Originally Posted By leemac <<Was an indoor water park ever considered for TDR like it was for DLP? Being enclosed would solve the issue of climate. I remember reading how crowded Japan's existing water parks are, so it would seem the demand is there.>> No - water parks only work where land isn't a premium and therefore there is no arbitrage in play (i.e. competing land uses). Water parks make significantly less money than theme parks, hotels and RDE complexes. They are only good at rounding out the vacation experience and extending stay. That only works when you get to length of stays as seen in Orlando. TDR is still a 2-day vacation experience on average. OLC knew that a water park would be a waste of their most precious commodity - land.
Originally Posted By NGrey ^ Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. <<Plus TDR's existing landfill is of poor quality compared to HKDL.>> Is this from decades of sitting in an earthquake zone or different construction methods used during reclamation?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Repurposing brownfield sites is much easier and cheaper. It may lead to the resort not being contiguous any more but it is beneficial in every other way.<< That makes a lot of sense, and although it would pose an interesting challenge, I don't think a non-contiguous resort would be a huge problem at TDR. As it is now, everything is contiguous, but the layout isn't really very walkable (unlike DLR or DLRP), especially to the Good Neighbor hotels and TDS. With the automobile-oriented developments on the west/south sides, it's best to use the transportation to get around, even though everything is fairly close together. Theoretically the third park would be in a similar proximity, and would have similar transit options available >>Is this from decades of sitting in an earthquake zone or different construction methods used during reclamation?<< I would guess that it's probably due to the construction methods, since much of that land was reclaimed before 1950. The construction techniques at the time just weren't as good as what we have now, which leads to some unsatisfactory building conditions. Landfill soil tends to liquefy during seismic activity, but will quickly stabilize after the event so there's little long-term damage to the soil itself (what's on top of the soil is a whole different issue though)
Originally Posted By FerretAfros leemac - do you know why TDL was built at that weird angle? I can understand why they wanted to orient the entrance toward the north, to get people coming from the train, but it seems strange that the entrance was rotated about 45 degrees away from the station itself. I would think that the early designers would have wanted people to approach the entrance head-on, so the crowds dispersed evenly among the turnstiles (though with the long and orderly pre-opening queues, I guess that sort of works itself out)
Originally Posted By Mr X Ferret, Lee probably knows more than I about this but have you considered the fact that the train line didn't exist (or at least was still under construction) when TDL opened? Perhaps the builders didn't even know precisely where the station would wind up? Just a guess.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Passenger service began on 3 March 1986 between Minami-Funabashi and Chiba-Minato, and was extended eastward to Soga and westward to Shin-Kiba on 1 December 1988.[6] The final section of the Keiyō Line between Tōkyō and Shin-Kiba opened on 10 March 1990*** <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiy%C5%8D_Line">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...%8D_Line</a> Some interesting train history there. Anyway, I dunno if that relates to the question, but in those early years my understanding is that Urayasu station (Tozai line) was the main train connection to TDL, via shuttle bus. In fact, there's an old weatherbeaten sign out there I've always meant to take a picture of, pointing people to the (long defunct) TDL shuttle.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Wow, that's very interesting! It sure explains the weird setup at Tokyo Station, where you have to walk forever to get to the platforms, and the platforms feel like a special destination of their own. I've also always thought it was odd that there were 2 Keiyo lines but I guess that (sort of) explains the reason for it I had assumed that the train line existed before TDL, and they just added a station along the way for access to the park. Given Tokyo's reliance on trains, it seems like a bold move to open a theme park that wasn't connected to the system. Since it only took 3 years to get rail service to the park, I would imagine that they already had a pretty good idea of where the station would go by that point. It looks like the location was determined by proximity to the bridge crossing the channel, which is probably something the early TDL planners would/should have realized. It's just kind of a funky setup
Originally Posted By leemac <<I would guess that it's probably due to the construction methods, since much of that land was reclaimed before 1950. The construction techniques at the time just weren't as good as what we have now, which leads to some unsatisfactory building conditions. Landfill soil tends to liquefy during seismic activity, but will quickly stabilize after the event so there's little long-term damage to the soil itself (what's on top of the soil is a whole different issue though)>> It is poor quality landfill - effectively garbage. There were better alternatives even then. Both the quality and technology used in HKDL is significantly better.
Originally Posted By leemac <<leemac - do you know why TDL was built at that weird angle? I can understand why they wanted to orient the entrance toward the north, to get people coming from the train, but it seems strange that the entrance was rotated about 45 degrees away from the station itself. I would think that the early designers would have wanted people to approach the entrance head-on, so the crowds dispersed evenly among the turnstiles (though with the long and orderly pre-opening queues, I guess that sort of works itself out)>> The orientation of the park was hamstrung by the site location. The train station area isn't owned by OLC - it is owned by JR East (who aren't a shareholder of OLC). The train station location was known during construction but as has been pointed out didn't open for a few years. So what is also unique about the orientation and why is it bad from a theatrical perspective?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros It's not bad, it's just strikingly different from the other parks, which are more oriented in the cardinal directions and can be easily approached head-on (or in DLR's case, approached from either side with equal ease). It seems like it would have been a real haul to get to the turnstiles on the Tomorrowland side of the park entrance before they built the monorail station Then again, the extra few steps to get over there is probably minimal compared to what an average guest would do during a day in the park. Still, it just sort of feels lopsided to me >>The train station area isn't owned by OLC - it is owned by JR East (who aren't a shareholder of OLC).<< Sounds like a similar setup to DLP, yet TDR doesn't have any of the problems with people trying to sell stuff there. I guess it's just a reflection of Japanese culture and how orderly everything is there
Originally Posted By leemac <<Sounds like a similar setup to DLP, yet TDR doesn't have any of the problems with people trying to sell stuff there. I guess it's just a reflection of Japanese culture and how orderly everything is there>> I've only ever seen some charity or protest set-up or Jehovah's Witness people with their pamphlets. They get everywhere.
Originally Posted By Mr X Plus JR used to host that weeklong shanty-town every new years (I think they moved that party out to the remote parking lots or something).
Originally Posted By NGrey <<It is poor quality landfill - effectively garbage. There were better alternatives even then. Both the quality and technology used in HKDL is significantly better.>> Thanks for the insight. What kind of negative effects on TDR does this have compared to HKDL? More expensive construction/maintenance costs?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Reclamation is a nightmare - very expensive and very time-consuming to permit. Plus TDR's existing landfill is of poor quality compared to HKDL. Repurposing brownfield sites is much easier and cheaper. It may lead to the resort not being contiguous any more but it is beneficial in every other way.> Seems to me that the best way to expand for a third park would be to combine landfill and brownfield reclamation and build to the southeast of DisneySea.
Originally Posted By leemac <<What kind of negative effects on TDR does this have compared to HKDL? More expensive construction/maintenance costs?>> In theory a shorter lifespan. Using sand from the seabed is a more recent innovation and has led to better quality landfill - that is what was used on HKG's airport island, HKDL and most of the changes to Singapore. It helps when you have shallow waters. OLC tend to put down deep pylons for construction for stability. I don't know whether that is due to the potential for the landfill to shift or simply to meet building regulations for earthquake codes. Either way they build stuff very well.
Originally Posted By SuperDry << OLC tend to put down deep pylons for construction for stability. I don't know whether that is due to the potential for the landfill to shift or simply to meet building regulations for earthquake codes. Either way they build stuff very well. >> This was evidenced by the earthquake damage: lots of sidewalks and pavement showing the effects of being built on landfill, not not any structural damage that I can remember. And the monorail was undamaged, and all it would take is one pylon to move just a bit to put the track out of alignment and shut the whole thing down.
