Originally Posted By Shooba Interesting stuff about Tony Baxter's idea for the park - eliminate admission fees and include ride admission with any Disneyland park ticket. They'd also sell individual ride tickets. Sounds like it won't happen, but interesting food for thought. <a href="http://www.miceage.com/allutz/al112806c.htm" target="_blank">http://www.miceage.com/allutz/ al112806c.htm</a> DCA... Drama Continues Always As if the Pirates Lair saga wasn't shaking things up enough in the halls of Glendale, there's also been quite a bit of drama recently regarding the plans for DCA. We've told you in the past about John Lasseter's interest in the fixes and improvements proposed for DCA. What is even more interesting is the story behind that story, as it turns out the plans for what is widely referred to as "The DCA Problem" have created two separate factions within WDI. Multiple sources in Glendale have reported that Tony Baxter was opposed to the bold and sweeping ideas his friend John Lasseter supported for DCA. Lasseter had supported spending 700 Million and five years to add a short roster of classically styled E-Tickets and plus up existing areas with sweeping changes to architecture and amenities in a program regular readers know as "Placemaking." Tony Baxter, on the other hand, has reportedly supported a group of Imagineers that feel DCA is so inherently flawed that Burbank will never be able to muster the long-term capital needed to make it a suitable companion park to Disneyland. Tony's plan for DCA included a few new attractions and some much needed beautification of the current drab plazas and lackluster design in much of the park. But under his plan DCA also would cease to be a separately ticketed theme park entirely. Instead, new entrance areas would be opened up on the southern side of the park across from the Anaheim Convention Center, the turnstiles would be removed from the current main entrance, and the entire DCA property would be "repurposed" as a grand extension of Downtown Disney that needs no admission ticket to enter.
Originally Posted By ni_teach While I think that the DCA has some flaws, I don't think that they should throw in the towel. I think that Tony's idea and turning the DCA into a large shopping mall with a few rides is a cheapskates way out and will not add value to the area in the long run.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Hey, if Walt Disney World can support 'Disney-MGM Studios' as a separate park, Disneyland can certainly support 'Disney's California Adventure.'
Originally Posted By liveforvacations I think making DCA an extension of Downtown Disney that needs no admission ticket to enter is the most moronic idea I have heard yet with regard to DCA!!
Originally Posted By SuperDry I have no idea what the answer is, but if there is any truth to this story, it shows just how large "The DCA Problem" is. And it's a lot bigger than anything that a few detractors on a message board could create. <<< I think making DCA an extension of Downtown Disney that needs no admission ticket to enter is the most moronic idea I have heard yet with regard to DCA!! >>> It surprises me that it's even being considered. But if the numbers previously leaked of there being only around 200 paid single-day admissions to DCA on many Saturdays last summer, then The DCA Problem certainly has the potential of being truly enormous. <<< I think that Tony's idea and turning the DCA into a large shopping mall with a few rides is a cheapskates way out and will not add value to the area in the long run. >>> Tony hardly has the reputation of being a cheapskate. As I've said before, my opinion is that perhaps the biggest fatal flaw with DCA is that the problems are spread out across the board, such that it's not just a matter of adding an attraction or two or redoing the entrance that will fix things. It's almost completely the opposite of what happened with HKDL (and which I think speaks volumes as to TWDC having learned their DCA lesson early enough to not repeat it with HKDL). With HKDL, fixing the problems is just a matter of money in that they need to more completely finish the park. But with DCA, there are problems with the quality of the buildout with what's already there as well as major theme problems (in many people's eyes at least). It's possible that Tony's opinion is that there's no practical way of fixing it. In IT, we call this problem the "forklift upgrade" problem - the only way to upgrade the system is to rip out the current one (and cart it off with a forklift) and install a completely new one. Since that's never going to happen with DCA, the "open park" concept may be the least worst of the remaining options.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I think that this plan is a terrible idea, and I hope that it never happens. Just because it would be easy to revert to the attraction tickets and allow more shopping in does not mean that it would work any better than the current configuration. The ticket system had its time, but a new time is here and the ticket system most likely would cause even more problems. From a financial stand point, it would make sense to turn the entire area, including DL into a mall, but there are only so many people who will travel to the DLR to go shopping. "It surprises me that it's even being considered. But if the numbers previously leaked of there being only around 200 paid single-day admissions to DCA on many Saturdays last summer, then The DCA Problem certainly has the potential of being truly enormous." At the same time, how many people paid for a single day ticket into Epcot? How about Tokyo DisneySea? (I expect the TDS number to be higher) I think that part of the problem that they are facing right now is that they are in an awkward stage between being a real destination that attracts people from around the world, and just being a theme park. IMO, Disney needs to step up to the challange, as the market has proven in the last year that it can really support a quality product. If they can build enough for people to stay in the area for several days, I really don't think it will matter how many single day tickets are sold, as DCA will really help contribute to the entire resort's profit, even if it loses money when looked at by itself.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 I really don't like the idea of opening up the park as an extension of Downtown Disney. There may be problems, but I can see even bigger ones if this happens. For one, it basically admits that DLR will never be a "resort", and why invest money in it anymore? If they add more shops and restaurants, then why invest in themeing anymore? DVC that looks modern right next to attractions and restaurants? It would give them an excuse to just throw any old thing in there since it's just more mall space with a few attractions. Any idea of a third park would probably not happen if this were to come to pass. I just hope saner heads prevail and they decide to keep it a separate gate and just spend money to make it a full day destination. Also, even the addition of a water park might help people to stay an extra day and get those park hoppers. I don't know what the ultimate solution will be, but I sure hope it's not Tony Baxter's!
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “But if the numbers previously leaked of there being only around 200 paid single-day admissions to DCA on many Saturdays last summer, then The DCA Problem certainly has the potential of being truly enormous.†If it were so enormous I would think that the problem would be more evident in the resort's bottom line. Al never says it, but he seems to be suggesting that DCA is losing money. If financial results were truly so dire the cost of operating DCA would be dragging the rest of the place into the red. How can they build expensive new attractions like Midway Madness and Tower of Terror if they place is bleeding money? It's too bad that Disney doesn't report the financial results of the individual DLR businesses separately, that way at least we’d have some solid proof one way or the other. Everything else is pure speculation.
Originally Posted By leemac I don't usually wade into these Al Lutz conversations due to an obvious bias on my behalf but I was hugely disappointed to read Shooba's synopsis of the article. Once again the DCA campaign works its way into the public domain presumably thanks to a desire to shift the general public opinion on the matter to one party's advantage. That said there is a lot of history here that can help explain how it has allegedly come to this: 1) Half day park=half day admission: This isn't new. The WDI team behind D-MGM pitched to WDW and Eisner the notion that you couldn't charge a full day's admission for the third gate. The response to that was that it sent out the wrong marketing message and that is complicated entry. "Anyhow the majority of ticket-holders would be multi-day tickets" was the other counter-argument. Naturally that one won out. The same happened at DCA. When the budget was finally fixed Barry Braverman continued to diplomatically pitch for a different pricing structure for DCA. He had the backing of the other exec producers on the park but it failed to get traction as TDA was keen to drive single day admission and the new two-park APs (which ran at $299 initially). WDI were ultimately between a rock and a hard place: build a second gate within a limited budget that would stand up against a park that had had forty years of success to build on. 2) Post-Opening: The issue then became damage-limitation. "Sales are poor so what can we do?" The answer was only to offer discounts. Nothing else. You couldn't acknowledge that the park was under-developed. Tony certainly wasn't the first person to raise the issue of free dining entrance or the ticket book. One SVP at WDI had pushed hard for this to happen to keep the third party vendors in the park. He saw the marketable jewels being Puck, Mondavi and Soap Opera and they could attract outside guests who didn't want to pay for entry. It would then become self-perpetuating in that it would bring more guests spending more inside the park. Naturally that fell on Cynthia's deaf ears. They just wasn't any flexibility in the approach. So DCA gets labelled a failure even though it helps to make the resort a multi-day environment which brings the three resort hotels into play. The Grand California isn't a success just because DCA gets people in the area for longer but it is a big factor. Many of us staying at least a day longer now because of DCA. 3) Public campaigns: Things continue to leak. I have two great examples of this: a few weeks ago I was sitting in the lobby of 1401 Flower waiting for my lunch date and three guys with Disneyland nametags were sitting opposite. For 15 minutes without checking to see who I was they continued to discuss their pitch to WDI for the Pirates makeover for Tom Sawyer Island. Without any care for who was listening. I made the point of mentioning it to WDI Management that afternoon. This is a Disneyland project first and foremost and for WDI to continually be attached to it as the driver shows how much information really does leak from WDI. The other story is about the Jim Hill article recently about Lasseter's absence at WDI. It tickled me as I had seen John at 1401 Flower the very week before when the beauty parades were being conducted for future projects with Jay and Bob. So he goes from being totally involved to not being interested or available. The real answer is somewhere in between. He has become a good sounding board for WDI particularly with the Pixar attractions (subs has seen a lot of changes thanks to John's input) but he isn't there to make decisions or force concepts. He is there to offer his advice (albeit it is taken seriously). I do take issue with the fact that all of these major WDI leaks seem to either come from Tony's inner circle or involve his name. The Creative group at WDI is significantly bigger than just Tony and in fact there are numerous show producers more productive and profilic than him that never get a mention. Why? Becuase their suff doesn't get leaked. Same as the "Big Plan" for DCA is attributed to Lasseter when numerous SVPs/VPs (including Tony's boss) have been the real driving force behind the massive infrastructural changes that are needed for DCA. No mention of them though. Always the buzz words, "Baxter", "Lasseter" etc. Tony is ultimately late to this game. His idea isn't unusual and actually has merit IMHO for the short-term as it will drive capacity. However it isn't a long-term solution and I don't know anyone at WDI that ever saw it as a viable option. However Tony off his own back came up with something that he believed passionately about and offered it as an alternative to the other plans on the table. This has been going on all year.
Originally Posted By liveforvacations I don't think that the single-day admissions indicate DCA's attendance or it's profit. I represent the "tourist market" and I know that we and most of the people we know spend at least a day to a day and a half longer in the Disneyland Resort as a direct result of DCA. Before DCA we used to get 3 day park hoppers and we would spend a day at Knott's Berry Farm. We now get 5 day park hoppers and we spend all 5 days at Disneyland and DCA. As Disneyland is the "original", I do not believe that anything can be built that would compete with it, DCA just needs to compliment it. DCA does not seem popular with the locals but I know that the people I have talked ot, enjoy DCA and appreciate having another park to experience just across from Disneyland. Is the tourist market or the local market more important to the success of DCA? (It is a question to all you LPers out there that seem to know a lot about these things.)
Originally Posted By Darkbeer ^Since the majority of Disneyland attendance is Locals, I would say yes. The location of Disneyland was chosen specifically that it would be become the center of the Southern California area, and the research group hired did a great job with finding the correct location. The number I have heard is over 60% of the attendance is locals.
Originally Posted By TP2000 ---"At the same time, how many people paid for a single day ticket into Epcot? How about Tokyo DisneySea? (I expect the TDS number to be higher)"--- Seeing as how Tokyo doesn't sell a one-day park hopper for DisneySea, I would bet that the one day ticket numbers for DisneySea are huge compared to DCA. When I went to Tokyo Disney Resort I bought a 3 Day Ticket from the main ticket booth. The first day I could go to Disneyland, but not to DisneySea. The second day I could go to DisneySea, but not to Disneyland. And only on the third day was I allowed admission to either park of my choosing. They force you into a day at each park with any multi-day ticket in Tokyo. Plus there's the logistical fact that the entrance to DisneySea is on the opposite side of the property from the entrance to Disneyland. It requires either a 25 minute walk through Iskpiari and around the Ambassador Hotel and parking structure, or it takes a 10 minute monorail ride with two stops to get to the DisneySea entrance from the Disneyland entrance. It would be like having the Disneyland entrance off of Ball Road, while the DCA entrance was across from the convention center on Katella. And you had to either walk the entire perimeter of the property to get there, or ride a 10 minute monorail past a couple stops to get to the "other park". Needless to say, on the third day when we were allowed to hop between DisneySea and Disneyland, we only made that journey once. And we saved it for the late afternoon with a pit stop back at the room at the Hilton along the monorail line. Park Hopping in Anaheim is logistically very easy; when you are in Tomorrowland you are literally a 10 minute stroll from Grizzly River Run. Plus they practically cram park hopping tickets down your throat with dozens of different ticketing offers at every turn in Anaheim. In Tokyo, there is only one ticket option available, and they don't make it easy to hop back and forth. In effect, they don't even allow that sort of thing unless you are going to stay at least 3 complete days and are willing to plan an afternoon around the process of moving from Disneyland to DisneySea. All of that makes the huge yearly attendance DisneySea recieves even more impressive compared to the DCA numbers.
Originally Posted By aracuanbird I think this plan makes a TON of sense. Disneyland, until 2001, was just a park and a hotel. There was nothing in the way of a resort infrastructure. How in the heck do two full day parks and a retail district make a resort? Consider WDW's offerings from 1971-82...there were all sorts of 1, 2, and 3 hour experiences offered. These features provided a sense of richness and value. They offered a reason to extend visits to the property. Consider more urban areas and what they offer. Dining and shopping, sure, but also smaller attractions, museums, parks. This Disneyland Resort needs to bolster smaller, shorter dwell time experiences. This proposal is bold in refusing to simply accept that DCA must be a full day theme park. There are other types of entertainment that Disney could involve itself in. My opinion is that Disneyland could use more diversity in its offerings.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror I like the concept of opening up DCA, mixing it up with attractions and restaurants and vastly expanding Downtown Disney. I also am glad it will never get done. Not a small problem would be assigning fixed costs for specific attractions and themed areas, for maintenance and new development. Plus, my strong inclination is, it would further fracture the Disneyland Resort's Identity Crisis. At least with DCA, the identity crisis "what the heck is this place about?" is contained to ONE theme park. And as it's contained, much like a virus, they can address it specifically. They can target large portions and work on fixing it, turning it around. Opening it up is kind of the utopian, socialist answer to the problem. But it does represent giving up to a large degree. I'd rather them pour money into it, with the objective of MAKING more money out of it.
Originally Posted By dresswhites i don't like this idea at all. a mall with some rides in it? that would seem like the mall of america. plus knowing disney each remaining attraction would have it own price. Tower may be 20.00, while soaring 40.00. i
Originally Posted By dennis-in-ct I have a hard time thinking "outside the box" with this ... I have more comfort in having DCA be a 2nd park. Maybe I just can't grasp "the vision"
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<However Tony off his own back came up with something that he believed passionately about and offered it as an alternative to the other plans on the table. This has been going on all year.>> IMO it sounds more like Tony was just offering an alternative idea... throwing something out that he isn't truly passionate about. But that's just my take, because it sounds so ludicrous to me.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Based on what I read, the current "plan" is a combination of Tony's ideas, such as adding hotel/DVC to help pay for the expansions and "placemaking". And I understand why to many folks, Tony's ideas made sense. And it is a Financial/Business decision. First off, you have new competition for the Convention Center crowd, from the new restaurants such as Morton's and RuthChris opening near the Convention Center on Harbor, and the new Anaheim Garden Walk. Building a new entrance on Katella across from the Convention Center (maybe a pedestrian Bridge to help "grab" people straight to Disney property), and then allow other companies to pay the costs of building new shops and restaurants, and then collect rent on a monthly basis. You keep the few attractions that had a large capital outlay, and sell tickets (and now you can offer an all day ride pass at a lower price than a one day Disneyland ticket without the "fallout"). Allowing the multi-day ParkHoppers to also ride will help drive folks into the new shopping/dining operations. You could take the Hyperion, build a true lobby with bathrooms and concessions, and then offer full length shows, some movie premieres, and rent out the facility to folks who want to host things like concerts, awards ceremonies, dance and cheer competitions, etc. You could convert most of the Hollywood Backlot area to help in the rental to corporations, etc. by adding more food and beverage (including alcohol) to the area, and keep things like the old Millionaire building to allow for trade show displays, etc. I think you would keep Tower of Terror, Soarin', GRR (only because of its size and the attachment to the mountain - though hopefully would get some plussing), Screamin' and Toy Story Midway Mania. Everything else can go. Add another new entrance on the west end (take out Mulholland Madness), this will allow folks from the Hotels easy access, plus those made to park in Simba (which I presume would be converted to a Parking Structure to make up for the lost of Timon Parking). I would add a few restaurants in the Lake area (to allow views of the lake) with a few shops thrown in to try and get folks waiting for lunch/dinner to come in and spend. With the current business model of offering discounted 3 day or More ParkHoppers and low cost AP's, plus the fact that very few DCA only tickets are sold, the conversion is tempting to those looking at the numbers. Also, you would cut back on the amount of CM's you need to operate the area, as most employees in the area would work for the individual stores and restaurants (Though I presume that Disney would still operate a couple of the stores and restaurants currently in the park.) Build the Hotel and DVC locations over in the Timon Lot/Farm area, and the new entrance to the south would take over the Wharf area. Now with that said, it looks like they decided to NOT do it... But of course, sounds like things change on a regular basis regarding what to do with DCA.....
Originally Posted By Park Hopper Why doesn't Disneyland Paris declare bankruptcy, restructure and reopen? If they did they would become profitable instantly. The answer: because Disney doesn’t want the publicity that comes with it. It would look like they failed. That is the same reason why they will never turn DCA into a shopping center/hotel complex with rides. I’d sure look at that and call it a failure. The question remains will they do what is necessary to make DCA a success? I guess we’ll all just have to stay tuned.
