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
So it sounds like the "Main Street USA" would be open to everyone and you could enter at each land
I think it's an interesting concept as long as there is a way to stay in the park and go to the other lands once inside
Almost if you entered MK right where the castle hub is
I think it's an interesting concept as long as there is a way to stay in the park and go to the other lands once inside
Almost if you entered MK right where the castle hub is
That's a good point, I would like this concept a lot better if there was regular guest flow between the 4 lands still, without having to come back out to the hub every time. I'm one to wander back and forth often during my park visits. Ride MiB, lunch at Finnegan's, back to Gringotts, back to Mummy, all within a 2 hour span. If I had to hop out/in of turnstiles 3/4 times I'd just not do lunch or get frustrated trying to hop between.
They'd still get their public main street/hub, but I wouldn't complain as much. It would essentially be an IOA style loop with a CityWalk in the middle that way.
Again though, pretty sure all of this concept is dead at this point, but it is still interesting to discuss the hows and whys.
I mean, would it be possible if Universal decides to transition their turnstiles to be more along the lines of what Seaworld and Disney use, with you being able to walk up more and just scanning your ticket without much hassle?
I think it's more of a crowd-flow issue. Even if scanning is super easy, it still takes time. Turnstiles are a bottleneck because they can only let in so many people any given second. Regular land entrances are only bottlenecked by the physical number of people that can cram themselves through the entrance.
Then maybe with them having a larger footprint, they can design the areas feasibly in mind for maintaining a sustainable use of capacity by the minute?
As presented, I think it's a horrible idea, so the word that it's changed is good.
That being said, theres some issues.
If the hotel is in the back of the park, there has to be a way to Citiwalk from there(and from ctitwalk to the hotel) without needing a park ticket.
I think it's a massive mistake to not have a public citiwalk. That close to the convention center and those hotels, there has got to be one, IMO.
Something that one of the previous posters said gave me an idea how it could all work in basically the way TPU described. Have a two story main street/hub. One story being the public/citiwalk that could lead from the parking lot all the way to the hotel. The other level being "in park" and gives access between the lands without going in and out of the park. The bottom story could be all enclosed, or could be partially open air with bridges. It doesn't have to be the whole way. The first half could be all citiwalk, and the second half could be bridges/enclosed areas. Probably not the way it'll work out, but it would be something unique.
That being said, theres some issues.
If the hotel is in the back of the park, there has to be a way to Citiwalk from there(and from ctitwalk to the hotel) without needing a park ticket.
I think it's a massive mistake to not have a public citiwalk. That close to the convention center and those hotels, there has got to be one, IMO.
Something that one of the previous posters said gave me an idea how it could all work in basically the way TPU described. Have a two story main street/hub. One story being the public/citiwalk that could lead from the parking lot all the way to the hotel. The other level being "in park" and gives access between the lands without going in and out of the park. The bottom story could be all enclosed, or could be partially open air with bridges. It doesn't have to be the whole way. The first half could be all citiwalk, and the second half could be bridges/enclosed areas. Probably not the way it'll work out, but it would be something unique.
That would be similar to the Hogwart's Express,multiplied by a bunch of times each day, and that gets some really long lines depending on the time of day. Glad they found their senses and changed their minds. That would be a mess, and create really bad customer relations.
- Feb 15, 2012
- 17,170
- 47,163
My understanding is the original park concept that was presented and green lit was one large CityWalk in the middle accessible to all with shops, restaurants, and entertainment. The big draw would be a nightly lagoon show that this CityWalk 2.0 would partially wrap around. Each of the lands of the new "park" would have an open boarder concept that let guests walk in and pay for lands piece by piece or together. There were no turnstiles or traditional entrance, just walk in. They really wanted to swing for the fences and redefine what a theme park is and could be in the 21st century, so let your imaginations run wild there. Last I heard the concept was shelved for something more traditional either due to feasibility, testing, or budget.
IMHO the idea isn't terrible and could have worked but guests need a more traditional method of park entry and this tried to take too many leaps forward. Introducing a gate-less system at USF/IOA first would have been a better step towards this model.
IMHO the idea isn't terrible and could have worked but guests need a more traditional method of park entry and this tried to take too many leaps forward. Introducing a gate-less system at USF/IOA first would have been a better step towards this model.
- Feb 28, 2015
- 3,830
- 7,351
I can’t understand that idea at all. How were they planning on ticketing and verifying without turnstiles of some sort?
- Dec 24, 2015
- 873
- 1,501
Aside from the obvious problem of having to scan people's tickets over and over again throughout the day when people are moving from world to world (a problem I consider significant), I could see a potential major benefit to having each world sectioned off like what is being suggested.
Universal could run each world completely independent from to one another. All of the corporate events, general public events, etc., all of that would be much easier to manage and market by having four completely separate sections each with their own gate.
For example, I could imagine Saturday, September 30th 2023 running like this:
Universal could run each world completely independent from to one another. All of the corporate events, general public events, etc., all of that would be much easier to manage and market by having four completely separate sections each with their own gate.
For example, I could imagine Saturday, September 30th 2023 running like this:
- Fantastic Worlds park hours: 9am to 8pm, restrictions apply on event nights.
- Hotel Guests and Premiere Passholders receive early admission (8am) to DreamWorks and Fantastic Beasts.
- September 30th:
- Classic Monsters closes at 6pm during Halloween event nights.
- Event: Halloween event opens at 8pm. Separate ticket charge applies. [Insert Halloween event here. For example, have an 18+ event with the attractions open and a dance party, maybe a haunted house or two. Much cheaper/smaller than HHN.]
- Fantastic Beasts closes at 6pm.
- Event: Lockheed Martin corporate event opens at 8pm.
- Nintendo and DreamWorks close at their regularly scheduled time (8pm).
- Event: Nintendo After Dark [similar to Disney After Hours], 10pm to 1am. Separate ticket charge applies.
- Classic Monsters closes at 6pm during Halloween event nights.
- Lockheed 'wins' by not having to pay as high of a price as they might to rent an 'entire theme park' for the corporate event
- Guests 'win' by not having the entire theme park shut down by the other events taking place and also having the option to buy into events they might be interested in
- And Universal 'wins' by potentially selling more special ticketed events
- Feb 28, 2015
- 3,830
- 7,351
If this was the original plan then the lands better have 5+ attractions plus a show in each.
- Dec 24, 2015
- 873
- 1,501
I'm not suggesting that each land have its own ticket price, only the events would.
Though in the case they do sell them individually for non-event hours, they wouldn't need more attractions they just need cheaper individual-world prices. E.g. sell each world for $50 and sell a bulk price for all four for the same price as an IOA/USF ticket. This would be a similar setup to ICON (wheel/Madame Tussauds /Aquarium).
This is how the plan would have worked. No turnstiles. All facial recognition tech linked to your ticket or AP.
Universal Orlando's Secret Face Recognition Program Revealed - Theme Park University
Universal Orlando's Secret Face Recognition Program Revealed - Theme Park University
And an army of guards at each entrance to stop the people who either mindlessly or intentionally try to walk right in.
- Feb 15, 2012
- 17,170
- 47,163
Exactly, and probably even more tech that wasn't rolled out (or more importantly not available).
- Dec 24, 2015
- 873
- 1,501
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I'm open to it myself, I don't know how this will be received publicly (especially with more recent news regarding facial recognition not working well with those with darker skin color)...
I guess we'll see where the technology and public perception of this tech is at in four or so years.
- Feb 15, 2012
- 17,170
- 47,163
I'm taking a guess that the tech just isn't working as they hoped it would so they've moved on.
- Status
