Originally Posted By speedygenie Even today, there appears to be a fanbase for DCA that simply can't seem to come to terms with the fact that it is an underperforming park. Actually, for some, it's most than just being unable to come to terms with (that is, to understand why), but it apparently goes as deep as some people simply not believing that there are actually any attendance or financial problems at DCA, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.>>>> for the record it is totally posible to enjoy DCA, like it for what it is, and look forward to how they fix it up... AND AT THE SAME TIME understand the situation it's in. We all know it's not a homerun. But we have a good time there. The question is, why does that make people angry?
Originally Posted By ni_teach Gadzuux – Some great comments and thoughts. Westsider said: Also realize the executives that shepherded DCA from sketchpad to reality were a brand new breed of Disney execs, especially for Anaheim. One of the terms that the Disney Execs keep using is that the DCA was supposed to be “hip and edgyâ€. Now would anyone on this planet describe Eisner, Pressler or any of these new executives as “hip and edgyâ€?
Originally Posted By speedygenie i really wish they never used that term. It really stuck, and not in a good way. I think what they were going for was to make DCA the kind of place to pull of things we could never have done in Dland. (ToT, screamin, Block Party, road trip, Xgames, etc)
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> "We're still working to assure the second gate is successful", Iger said, referring to California Adventure. "In the spirit of candor, we have been challenged." << Speaking of candor, I'll always wonder what Eisner and Braverman -- and anyone else at the DisCo who was very influential in the planning and development of the company's land in Anaheim -- truly thought about DCA. It would be harder to characterize such people as having been totally inept if deepdown they believed the park was second-rate, that it was a big dud. But if their honest, heartfelt reactions back in 2001 were along the lines of "this park is quite nice---we've done a good job!", then that would be the ultimate explanation in understanding why things got so screwed up.
Originally Posted By danyoung ^^ This has been one of my thoughts all along. I think the DCA designers were genuinely surprised that the park wasn't an instant hit. I think they greatly misjudged their audience in thinking that any ol' ride with a Disney name slapped on was going to be good enough. There is also another level of design that went on at DL as a result of the designers being movie people who knew how to tell a story, who engineered subtle transitions from land to land, who knew how to totally immerse you in the park. DCA's designers didn't have any of these disciplines, and DCA is a worse for it. It's not that the average guest is going to come in and say "hmm, the perspective is off on this entryway" or "I don't like the color scheme on that store", etc. But they know that something's wrong, that something just doesn't feel up to Disney standards. And that's why there's so much excitement around Disney these days - cuz the folks coming back in charge are the kind of people who DO know about these subtleties, and will work to bring DCA (and other slacking properties) back up to the standard we've come to expect since 1955.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> I too like DCA and look forward to its continued evolution. << And therefore why do people continue to bring up the economics of Orlando versus Anaheim, or the profitability of the theme-park industry, or the tourist market on the West Coast versus the East Coast, or the rigidity of profit-and-loss imposed on the DisCo by the unique nature of southern California, when quite simply a lot of leading people at the DisCo, before and after 2001, may have been proclaiming "I too like DCA" or "it's good enough for me!"?
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> I think the DCA designers were genuinely surprised that the park wasn't an instant hit. << And if so, they must have been creative dunderheads. Even the reporter for the L.A. Times who attended the major press conference when plans for DCA were first announced was underwhelmed by the information and descriptions.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>And therefore why do people continue to bring up the economics of Orlando versus Anaheim, or the profitability of the theme-park industry, or the tourist market on the West Coast versus the East Coast, or the rigidity of profit-and-loss imposed on the DisCo by the unique nature of southern California, when quite simply a lot of leading people at the DisCo, before and after 2001, may have been proclaiming "I too like DCA" or "it's good enough for me!"?<< If you really believe that no number crunching was done, and that DCA's financial planning was 100% seat of the pants, that is your perogative.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Like singing and acting, it seems to me that many of the folks who oversaw California Adventure must have had the attitude of 'Well, how hard can building a theme park be?' It almost seems like they said, 'What, you throw a few rides at them, some shopping, places to eat, some live shows, and they'll come flocking to the place.' In my experience, it's the non-creatives who think that creativity is 'easy.' Just like the non-talented are the ones who think acting and singing is 'easy.' Watch the contestants on American Idol who walk in with all the bravado of a seasoned professional. 'Oh yes, I'm the next American Idol.' Watch them, they're not nervous at all. And person to person, those are the contestants who absolutely suck wind. You have to have a bit of nerves or you're not engaged, IMO
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Hans, I am not interested in debating the subject of So Cal theme park saturation with you at this time." Well then why did you ask the question? "I simply want to know where the idea came from. Did some accredited entertainment professional reach this conclusion? Or did you piece this concept together on your own?" Not sure what your problem is with me. I pretty much laid out all the information for you, along with my opinion. If you don't want to take my word for it do some homework and take a look at theme park trends in Southern California and the U.S. There is a direct correlation between the population size in Southern California and theme park attendance. Hence Disney decided that the best way to create long term growth for DLR was to make the place a mutlti-day experience. The catch, of course, is that with such a saturated market any expansion would be incredibly risky. Therefore, the resort expansion (for right or wrong) was built out modestly to begin. Now, to answer your questions, have a look at this: <a href="http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/documents/areas/ctr/ccp/ThemeParkAttendance" target="_blank">http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/d ocuments/areas/ctr/ccp/ThemeParkAttendance</a>(b&w).pdf Is Anderson Consulting good enough for you, or do I need to provide more evidence for you? Furthermore, it's well documented that the theme park business is teetering between good and bad these days. Growth in the industry has stagnated. Six Flags, for instance, finshed 2005 with a $144 million loss in its fourth quarter. In DLR's backyard Universal Studios Hollywood was down a whopping 6% last year (it was up 8% in 2004, but down 12% in 2003 - Ouch), and Knott's was down 3%.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Let's try this again. <a href="http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/documents/areas/ctr/ccp/ThemeParkAttendance" target="_blank">http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/d ocuments/areas/ctr/ccp/ThemeParkAttendance</a>(b&w).pdf
Originally Posted By danyoung >And if so, they must have been creative dunderheads.< In a sense, that's correct, IMO. It's not that they were stupid, or evil. They just didn't have the creative ability to engineer the magic. They thought that standard, off the shelf rides would be good enough, that people would flock to this new Disney creation. Look at what they did to the AP program - it didn't exist for DCA at all at first, cuz they thought the park would be overrun by full price ticket buyers. It wasn't a month after opening before they started selling the 2-park AP. Then the discounts. Then the free add-ons. They were completely caught by surprise that this new park didn't work.
Originally Posted By bean "Of course. I do know that costs are itemized each fiscal year. Spending more money up-front is actually a bad idea based on the tax laws. However, building a temporary building in the correct location is cheaper than building it in the wrong location. There is no need to relocate it in the future. That's why the spending on DCA is penny-wise, pound-foolish. In total nominal costs, DCA will cost quite a bit of money. There is no savings from the cheap design decisions." understand what you are saying but to put it in simple words, lets say that it was time to build the permanent building. You then realize that the temporary building was built in the exact same spot that was going to be used for the permanent building. What are you going to have to do now? Tear down the temporary building to make way for the permanent one. During this time where are you going to store the parade floats and other equipment that is being kept in there? You have two choices 1) you just let them sit out and get beaten up by weather and then have to invest in repairs or 2) you build another temprary building to hold them while the permanent one os constructed. Obviously the most logical one is number 2. See were we are now. You still had to build a temporary building. Building a much less expensive building to begin with reduces the overall budget of the park at start up and the temporary building serves the same purpose as the permanent one until that area is needed. In this case the more permanent building was constructed sooner than expected to be able to accomodate both parades that DCA had once they added DEP. This new parade building was then built in the proposed location leaving the original temporary building open for future development like it was intended.
Originally Posted By speedygenie and just so everyone knows, that building has more importance than just EP. Eventually it will maintain any kind of Lagoon show to take place in Paradise Pier. That building ain't goin anywhere.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>Therefore, the resort expansion (for right or wrong) was built out modestly to begin.<<< For gosh sakes, it's not the fact that they built modestly. It's that they built badly. MGM started out rather "modestly". So did Animal Kingdom. But no one will argue that those two parks didn't have the basic framework of Disney beauty and magic right out of the box. All they had to do was add more attractions, and open up new areas. The second gate in Paris notwithstanding, but only DCA has a main entryway and central plaza feature that is ugly, uninviting, and needs to be ripped out and redone in it's entirety. Only DCA has entire lands like the farm area, and the pacific wharf area, which were ghost lands from the very start and where nothing of consequence ever takes place. Only DCA can be blamed for being designed "badly", as well as modestly. I can forgive the latter. I can't forgive the former. I just hope to have a reason to "forget" the former someday, with a lot of creativity and effort invested into the repair of the damage that Braverman and Pressler, et al, have done.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "MGM started out rather "modestly". So did Animal Kingdom." MGM, in my opinion, was far less of a fleshed out experience than DCA was when it opened. Animal Kingdom, though short on attractions, doesn't really strike me as a modest of park in the way that DCA was in 2001.
Originally Posted By woody MGM, like Animal Kingdom, was built with solid theming. It was only a matter of time before attractions were built to keep up with the potential. DCA had many more attractions, but they are an inch deep in depth of storytelling. DCA's theming was minimal to non-existent. So we have the placeholder makeovers to fix the theming problem.
Originally Posted By Park Hopper Hans, I checked the UCLA site and the only article I could find on theme park attendance suggested that there was a direct correlation between attendance and the economy. There was nothing there about market saturation. In fact, they concluded that the frequency at which people attend theme parks is a constant. In other words, people go to theme parks today as much as they ever did, no more and no less. Therefore, as the population increases the number of potential theme park customers should increase along with it. And the population for Southern California is increasing by leaps and bounds. So if anything that article speaks against market saturation. I’m not going to dispute your numbers. You have obviously done your homework. I only dispute your conclusion that the So Cal theme park market is saturated. There could be countless other reasons for the dips in park attendance.
