Fifth Gate?

[Doug M]

My stock thought is that within a few years Disney will have added three entire lands (Pandora, Galaxy's Edge, Toy Story), another four new rides outside the new lands (Guardians, Ratatouille, Tron, Runaway Railway), and new restaurants in both parks and hotels.

Universal has largely only been able to create new rides from old ride locations. Universal was only able to add new capacity by creating a new gate.

But the aggregate of what Disney has been doing *is* most of a new gate. Other than Runaway Railway replacing Great Movie Ride, it's all "new" stuff that absorbs people, which is most of what people want in a 5th park ("it's crowded and people need places to go").

To be fair, Railway is a replacement, GE is a replacement for 2 attractions, guardians is replacement. Rat and Tron are new.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

As far as "not going dark" there's a black cauldren experience in one of the Tokio disney's that i heard about that sounds really scary for kids.

Actually that’s been gone for at least 5 years.

 

[vacationer1954]

This. You can't keep building more hotels, begging for more people, without eventually expanding the actual land size in which to disperse them. Adding rides within an existing park is NOT enough.

Land size doesn't matter as much as attraction and park capacity, both of which can be enhanced without adding land.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

The best "fifth gate" would be adding an "international gateway" to one of the other parks.

This would be a great way to develop the area north of Asia in AK. They could put a resort or a transit hub back by the Planet Watch area. Maybe more hotels on the land north of Western Way, connected to the park by water or a skyliner or something.

 

[Alynw]

i highly doubt they would build a "international" park. the main reason each location has 1-2 different rides is to get people to visit different locations. if they add a land that has all the international rides, there would be no need for anyone to visit any of the other locations, then talk about crowds, having everything in one park making it a one stop shop would create crowds like u have never seen or could even imagine. i agree it would be nice but thats one im very sure is not going to happen.

 

[armyone22]

I think Disney’s continued investments in existing parks will continue to outweigh a 5th gate for a long time yet.

 

[DanBoris]

This. You can't keep building more hotels, begging for more people, without eventually expanding the actual land size in which to disperse them. Adding rides within an existing park is NOT enough.

You have that reversed, people don't just show up because there are empty hotels rooms, people show up because of the parks. Disney could open 20 new hotels tomorrow and it wouldn't impact the crowds in the parks.

 

[JimmyBean42]

You have that reversed, people don't just show up because there are empty hotels rooms, people show up because of the parks. Disney could open 20 new hotels tomorrow and it wouldn't impact the crowds in the parks.

I see both sides of this. On one hand my family is probably never doing a resort-only vacation. If we come down, we are going in the parks. So families like us would impact the park crowds. But there also is the flip side. People visiting who could spend an entire week in a Disney resort without ever stepping in a park once. It's all about the balance right?

Parks are crowded now with hotels at capacity 6 months out for busy season. They had to add more hotels. That's just smart business sense. Especially because Disney resorts unlike other theme parks, keep you in the Disney bubble pretty well. Which means your money stays in the Disney bubble.

 

[DanBoris]

I see both sides of this. On one hand my family is probably never doing a resort-only vacation. If we come down, we are going in the parks. So families like us would impact the park crowds. But there also is the flip side. People visiting who could spend an entire week in a Disney resort without ever stepping in a park once. It's all about the balance right?

Parks are crowded now with hotels at capacity 6 months out for busy season. They had to add more hotels. That's just smart business sense. Especially because Disney resorts unlike other theme parks, keep you in the Disney bubble pretty well. Which means your money stays in the Disney bubble.

The point I was trying to make is that the crowds wanting to go to the parks is what is driving the construction of hotels, not the other way around. I have never heard a person say they would like to go to WDW, but aren't because they can't get a room.

 

[JimmyBean42]

The point I was trying to make is that the crowds wanting to go to the parks is what is driving the construction of hotels, not the other way around. I have never heard a person say they would like to go to WDW, but aren't because they can't get a room.

I completely get your point and do not disagree with it at all. It's a fair and accurate statement. I'm just stating I've heard both sides of the coin and varying opinions. They def. need the hotels for the park traffic. I've had a lot of people up north where I'm from attempt to make spontaneous trips (such a no-no for many of us, who doesn't pre-plan. Ha!) and try to go down on a whim in like a week when they got a good airfare deal and haven't been able to b/c all the resorts are fully booked and they don't want to stay off-site. But I also have family who just love Disney resorts and when they have off on spring break and Xmas week, just want to come down to WDW, stay at the resort, swim and go to Disney Springs. The park traffic def. drives more of the hotels for sure.

 

[vacationer1954]

You have that reversed, people don't just show up because there are empty hotels rooms, people show up because of the parks. Disney could open 20 new hotels tomorrow and it wouldn't impact the crowds in the parks.

Yes, that's right. And as long as the hotels are so close to full so much of the year it means that they still don't have enough hotel rooms.

 

[Stork]

Land size doesn't matter as much as attraction and park capacity, both of which can be enhanced without adding land.

Um, yes and no. There has to be a limit to people (park capacity) due to its size. Otherwise, why do Fire Marshalls post "Maximum Occupancy" limit signs in public venues?

 

[OnSpaceshipEarth]

Yes, that's right. And as long as the hotels are so close to full so much of the year it means that they still don't have enough hotel rooms.

They aren't "so close to full so much of the year", really.

 

[SgtTibbs]

Here is the 5th gate:

Just expand Future World .. and split World Showcase and Future World into two separate parks. . I mean that park IS pretty huge and spread out. Add some Tier 1 style locations around the World Showcase and you probably have enough attractions for two different parks that are UNIQUELY connected to each other .

In essence, charge more for less. Interesting idea. You could go far in the Disney hierarchy.

 

[tlmadden73]

In essence, charge more for less. Interesting idea. You could go far in the Disney hierarchy.

Well .. in my plans they would add more rides to "both" sides of Epcot .. like that Mount Fuji coaster they originally envisioned for the Japan pavilion or making a real ride at the Seas Pavilion (not just a glorified moving sidewalk that is the Nemo "ride" currently).

 

[mshanson3121]

Land size doesn't matter as much as attraction and park capacity, both of which can be enhanced without adding land.

You can only fit so many people and so many rides in a certain area. Park capacity is very much dependent to not a small degree, on land size.

 

[vacationer1954]

Um, yes and no. There has to be a limit to people (park capacity) due to its size. Otherwise, why do Fire Marshalls post "Maximum Occupancy" limit signs in public venues?

Because that's what they've built. Make better use of space, and capacity goes up. Built something new, and capacity goes up. Built something new taller, and capacity goes up even more. Think about Spaceship Earth compared to the old Horizons attraction, in terms of guest capacity per square foot of the footprint of the attraction.

Isn't Rise of the Resistance basically a two-storey attraction?

 

[vacationer1954]

They aren't "so close to full so much of the year", really.

Pretty much. Load levels that are the envy of the industry.

 

[mshanson3121]

You have that reversed, people don't just show up because there are empty hotels rooms, people show up because of the parks. Disney could open 20 new hotels tomorrow and it wouldn't impact the crowds in the parks.

I realize they're building because of demand that is already there, but every time they add rooms, they are increasing the amount of people that can stay on site, which realistically, yes can impact the parks. Especially when they're marketing onsite packages so hard. This board alone is a shining example of the people that would rather jump off a bridge, than consider staying off site

Our first trip was almost 30 years ago. There were only 3 parks, we went at a traditionally busy time, and the parks were empty compared to what they are now. But there were also only about 10,000 rooms, with those being deluxe resorts (other than the campground). Not nearly as many people could afford that. However today, there are now over 36,000 rooms with how many more in construction? And many of those are now value/moderate rooms, making it easier for more people to come. And Disney markets this, heavily. They absolutely market Disney as a "Come and stay with us" vacation, far more than they used to. I would wager most people WANT to stay on site, and Disney knows that. And the more people on Disney property = more people in Disney parks. So, I do still say that to some degree, increased rooms (combined with increase marketing and other factors) does have an effect on crowds.

It's basically a circle: park popularity increases crowds, which creates the need for more rooms, Disney builds more rooms, which increases the potential amount of people on property/in parks, Disney sees increase in crowds/popularity, builds more rooms and round and round it goes.

 

[Stork]

....It's basically a circle: park popularity increases crowds, which creates the need for more rooms, Disney builds more rooms, which increases the potential amount of people on property/in parks, Disney sees increase in crowds/popularity, builds more rooms and round and round it goes.

Sounds like you're falling into the "which came first, chicken or the egg" syndrome. Do they need more rooms to accommodate the masses at the park, or more parks to accommodate the masses in their resorts? The answer is inconsequential, we will always have eggs to scramble, chickens to fry and over-crowded theme parks.

I submit that no matter the cause (or effect), they better keep up with the road quantity AND quality. Traffic WILL increase. I know a lot of you are from the big city and used to traffic congestion and SRO buses. But dog gone it, Mickey, this is the Happiest Place on Earth. As such, there is no place for depressing, vacation-mood-ruining traffic situations. I hope they are planning ahead.