Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 62
  1. #31

    • Don't Mess With The Duck!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Santa Rosa, California - USA
    Posts
    3,640

    Re: Where would you like to see Discovery Bay?

    Quote Originally Posted by ICe101 View Post
    I am sick of this third park stuff. Third park shouldn't even be considered until 2017 and beyond. There are plenty of things to get done. Besides, when you say "in a third park" it is pointless in less you have an idea of what the third park is about
    I find your post above to be somewhat rude. The topic starter asked where a person would like to see the concept of Discovery Bay placed and I answered their question. (Note, I did not say when I would like to see it built.) And to be honest I see no reason for a third gate at The Disneyland Resort until Disney's California Adventure is "fixed" and Disneyland gets another good, solid attraction constructed in Frontierland and Tomorrowland gets the refurb it so badly needs. Also, I do have an idea of what I'd like to see the "third park" be, but I felt that would be more suitable for a different thread.

    >Joe<

  2. #32

    • "I Break Things"
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    12,370

    Re: Where would you like to see Discovery Bay?

    Quote Originally Posted by ICe101 View Post
    I am sick of this third park stuff. Third park shouldn't even be considered until 2017 and beyond. There are plenty of things to get done. Besides, when you say "in a third park" it is pointless in less you have an idea of what the third park is about
    Just because there is a lot to do in the existing parks doesn't mean people can't hope and dream about a 3rd one. I would hope that things are "fixed" prior to a 3rd park. However the question was "Where do you want to see DB?" and many don't see it as a good fit in DCA or Disneyland therefore they say "third gate". Since there have been no definitive plans publicly released about a third gate individuals are free to dream up any theme that suits them. To those individuals DB fits.
    "Happiness is a Low Water Level"


    "Creating magical memories and making Managers cry since 1955!"


  3. #33

    • "I Break Things"
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    12,370

    Re: Where would you like to see Discovery Bay?

    Perhaps a better question would be if Discovery Bay is built, what areas of the resort would see reduced traffic because of it? Again this is following Mr Liver's logic which I don't necessarily believe in.
    "Happiness is a Low Water Level"


    "Creating magical memories and making Managers cry since 1955!"


  4. #34

    •   
      MiceChat Administrator
    • Working Late
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    9,039
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Where would you like to see Discovery Bay?

    Quote Originally Posted by techskip View Post
    I think everyone's opinion holds value, and brings something unique to the table in a discussion. I didn't mean to sound arrogant, I've just found that stating it is an opinion tends to disarm a potential conflict. Thank you for the kind words..
    You sounded far from arrogant. Haha my opinions change daily on some things because of the good points people bring forward. Often opponents of your own ideas (in general) are refreshing. My comment was more directed towards those who wait for someone to express their views in order to begin an arguement, instead of discuss the points. Not that that is happening in this thread at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by techskip View Post
    There is some undeveloped space in Disneyland (I am cautious not to say "a lot" because Disneyland is a great deal more crowded then DCA). From my limited understanding a portion of the Autopia sits atop the Subs. The common theory is that it would be cost prohibitive to develop an attraction while providing additional support. Many basically say that Autopia was "made for that area" because of how light it is. I can see Disney removing an attraction to make way for another one. But I can't see them taking out multiple attractions to make a new land. TL98 was a logistical nightmare for crowds, and that was a retheme on an exsisting land.
    This is true, lets say underdeveloped instead of undeveloped. Sprawling rides like autopia and Big Thunder Ranch just seem to occupy land that could be used for something better.

    Quote Originally Posted by techskip View Post
    Personally I would like to see 2, possibly even 3 additional attractions added to Frontierland.

    Due to it's location you would also have a chance to make a new tunnel for the Disneyland Railroad. I imagine something similar to Carlsbad Caverns. The thought that they began a tunnel and by sheer luck ran into a cavern that was bigger then the tunnel. This cavern would have various natural rock formations including waterfalls and a river at it's bottom. That river would be connected to Western River Expedition, so at times you would see the boats going past.[/
    The question asked where DB should go. Overall, I dont see it fitting into DL and would now probobly rather see Frontierland get extended back, but that spot is the best candidate. I often wondered why the Grand Canyon exibit wasnt moved to a tunnel at Frontierland where the train gets kinda boring before arriving at the Toontown Depot. In that case, they could develop things around the train that before would have be to backstage-esque. However I was also having some thoughts about how The DL Railroad could emerge into the Discovery Bay street via stairs as if it was a subway line. That would be cool. I also have some sketches somewhere that have a ride in Discovery Bay that enter and exit through street level staircases dressed up as subways. That would serve as a good way to get under the tracks and berm much like the Strech rooms for HM or the drop for Pirates.

  5. #35

    • "I Break Things"
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    12,370

    Re: Where would you like to see Discovery Bay?

    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorD View Post
    This is true, lets say underdeveloped instead of undeveloped. Sprawling rides like autopia and Big Thunder Ranch just seem to occupy land that could be used for something better.
    In the case of Autopia it would be difficult and possibly expensive to develop further as some of it sits above the Subs. I see it as underdeveloped more from a thematic point of view then from an actual physical one. BTR and Festival Arena are underdeveloped, but there is an entire section of land on that side that is pretty much undeveloped. Again there is the argument that Mine Train developed that area, but much of it has since become overgrown. It would be fairly easy to develop portions of it, and somewhat expensive to develop others.

    Two other highly underdeveloped areas are the old Fantasyland Skyway station, and the old Motorboat lagoon. In the case of the lagoon the same argument applies... is it underdeveloped because an attraction was previously there? or is it undeveloped because it has preserved it's natural state to all but the most critical eyes.

    My point is there are a lot of areas that can be futher developed into attractions, stores, themed areas in general. However there are not great expanses of land to create new themed lands from. Festival Area may be where they planned to install Discovery Bay but the installation would likely be a fraction of the concept. There simply isn't the room. Disney could create the room, but doing so would be at considerable expense and potential loss of a variety of attractions.

    DCA offers far greater expanses of land that can be developed. The issue there is "does Discovery Bay fit a respective land theme?" It isn't really a queston of can it be done so much as should it be done. Some would say that DCA desperatly needs a newly themed land, and new attractions. Others would argue that the installation of Discovery Bay would only further contribute to the confused theme of DCA.

    Personally I think the best option for actual construction would be a 3rd Gate. No telling if or when that would ever happen. But even if Discovery Bay never gets built in it's entity it has provided, and will continue to provide inspiration to individuals at WDI. That inspiration is then transformed into new attractions and new concepts that resemble the original works of Discovery Bay.
    "Happiness is a Low Water Level"


    "Creating magical memories and making Managers cry since 1955!"


  6. #36

    •   
      MiceChat Administrator
    • Working Late
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    9,039
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Where would you like to see Discovery Bay?

    Fair enough, I dont see a new land fitting in either, as previously stated. I will say though that the land that autopia sits on could be developed further. Dark Ride buildings wouldnt be too heavy when you think about it, I bet the real problem is finding a ride to put there that they couldnt just put into Tommorowland. Once they need it, I can see the imagineers getting creative and using this land more thurougly by developing some theaming. As I stated before, another problem less often mentioned is the Monorail going overhead. Its hard to make that make sence in DB.

    Undoubtedly there is more room to work with in DCA. We shall leave the discussion about its layout and theaming to another thread though.

    Last Question, where is Festival Arena?

  7. #37

    • "I Break Things"
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    12,370

    Re: Where would you like to see Discovery Bay?

    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorD View Post
    Last Question, where is Festival Arena?
    The Festival Arena sits farther back and to the left of the Big Thunder Ranch, and is entered through the Big Thunder Ranch. You can see it through the gates if you take the train from NOS... you go right past it on your right. It is a large stage area that was designed for the Festival of Fools stage show (LOTS OF FUN BTW) and has since become the Corporate Picnic Rental area commonly hosting company employee parties for large corporations that rent "mix-in's" for Disneyland.

    It's a lot of area that could quickly be put to better use. However the company is making money with it as is, so to them there is currently no incentive to develop.
    "Happiness is a Low Water Level"


    "Creating magical memories and making Managers cry since 1955!"


  8. #38

    • New Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    11

    Re: Where would you like to see Discovery Bay?

    Quote Originally Posted by techskip View Post
    Perhaps a better question would be if Discovery Bay is built, what areas of the resort would see reduced traffic because of it? Again this is following Mr Liver's logic which I don't necessarily believe in.
    I don't know if I agree with that logic either. Unlike a new attraction, a new "land" would increase the capacity of the park; allowing the fire marshall to allow disney to sell more tickets. Following this logic wouldn't other attractions see more guests per operating day?

  9. #39

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,568

    Re: Where would you like to see Discovery Bay?

    Quote Originally Posted by techskip View Post
    The Festival Arena sits farther back and to the left of the Big Thunder Ranch, and is entered through the Big Thunder Ranch. You can see it through the gates if you take the train from NOS... you go right past it on your right. It is a large stage area that was designed for the Festival of Fools stage show (LOTS OF FUN BTW) and has since become the Corporate Picnic Rental area commonly hosting company employee parties for large corporations that rent "mix-in's" for Disneyland.

    It's a lot of area that could quickly be put to better use. However the company is making money with it as is, so to them there is currently no incentive to develop.
    Based on the model they did, that whole area was able to hold the Discovery Bay plus a Circusland (where the FL Theater is now I think). If they were to do the Discovery Bay now, there would undoubtedly be modifications based on a different attraction mix. Even though I think that the Island at the Top of the World would have made a great attraction, I don't know if it would be considered now.

  10. #40

    • Senior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,357

    Re: Where would you like to see Discovery Bay?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLiver View Post
    Yeah but when Disney looked at the patterns of additions in the last few decades they realized that adding new attractions wasn't necessarily increasing attendance or capacity. When something new gets added, attendance at the current attractions plunges and eventually you have to end up closing something.

    That's why the plans to expand into the Big Thunder Trail area never happened. There were also plans to expand NOS into the area between the Mansion and Pirates and there were plans to expand Critter Country and Toontown and expand into the area between Main Street and Tomorrowland and all of these plans have been around forever, but none really happened (well except maybe toontown).

    Expanding into a new area would almost certainly mean that another area would have to be closed.
    If the business model returned to one similar to that with which Disneyland was founded and pay-per-play options were made more readily available to guests again, there would conceivably be no limit to the number of attractions any Disney theme park could add because they would all be paying for themselves with both increased capacity and separate ticketing.

    The long-term sustainability of Disneyland depends upon a certain amount of that kind of continual expansion and reinvestment.

  11. #41

    • "I Break Things"
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    12,370

    Re: Where would you like to see Discovery Bay?

    Quote Originally Posted by thearchitect View Post
    I don't know if I agree with that logic either. Unlike a new attraction, a new "land" would increase the capacity of the park; allowing the fire marshall to allow disney to sell more tickets. Following this logic wouldn't other attractions see more guests per operating day?
    I don't know about "more guests" but they would likely see a greater diversity of Guests. Perhaps the best data on the effects of opening a new land would be ToonTown. I'm not sure if there are hard numbers, but that was the last time an entire land was built from scratch. As to capacity. It would obviously raise capacity but how much would depend on the capacity of the attractions/stores/food locations and the design of the walkways.

    Quote Originally Posted by bfdf55 View Post
    Based on the model they did, that whole area was able to hold the Discovery Bay plus a Circusland (where the FL Theater is now I think). If they were to do the Discovery Bay now, there would undoubtedly be modifications based on a different attraction mix. Even though I think that the Island at the Top of the World would have made a great attraction, I don't know if it would be considered now.
    My concern is that Frontierland currently has the Big Boats and BTM... that's it. The entire Festival Arena area and the sliver of Big Thunder Trail hold the potential for 2 to 3 more attractions. I would be hesitant to install a new land because I feel it would cripple Frontierland. I'd rather expand Frontierland, bring some of it's "glory" back.
    "Happiness is a Low Water Level"


    "Creating magical memories and making Managers cry since 1955!"


  12. #42

    • Senior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,357

    Re: Where would you like to see Discovery Bay?

    Quote Originally Posted by Coheteboy View Post
    Here's that visual i made so long ago (although I called it discoveryland). The entrance would be where the parade route went leading up to Pixie Hollow and the Matterhorn.

    In my boundaries, the submarine, monorail, AND autopia would become part of Discoveryland.

    If you'll recall, I wrote a piece about what submarines and bobsleds have in common. And, I went on to describe a fifth realm, Discoveryland, populated by explorers and filled with remote and mysterious locations, including the highest mountains and the deepest oceans.

  13. #43

    • "I Break Things"
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    12,370

    Re: Where would you like to see Discovery Bay?

    Quote Originally Posted by PragmaticIdealist View Post
    If you'll recall, I wrote a piece about what submarines and bobsleds have in common. And, I went on to describe a fifth realm, Discoveryland, populated by explorers and filled with remote and mysterious locations, including the highest mountains and the deepest oceans.
    I remember the piece, although I have to be honest in saying I don't remember who wrote it. There is another thread on here now that encourages the same idea.
    "Happiness is a Low Water Level"


    "Creating magical memories and making Managers cry since 1955!"


  14. #44

    • Special Agent
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,299

    Re: Where would you like to see Discovery Bay?

    Quote Originally Posted by PragmaticIdealist View Post
    If the business model returned to one similar to that with which Disneyland was founded and pay-per-play options were made more readily available to guests again, there would conceivably be no limit to the number of attractions any Disney theme park could add because they would all be paying for themselves with both increased capacity and separate ticketing.
    For the most part I agree with you. If the system was set up so that attractions could pay for themselves, you wouldn't have to worry about gate attendance and gate revenue.

    There is an unfortunate drawback to that system though, one that Disney faced in the early 80s and one that convinced them that the best solution was to go for the pay one price. The longer an attraction exists, the less likely people are willing to pay top dollar for it. Eventually attractions which are really expensive to run, like the Disneyland Railroad or Pirates of the Caribbean, would be downgraded in price and forced to closed. Sure the train is nice, but if I had to pay 5 to 8 dollars everytime I rode it, I wouldn't be riding it all that much at all. The same goes with Pirates.

    In the 1980s, as Disneyland was feeling increased competition from the other local parks, they were facing an attraction roster that was well over 20 years old. The cost to replace every single aging attraction would have been staggering so they went with the current set up we have now.

    In the current system, the really popular attractions subsidize the existence of the more expensive attractions by keeping gate attendance high. You're not paying to ride Pirates or the train or see the Tiki Room, you're paying 60 bucks to ride Space Mountain and Indy and you're getting the rest for free.

    I guess it just depends on what kind of Disneyland you'd rather have. You can go with the pay-per-play option and have a Disneyland that is radically changing every few years and have classic attractions swapped out for new experiences more frequently. Or you can just have a system now where you only need a couple big draws to keep the gates open and the park successful.

  15. #45

    • Senior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,357

    Re: Where would you like to see Discovery Bay?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLiver View Post
    For the most part I agree with you. If the system was set up so that attractions could pay for themselves, you wouldn't have to worry about gate attendance and gate revenue.

    There is an unfortunate drawback to that system though, one that Disney faced in the early 80s and one that convinced them that the best solution was to go for the pay one price. The longer an attraction exists, the less likely people are willing to pay top dollar for it. Eventually attractions which are really expensive to run, like the Disneyland Railroad or Pirates of the Caribbean, would be downgraded in price and forced to closed. Sure the train is nice, but if I had to pay 5 to 8 dollars everytime I rode it, I wouldn't be riding it all that much at all. The same goes with Pirates.

    In the 1980s, as Disneyland was feeling increased competition from the other local parks, they were facing an attraction roster that was well over 20 years old. The cost to replace every single aging attraction would have been staggering so they went with the current set up we have now.

    In the current system, the really popular attractions subsidize the existence of the more expensive attractions by keeping gate attendance high. You're not paying to ride Pirates or the train or see the Tiki Room, you're paying 60 bucks to ride Space Mountain and Indy and you're getting the rest for free.

    I guess it just depends on what kind of Disneyland you'd rather have. You can go with the pay-per-play option and have a Disneyland that is radically changing every few years and have classic attractions swapped out for new experiences more frequently. Or you can just have a system now where you only need a couple big draws to keep the gates open and the park successful.
    Your thinking is limited, and your logic is faulty. No one suggested charging seven or eight dollars to experience Pirates of the Caribbean. Tickets and varying ticket prices would modulate utilization of capacity across the board by putting butts in the seats of underutilized attractions and by charging essentially a premium for overutilized attractions. So, exactly the opposite would happen since the capacity of attractions that are expensive to operate would be filled more consistently and fully. And, wait times at overutilized attractions would be reduced.

    You're also thinking too much like the new Disney and not like the old Disney. The main gate needs to subsidize all businesses inside the gate, if those businesses contribute in some way to main-gate sales since, as John Hench famously observed, Disneyland is a system. The morons in charge of Parks & Resorts, though, now have financial reporting measures that do not reflect reality, so you're right that smarter people would need to be brought into the organization if it ever returned to something approximating the old business model.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Discovery Island
    By rabymon10 in forum Walt Disney World Resort
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 04-12-2007, 08:11 PM
  2. Discovery Island
    By Tom Chaney in forum Disney Interactive and Game Industry Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-07-2006, 11:27 PM
  3. Discovery Bay at DCA????
    By s8ntmark in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-12-2006, 10:13 PM
  4. Discovery Bay
    By nsxdrift_89 in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-02-2005, 10:04 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •