DisneyForward Expansion Project

[fryoj]

So Disney sold the city on these expansions as expansions of the existing parks and not a third gate, but now that it's approved, the expansion is actually going to be a third gate?

lol that's just awesome

 

[Jake S]

So Disney sold the city on these expansions as expansions of the existing parks and not a third gate, but now that it's approved, the expansion is actually going to be a third gate?

That's not my understanding of how Disney sold this project to the city at all.

 

[Michael S]

Yeah, it's the area I've got circled on the map. I'd love to see them expand the monorail, but that is almost certainly a pipe dream.

Gotcha, thanks.

Yeah, so the Simba lot @Freak would be logistically more difficult to build in than Hollywoodland.

You’ve got to remember that a slab of asphalt doesn’t mean it’s easy to build things.

You have to install electrical, plumbing, garbage collection, reroute Disney Way, find/build new parking to accommodate the loss of thousands of spaces.

Technically, demoing part of a park is easier. A lot of the utilities are already in place to build off of.

Edit:

So Disney sold the city on these expansions as expansions of the existing parks and not a third gate, but now that it's approved, the expansion is actually going to be a third gate?

lol that's just awesome

That’s not what they sold the city on. They sold the city on new theme park space so that that area could be zoned accordingly. They can expand or build a new park. It was all about zoning.

Also, don’t be so quick to believe that rumor. It really doesn’t sound like it’s substantiated, and doesn’t make a whole lot of logistical sense.

 

[DarkMetroid567]

A 3rd gate when they have multiple areas to update/expand in the current parks? Most of DL's capacity issues can be addressed with a proper enhancement of Tomorrowland.

To be fair this was/is also true for WDW and UOR. And Disneyland does have stronger attendance than the latter…

 

[TheUniC6]

Gotcha, thanks.

Yeah, so the Simba lot @Freak would be logistically more difficult to build in than Hollywoodland.

You’ve got to remember that a slab of asphalt doesn’t mean it’s easy to build things.

You have to install electrical, plumbing, garbage collection, reroute Disney Way, find/build new parking to accommodate the loss of thousands of spaces.

Technically, demoing part of a park is easier. A lot of the utilities are already in place to build off of.

Edit:



That’s not what they sold the city on. They sold the city on new theme park space so that that area could be zoned accordingly. They can expand or build a new park. It was all about zoning.

Also, don’t be so quick to believe that rumor. It really doesn’t sound like it’s substantiated, and doesn’t make a whole lot of logistical sense.

I should have said this earlier, but I think another factor for Avatar being strongly rumored for HL might be due to James Cameron himself. Cameron is heavily involved in this new Avatar land like he was for the original in DAK. Perhaps he had objections to the Pixar Place Hotel looming over the land if it went into the Simba lot.

 

[UniversalRBLX]

to the extent disneyland has any capacity issues, they could be sorted by actually refurbishing all the attractions in the park. california adventure... yeah, that's another story.

There's an entire eastern side of the park begging for an overhaul. A "2-floor" land in Tomorrowland would be a heck of a capacity solution for the park that can include a mini-expansion to Main Street to reduce congestion like Disneyland Paris' arcades.

To be fair this was/is also true for WDW and UOR. And Disneyland does have stronger attendance than the latter…

While I understand the financial reasoning behind additional gates in Florida, Disneyland Resort struggles to get more than 2-3 nights out of traveling guests, its a locals park and those locals love the original park. DCA barely gets half the attendance of DL. In my eyes, an expansion of Disneyland into Tomorrowland (with powerhouse IPs added to DCA to spread interest between the two) will do a lot of improvement to the guest experience.

Also, a 3rd gate in the Forward area is a heck of a crawl from the eastern gateway if they chose to do so.

 

[Jake S]

There's an entire eastern side of the park begging for an overhaul. A "2-floor" land in Tomorrowland would be a heck of a capacity solution for the park that can include a mini-expansion to Main Street to reduce congestion like Disneyland Paris' arcades.

my point was more that disneyland, of all parks, does not have capacity issues. are there areas that can be maximized or improved? of course. but there's more to do at disneyland than any park in the country. which is why I'd continue to turbocharge california adventure to better even things out.

 

[UniversalRBLX]

my point was more that disneyland, of all parks, does not have capacity issues. are there areas that can be maximized or improved? of course. but there's more to do at disneyland than any park in the country. which is why I'd continue to turbocharge california adventure to better even things out.

Oh I agree from an attraction capacity perspective, but the park itself is filled to the brim on the west side crowd-wise, especially during Fantasmic. It has 6 major E-tickets on the west side (Indy, PotC, HM, Tiana, RotR, BTMR), balanced by only 2 e-tickets (Matterhorn & Space) on the east.

There's no significant/popular restaurants on the eastern side to balance the popularity of places like Tiana's and Blue Bayou. An overhaul of TL with actual useful areas and improved dining can do a lot for DL that DisneyForward won't. DisneyForward would make things worse for the western side of the park.

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

Micechat's been screaming third gate from the rooftops ever since DisneylandForward has been announced, often misrepresenting reputable insider information and Disneyland's own publicly released materials as evidence of these purported "internal plans".

Furthermore, a lot of the "findings" in the article contain evasive language that makes the Coco move seem less like a plan and more like an ambient idea floating around the halls of Imagineering ("shifts" that were "suggested").

Even if their information about Coco moving was correct, there's nothing within their own article to suggest Avatar would be part of a third gate, simply that Coco would be moving to Hollywood Land, which logically, necessitates that Avatar move to the Simba lot.

Which, you know, is the general plan that's been presented to the public for the last three years.

I'm genuinely not sure why they're so insistent on this point other than what seems like a cynical grasp for algorithmic relevancy. Undoubtedly, "DISNEYAND THIRD GATE ANNOUNCED" is much better for SEO than "California Adventure Expansion Plans Altered". And honestly, canceling the full buildout of Avatar in Hollywood land the smaller Coco attraction just raises more issues than it addresses. Honestly, such a move doesn't really make sense to me.

For instance, yes, crowding in Pixar Pier does need to be addressed. But does the Coco/Inside Out corridor of Pixar Pier really have such terrible crowd issues compared to the Incredicoaster/Toy Story corridor ( which they show in the article). No one I know of enjoys lingering in those areas, and, at least from personal experience, we'll often double back towards Lamplight Lounge for a shorter walk on our way to Cars Land or the food court. Wouldn't Coco actually spread people more optimally throughout the Pier given the ingestion of crowds through the new queue?

Additionally, why would you build a brand new Coco ride in a show building next to the decrepit ruins of Hollywoodland? If you're building an Eastern Gateway, why wouldn't you fully utilize the expansion space the bus depot affords you? Sure, if Coco moves to Hollywoodland, we technically maintain more attractions, but we use space less optimally and, more importantly, don't meaningfully address the issues of Hollywoodland because the attractions that remain do not meaningfully address capacity issues at the park.

TLDR: Micechat is crazy, and if they're right, the move doesn't make much sense to me as someone who has visited the park multiple times.

 

[TheUniC6]

Micechat's been screaming third gate from the rooftops ever since DisneylandForward has been announced, often misrepresenting reputable insider information and Disneyland's own publicly released materials as evidence of these purported "internal plans".

Furthermore, a lot of the "findings" in the article contain evasive language that makes the Coco move seem less like a plan and more like an ambient idea floating around the halls of Imagineering ("shifts" that were "suggested").

Even if their information about Coco moving was correct, there's nothing within their own article to suggest Avatar would be part of a third gate, simply that Coco would be moving to Hollywood Land, which logically, necessitates that Avatar move to the Simba lot.

Which, you know, is the general plan that's been presented to the public for the last three years.
View attachment 23778
I'm genuinely not sure why they're so insistent on this point other than what seems like a cynical grasp for algorithmic relevancy. Undoubtedly, "DISNEYAND THIRD GATE ANNOUNCED" is much better for SEO than "California Adventure Expansion Plans Altered". And honestly, canceling the full buildout of Avatar in Hollywood land the smaller Coco attraction just raises more issues than it addresses. Honestly, such a move doesn't really make sense to me.

For instance, yes, crowding in Pixar Pier does need to be addressed. But does the Coco/Inside Out corridor of Pixar Pier really have such terrible crowd issues compared to the Incredicoaster/Toy Story corridor ( which they show in the article). No one I know of enjoys lingering in those areas, and, at least from personal experience, we'll often double back towards Lamplight Lounge for a shorter walk on our way to Cars Land or the food court. Wouldn't Coco actually spread people more optimally throughout the Pier given the ingestion of crowds through the new queue?

Additionally, why would you build a brand new Coco ride in a show building next to the decrepit ruins of Hollywoodland? If you're building an Eastern Gateway, why wouldn't you fully utilize the expansion space the bus depot affords you? Sure, if Coco moves to Hollywoodland, we technically maintain more attractions, but we use space less optimally and, more importantly, don't meaningfully address the issues of Hollywoodland because the attractions that remain do not meaningfully address capacity issues at the park.

TLDR: Micechat is crazy, and if they're right, the move doesn't make much sense to me as someone who has visited the park multiple times.

That's why I think they were just flat out wrong with this update. If you are concerned with overcrowding on the pier, do a virtual queue at the start of Coco opening. The whole point of the EGW was to get the bus hub for DCA expansion. For them to go through all that and not use the bus hub makes no sense.