Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Clayton, CA (SF Bay Area)
    Posts
    97

    Disney Property Question

    First of all, this does not have anything to do with the Strawberry Field development or a 3rd park, hahaha.

    I was just fooling around looking at the resort property with google maps satellite and it made me wonder why/how Disney does not own a few pieces of land, specifically the Holiday Inn and Suites land behind Mickey and Friends and next to the Ball Cast Member lot and the Alpine Inn/Desert Palms/Candy Cane Inn land, south of the Timon Lot (R.I.P).

    I, of course, don't know the specifics of how the land was bought in the 50s and later developed, but to me, these seem like two random pieces of land in opposite corners that should be part of Disney's property. If they were, they we would own that entire chunk of land bordered by Katella, Harbor, Walnut, and Ball.

    Even without those little chunks, Disney obviously owns the vast majority of that land and it probably wouldn't make a huge difference in terms of future development (definitely make it more convenient, though). But does anyone have any info as to why Disney doesn't own those two pieces that would seem to complete the puzzle?

  2. #2

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    673

    Re: Disney Property Question

    Quote Originally Posted by judino28 View Post
    But does anyone have any info as to why Disney doesn't own those two pieces that would seem to complete the puzzle?
    They don't own it because they didn't buy it. They didn't buy it because they probably didn't think they would need it or it may have been owned by a stubborn owner. They still don't have them because they have been developed and their owners wouldn't want to sell and Disney knows it.
    ap·pur·te·nant – adjective: appertaining or belonging; pertaining.

    ...to Disneyland.

  3. #3

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Clayton, CA (SF Bay Area)
    Posts
    97

    Re: Disney Property Question

    Obviously they don't own it because they didn't buy it. It has always just puzzled me as to why they didn't. I agree with your "stubborn owner" hypothesis. I've thought the same as well as, even if Disney never thought they would need the land, it is odd that they bought up everything else besides those two small corners. One would think they would want that entire chunk of land unless something, such as a stubborn owner refusing to sell, was a roadblock that they didn't think much of at the time, since they aren't major pieces of land.

  4. #4

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, Cali
    Posts
    539

    Re: Disney Property Question

    Quote Originally Posted by dl_appurtenant View Post
    They don't own it because they didn't buy it. They didn't buy it because they probably didn't think they would need it or it may have been owned by a stubborn owner. They still don't have them because they have been developed and their owners wouldn't want to sell and Disney knows it.
    I dont think the owners of those properties dont want to sell. I think its a matter of them wanting alot of money for the property because its Disney who would be interested in buying it for possible expansion.

    I remember hearing that Walt was kinda kicking himself alittle bit after the park openned and when he saw all the businesses that openned up around the park. On one part you cant really blame him because he didnt really know how successful his little venture would end up becoming. Thats why when he was buying all that land for WDW he purchased them under different names to not tip off the media over there. Luckily he purchased alot of land before word of mouth got around and all the land owners over there started jacking up their prices for land.

    The topic of Park expansion is really interesting to me because for the most part all the land for DL is for the most part tapped out and CA is just starting to tap out theirs with the inclusion of the Timon lot today. So it will be interesting to see if Disney ends up buying the establishments across the streets and somehow make DL bigger which seems like a necessity if they want to make new rides other then demolish old ones. But going with the demolishing route can only go so far until your left with the more popular rides to demolish which I highly doubt would ever happen.

  5. #5

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Clayton, CA (SF Bay Area)
    Posts
    97

    Re: Disney Property Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Open_at_the_close View Post

    The topic of Park expansion is really interesting to me because for the most part all the land for DL is for the most part tapped out and CA is just starting to tap out theirs with the inclusion of the Timon lot today. So it will be interesting to see if Disney ends up buying the establishments across the streets and somehow make DL bigger which seems like a necessity if they want to make new rides other then demolish old ones. But going with the demolishing route can only go so far until your left with the more popular rides to demolish which I highly doubt would ever happen.
    In terms of expansion, once the Timon lot area is completed with Cars Land, etc., I don't see much more that can be done to that area. To the north of Disneyland are the backstage areas which are necessary. The areas across the streets are mostly residential or the Convention Center, so I don't see that ever happening. The remaining parking areas could be used, but that wouldn't make much logistical sense.

    Disney does have the strawberry field which is their last big property to build a 3rd gate, perhaps a water park, boutique park, or just a new regular 3rd park. But who knows for sure.

    It is those two aforementioned little pieces of land, however, that still fascinate me as they seem that they would complete that one huge block of Disney owned land that makes up the resort.
    Last edited by judino28; 07-06-2009 at 12:56 PM.

  6. #6

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    South San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    593

    Re: Disney Property Question

    Quote Originally Posted by judino28 View Post
    I was just fooling around looking at the resort property with google maps satellite and it made me wonder why/how Disney does not own a few pieces of land, specifically the Holiday Inn and Suites land behind Mickey and Friends and next to the Ball Cast Member lot and the Alpine Inn/Desert Palms/Candy Cane Inn land, south of the Timon Lot (R.I.P).
    from what I've read over time, Walt Disney did not have the money available to build the hotel. the Disneyland Hotel and name was owned by a third party until the Walt Disney Company was able to buy that company. the land north and south of the hotel was owed by others, over the years WDC has purchased most of it. I assume if and when any of the remaining pieces become available WDC will probably look at the asking price to see if they want to make an offer.

    I believe that from the late 60's until the CA project was started, most of the property at the south side of the original parking lot on Katella was occupied by small motels. there was a gate on Katella, but I don't ever remember it being used. I don't know if WDC owned that property and leased it out, I think they were purchased over time. I remember seeing the motels close one by one and torn down. I think that the owners of the pieces at the southeast corner wanted more money than WDC wanted to pay and they decided to do without it. with the high powerlines running around that corner, I don't think that area would be used as guest area even if the property could be purchased. could be used for back stage areas.

  7. #7

    • "I Break Things"
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    12,370

    Re: Disney Property Question

    It will be interesting to see DCA transform over the years once they realize that the space is a lot more limited then they initially planned for... looking at DCA now is a lot like looking at early Disneyland where there was more space then attractions.
    "Happiness is a Low Water Level"


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


  8. #8

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Clayton, CA (SF Bay Area)
    Posts
    97

    Re: Disney Property Question

    Quote Originally Posted by gary94080 View Post
    with the high powerlines running around that corner, I don't think that area would be used as guest area even if the property could be purchased. could be used for back stage areas.
    I completely agree. I wasn't so much thinking expansion as I was utilizing that area for backstage use/parking/etc. It would be useful since space is definitely a luxury these days.

Similar Threads

  1. USH- Property Licenses Question
    By filmfreak11 in forum Other Destinations
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 02-15-2008, 09:47 PM
  2. Favorite On-Property Disney Restaurant?
    By nbodyhome in forum Walt Disney World Resort
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-04-2008, 02:12 PM
  3. New Attack Near Disney Property Cited
    By tjcjr in forum Walt Disney World Resort
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-12-2007, 08:42 AM
  4. What Disney/Property would you make into an Attraction?
    By EPCOT1982 in forum Walt Disney World Resort
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-07-2007, 12:33 PM

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
  •