Universal Orlando Resort Expansion (Part 1)

[Orlandofan12]

@ParkRumors original post showed “maximum allowed building height 400 feet” - that’s twice ToT or more than twice Aventura! Unless “building” is a verb and thus relates to crane height!?

Realistically though, the height restriction is 200 ft due to FAA regulation on lighting beacons. Any structure taller than 200 ft requires a lighting beacon.

For this reason, Expedition Everest, Tower of Terror, and Krakatau are 199 feet.

 

[OLSinFLA]

Realistically though, the height restriction is 200 ft due to FAA regulation on lighting beacons. Any structure taller than 200 ft requires a lighting beacon.

For this reason, Expedition Everest, Tower of Terror, and Krakatau are 199 feet.

"Restriction" means they cannot go over 4300 feet, beacons or not.

 

[Mad Dog]

I'd guess they're going to take advantage of the 400' height, even if they need to put a beacon up, since, if we recall correctly, they kind of manipulated the vote in a Machavellian way so that standard lobbied for by another developer, would be adopted, and they too could use it.

 

[Orlandofan12]

I'd guess they're going to take advantage of the 400' height, even if they need to put a beacon up, since, if we recall correctly, they kind of manipulated the vote in a Machavellian way so that standard lobbied for by another developer, would be adopted, and they too could use it.

Eh, I'd seriously doubt it...

For a few reasons: it'd throw off the force perspective, they'd have to make sure that the beacon was in theme, and thin metal rods with a red light on top are just ugly.

Maybe just for a hotel, but in the park? Very slim chance.

 

[Mad Dog]

Eh, I'd seriously doubt it...

For a few reasons: it'd throw off the force perspective, they'd have to make sure that the beacon was in theme, and thin metal rods with a red light on top are just ugly.

Maybe just for a hotel, but in the park? Very slim chance.

Primarily hotels and/or a park weenie.

 

[OLSinFLA]

Eh, I'd seriously doubt it...

For a few reasons: it'd throw off the force perspective, they'd have to make sure that the beacon was in theme, and thin metal rods with a red light on top are just ugly.

Maybe just for a hotel, but in the park? Very slim chance.

You mean like the fake ones on The Hulk?

 

[Frank Drackman]

Realistically though, the height restriction is 200 ft due to FAA regulation on lighting beacons. Any structure taller than 200 ft requires a lighting beacon.

For this reason, Expedition Everest, Tower of Terror, and Krakatau are 199 feet.

But Everest is in the middle of nowhere.

I recall reading some FAA stuff when UoR was building VB, my take on what I read was that there was room for common sense.

What I mean by this is that one MIGHT not need a beacon at 200 feet if there were other tall structures around that would make it unlikely for a flight to be flying that low in the area.

 

[Scott W.]

Eh, I'd seriously doubt it...

For a few reasons: it'd throw off the force perspective, they'd have to make sure that the beacon was in theme, and thin metal rods with a red light on top are just ugly.

Maybe just for a hotel, but in the park? Very slim chance.

It wouldn’t be that difficult to theme around it.

Hell, they could have built the volcano at VB way taller than 200ft if they wanted. A red light at the top could be lava spewing out and it’s barely open after the sun goes down anyway, so it’s a non issue.

 

[s8film40]

Eh, I'd seriously doubt it...

For a few reasons: it'd throw off the force perspective, they'd have to make sure that the beacon was in theme, and thin metal rods with a red light on top are just ugly.

Maybe just for a hotel, but in the park? Very slim chance.

It all depends on what they’re building and if a beacon fits with it. Epcot had a 200’+ icon for quite some time. I wasn’t a fan of it, but it worked and the beacon didn’t detract from it.

 

[brianlo]

After looking at the road plans in-depth, I've picked up a few details I think may have an impact on the layout of the resort.

1. Their is no bus lane on the main east-west road except for the portion from the circular ramp to the first intersection. This I assume is because buses will turn left/North onto that intersection where there will be some sort of bus loop / transportation center.
2. If parking was planned to be on the south side of the main east-west road then I would think the main circle ramp would not direct cars back into the middle of the road. It would instead keep to the southernmost side of the eastern portion and possible have a dedicated lane to garages. To get cars to cross over 2 or 3 lanes of traffic in such a short time would be a nightmare.

Also, I wanted to share my first blue sky draft of the resort's layout if there were 2 garages on the north side of that road.
Now I know that this won't happen but it's just a thought. Keep in mind that those 2 large retention ponds on the southeast side of the resort can always be moved around more to create space for a potential second park, water-park, and hotel. Additionally, each of those hotel plots are HUGE and can easily fit 2000 rooms each, they can also be split up into more hotels too.
P.S. This is draft number one, going back to the drawing board after I post this

You might want to double check the acreage on that, adding the hotel North of park one actually would make that park on the small end by Orlando standards. Park 2's plot is too tiny for a dry theme park.

 

[Brian G.]

We're going to go ahead and lock this thread to create a part 2.

Universal Orlando Resort Expansion (Part 2) | Inside Universal Forums