Universal Orlando Resort Expansion (Part 1)
- Thread starter ReelJustice
- Start date
-
Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
- Status
Hey now, I do think Universal and Stan Thomas will have another transaction in the future for those 2 red parcels on Universal Blvd. once the Brownfield cleanup process is over.
For Universal, it might have made more sense to just leave those 2 parcels with Stan Thomas while they undergo rehabilitation and then buy them in the free and clear once the FDEP grants a completion order.
1) That removes any future liability on the part of Universal because they didn't undertake the cleanup, and 2) there wouldn't have been any delays from Universal taking over the cleanup process due to ownership of the parcel changing.
So Stan Thomas is probably not completely out of the picture yet.
For Universal, it might have made more sense to just leave those 2 parcels with Stan Thomas while they undergo rehabilitation and then buy them in the free and clear once the FDEP grants a completion order.
1) That removes any future liability on the part of Universal because they didn't undertake the cleanup, and 2) there wouldn't have been any delays from Universal taking over the cleanup process due to ownership of the parcel changing.
So Stan Thomas is probably not completely out of the picture yet.
But if Stan has no money then the cleanup may be done by the EPA (if they can find a spare excavator and truck) and billed against the future sale of the property. Stan is not forced to clean it just if he wants to develop it or sell it.
Naw, this type of site falls under the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and all funding for rehabilitation of the land comes from the owner.
Stan would borrow against the parcels to fund the cleanup. Then Universal would buy the parcels and pay him off without Universal having any future liability for the Brownfield process.
Yeah, I think a part of the assumption I'm making is that Stan Thomas will use part of the Universal money he's received to wipe away the debts on the parcels (and end that foreclosure case, we should find out in the next few weeks).
Then he borrows against the now debt-free parcels to fund the cleanup. Then when he puts the parcels for sale in 5-6 years after the cleanup is finished; Universal pays him off and clears the debts undertaken for the cleanup.
I think there's a logic to that series of events for Universal that keeps the Brownfield process out of Universal's hands (i.e. no liability for Comcast).
That's the latest proposed Land Use Plan Agreement for the PD from 2015, but the right-of-way was never granted for the Mandarin Drive extension, so its path will likely change now that Universal owns much of the property that would use it.
Universal owns the Master Declarant rights to the whole 2200 acre PD.
Not to mention, it'll be a long while before Uni would be ready to develop those plots into value hotels anyway. So the timing works well.
The plans they submitted for the 100 acres shows they are planning on the Mandarin lot at least being kept partially in the same place. Once it gets south of there though, the retention ponds do suggest some change to the route. I still think they are better off letting the state build it across the bottom of Lockheed's property. That'll be a good artery for Uni for traffic flow.
- Jul 14, 2015
- 1,593
- 2,578
Yeah, while this is all speculation as to those 2 red parcels; it does seem as if 1) they won't be usable for years given the Brownfield cleanup, and 2) Universal won't really need them until around the late-2020s at the very earliest after Universal has developed all of its own land on Universal Blvd. and Destination Pkway.
Those 2 red parcels would likely be part of a second group of value hotels around 2030 after the other parcels around them are developed in the first group of value hotels around 2022-2025.
That means there isn't much risk to leaving them in Stan Thomas' hands; at this point, it's hard to imagine Universal getting outbid on that land if they want it given that the rest of the Stan Thomas situation is resolved and this would just be a simple land transaction for 56 acres in 2 parcels.
Last edited:
Now that I think about it, October is the perfect opening date for a new resort. It allows them to fix whatever capacity issues they may have before the summer crowds arrive, and it also allows them to hold off on a few projects (like a new waterpark and hotels), and open them the following summer.
I’m pretty sure @Disneyhead just listed the 10/1 date as that’s the date MK and Epcot opened and it would be a bit of trolling on UORs part.
I doubt they would give up the summer crowds/revenue for a fall open in the days we live in now where Wall Street makes the decisions.
I doubt they would give up the summer crowds/revenue for a fall open in the days we live in now where Wall Street makes the decisions.
IOA opened in May. I’m not sure what this October date is all about.
- Apr 18, 2013
- 3,451
- 3,384
Disney specifically chose the 10/1 dates because they were the traditional slowest time. It was a means to create a somewhat soft opening. The Disneyland opening was considered to be a huge disaster. The logic still applies although not to the same extent as in the past.
I think there may be a fair amount to Disney trolling going on with this park.
I mean, we are presumably seeing Nintendo moved, and with the possibility of DWA and Lord of The Rings (if that is happening), it could be a triple castle middle finger to Cinderella.
This is sort of blue sky, but what if the whole resort revolved around a single mountain? Theme park, water park, Citiwalk. You could even make the Citiwalk into a mountain village.
I think the project number (314) may be a hint at what may be coming.
- Status
Book with our Travel Partners
Latest posts
-
-
Halloween Horror Nights 2024 (USH) - Construction- Latest: viking_wizard_eyes
-
