Originally Posted By Scuba Mickey Would you say TDL is the size of MK at WDW, like DL or something else? How about Seas, what would you compair it to for size? I ask for passing myself perposes. lol
Originally Posted By Mr X TDL is somewhat bigger than the Magic Kingdom, I think. DisneySea is much smaller than TDL, but it feels kinda big being on the water and all that. Plus you can get tired easily because there are a lot of ups and downs along the pathways.
Originally Posted By TDR_Fan Actually, in terms of sheer acreage, TDS is quite a bit bigger than TDL.
Originally Posted By SuperDry ^^^ I don't know if it's true or not, but it certainly feels that way when walking around, and I'm not just talking about the elevation change.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Actually, in terms of sheer acreage, TDS is quite a bit bigger than TDL.*** I don't think that's accurate, but you could be right. Don't forget though, they count all that space around Rivers of America and that's quite a bit of space that few guests ever really see. I do believe I was told that DisneySea is just about half the size of TDL. Again, I could be wrong but I think that's what I heard.
Originally Posted By Mr X Officially, TDL is 51.0 ha (hectares?). DisneySea is 49.0, so we were both wrong. They're essentially the same size. And onto another geek fact, I just learned that the castle and volcano are exactly the same height at 51 meters.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 How much of TDS is actually useable, they waste so much space on those waterways. I marvel at how little real room they have for expanding after 10 more years. All that water adds to the ambiance, but it really cuts down how much they can expand in the future. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Bob Paris Actually, the waterways add SO much to the ambience. If anything, Mediterranean Harbour may be a little too large but what are you gonna do now? At least it is certainly better than the four foot pool of wasted space that is the lagoon at DCA. Now THAT is wasted space within a park that is wasted space.
Originally Posted By MagicalNezumi >>>>>>>> Mr X wrote: And onto another geek fact, I just learned that the castle and volcano are exactly the same height at 51 meters. >>>>>>>> Tower of Terror stands at 59 meters (193.6 ft). One meter taller and aircraft safety lights would be required on top of the structure. -- MagicalNezumi
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Mr. X, I cant believe you didnt know they were both practically the same size?? And you call yourself a geek! I'm sooo dissappointed in you .
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Tower of Terror stands at 59 meters (193.6 ft). One meter taller and aircraft safety lights would be required on top of the structure. -- MagicalNezumi*** You sure that's not an urban legend? It's funny, cause they said the same thing about the Tower at DisneyWorld and the comment was 199 feet (200 would require lights). I sure hope that's NOT really true, because if so it's pretty messed up to think that the Disney guys would play games like that when it comes to safety. "Okay, it's too dangerous to have a dark building at 200 feet since a plane may crash into it...let's make it just a TINY bit shorter!". Yikes! (especially yikes for TDR since that heliport is right near the place and low flying helicopters fly by the resort all the time! extra yikes!)
Originally Posted By Scuba Mickey Thanks everyone. I love the insite to the size and heights of things. Interesting that the castle and valcano are the same height. It will be interesting to see in person if it feels like they are the same height.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< **And you call yourself a geek!** No. Actually, I don't. ;p >>> We do!
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< It's funny, cause they said the same thing about the Tower at DisneyWorld and the comment was 199 feet (200 would require lights). >>> I think that's right, and it wouldn't surprise me that Japan would use an equivalent metric standard that approximated 200 feet. <<< I sure hope that's NOT really true, because if so it's pretty messed up to think that the Disney guys would play games like that when it comes to safety. "Okay, it's too dangerous to have a dark building at 200 feet since a plane may crash into it...let's make it just a TINY bit shorter!". Yikes! >>> Not messed up at all IMHO. If the international standard is "structures that are 200 feet or higher must have a beacon" then that's exactly what it is. One that's 199 feet 11.5 inches would not require one. Otherwise, how would the regulations actually work? Would it read "You must have a beacon if your building is 200 feet, or 'close enough'?" And what would 'close enough' be defined as? 5 extra feet? 5%? Let's say it's 5 feet. But then wouldn't a building 194 feet 11.5 inches be just shy of the "real" limit, and itself require a beacon? Plus, the whole place is sinking anyway, so it will get better over time! <<< (especially yikes for TDR since that heliport is right near the place and low flying helicopters fly by the resort all the time! extra yikes!) >>> Any pilot knows that if the limit is 200 feet, then it's 200 feet, and not anything other than 200 feet.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Count me in as part of the folks who think TDS feels a lot bigger than it really is. While I didn't have the best planned walking schedule of the day (I think I ended up doing more or less around 3 'laps'), I didn't do a whole lot of extra walking just for the heck of it. But that the only time that I can think of where I've been so physically exhausted and sore at the end of a day of theme parking that it was actually a little painful to walk back to the front gate. I wanted to spend the whole day there, so I spent the last 10 or so minutes just sitting by the Aquashpere waiting for the announcement that the park was closed. It was a great day, but man, I sure burned off my extra calories then.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones TDS' size and design does feel like it would limit expansion. But the base park is so beautiful that I don't think it's as serious a problem as it would be for other parks. If they need room, get rid of Aquatopia and build something else. That's one of the few clunkers at the park.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 I agree about TDS being beautiful. I am wondering about capacity issues. If the park becomes more popular, I would think they would need extra space for more attractions in order to increase capacity. With space limited for future expansion, it seems like the capacity will be limited too. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Mr X ***<<< **And you call yourself a geek!** No. Actually, I don't. ;p >>> We do!*** I know.
Originally Posted By The Goddess Mara There are few places for expansion at DisneySea: 1) To the left when you are facing Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Crystal Skull. Big spot there. 2) Where the Roman Ruins are on the right side of the park as you are walking on the LONG DAMN HILL up toward Mysterious Island. (Though as others more knowledgable have pointed out, there are backstage buildings that need to be moved.) 3) Sindbad Ride. This is the first thing that's going to get torn out when they run out of space. When you have an attraction that has no more than a 10 minute wait on the busiest day, its days are numbered. 4) As Lee mentioned in another thread, there's room for a dark ride of some sort inside the SS Columbia. 5) The "park" directly in front of the Tower of Terror is utterly wasted space. A theater or attraction could be build there. Unless I'm mistaken, that's about it. But I'd be really interested to hear if there are any other potential locations for expansion since the park does indeed need more attractions. As far as size, TDS feels like Epcot when you're schlepping from the back all the way to the front at the end of the day. Up, down, left, right ... my feet hurt just thinking about it. When you're all the way at the back of Tokyo Disneyland, whether it's by the Shooting Gallery in Westernland or Roger Rabbit's Car Toon Spin in Toontown, you can be out of the park in about 7 minutes. And it's flat! It's true--there are huge amounts of wasted space because of all the water. If they get desperate for space in 10 years, I wouldn't be surprised to see them build an attraction that spans one of the waterways so the Disney Transit Steamer can ride under/through it.
