The Hollywood merch also says to be continued, as both resorts will continue to add new offerings -or- your epic vacations to the resorts will also the continued. Take your pick.
Universal Orlando Resort Expansion News (Part 2)
- Thread starter Brian G.
- 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
- Mar 1, 2017
- 769
- 1,302
I'm starting to feel fairly pessimistic about whether a fourth dry park is actually in Universal's mid to long range plans.
In the context of theme park resorts, they actually don't have that much land suitable for building, especially once roads (Kirkman and internal), future parking, and the planned massive backstage area are taken into account.
The proposed infrastructure plans leave just enough space where the parking lot is for another dry park, but that would leave no room for a water park or directly connected hotels. This isn't a huge issue - hotels can easily be done on disconnected parcels, except that if they want to have enough hotel rooms to support four dry parks they will need more land, and they have publicly shown no initiative of the sort, letting options like the large Artegon Mall site pass them by.
The seeming lack of concern for additional land acquisition makes much more sense if they intend for the remaining 80-90 acres of the new resort to just be a water park and a couple of hotels. One less dry park lowers the number of rooms needed to have a balanced resort, and getting more hotel rooms in the contiguous area means that they will likely be able to fit most of the remaining rooms needed on land they already own.
I know that insiders have spoke of 4 parks being the long term vision, but looking at universal's recent actions I'm not seeing a whole lot that supports that theory, at least on this land.
In the context of theme park resorts, they actually don't have that much land suitable for building, especially once roads (Kirkman and internal), future parking, and the planned massive backstage area are taken into account.
The proposed infrastructure plans leave just enough space where the parking lot is for another dry park, but that would leave no room for a water park or directly connected hotels. This isn't a huge issue - hotels can easily be done on disconnected parcels, except that if they want to have enough hotel rooms to support four dry parks they will need more land, and they have publicly shown no initiative of the sort, letting options like the large Artegon Mall site pass them by.
The seeming lack of concern for additional land acquisition makes much more sense if they intend for the remaining 80-90 acres of the new resort to just be a water park and a couple of hotels. One less dry park lowers the number of rooms needed to have a balanced resort, and getting more hotel rooms in the contiguous area means that they will likely be able to fit most of the remaining rooms needed on land they already own.
I know that insiders have spoke of 4 parks being the long term vision, but looking at universal's recent actions I'm not seeing a whole lot that supports that theory, at least on this land.
I agree with you. That's why I've always said a 4th dry park, if there ever will even be one, is so far into the future it's not worth discussing. Heck, Disney's always had issues trying to have enough attractions for 4 dry parks. In reality they probably only have enough attractions for a good three dry parks. I've never thought four dry parks for Universal was a feasible idea, at least at this point in time. Three may well be the 'perfect number'.
- Apr 1, 2013
- 1,653
- 875
I don't think the company knows that far out at this point. It seems that's why they're trying to keep it flexible. It'll start with the park, some shops and restaurants, and a hotel or two. It depends on how all that goes to see where they go next, in the mean time they'll need to continue improving the existing parks. But it does make sense they'll want to put hotels along the perimeter near the lakes. That shrinks the space even more so, it could end up being just another waterpark and possibly smaller separately ticketed attractions like shows or some sort of interactive experiences.
- Feb 15, 2012
- 17,522
- 48,492
Tired: 4th Universal dry park
Wired: 5th Universal dry park
Wired: 5th Universal dry park
- Jul 27, 2015
- 10,034
- 50,461
A 4th dry park wouldn’t begin physical development until 10 years the opening of P4rk at the earliest. It’s more likely to be 15-20 years down the road.
So much can change between now and then.
So much can change between now and then.
- Mar 1, 2017
- 769
- 1,302
I think what I'm trying to say is that they are not keeping it flexible. They're inefficiently using the land they have, and they aren't aggressively trying to get other available land in the area, something which would be necessary to support a resort with 4 dry parks.
I did a quick google earth overlay and measure, and found that the new surface lot plus the open space to its east and southeast (not including ponds) is 105 acres. Assuming near perfect utilization of space, at best that could fit a dry park and a small hotel (<1000 rooms). If there is no 4th dry park, those 105 acres could fit a small Citywalk 2.0 expansion, a true water theme park (i.e. VB + raft ride, log flume, splash battle, boat dark ride, etc.), and a couple of directly connected hotels with at least 1000 rooms each.
I'm inclined to think the former is less likely than the latter.
- Feb 15, 2012
- 17,522
- 48,492
To put it another way: Universal is focusing on making the third park the best it can be for 2022.
The amount of things that can change and start between opening FW and a hypothetical fourth park is monumental. Look how much changed and started since IOA was being built that is now being added to the parks: Harry Potter, F&F, Pokemon, etc.
Discussing a fourth park at this point is putting the cart so far ahead of the horse you’ve run over said horse and the next mile of travelers ahead of you.
Yeah, space starts to become a major issue if they aren't going to be as aggressive about finding nearby lots for hotel space.
The conclusion though is still pretty simple; if a 4th dry park isn't in the long-term plans for the current land, then it's probably planned for Lockheed Martin's land if they ever leave.
I'm perfectly okay with that even though it probably means that a 4th dry park is going to have to be discussed in 20-30 year terms.
I’m in the camp that says the fourth dry park will be located where SeaWorld Orlando currently sits. That place is done for if the third park is anywhere near as good as what people think it will be.
Aquatica will be absorbed into Universal’s water parks and Discovery Cove could remain as is if Universal is willing to keep it going to boost their offerings.
Aquatica will be absorbed into Universal’s water parks and Discovery Cove could remain as is if Universal is willing to keep it going to boost their offerings.
- Mar 1, 2017
- 769
- 1,302
I do think they will pick up the 2 Universal Blvd parcels in the next couple of years, but I wouldn't be willing to bet on much else.
I also have no issue with them not master planning for a 4th dry park, but it absolutely changes the context of long term expansion discussions. Very likely the only paths that will remain are spending a billion dollars to buy out Lockheed or Seaworld in 20 or so years. The odds of a 4th dry park happening won't be much different than the odds of Fantastic Worlds happening were ~10 years ago after this land was sold off in the pre-Comcast era.
I agree that speculating on theme or design details of a hypothetical fourth dry park is running over your horse, but the points I was trying to raise are part of a much broader resort wide design context. In 20 years, if they don't have at least 75 well located acres to build on, it really won't matter whether or not they would even want a fourth dry park.
If Universal wants to have not just the best possible third park but the best resort possible come ~2025, then the decisions are easy: use up all of the contiguous land they have to build a water park and string of nice deluxe hotels with another water taxi system to replicate the connected feel of the current resort. But if they then decide that they do want another dry park, they will be stuck in a situation similar to where Disneyland is today because they simply won't have to land to do so, and acquiring additional land will probably be much more difficult than it is today.
How they choose to allocate the east portion of the new resort will be the difference between being in a Disneyland type situation where they have demand for a new park but are waiting on land or a Disney World type situation where they have land and are waiting on demand.
This is very likely the biggest master planning decision that they need to make (hopefully have made) for site B. It will completely define the long term expansion possibilities they have.
I think there is enough room for a 4th park but I think we have to image a very different layout that what we are expecting it to be.
Anything I've heard about a 4th park was going to be small - so either another water park or a small niche-type park. Their big plans were always for the next one.
Seaworld isn't going anywhere, judging by the attendance growth and the new additions. It's also the only major thrill-park in Orlando.
Another water park makes the most sense. I'm sure the new park will be built with plenty of expansion pads left open and VB needs relief. As @Joe said, who knows if Lockheed will be here still in 20+ years so maybe a park can go there eventually, but in the here and now I think a third dry park and 2nd water park would make the most sense.
I think three is sort of a magic number for the number of dry parks though anyway. Disney would be much better off (and healthier) if they only had three parks... MGM/DHS was a mistake from the beginning and was only built to compete with Universal. DAK was a far better designed/planned park.
I hold Universal in high regard and am positive that there is a master plan for the whole new plot of land. If they decided on 1 dry, 1 wet and hotels or 2 dry, 1 wet and hotels will be seen.
From Disney I remember a time they where thinking about a boutique park. One time there was talk about a Myst park on Discovery Island. But as we know those ideas never materialized. Now Disney is venturing in a sort of theme park experience/ cruise/ hotel hybrid with their Star Wars hotel. It does it's job on a boutique style way with (probably) a very high return on investment on a small plot of land. Sure it's not a theme park but I think these kind of additions to a resort will result in extra days of stay without the investment in another traditional theme park.
From Disney I remember a time they where thinking about a boutique park. One time there was talk about a Myst park on Discovery Island. But as we know those ideas never materialized. Now Disney is venturing in a sort of theme park experience/ cruise/ hotel hybrid with their Star Wars hotel. It does it's job on a boutique style way with (probably) a very high return on investment on a small plot of land. Sure it's not a theme park but I think these kind of additions to a resort will result in extra days of stay without the investment in another traditional theme park.
- Apr 1, 2013
- 1,653
- 875
By flexible I mean they have ideas of what can go in those spots with contingency plans, it's not set in stone. If they don't fill the east with hotels there would still be enough space for another dry park, with several plots for hotels elsewhere. The idea that they're not being aggressive enough to buy land they may not need for 10, 20, or 30 years is silly. We don't even know how aggressive they're being because this happens in secret. It's good to have more land for the future but it's not good to drive up their prices.
They were lucky to get this land back before it was further broken up. That Kirkman extension was planed either way, but now it's customized for Universal's needs. The cross street provides connectivity to the resort. To the west of the main intersection are disconnected plots, but they should still feel on-property with that road. Heck a water park could go on Universal Blvd. Right now we need to wait for more clues but I don't think the plan is to have 8-9 hotels with just one park.
They were lucky to get this land back before it was further broken up. That Kirkman extension was planed either way, but now it's customized for Universal's needs. The cross street provides connectivity to the resort. To the west of the main intersection are disconnected plots, but they should still feel on-property with that road. Heck a water park could go on Universal Blvd. Right now we need to wait for more clues but I don't think the plan is to have 8-9 hotels with just one park.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised that if they ever do a 4th dry park and there's only around 40-50 acres left, then they may go the route of just making a smaller 4th dry park like Warner Movie World in Abu Dhabi.
We had discussed that earlier, some kind of smaller joint park with WB as a small 4th dry park option. To me that is possibly still on the table post-2028 when Warner renegotiates its agreement with 6 Flags (to make the agreement non-exclusive).
Either way, I'm not too worried about it, there's still options down the road even if they don't appear too likely in the near-term. The ultimate priority right now is to get the 3rd dry park up and rolling and maximizing the 3 dry park resort.
4th dry park is really a discussion for 2028 after we see all 3 dry parks thriving with 10 million+ attendance each. That's when we can really discuss what the possibilities are; I'm sure Universal has thought this through thoroughly.
- Status
Book with our Travel Partners
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Halloween Horror Nights 33 (UOR) - News & Information- Latest: Lucky Planet
-
