Universal Orlando Resort Expansion (Part 1)

[s8film40]

So if that is the case, something tells me the "two theme parks" they're planning down there are 1 regular theme park and 1 "water" theme park like they like to call VB. I don't see any way 2 full dry theme parks fit down there otherwise.

I always assumed a second park for the site (4th park) if it happens would be like around ten years after this one opens and they would find the space for it. There's plenty of room.

 

[JungleSkip]

I still agree with what @Happytycho said earlier:

It makes more sense to put garages south of that road than anywhere in the northern area. That surface lot could end up as an IoA-size park down the line in like 15 years.

It just seems like really, really poor master planning to have a huge, ugly surface lot there.

 

[zg44]

It just seems like really, really poor master planning to have a huge, ugly surface lot there.

Believe me, I agree.

But it seems like they're going with the original 1990s version of UOR..., with that gigantic surface lot where IoA/CityWalk are now:

To me..., this is not really that great of an idea, but I guess they're going with it?

 

[JungleSkip]

Believe me, I agree.

But it seems like they're going with the original 1990s version of UOR..., with that gigantic surface lot where IoA/CityWalk are now:

To me..., this is not really that great of an idea, but I guess they're going with it?

The way all these roads play out, and if that really is a surface lot, the remaining acres of the big plot of land inside the borders of the road is around 150-160 acres. Enough room for a big park, resorts, and a shopping/dining area. I guess they figure they can make that area the best it can be before moving to the other side? I dunno. Seems weird

 

[RichOBJ]

The plans specifically mention how much parking will be provided, so yes, it looks like it's a surface lot:

I'm confused. How does the number of spaces insinuate its a surface lot and not a garage? or do you just mean its parking in general?

 

[ParkRumors]

I'm confused. How does the number of spaces insinuate its a surface lot and not a garage? or do you just mean its parking in general?

Because it's far too large to be a multi-story garage if it's only providing ~5,000 spaces.

 

[s8film40]

I'm confused. How does the number of spaces insinuate its a surface lot and not a garage? or do you just mean its parking in general?

I guess we know the rough size of the lot so if you take the number of spaces and it's double, triple or quadruple the number of spaces that would fit in that many acres then you know it's a garage.

 

[Happytycho]

I still agree with what @Happytycho said earlier:

It makes more sense to put garages south of that road than anywhere in the northern area. That surface lot could end up as an IoA-size park down the line in like 15 years. Of course then that'd end up as a pain to have to build your crossover section later to get people to that northern part...

Until we have plans or an announcement for hotels south of the road, I'm standing by this theory for the long term. The size, shape, and pond locations simply fit the idea too well. The actual construction of a road crossing might be painful, but in terms of practicality it's no different than the walkway at the current resort.

If they want to build a second theme park at new site, the only area of land large enough and reasonably shaped is the one where they are putting the parking lot, so it seems possible that this is only a short term solution. Also, the weird shape of the far eastern ponds gives the impression that they aren't particularly concerned about maximizing space on that side at the moment, which makes sense if they will eventually be starting from scratch to build a new park there.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

Because it's far to large to be a multi-story garage if it's only providing ~5,000 spaces.

The assumption here is the grey area is just for parking and not a larger area with a smaller parking area.

 

[RichOBJ]

Because it's far to large to be a multi-story garage if it's only providing ~5,000 spaces.

I think I understand what you're saying. But a near 5,000-space garage is hardly anything new. Theme parks already have those.

I guess we know the rough size of the lot so if you take the number of spaces and it's double, triple or quadruple the number of spaces that would fit in that many acres then you know it's a garage.

I think I'm catching your drift. So if it were say "10,000 spaces" then that would make more sense its a garage?

 

[pat_naughty05]

Parking garages are only really needed when you don’t have the room for a surface lot, right? If they have the space, why not use a typical, much less expensive parking lot? Disney uses them for all of their parks. They may not be the most visually attractive option, but I’m sure Universal will do a sufficient job of concealing it from other areas of the new resort.

 

[zg44]

Until we have plans or an announcement for hotels south of the road, I'm standing by this theory for the long term. The size, shape, and pond locations simply fit the idea too well. The actual construction of a road crossing might be painful, but in terms of practicality it's no different than the walkway at the current resort.

If they want to build a second theme park at new site, the only area of land large enough and reasonably shaped is the one where they are putting the parking lot, so it seems possible that this is only a short term solution. Also, the weird shape of the far eastern ponds gives the impression that they aren't particularly concerned about maximizing space on that side at the moment, which makes sense if they will eventually be starting from scratch to build a new park there.

Yeah, the more I look at that eastern side around the surface lot, there's plenty of "unused space" there that can come into play when the surface lot is removed; you're looking at somewhere around 80-90 acres of workable space there, which is more than enough for a 2nd park.

And then if you move that eastern pond back in to where the surface lot is, you can create a nice lake there. Definitely feels like that side is being saved for the 4th dry park.

 

[s8film40]

I think I'm catching your drift. So if it were say "10,000 spaces" then that would make more sense its a garage?

Yeah.

Looking at this from the other way around I found this online

each acre of land contains 43,560 square feet, a simple mathematical computation shows if each parking space requires 180 square feet, 1 acre of land would accommodate 242 parking spaces. Of course, this assumes no turning lanes and each parking space is right next to each other.

5,089 divided by 242 gives a little over 21 acres total for the parking lot specified. So if the "lot" pictured is 60-70 acres as @JungleSkip stated I guess this only raises more questions. 60 acres using that formula in reverse would be roughly 14k parking spaces. Or maybe I did this wrong?

Edit: Actually looking back at that and accounting for rows (which I guess that formula I used didn't) and much larger bus parking also perhaps a tram lane and other stuff maybe it's right. One thing it's not is a garage though I guess.

 

[ChrisFL]

Parking garages are only really needed when you don’t have the room for a surface lot, right? If they have the space, why not use a typical, much less expensive parking lot? Disney uses them for all of their parks. They may not be the most visually attractive option, but I’m sure Universal will do a sufficient job of concealing it from other areas of the new resort.

you mean WDW does, DL has parking garages

 

[JungleSkip]

Well, there's certainly one positive here, is that we now have a much better idea on how the resort will be laid out. Here's my guess of where the park itself will be.

 

[JungleSkip]

Yeah.

Looking at this from the other way around I found this online

5,089 divided by 242 gives a little over 21 acres total for the parking lot specified. So if the "lot" pictured is 60-70 acres as @JungleSkip stated I guess this only raises more questions. 60 acres using that formula in reverse would be roughly 14k parking spaces. Or maybe I did this wrong?

Edit: Actually looking back at that and accounting for rows (which I guess that formula I used didn't) and much larger bus parking also perhaps a tram lane and other stuff maybe it's right. One thing it's not is a garage though I guess.

I'm still not sold my guess is fully right. I may be over estimating the size. It's hard to guess on google maps and have it line up. There are people here that are way better on that stuff. Hopefully they'll chime in.

 

[pat_naughty05]

you mean WDW does, DL has parking garages

I don’t know much about Disneyland’s layout, but yes, I should have specified the Florida parks.

 

[zg44]

Grey space is around 55 acres in size.

 

[JungleSkip]

Grey space is around 55 acres in size.

So yea, I overestimated. Thanks!

 

[RichOBJ]

Parking garages are only really needed when you don’t have the room for a surface lot, right? If they have the space, why not use a typical, much less expensive parking lot? Disney uses them for all of their parks. They may not be the most visually attractive option, but I’m sure Universal will do a sufficient job of concealing it from other areas of the new resort.

Surface lots on Universal's land doesn't make sense, IMO. Sure, they have a large mass of land, but it is nowhere limitless. A surface lot absorbs too much footprint. WDW most likely still has surface lots for multiple reasons:

• They have an abundance of land and are not constrained yet to build up and not out
• Some of their parks benefit from large marquee visuals (i.e. Spaceship Earth visible from far away and not blocked by say a garage)
• (Admittedly, this is my opinion) Some guests may view the tram ride from the lot to the park as the start and end of a Disney visit, thus Disney sees the nostalgia value in keeping that.

If Universal chooses to go with a surface lot, so be it. But I just don't see how that's a feasible start/use of this land.