In terms of where to locate the park, Disney was a big early believer in a analytical approach. They hired SRI to determine the best location for Disneyland back in the 1950s. They came up with a amazing amount of operational and systems research that we use now. The big factors where climate, access to a huge population base, and multiple access to freeways.
When it came to Disney World, the factor where those, plus the ability to buy large amount of land before anyone was aware of it, and could drive up prices with speculation.
Disney has tried a number of different strategies in the past to make parks more accessible - including the idea of building a Disneyland on a boat, that would travel the world, and stop in various ports for months, before packing up and sailing to the next trip.
Most of the demand for Disney growth wise is international, with Brazil probably next to get a park.
In terms of line waits, there are two things at play - one Disney has realized that they have been leaving money at the table. Contrary to this article, the vast majortity of the excess demand is not single day visitors at Disneyland, but rather season pass holders in California. This is why they have jacked up the cost for annual passes a ton. I was listening to a podcast recently that postulated that as much as 45% of the daily visitors to Disneyland might be annual pass holders. Expect the cost to go way up - it’s getting close to double the cost of a Disneyland pass compared to a Disney World pass.
The other thing is that Disney is putting massive capital into the parks, to grow them. They just opened Avatar land in Animal kingdom, but the most exciting are the new STar Wars Land, Toy Story Land, Epcot overhaul, and marvel land in California. Disney will be adding a ton of capacity, but they are trying to raise ticket prices to offset.
P.S. I do understand hobbies ;)
It's a little expensive, but there's always something fun to do. Most of us go to re-ride some of our favorite rides. My dad went to just walk around and get exercise and look at things.
Epcot center also has a ton of live entertainment including live bands and performers. They also have events with foods from around the world, flower or butterfly festivals, and more.
For what it's worth, my impression of Disneyland (California and Tokyo) wasn't nearly as good. They were fun, but they didn't have enough stuff to keep me coming back. But then, I don't live there, so maybe there's more to it. Those parks did have one thing that I wish Florida had: They change some of the rides once in a while to match another theme, such as Nightmare Before Christmas on the Haunted Mansion or "Hyperspace Mountain" (Star Wars) on Space Mountain.
I have to say... You're the only person I've ever heard say they went to Disney once and have no interest in going back.
I was fairly excited to take my kids to Disney as I had never been there myself as a kid for unknown reasons. And while I had good time, once is certainly enough. I'd rather travel and see different places as opposed to going the same place year after year.
Every last one of the rides seemed dated and lame, even if they had been recently renovated. Wait. Scratch that. The Finding Nemo one was okay. And that was back when they were using Fastpass instead of this wristband/app system they apparently have now.
I'll actually be in Orlando again a week from now, and we didn't even consider planning anything Disney. The entertainment value divided by the total daily cost of visiting a park is simply too low now. It isn't just the high ticket prices. They unabashedly overcharge for meals and food, and the nearby lodgings nickel and dime you on everything. And the time cost for everything is ridiculous.
The only reason it is so popular is that Disney cross-promotes everything in its media empire. If you let your kids watch enough Disney Channel on television, they will eventually want to visit a Disney theme park or cruise ship.
I can't argue about the nickel-and-diming, though. It's getting ridiculous.
I will likely take my daughter to a Disney theme park at some point, and will be willing to tolerate the hyper-branding experience for a day, but I will do so clenching my teeth while observing (especially) people pretending Disney Princesses exist in reality.
Different strokes for different folks!
As a engineer Disneyworld is _fascinating_. Every type of engineering is at play, from social engineering to mechanical, IT, operational research etc. Think about the complexity of dealing with 80k people streaming randomly into a park, who all want to be entertained by a combination of rides, characters and shows. in my experience, the average fans wants around 7 rides/experiences a day to feel like it's a good time. Think about the processes and systems you need to support that.
I'm sure the capital costs are crazy for building a new park, but with all the demand I'm still a bit surprised there's no talk of building a Disney park in the middle of the U.S. They appear to operate very independently (the fact WDW has had fastpass+ and magic bands for years and DL is just now announcing a completely different system, Maxpass).
You mentioned demand internationally. Disneyland Paris is the only park outside of the U.S. wholly owned by Disney. Not sure if it was a concession (I could see that for China) or as a risk-sharing thing. I would imagine Disney would want to own 100% of any new park if possible.
Overall this a great idea though, families could fly in to an airport close to the amusement parks, stay for a few days and directly fly out -- you're right in that there is little reason for an amusement park to be in one of the most expensive places in the country.
WDW (fascinating origin story, read it sometime) was built out in the middle of nowhere where people can't see what is going on in the real world. It's the only vacation our family has been on that starts and ends at the airport if you stay on property. In 2008 I think the Dow lost 6% the week we were there and we were gloriously unaware of the fire raging elsewhere. It's all Disney coaches, busses, monorails, and boats to get between your resort and the parks.
So there's a zone of decent climate, where it is far enough north to have just enough freeze days in winter to kill off the worst insects, and far enough south to have a decent selection of perennial landscaping plants.
The northern contour of the zone approximates lines through these cities:
Pueblo, Colorado
Kansas City, Kansas/Missouri
St. Louis, Missouri/Illinois
Louisville, Kentucky/Indiana
Cincinnati, Ohio/Kentucky
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Memphis, Tennessee/Arkansas
Chattanooga, Tennessee/Georgia
A park near the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers would have its pick of 5 different jurisdictions, decent climate, and access to nigh-unlimited water and TVA hydro and nuclear power. And you could reasonably buy up a lot of land cheaply without the locals figuring out who is doing it or why, just as it was done in central Florida.
http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/con...
That list includes two state capitals.
Clearly, Disney was less worried about the average of 3 major tropical storms per year, or the cat3 or above hurricane every 4 years or so, than he was about the fact that prior to Disney World, only 2% of visitors to Disney Land came from east of the Mississippi River. He needed cheap land, interstate highways, and weather that was generally pleasant [whenever a disaster was not in progress].
If you want to see how much Disney cares about making water its bitch, punch in "28.396, -81.578" on a map. They'd build a 90-foot levee. They'd build a 200-foot levee, if they could put mouse ears on it and charge $150 per day for admission.
You could do a park somewhere in Texas - the weather is hospitable, but I dont think Disney is interested in the investment to do so right now.
Disney also recently bought out the owners of Disneyland Paris, so they'll probably be putting some investment into that park as well (since it's sorely needed--DLP is considered one of the lesser Disney parks).
Disney’s been bailing out the French corporation that theoretically owns half of DLP for a while. That structure was difficult to work with, but they also didn’t have the revenue that Disneyland Paris has (where they have a similar structure).
South of France or Spain might have been a better pick but of course there's the issue of access
My neighbor's daughter bought the house across street from her, but it was only a couple months before the epic yelling matches in their driveway started.
I think those Agile guys might be on to something when they talk about Separation of Concerns. =)
It's been ~18 months so far and things are still going great. I really don't know what we would have done without the extra help just a phone call away...
Parents retiring to a place more than a short drive away has unintended consequences. Or children moving far away for employment.
In this particular case the gparents moving near WDW made this outcome: post child rearing, only 35 separate visits for the rest of their lifetime (25+ yrs) each visit required plane trip & time off.
It was the gparents choice to move so far away..... And WDW was a wonderful place to share our time together.
But it takes years and years for these things to happen, if they ever happen.
The land purchase was probably 9 years ago, but with these companies, the price of that sort of land is often just a rounding error, so it’s possible they’ve bought land all over the place to keep options open.
This leaves the South and West Coast. Dallas and Oklahoma City are the only realistic places for another park that's easier to get to from the Midwest.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_The_Wiza...
Sounds like WB and Disney both have claims to different aspects. Interesting bit in the Wikipedia article with Disney having a copyright expert on set to help them choose a color of green that wasn't infringing.
Years before Disney America the same people that led the opposition to it blocked Legoland from opening in the eastern half of the same county. Again the area is now all housing developments and shopping centers.
Wow, this guy is really with it. Probably going to get some blowback, but he's right.
"This park will deal with the highs and lows . . . We want to make you feel what it was like to be a slave, and what it was like to escape through the Underground Railroad."
Sometimes you should just shut your mouth when you're ahead.
If Disney can do it without gross cultural insensitivity, I think it could work.
About two thirds of the US population live in coastal states, but that includes gulf coast states which are pretty central on the east west axis. That still leaves a third of the population, with the Chicago metro area being one of the largest and densest catch basins.
Here's the population by time zone, in millions:
Eastern: 150.2 (47.1%)
Central: 92.3 (29.0%)
Mountain: 21.3 (6.7%)
Pacific: 53.0 (16.6%)
“No one” is still the silliest thing I’ve heard for a while, though!
I think there's a big difference here – it's one thing to draw a large crowd for a single ~weeklong event, and another to do it continuously over the course of a year. I imagine the staffing requirements for Augusta National are different the week of the Masters versus the rest of the year (and I know that at least some of the additional staffing is done by volunteers). So the economics are wildly different. A Disneyland in the heart of the US would probably require fairly high staffing levels continuously. So this would require a fairly consistent attendance. Sure, there will be seasonal/holiday variations, but I doubt a theme park could survive the attendance amplitude swing that Augusta National sees between the Masters and the rest of the year.
A copy of Orlando some place in the heartland would give access to more Americans.
But the current hubs might not stay the only hubs. The new Boeing planes are rated for about 500 miles longer range, so that's going to put a lot of airports inland from the coasts as reachable from Europe and Asia, and a lot of coastal cities with smaller, cheaper airplanes.