Originally Posted By dagobert <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3501682/The-creepiest-place-Earth-inside-abandoned-Disney-World-park-one-two-close.html">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...ose.html</a> This looks creepy. I don't get why this area wasn't cleaned. Why did Disney leave all the trash there?
Originally Posted By monorailblue No one is supposed to be able to get back there to take pictures, so it is (ahem) ignored.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Those photos are a lot nicer looking from a photography perspective than the ones that usually pop up. It's interesting to see so many flowering plants in an area that's been abandoned for so long And as long as River Country is (supposed to be) off limits, I see no reason that Disney needs to clean it up. If they're going to spend money on the site, it will be to finally demolish it, and that won't realistically happen until they decide that they want to build something else there (most likely DVC/hotel)
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "And as long as River Country is (supposed to be) off limits, I see no reason that Disney needs to clean it up." Yeah. Not sure why Disney needs to be shamed into cleaning up this "abandoned" park.
Originally Posted By monorailblue Generally, debris, including plastic tables and chairs, old desks, old inner tubes, etc., are considered pollution. Think about this place the next time WDW holds a big "Pat Ourselves On the Back for Being Green" event.
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>Generally, debris, including plastic tables and chairs, old desks, old inner tubes, etc., are considered pollution.<<< That's what I meant. This area is polluted. Aren't there any environment protection laws? There's no need to demolish the buildings, but they should have at least removed the trash.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Generally, debris, including plastic tables and chairs, old desks, old inner tubes, etc., are considered pollution.*** I'd be willing to bet there are one or more dumps within WDW that contain exponential amounts of garbage compared with this small space.
Originally Posted By monorailblue That's a possibility, but is immaterial to the point: these polluted acres should be treated better. I'm frankly surprised Disney hasn't found any new purpose for the land. It is--in a regulatory sense--much easier to repurpose developed land than it is to develop previously (relatively) untouched land.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros But Disney owns the regulatory agencies and has a full-time staff working on development. I can't imagine that something like that would be a major factor in deciding which project to build or where to put it. I would imagine they would be more concerned with access to the existing roadway/transportation network and the site's suitability for construction. Given that it's fairly remote and about half of River Country's relatively small footprint is the lake, I think it would be tough to reuse the site without major reconfigurations; at that point, it would probably be easier to build everything new on a different site
