I've been waiting for one of those top open at CityWalk or Dis Springs..They are popular, a little pricey thoughYes. Top Golf. Basically the Splitsville of driving ranges. 9295 Universal Blvd.
I've been waiting for one of those top open at CityWalk or Dis Springs..They are popular, a little pricey thoughYes. Top Golf. Basically the Splitsville of driving ranges. 9295 Universal Blvd.
As I don't know if this is for the USF Project, Dragon's, or even Site B; so I am going to leave this here.
In the corner by DC there is a trailer and it looks like a row of something that may be kerosene tanks. Hard to tell from Google maps. Not sure if that is where @epcyclopedia i talking about or not. I wish Nearmap was still accessible...
Naw, there's no real mechanism to withdraw from the contract for that reason, especially if the offending DC Land is in a separate park (the new one).With regards to the DC rights, could Marvel say that it's a conflict of interest and use that as a reason to pull the rights with Uni seeing as DC and Marvel are both rivals.
Naw, there's no real mechanism to withdraw from the contract for that reason, especially if the offending DC Land is in a separate park (the new one).
I'd keep an eye on it in a few years; at some point the Warner-Six Flags agreements will come up to renegotiation; there's at least a small chance that Universal (or who knows maybe Legoland) could talk to them about building out a Florida exemption from the Six Flag's US DC rights.
I think it's worth Universal setting aside some expansion land for specifically in the new park. Set aside a large land's worth of acreage and show it to Warner and tell them you'd build them Metropolis/Gotham etc. I think they'd bite on that if it's a significant enough opportunity (which it would be).
Heck, Warner would make more money on just a DC Land in the new park than they probably do from all their Six Flags' US DC rights... That alone is a reason for carving Florida out in the next agreement and working with Universal.
I don't think it'd sour Universal because we're talking about the context of a new Orlando park, and it's more like Universal needs more content in Orlando given its future size (feeding 3 full dry theme parks and possibly a 4th way down the road if a 2nd full resort is built).Would Uni be interested in only the Florida rights to DC though? If it was any kind of success(and why do it at all if you don't think it would be), they'd want to port it to USH as well. I can't imagine SF would agree to terms that would allow that with SFMM just up the road. So if they knew it was limited to Florida only, would that sour Uni on it?
Site B is close enough to SeaWorld that once they're bankrupt Uni can buy that land for a 4th park.I don't think it'd sour Universal because we're talking about the context of a new Orlando park, and it's more like Universal needs more content in Orlando given its future size (feeding 3 full dry theme parks and possibly a 4th way down the road if a 2nd full resort is built).
It's more similar to Pandora-Disney than WWoHP in that respect; Orlando needs extra content that doesn't necessarily have to appear elsewhere, so I think Universal would consider a Florida-only package (as would Legoland or anybody else involved).
If Universal were to hold one of its future expansion lands (say 12-15 acres) on the new park in waiting for a DC Land, I think it makes too much sense for both sides. An Orlando DC Land could probably prove as lucrative as current Six Flags-Warner contract is for Warner. And it'd be a great flag marker to make a new DC Land the main attraction in Orlando vis-a-vis Marvel which is sort of tied down by the Disney-Universal rivalry.
This. PleaseSite B is close enough to SeaWorld that once they're bankrupt Uni can buy that land for a 4th park.
Why not just build two parks on Site B and if they wanted to purchase SW, close SW and use that land for something else while keeping Discovery Cove and Aquatica open as those are the best assets there along with land. The actual park is barely worth it at this point.Site B is close enough to SeaWorld that once they're bankrupt Uni can buy that land for a 4th park.
Why not just build two parks on Site B and if they wanted to purchase SW, close SW and use that land for something else while keeping Discovery Cove and Aquatica open as those are the best assets there along with land. The actual park is barely worth it at this point.
Depending on the price they could get it for of course.