Originally Posted By Doobie In building DCA, Disney has always stated they were trying to build something as a compliment to Disneyland, not something that was better than Disneyland. That's made me ask this question: Would you have been ok if Disney had built a park in the parking lot that was better than Disneyland (assuming you believe there is such a thing). Kind of like DisneySea in Tokyo looks like it might be better than Tokyo Disneyland in many people's opinions. Assuming Disneyland is exactly as it is today, would a second park that out-shined Disneyland been ok with you? Doobie.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 It would certainly be ok with me. They need a park better than the original if they want to draw the crowds. Disneyland has the advantage of having a nostogia factor - people will always visit Disneyland. But a new park has to stand on its own merits - it has no nostolgia yet, it has to build it's own. So I think a park that is better than Disneyland is almost a neccesity. I think that's why Tokyo is getting Disney Seas. I just wish the Disneyland Resort had thought of this before they scrapped the Westcot idea. Paul
Originally Posted By gadzuux Absolutely. As it is, I visit DL two or three times a year. Currently, I'd plan to poke my nose into DCA "maybe" once a year. With a park that even approached DL's quality, I would feel compelled to enter both parks on each visit; especially if there were two attractions in there that I HAD to experience. As many have pointed out, DL's goal for the second (and presumably the third) park is to get out of towners to extend their visits, and hopefully to give them an incentive to stay in disney's high-end hotels. If DCA's image with the public doesn't turn around, it will not accomplish mgmt's goals. A "knock-yer-socks-off" park would. It would be almost unthinkable to come to DL from more than - say 500 miles, and NOT go into the new whiz-bang park. I don't think that there's a problem with out-shining DL. The public's love of that park has been firmly established over many years, and the only thing that could undo it would be to allow the park to degrade through lack of maintenance, closing attractions, not putting in new attractions - hey, wait a minute! . . .
Originally Posted By Nobody Without having any real inside information, for starters, somebody probably thought "Hey, there's a large chunk of contiguous land without a lot of structures to tear down." Then somebody else thought "hey, if we could somehow find a way to better utilize a smaller plot of land to park cars, then we could use a tram to drop folks off in one spot and let them turn left or right." I guess a few people just thought it made sense.
Originally Posted By JeffG I'd say it would be "ok" with me, but I have some strong doubts about whether or not it would even be feasible (or perhaps even possible) to build a brand-new park that truly is better or even as good as one that has developed and grown over a 45 year period. I don't really know of any successful theme park that hasn't grown and improved over time. The fact that Disney has been able to further refine the design through 4 similar parks has made these parks something very special. I have my doubts that even Tokyo Disney Sea will be as good on opening day as any of the Magic Kingdom parks. -Jeff
Originally Posted By crapshoot If the developers had truly analyzed what makes DL a success and built on that success, then nobody would feel jealous if the new park turned out better. We would all be there and not here typing away like we are.
Originally Posted By tangaroa I totally think that any new developement should always be the best they can produce, and if that's somehow better than the original magic kingdom, than I'm all for it. I think the thing that is enchanting people the most about DisneySea is not just how it could be better than the original magic kingdom, but how it proves that it *is* at least possible to create a whole new themed enviroment that does compare to the original DisneyLand. And I do wish they had built a smaller version here in Anaheim.
Originally Posted By woody Truly, Disney hasn't really built a ground breaking new and innovative theme park since EPCOT. IOA was the most recent innovative park. Animal Kingdom could have been IT, but it was cut below the knees. That leaves TDS as the best thing Japan has ever built. DCA will allows be below the radar.
Originally Posted By Doobie While I don't mind the discussion of the other parks Disney has built, I'm most interested in knowing how people would've felt if the Disneyland Resort's second resort out-shined Disneyland. I don't want this to turn into another DCA debate if at all possible. Lots of other threads available for that. Doobie.
Originally Posted By mrbond I absolutely do think it would have been great for Disney to build a better park than Disneyland. As stated before Disneyland has nostalgia, it has Walts touch. I certainly believe Disneyland could easily stand up against a better park, as Tokyo disneyland is capable of doing with Disney Sea. A new park would need imagination, something to bring your dreams to life. Something locals as well as out of towners can't find nearby. A better park than disneyland having these characteristics would certainly create interest and attendance. The Disney Sea concept ceratinly brings in ideas that inspire. At least I would want to go to a park that inspires and i can say -wow- just by stepping in. Feasibly for the disney company, I really don't know if there would be any incentive for there to be a park better than Disneyland. Disney already has Walt Disney World, a highly grossing resort with an established customer base. Would they be willing to give up part of that customer base to a new competitive resort at disneyland(i.e. getting less bookings at their already built hotel rooms in WDW)? Disney World is meant to be the big cookie and welp Disneylands job is to get the cookie crumbles. Adding competition to WDW isnt good for the company, they know it. Thats why disneyland got a park that complements the original(not enough to take away from WDW, but enough to up attendance at the Disneyland resort). Atleast thats how i see things.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> Doobie: Would you have been ok if Disney had built a park in the parking lot that was better than Disneyland << Not only OK with it, but probably relieved by and far more confident in it too, assuming the DisCo. truly wants to make their Anaheim division more competitive and creditable in the long run. As I read in an article that someone on this message board took the time to find and post, the DisCo's Anaheim operation has been described as an "eroding asset" by one of the company's top executives, and was an entertainment/tourist setup that couldn't afford any more years of delay and neglect in upgrading. To make up for the seedy environment that's tarnished Disneyland's standing for years and years, the lack of impressive land holdings in Anaheim controlled by the DisCo. (ideally, they'd have no less than 500 to 1,000 acres) -- which means if they goof on the land they do own, they don't have a lot of additional "immersive" space to cover their tracks -- and the 28 years of amazing growth and investment that the company has given to their Orlando division, I think the new park in California should have been no less than overwhelming and first-rate from the beginning. I won't mention any other Disney park in regards to this topic, but I find it difficult to deal with the idea of a new park in Anaheim being better (or at least somewhat as good as, or at least better than DCA) than Disneyland until I see the full ramifications of the next Disney park to open this year, just as I think the existence of the DisCo's Orlando operations (Journey Into Your Imagination, etc., notwithstanding) has affected my expectations for any development the company pursues.
Originally Posted By Luna I think that is a very interesting question. The answer depends on who you are. I think out of towners are more enthusiastic about a new park being better than DL. Alot of locals had the feeling that nothing could top DL. Not everyone mind you, but I heard alot of talk about the new park from locals in the last year. There is a certain amount of comfort in the tried and true. Reexperiencing the rides with your kids ect. For me, I am so happy they built DCA. I love the new park, and get to go some great new rides. I think it was a very smart decision to build in the parking lot. Sure I was a little sad to see it go. Hey I remember all those times when I was a kid taking the tram from the parking lot. Being able to walk if we wanted (try that now) and see the front gates from our car. But hey this is a much better use of scarce land. I don't like parking in Mickey and friends but it is free. I do think building in the parking lot was the highest and best use of the land (the ex real estate appraiser coming out) So my final answer is... No I don't want to see a park "better" than DL. Selfish me doesn't want to attract any more crowds, it's bad enough already.
Originally Posted By SJHYM I say Absolutely YES!!! It would mean that Disney was still at the fore front of Theme Park building. What an incredible park it would be to surpass the best!!!!
Originally Posted By Schmitty Good Vibes This is simple. Everybody seems to want Disneyland to "Keep the faith" with how Walt opeerated things (besides maintenance). If Walt had the chance WDP had to build a second park in the parking lot, do you think he would have set as a target something not quite as good as Disneyland, so as to keep the original #1? Heavens No! (note the carefull insertion of the word "heavens") He would have given it all he had, if for nothing else, just to prove again that it was kind of fun to do the impossible.
Originally Posted By Jim in Pasadena CA <Why did it have to be bulit in the parking lot?> Because of the accessible land that Disney owned there in...the...Parking Lot. It's easier to put cars in an off-site parking garage, than to put a theme park in an off-site parking garage. As for the question: Is there such a thing as a Park that is better than Disneyland? It simply does not exist. Yes friends, even the almightly Tokyo Disney Seas...
Originally Posted By Briguy1314 I would love it if they build something that was better then DL. Means more fun for everyone!
Originally Posted By jonvn I think it'd be great. Why not? The problem is that if it is so great, would it cause the older park to fall into disuse, or would the older park have to be brought up to the level of the new park? I think the latter. Disneyland is considered their "flagship" so I really think it would not be allowed to look bad in comparison to any next door park.
Originally Posted By schoolsinger If Disney was smart they would try to get better and better. Now DCA is a great park, but guest were not that impressed, because they exspected it to be BETTER than Disneyland. Now if DCA came out before Disneyland it would have been a hit! Then if Disneyland came after then that would have been a hit to, because it was BETTER than the first park. Making a park that is not as good as the one before it is a lot like releasing the Super Nintendo after the Nintendo 64 came out.
Originally Posted By bxtrlnd I thnk Jon touches on an interesting idea. I would have loved to have seen the second gate outshine DL! Absolutely! Imagine the current attendance situation reversed, where the new second gate has better than expected attendance, and DL's attendance has declined. With guests focusing their time and money on the new park, thereby reducing the crowds in DL, Disney could finally put some serious $$$ into the first gate for much needed rehab work! And sorry, Jim... I'm calling you on your prejudgment of TDS, before it opens. You can't pass judgment like that, until it opens, and folks actually walk in and visit. Folks here and on other websites did that with DCA, before it opened, and got rightfully slammed for it. Wait and see, wait and see. Judi
