Originally Posted By fkurucz <<It's a regular suburban shopping center. With a grocery store, assorted shops and restaurants, and surrounded by motor inns like Fairfield, Hilton Garden Inn, Ramada, etc. >> Those are not "cheap" motels in my book. Cheap to me is Motel 6, Super 8, Days Inn, etc. FWIW, these hotels (Fairfield, etc.) should nicer than the All Stars.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^Perhaps I am not as jaded as some of you since I routinely stay "off property" at DLR.
Originally Posted By dshyates "Those are not "cheap" motels in my book. Cheap to me is Motel 6, Super 8, Days Inn, etc. FWIW, these hotels (Fairfield, etc.) should nicer than the All Stars." See, If its Fairfields and Courtyard, they will compete with the moderates and that I'm ok with. I loathe the all-stars. Its the adjacent shopping Dining complex I'm more concerned about. I was hoping it would be more like DtD. More Rainforest Cafe than Joe's Crab Shack. But even more than the actual retailers, the overall look of the place is just so not special. Like DCA, even with the given budget, its seems they could be more creative. The water tower and windmill are painful in their attempt at themeing. Although I bet there will be a Cheeseburger in Paradise. Which if I find myself staying@FC, I might be pursuaded into noshing at. Maybe...If someone brought me a boat drink and some N'awlins BBQ Shrimp, I could suffer through the horrors of (dramatic music) Flamingo Crossing.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I was hoping it would be more like DtD. >> They already have DtD, why would they build another one? Flamingo Crossings serves a couple of purposes: 1) Continues the trend of using real estate sales/development to subsidize the reality that theme park and resort operations aren't generating enough cash flow by themselves to maintain Disney's historic profit margins. 2) Establishes a new hotel/motel corridor that is west of WDW and out of earshot from I-Drive and the myriad of competing attractions there. Disney can ensure that guests at FC don't see the big billboards for Universay or Sea World as they drive from their hotel rooms to the MK. 3) Establishes a development area along the 429 toll road in an effort to "jump the gun" on developers that would like to see development further north in an area that encroaches on the MK Resort Area. Disney would like to keep the neighboring parcels of land towards the northern part of their property as development free as possible. None of these purposes has anything to do with creating new entertainment venues or themed environments, but it has everything to do with keeping market conditions and cash flows healthy so that Disney can continue to develop their entertainment properties in the long term.
Originally Posted By dshyates "None of these purposes has anything to do with creating new entertainment venues or themed environments." So in the process they further erode Disney's reputation for quality to protect thier...what? If Disney spent less time on isolation tactics and copycat product and spent more time blowing the top off the industry they wouldn't have to worry about Universal billboards.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << If Disney spent less time on isolation tactics and copycat product and spent more time blowing the top off the industry they wouldn't have to worry about Universal billboards. >> Maybe in Fantasyland, but this is the real world where market forces and competition exist. Even weak competitors will grab market share just by virtue of them being there. That's the way markets work. I suppose Disney could decide to just not worry about cash flow anymore, but that would make them look a lot more like the competition and a lot less like Disney in the long run.
Originally Posted By dshyates Disney is concerned about Go-Kart tracks enticing people off property. While very ambitious are trying to pursuade them to Texas. The outlet mall really isn't protecting me as their customer. The GoKart tracks on I-Drive won't effect me if i'm in Dallas.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << The GoKart tracks on I-Drive won't effect me if i'm in Dallas. >> Be sure to write a good trip report while you're there.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "What's wrong if the "unwashed" prefer to stay at a low end chain motel that happens to be "on property"? Will it spoil the view from your $400 a night room at the GF?" Whoa there buddy - Chill. I have just as much problem with this place as I do with the new Four Seasons that Disney is allowing to be built on WDW property. It's not the price point that I have a problem with, but the fact that Disney is making WDW less and less special by allowing all of these outside developers on property. And WDW SHOULD be something special - otherwise, why would anyone want to travel to Central Florida -- I can think of a lot better places to visit in this world. And just for your info, I've never even stayed at the GF - too expensive for what little you actually get.
Originally Posted By bean Disney is basically trying to make money of some of its unused land that is in the outskirts of the property. The project from what i am understanding will allow tenants to buy parcels and own them. The oonly advantage Disney has is that the land will be within reedy creek so the developers have to follow guidelines placed by the district. The design element and construction will also be spuervised by Disney and none of the structures can be over certain height. This helps cut back on mistakes done in previous times like with the Dolphin and Swan destroying Epcot's sitelines. The piece of property that will be used for this project serves no purpose for Disney. If for some reason Disney decided to actually build another gate it would not be built in that area. There is also land closer to the parks for any future Disney hotel resorts.
Originally Posted By dshyates Bean I understand what your saying. And it is better than Disney just outright selling the property and losing control of how its developed. But isn't Disney themselves building the retail portion? The art work is very uninspiring even for Disney in apathy mode.
Originally Posted By bean "Its the adjacent shopping Dining complex I'm more concerned about. I was hoping it would be more like DtD. More Rainforest Cafe than Joe's Crab Shack. But even more than the actual retailers, the overall look of the place is just so not special. Like DCA, even with the given budget, its seems they could be more creative. The water tower and windmill are painful in their attempt at themeing." the idea is not to make it a competition to DTD. Its basically a shopping district for locals and tourist that need some quick places to shop. The land will be sold in parcels to developers but the basic layout and design is being overseen by Disney to make sure that it follows reedy creek guidelines. I believe Disney is not budgeting this development like other developments that are considered part of the resort. Most people will never even know that it is on Disney property since it will basically not be considered part of the resort district. The hotels will not have amenities that Disney resort guests receive. They will be independently run, the closest relation they might have to the resort could be good neighbor hotels.
Originally Posted By bean "But isn't Disney themselves building the retail portion? The art work is very uninspiring even for Disney in apathy mode." I believe Disney is directing the layout and direction of the plan but is selling the parcels to whatever devloper wishes to establish their bussiness there. I am not exactly sure of the terms but from what I understand all construction costs will be paid for by developers. Disney is basically selling the land but will maintain the right to control its development since it fall within their district
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<So in the process they further erode Disney's reputation for quality to protect thier...what?>> I fail to see how this would be the case. Its simply another market segment that they are addressing: people who chose to stay on I-Drive. Now if they were shutting down their deluxe and moderate resorts and replacing them with this, then I might agree with you.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Most people will never even know that it is on Disney property since it will basically not be considered part of the resort district." As a developer this makes perfect sense for Disney, and it isn't the first time the company has done this. Just take a look at some of the midrange hotel chains on the edge of WDW, not to mention Crossroads, adjacent to I-4 near the Disney Village.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Whoa there buddy - Chill. I have just as much problem with this place as I do with the new Four Seasons that Disney is allowing to be built on WDW property.>> Isn't it a little late to be closing that barn door? There have been plenty of plenty of non Disney hotels on property for ages. And how is DtD, well, Disney? Other than the World of Disney store it could be anywhere, and PI is definitely non-Disney in my book, and yet there it is. The fact is that many guests do not need 24 hour immersion when on a WDW vacation. Some high rollers might prefer the new luxury hotels over the GF, Poly or Contemp. And some might prefer a bigger room at an on property Ramada as opposed to staying at All-Stars. I think that they are giving WDW customers choices they didn't have before. If they want expensive immersion, its available. If they want to stay at a 4-5 star hotel that isn't overly disneyfied, they can do that, etc.
Originally Posted By dshyates I had mentioned earlier that I thought you would be hard pressed to find any indicators that you are on Disney property. And if it is really as pedestrian as it looks I really hope there is no visible Disney ties. Still I'm not sure that Disney needs to venture into this arena of interstate exit development. There really are a lot of other problems that need addressed and I don't believe for a second that Disney has to lower themselves to this level for cash. This is simply further strip mining their drawing power in central florida. This is the kind of blight that has been occuring around WDW property since it opened. Its just now Disney is getting in on the action to an even lager degree. Yes, they did it a LBV and as lovely as the crossroads is Do we really need more of that on Disney property. Lets not forget about the new development at celebration and 192. You know the one with the Joe's Crab Shack. That is just like this place. But Disney seems so focused on these exciting new developments and what have we heard about the parks? Remember the Parks? What was the big new attraction for EPCOTs 25th?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Still I'm not sure that Disney needs to venture into this arena of interstate exit development. There really are a lot of other problems that need addressed and I don't believe for a second that Disney has to lower themselves to this level for cash. >> Who do you think is responsible to pay for all of the roadway connectors and infrastructure to link up to those interstates that cut across the Disney property? By developing property at strategic intersections, Disney collects taxes for its Reedy Creek Improvement District to maintain the infrastructure at WDW. One of WDW's biggest problems is that it has massive overhead just to maintain transportation infrastructure and services across a fairly broad swath of land. Your admission ticket doesn't even pay to keep the lights on at WDW, much less maintain miles of roadway to get you from the interstate to the parks. If you can develop relatively small parcels of land and add revenue to the tax base that ultimately defers the cost of that overhead, you don't have to add it to the price of admission each year.
Originally Posted By dshyates Thanks for the business lesson, but after having worked in the theme park industry for a while, I understand what they are doing. I am also pretty sure Walt didn't buy all that land to sell it off for profit. Disney is making literally tons of money all over the property. They simply want to get in on all the action. This has been their business model since Frank Wells died. Build one of everything close to the property where people spend money. And if they don't put the Disney moniker on it they can even have a branch of "The Original Dollhouse" at Flamingo Crossing. Disney doesn't have to pimp its property for cash.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains Okay, I am not sure how any of this relates to the Anaheim Garden Walk - but does anyone know which restaurants will be open by new years eve and is this close to the castle inn?
