Apparently the structure plans are coming soon, not yet filed.
Unless someone has crossed wires...
Unless someone has crossed wires...
Universal's New Park/Site B Blue Sky Thread
- Thread starter OrlandoGuy
- 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
Yeah, this is to be a giant slab of temporary asphalt... I would think this is what you heard about... perhaps it is parking for workers to build a parking garage in the future?
Yeah, this is to be a giant slab of temporary asphalt... I would think this is what you heard about... perhaps it is parking for workers to build a parking garage in the future?
Funny enough, I was going to ask if that'd be a possibility.
In a question, would I be wise to assume that once work begins, the main focus for the next year will be on infastructure?
I get what you are saying, but I have to believe they have a good idea for some hotels and where a City Walk would be...I just keep think OCCC is right there and that could be an audience you could accommodate in less time than it takes to build a gate....but I really do not know.
oh, and being sent surveys (that I can't/won't talk about....it is funny to me to here what some folks say about surveys...but w/ these things, I am just amazed at how well they try to get to know me before the decide which direction to send me in these things...they are really trying to understand segments.
Makes sense with the Thomas mediation scheduled for November.
- Aug 13, 2009
- 271
- 257
This would allow them to make money on the property ASAP. Between I-Drive and the Convention Center, there’s enough interest for a hotel rooms. A hotel (or multiple ones) could be a build-out like Cabana Bay, opening in phases with a lobby and a few hundred rooms at the onset. When you open the park, you could add-on or hold off on adding more, accordingly.
If this land could hold a new park, new CityWalk, multiple hotels, etc... I don’t expect them all to open at the same time. That might be stretching yourself too thin. This land will have e active construction on it for a decade to come, unless there’s another economic slowdown or something. In the short-term, they might as well open hotels that can start making up ROI for the property as a whole. Otherwise... it’s just sitting costing money in taxes without generating revenue.
Last edited:
The master plan will probably be adaptable to future expansion. What I mean by that is, nobody should view the 475 acres or theme park #4 as the "end game" for the 2nd resort. This is just the beginning as long as everything hits targets and the market continues to show growth. Land availability and growth permitting, there's no reason why this can't be the start of a full 2nd resort with up to 3 parks (2 dry, 1 water) + 2nd CityWalk + 15,000 hotel rooms. It all comes down to how things come together.
That's why even the first part (theme park #4, 2nd City Walk, 2-3 hotels) will be built with future expansion in mind. There will be expansion plots and whatnot all left open around the property to connect to future land purchases.
Most likely though, those 2 parcels of 15-20 acres each off Universal Blvd. and next to the Lockheed property will be built as hotels first even before the next park is finished. I could see those being completed a year or two before the next park is opened.
Great points, but I imagine there are a lot of maybes in ROI. I assume the taxes are less on undeveloped land. Even thinking about parking spots now as opposed to a garage...see, I have read that UOR has disagreements over the value of their current garage complex...since the property appraiser has nothing to compare it to....I guess it is too fancy with moving sidewalks and all, it appears they’ve really jacked up the value of the garage which really drives up the tax revenue....
Just a couple of thoughts. 1) with the continual loss of cable subscribers, Comcast might be looking at an even larger footprint in the theme park marketplace...2) Comcast might be convinced Sea World Orlando won't survive much longer. That's 4 million or so attendance clicks to grab.
If SeaWorld closes, most of those guests are already Disney and Universal guests. They might gain a day from some of them. So once you start whittling down in terms of turnstile clicks the effect should be pretty negligible. However, it would not be good news for that entire area of the city. Those hotels would lack a destination and they don't offer amenities worth their price points.
Also, the way large elevated ponds/pools with glass walls keep showing up in Epcot concept art there's a notion Disney might be interested in rehousing some of the refugees.
- Mar 1, 2017
- 769
- 1,302
The temporary parking lot plans they filed call for it to be built with lights on wooden utility poles and surrounded by an 8 foot chain link fence so I don't think it's ever going to be used for guests. I would be incredibly surprised if they filed plans for a large parking structure or hotel on the main section of new land while the lawsuit was still pending because it wouldn't help their negotiating position and could provoke further legal action from Stan. Personally, I don't expect any of the new hotels to open more than a few months before a new park because it would probably require them having their transportation system figured out by then so guests can get to the north parks, and I don't think they want to be in the business of supporting I-drive or just shuttling people to conventions.
Not all of the 475 acres they already acquired is necessarily usable, and there really isn't that much surrounding land for them to buy that they can build on. The only possibility is the land still owned by Stan Thomas and if they don't secure that in the next year they probably never will, because it would mean he is going to do something with it or has sold it to someone else. Even if they do get that land I think it's only 100-150 acres of it that they could practically build on after you exclude drainage ponds and road right of way. It would get them a contiguous 500 acre chuck to build parks on and a 60 acre section to the west for hotels. It would still require highly effective long term planning and use of space if they want to be able to fit 2 small them parks, 1 water park, a city walk and parking garages, and maybe 4-6 hotels(10k rooms?). It they are unsuccessful in purchasing land then we are probably looking at a max of 2 gates, and a couple less hotels. I would argue that outside of the Stan Thomas land there will be no available land to purchase in the near future and leaving empty spaces to connect to would be quite dumb.
Not all of the 475 acres they already acquired is necessarily usable, and there really isn't that much surrounding land for them to buy that they can build on. The only possibility is the land still owned by Stan Thomas and if they don't secure that in the next year they probably never will, because it would mean he is going to do something with it or has sold it to someone else. Even if they do get that land I think it's only 100-150 acres of it that they could practically build on after you exclude drainage ponds and road right of way. It would get them a contiguous 500 acre chuck to build parks on and a 60 acre section to the west for hotels. It would still require highly effective long term planning and use of space if they want to be able to fit 2 small them parks, 1 water park, a city walk and parking garages, and maybe 4-6 hotels(10k rooms?). It they are unsuccessful in purchasing land then we are probably looking at a max of 2 gates, and a couple less hotels. I would argue that outside of the Stan Thomas land there will be no available land to purchase in the near future and leaving empty spaces to connect to would be quite dumb.
Eh, sorta. Bonnett Creek hotels at Disney are not there because Disney wants them there. They're there because one owner wouldn't sell so Disney built up around them and then used their private ownership of RCID to not build a road to the land. The original owners sold to the hotel companies, Disney lost a legal battle and had to build the road, but the concession they won being if they had to build the road the hotels had to follow RCID rules for appearance and building standards.
That land is useless without Universal building on it. My bet is the moment Universal starts to build anything the seller gives it to outside hotel companies for a pretty penny and the whole point is moot.
The Bonnet Creek thing did create my favorite example of Corporate Pettiness. Disney put up regular street signs for Bonnet Creek because it had to. They refused to put up Disney purple wayfinder signs. After many snafus with lost guests and subsequent complaints, they put up one sign for each direction that is a faux-Disney wayfinder but the colors are wrong.
The 2nd resort is likely to be developed over a multi-decade term, and the land situation is a bit different from the situation of the main resort which is more enclosed. There's other parcels (for example the one directly north of the new land) which are undeveloped, though I don't know who owns that one.
I think that it'll be developed in a way that allows for future growth if other undeveloped properties (or even developed properties) come up for sale. What I mean by that is to design the 4th park (and CityWalk) in such a way that there's a route to a 2nd large dry park depending on what happens down the road in the 2030s.
I don't think you have to necessarily limit anything to achieve that.
What are the long term odds of the actual Lockheed land being purchasable? Is that their primary facility? My thought would be that once Uni develops all of their land, Lockheed could probably buy and build somewhere else for what they could sell that land for.
Somewhat low in the next 10-15 years given that the Lockheed plant next to the Universal land is a major MFC (Missile and Fire Control) plant and received new contracts recently for new sets of a air strike missiles; that plant also works on the F-35's targeting system.
I don't actually think it's likely that they move anytime soon given that they've actually moved more people to Central Florida recently (they do have other locations around Central Florida), but in the longer term (20 years out), who knows.
You do bring up a good point though: when Universal has at least built the 3rd dry park/2nd City Walk/multiple hotels, there will be a dramatic increase in traffic around the area as well as an increase in the value of that land.
That Lockheed plant's land would probably be worth the value of building an entirely new facility further to the east. It'd come down to them needing to overhaul or renovate and deciding to move out and build something entirely new with Comcast providing the $ to make it plausible.
Last edited:
- Jul 19, 2017
- 18
- 32
What makes you say that? If that's true, then I'll be as excited as a kid during Christmas morning.
- Status
