Welcome to the Inside Universal Forums! Register a free account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members and unlock our forums features!
I'd have to double check the map that RCID has for this topic, but if I remember right, the majority of the available, contiguous land is either conservation/wetlands, or unsuitable to build on. There are pockets of suitable land, and a few larger plots, but for the most part I wouldn't expect any major projects outside of currently built up areas. The wetlands may be suitable to build, but they would also have to mitigate the loss with designation of other wetlands equal or greater to what they reclassify to build on elsewhere.
^^Discard any notion of a fifth park in the Orlando area. Logistically and monetarily it makes absolutely no sense and in the long run would continue to prove that Disney is truly only after our money and not our hearts. Universal shouldn't build a third gate because they haven't perfected their first two. Disney is the same.
There will always be more stuff built on Disney property, just probably not another theme park (at least for a LONG time).
One thing people forget (and Disney never mentions or glosses over) is that of the 43 square miles of land they originally purchased, a fairly large portion has been parceled off. Celebration, Golden Oak and several other private developments have cut into that number in a big way over time. They had to legally remove those developments from the official Disney/Reedy Creek area so the owners have no voting rights in the Reedy Creek Improvement District. My understanding is there are sixteen houses on Disney/Reedy Creek property that they control who lives in so they control the votes and never have any problems getting approval from Reedy Creek (even though technically it is a separate entity from Disney). Eight of the houses are in the Orange County side of the property and eight are in the Osceola side of the property.
The land for Celebration and Golden Oak both equal several square miles no longer owned by Disney.
I just am not under the impression that all of WDW was meant to be developed. The whole point of buying so much land was to make the community Walt proposed sanctioned off from the real world in a way...meaning there were going to be swamps and other unusable land tracts but as long as it kept up the immersion factor, it was doing its job. As it is now, every property is surrounded by enough Disney-owned land that guests feel immersed in the resort and I think thats the ultimate goal (rather than to build on everything). Also, I think the spacing between properties is just right now with the four parks and 28 hotels there now, seeing as traffic on property is usually pretty manageable.
Screamscape came up with his possible location for a 5th park. http://www.screamscape.com/html/walt_disney_world_resort.htm#WesternWay
I'm all for more parks but 3 out of 4 are in need of extensive help. Two even need a cohesive theme.
Epcot is a sad mass, DHS is in dire need of attractions, new shows and an update and AK is even with 2 rides and an additional evening show in need of more stuff to do.
So lets hope there is no 5th gate going to be build.
LOL - Yeah there is no way they add a 5th park any time in the near future. They know they can't keep up with 4 parks, Disney is not stupid. Sure they may seem like it at times, but they are not about to throw a ton of money at a 5th gate when they have two parks right now that in the next 5 years are going to go thru major expansions and a 3rd park that needs to go thru a major expansion, while the 4th just finished a major expansion.
Wow...a 5th park? i just don't see how this is possible. Is WDO really going to throw millions of dollars at a new park, when they Run their current parks at a shoe string compared? Plus what would they even theme it? The only theme I can think of would be some sort of roller coaster centric park, based around their recent movie studio acquisitions..but those are already planned to be represented in MGM/WDS...or whatever it will be called.
Building a 5th park, just to sell some time shares/real estate doesn't seem plausible to me, possibly they will build a downtown Disney Lite out there. But a new theme park...that's actually pretty
Far from the main drag
also wouldn't make sense since it would be subject to development around it (like Disneyland was) rather than in the middle of the property where it would be protected. More likely it was purchased as an environmental offset to allow for more construction on the main property at some point.
"I'll throw this out here, what's 'beat attendance'? TEA numbers? Internal numbers? How many people go there to spend a day vs going there for festivals? It's such a meaningless statistic, like how many megapixels are in a digital camera."
The wishful thinking in me says internally while the realistic thinking says TEA. Iger needs to go first though.
Just saw this thread for the first time. Flamingo Crossings always was an oddball. It's in the middle of nowhere and had a ton of infrastructure built to support it. Unless they scrap all of it, I imagine they'll be more development out there in the coming years.