disney clearly didn't know about Potter, nor do I want to say Disney really underestimated Potter and the power of IP based lands. Nor did Universal even know what they had their hands on to be frank. Neither had a clue how well it would do! Or even that Pandora and SW:GE were forced into existence indirectly because of Potter.
All of that is to say Disney still quite independently developed a very successful IP-based land in concert, they just take forever to build things. I don't think Pandora would have happened if Potter failed to exist, I do think Carsland would have still eventually lead to Star Wars. I think more likely the diminutive 1.0 version would have been approved rather than the board demanding something much bigger to compete. But Carsland very much woke Iger up to park synergy, not just Potter.
I'd say each ride can independently and likely will hold between them a good 8k people. What's important is that 6 - 8k or whatever will be physically held up in queues and out of quite literally any other area in the park - including the walkways of SW:GE itself.
Interestingly, there are actually diminishing returns of "occupied" guests with higher ride capacity. Sure, Pirates can theoretically take on 3k people an hour, but at any given point in time are there actually 3 thousand people in line and on the ride? No, not usually, because lines remain diminutive simply because the capacity is so high and everyone who wants to ride can.
A ride like the battle escape is both shorter and perhaps even half the theoretical capacity. But a two hour line at any given point in time is legitimately holding 3k people, "occupying them". A show like Frozen is different in that the daily capacity is nothing like Pirates, but during showtime a packed theatre is actually occupying a large number of guests for a long period of time. Its occupancy of guest time is reasonable as a result.
Beyond that, the land itself will easily offer a multi-thousand guest free range space. Conceivably, a quarter to third of the parks daily visitors can easily be shoved into that land. If it's overcapacity? Still good, guests are cordoned off into waiting pens to get in.
To conclude my now mini-essay, I earnestly believe Disneyland prime will actually be more pleasant than it is today, unless attendance soars in excess of >3 million. I've been around enough recently opened lands (Pandora, Diagon Alley) that I've found while the new areas are banana's, the park itself is actually super pleasant to visit; simply because so many guests are busily occupied and out of the way in the new thing. That only happens with new areas and not a one-off popular attraction in an old area.
The biggest concerning times may be Fireworks and Fantasmic. SW:GE may need to offer a nighttime draw once the allure of line reduction during showtimes fades.
To answer your original question, 15k seems reasonable. 10k would be my guess for how many people will typically be found in there at any given time. That's a ton of people occupied.
And of course parking and guest arrival to the resort area... THAT's the real bottleneck.
Last edited:
dweezil78
Well-Known Member
You caught me. Clearly I need to continue living this illusion in order to feel fulfilled in life.
spacemt354
Chili's
Well now who's taking things too seriously...
It's nothing personal, it's just that you've repeated the same talking points a lot today even when someone offers a different take. I try to be open minded, hence why a lot of times my opinions sway from one 'side' of a coin to another. It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine (and I'm guilty of this too) of just going back and forth repeating the same things as if that gets any closer to a common resolution. To me that isn't productive.
Also - read on after that as I did some further research to try and clear up our discussion, even walking back some of my own claims.
spacemt354
Chili's
The model shows plenty of walkways and paths that could easily increase guest capacity just based on footpaths alone. It's a huge land.
Also factor in the capacity of the queues, which will be able to hold thousands of people at a time, if the queues are anything like Flight of Passage.
If Pandora is any indication, Everest was 20 mins when I went during the summer when it used to average 40-50 mins because a solid portion of the crowd was at or queued in Pandora. I think I agree with @BrianLo that SWGE might make part of Disneyland actually less crowded despite the added capacity, because so many people will be over at the new land. The east side of Disneyland might have some nice wait-times.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Overall max capacity (the time they shut the gates and let no more guests in) is based on the sqft of the overall available area for people divided by sqft required by a person. The amount of sqft increased by the available area in SW:GE may allow 10k, but will not likely increase the max capacity of the park by 10k. So lets say 55k is the max park capacity today, its not going to be increased to 65k in 2019 because the overall available sqft change is negligible. Likely the max capacity will stay the same 55k, or bump slightly to say 58-60k. This is why as @BrianLo indicated, the rest of the park will be pleasant because the same capacity as today is now spread out more and in a different area. Again max park capacity is set by Anaheim Fire Marshals not TWDC.
Travel Junkie
Well-Known Member
Yeah that is going to be a big problem. The Eastern Gateway being abandoned was a real blow to spreading out crowds entering the resort. Mickey and Friends and the security gate are nightmares on busy days. Now they are adding thousands of more cars and a resort to the same foot print. Even additional traffic lanes added in and out won't be able to handle the crowds that descend on the resort come 2019.
I agree with you that the wait times for many rides will go down. It will be tougher to get a seat though for parades, F!, Fireworks etc with more people in the park.
dweezil78
Well-Known Member
Not only that -- Disney had a LOI from JK Rowling as recent as late 2006 with hope to announce their HP expansion in July 2007. Universal made their HP announcement in May of 2007. From everything I've heard from very reliable sources, she literally handed Universal the plans Disney created and they worked off of those. (I'm sure with some changes, but still.) Here's a report from Jim Hill from October 06 where Disney was still very much in the running... http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_c...ch-harry-potter-and-the-letter-of-intent.aspx
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Careful that article has a picture of a young Iger, you're going to make @Curious Constance swoon....
George Lucas on a Bench
Well-Known Member
Ignoring the "terrible hack franchise" comment, I'm somewhere in the middle. I think HP lands at Universal are amazing experiences as far as the settings and waiting lines go. The rides are certainly whatever, but I'm not sure what Disney would have done with it. I certainly would rather go to the Wizarding World or Diagon Alley than Pandora. I think they just translate perfectly into a theme park land and Universal is so wink-nudge about the whole thing with all the details everywhere, showing people go through the Diagon Alley portal, serving booze in the London underground etc., you can't help but be charmed. I haven't gotten the same feelings from modern Disney attractions.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
It would have been interesting to see what Disney would have ultimately done with it. Would it have been the same or would it have been different. At this point I guess it really doesn't matter except for historical reference on how we got here.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Ill Tell you one thing. FJs attraction sets would have been better. The queue and ride experience would have probably been a wash unless they integrated the sets and screens as beautifully as Shanghai’s POTC.
spacemt354
Chili's
Spiderman in IOA would be another.
I think thats more of an evolution in digital projection than it is a result of HP.
TROR
Well-Known Member
I mean in terms of Disney, though. I assume Harry Potter's success using screen based attractions is what led Disney to doing the same as of recent.
spacemt354
Chili's
It could have contributed, but i think it was more an evolution of screen technology
Body Wars, Mission: SPACE, The Seas with Nemo and Friends, TSMM, all used screens before Potter, in addition to Soarin and Star Tours like you mentioned, so I dont think its completely responsible.