Universal's New Park/Site B Blue Sky Thread | Page 198 | Inside Universal Forums

Universal's New Park/Site B Blue Sky Thread

  • 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
Not open for further replies.
Building 2 smaller parks could be the same as building 1 large park from a financial standpoint.

I think Universal regrets not being able to charge for Potter as a 3rd gate. But with no entrance without going through the other parks, they can't do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: happy bunny rabbit
Cedar Point, Epcot, and three Six Flags are 300 acres and larger yet all aren't that expensive so....
This is what I get for typing while walking around Islands of Adventure. I was thinking 200 acres is being packed with the equivalent of Islands of Adventure and Universal Studios. Epcot is the only thing close and Disney admits it never would have been built without sponsorship.

Admittedly I did not know those parks were that big.
 
  • Like
Reactions: happy bunny rabbit
Building 2 smaller parks could be the same as building 1 large park from a financial standpoint.

I think Universal regrets not being able to charge for Potter as a 3rd gate. But with no entrance without going through the other parks, they can't do it.
Do they really think that?

There are tons of people who go to universal primarily for potter, and if it was in its own park a lot of those people would be just be buying single park tickets rather than the current hoppers that force them to buy access to the rest of the resort as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: happy bunny rabbit
Do they really think that?

There are tons of people who go to universal primarily for potter, and if it was in its own park a lot of those people would be just be buying single park tickets rather than the current hoppers that force them to buy access to the rest of the resort as well.

Yea. Universal in no way regrets splitting Potter between the two parks.

I think the only thing they might regret is not building a dedicated Poter boutique hotel
 
flat,800x800,070,f.u2.jpg

giphy.gif

I’m mostly just guessing on that fwiw. Outside of SNW, anything I know about Park 3 is nebulous. I just don’t see an outside property having the majority of a new park.

I think what we should expect is a significantly reworked layout of the Kidzone Plans, but with an additional attraction (Bullet Bills or Luigi's Mansion) added, and that the major changes for Orlando comes for infastructure, allowing more people into that land.

Bullet Bills was kinda similar to Yoshi, so idk if that would come back into the plans
 
I’m mostly just guessing on that fwiw. Outside of SNW, anything I know about Park 3 is nebulous. I just don’t see an outside property having the majority of a new park.



Bullet Bills was kinda similar to Yoshi, so idk if that would come back into the plans

You could argue the same for the Suspended Bowser Airship attraction in that degree though, albeit a bit more different as it acted as the spectator seat for Mario Kart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tankart150
I think any new gate(s) will take into consideration the demographic shift that Mad dog so astutely posted.
 
I don’t think it will be relatively Nintendo heavy either

That makes sense. The parks now aren't exactly Potter heavy and that's their cashcow. Don't want to put off people who aren't fans of Nintendo or overload them with too much Nintendo (not quite the same but like how people can say there's too many screens, people might say there's too much Nintendo and want more variety.) Plus if it's all Nintendo or Nintendo-heavy, where the heck do they go from there if they want to expand or add new Nintendo attractions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: happy bunny rabbit
Guys, under the most aggressive formats for the south resort, there's around ~325-340 acres maximum for 2 dry parks, 1 water park, and CityWalk.

It's tough to imagine either dry park being allocated 200 acres.

Even a 110-120 acre park with a better layout will feel 20-25% larger than USF or IoA.
 
Guys, under the most aggressive formats for the south resort, there's around ~325-340 acres maximum for 2 dry parks, 1 water park, and CityWalk.

It's tough to imagine either dry park being allocated 200 acres.

Even a 110-120 acre park with a better layout will feel 20-25% larger than USF or IoA.
That is a safe size for a new park..

I hear they wanted to go MK style large with the park...Not sure what that means, but less than 200 is doable


Something not mentioned by anyone, I would love to see this park have significant green space and shading..Seems IOA is absent of such areas and USF only has one shady walkway

Just a thought
 
Status
Not open for further replies.