Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "The convention center was in place long before the DCA plans. There is no way I'll be convinced that the project planners--if they chose to--had no option but to build a hole-in-the-fence access to Katella." Do you really think that a large percentage of solo business travelers in Anaheim on limited schedule are really interested in going to DL or DCA after a long days of general sessions, trade shows, and seminars? I don't.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Sorry, I need to elaborate... While a hotel on the southern end of Disney's property makes a lot of sense, I don't think that Disney could build a property large enough to sufficiently attract or address the needs of meeting planners looking to booking rooms for their clients holding events at Anaheim's convention facility. The two hotels adjacent to the covention center which get the lion's share of the center's business are large... The Anaheim Marriott has about 1000 rooms on 20 floors and the Hilton has 1600 rooms. I can't imagine that Disney would build anything as large as these two properties alongside one of its Anaheim theme parks.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I do think they would be interested in dining and bars. But those can be had at DtD for free, and not with a $60 cover charge, which is what admission to DL or DCA would be.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Right, and you can go to the Marriott or Hilton without crossing the street.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I don't think that Disney could build a property large enough to sufficiently attract or address the needs of meeting planners ... << Well then they're missing the boat if they don't. Disney is a premium brand hotel name, and can compete with hilton and marriott and the rest - toe to toe. I agree they wouldn't want it on the timon lot, but they've got a lot of available land on the NW corner of katella and DL Drive - the area surrounding the PP hotel. And I also think they can catch their fair share of people drawn to the area by ACC. And even having some of them bring family members along with them too. There are some very real barriers between the ACC and the resort right now. It's a long dreary walk or it's waiting for a shuttle. A new hotel across the street, with a pedestrian overpass, would provide a southern portal to the entire resort. And with a new transportation system, guests could be transported to DtD without having to buy admission to a park. And with a billion dollars to spend, who knows? It might even turn out really nice!
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<bean: Original plans were to have DCA's front gate facing south or west. It was then realized that it would have been the most stupid idea ever. This whole issue that is beign brought up is ridiculous. The entrance set-up for guests ivisting the convention center that want to walk to the park is not just a whole in a fence. The area has benches, nicely doen lush landscape and arches that match the entrance on the east side of the resort along harbor. Once past that you walk a few feet and board a tram. The views of the parking lot are just liek the views you see once you exit the mikey and friends parking structure (a huge parking area and the backside of Disneyland) they are the same views you see in every Disney park or any theme park in the world. Besides, most people that go to a convention do not go to the parks straight from the convention center, they go from their hotel rooms.>> The access to DCA from the south requires walking completely around to the north side of the park. No matter how ‘pleasant’ the walkway may be, it’s still a long walk. I hadn’t heard that they were actually considering an entrance on the south side of DCA in the beginning. But I do recall a recent concept that would have moved the entrance to the south that appeared to have the potential of solving most of DCA’s issues. One item was a walkway from the convention center over Katella directly to the entrance. That would allow conventioneers to access the park relatively quickly for a good meal or other activities (assuming they were available within the park) during occasional breaks. While some may doubt the validity of the entrance on the south side, from several aspects, it makes a lot more sense than it’s current location.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<trekkeruss: I do think they would be interested in dining and bars. But those can be had at DtD for free, and not with a $60 cover charge, which is what admission to DL or DCA would be.>> The whole pricing for DCA is out of whack for what is available there. There is no way that the quality of the park will be able to support the level of dining that is available at Downtown Disney. Mondavi and Puck pulled out when they realized people weren’t willing to pay for the experience they offered after paying the gate prices. If Disney were really interested in garnering convention attendees, they could provide some sort of conventioneer deal that would allow for dining access (like applying some of the gate price toward their meal). But even if they did that, there would have to actually be some significant dining draw within the park if they really want anyone to take advantage of it. As it stands now, there is little chance of their being interested.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Disney is a premium brand hotel name" I think the reputation is overpriced for what you get. People would not stay there unless they lowered their price.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<Hans Reinhardt: Sorry, I need to elaborate... While a hotel on the southern end of Disney's property makes a lot of sense, I don't think that Disney could build a property large enough to sufficiently attract or address the needs of meeting planners looking to booking rooms for their clients holding events at Anaheim's convention facility. The two hotels adjacent to the convention center which get the lion's share of the center's business are large... The Anaheim Marriott has about 1000 rooms on 20 floors and the Hilton has 1600 rooms. I can't imagine that Disney would build anything as large as these two properties alongside one of its Anaheim theme parks.>> I don’t really think Disney needs to be providing hotel support for the convention center. Most of any hotel marketing they do is entirely for the parks, and once they are both up to speed, any new hotel additions will be needed just to support them. Also, Disney’s hotels have their own convention facilities that also provide them with plenty of smaller conventions. If they were to add another hotel, putting it on the west side of the park entrance, where the current bus drop off is, would provide them with a bookend for the Grand Californian and focus guests towards the parks.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “If Disney were really interested in garnering convention attendees, they could provide some sort of conventioneer deal that would allow for dining access (like applying some of the gate price toward their meal).†But that's just it, I do not think Disney is very interested in luring the convention crowed to its parks and likewise I do not think that audience is all that interested in visiting Disneyland or DCA without their kids in tow. “I don’t really think Disney needs to be providing hotel support for the convention center. Most of any hotel marketing they do is entirely for the parks, and once they are both up to speed, any new hotel additions will be needed just to support them. Also, Disney’s hotels have their own convention facilities that also provide them with plenty of smaller conventions.†I agree with this. While the two operations (DLR and the Anaheim Convention Center) certainly do compliment each other, and there may be some cross pollination, they don't really have the same audience.
Originally Posted By bean "I do think they would be interested in dining and bars. But those can be had at DtD for free, and not with a $60 cover charge, which is what admission to DL or DCA would be." Exactly, but one member here believes that Disney should had considered these people by adding a gate to DCA on the south side. WHY? They could easily go to DTD via resort transportation or to any of the hotel bars. This other person believes that the expansion of DCA and the resort itself should had been designed with conventioners in mind. That is a ridiculous point. The resort is 2 square miles and measures were taken to make sure that EVERYONE has access to the heart of the park expansion via the resort transportation. Other things like tourist friendly walkways and gates to cut time and walking distance were also added. Besides like it has been mentioned most conventioneers do not head to the parks dirrect from the convention center, if they are here for more than one day they normally do it from their hotel room. Most hotels offer transportation to the resort transportation hub
Originally Posted By bean "I don’t really think Disney needs to be providing hotel support for the convention center. Most of any hotel marketing they do is entirely for the parks, and once they are both up to speed, any new hotel additions will be needed just to support them. Also, Disney’s hotels have their own convention facilities that also provide them with plenty of smaller conventions. If they were to add another hotel, putting it on the west side of the park entrance, where the current bus drop off is, would provide them with a bookend for the Grand Californian and focus guests towards the parks." Exactly, The one major pitching point for the convention center organizers is the close proximity of the two parks and DTD. Organizers of large conventions always look for convention centers that have enough entertainment in close proximity with plenty of hotel rooms support the convention they are organizing.
Originally Posted By aracuanbird bean, you are missing the point, entirely. I'm not saying that Disney needed to build a second (or third, or eleventh) access point to get convention traffic onto Screamin'. They needed to develop the RESORT such that it had non-gated experiences available at many perimeter points, particularly the south where it borders the convention center. Concentrating the resort into the Esplanade was a mistake. It is easy to see how in its initial planning DCA could have featured an axis that would have extended from the park entrance all the way to Katella. The DtD development could have remained as the primary development, with a second entry (complete with ancillary services) feeding into the park from the south. This point could later have supported a hotel at the southern part of the property, as well as routes to the Strawberry Field, Convention Center, and Garden Walk. My belief is that Disney got greedy and wanted to turn its back to the rest of Anaheim. In the process, they upset a lot of people in the community. They also missed a lot of opportunity, and hemmed themselves in with an apparently infrastructure.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf "Concentrating the resort into the Esplanade was a mistake." "My belief is that Disney got greedy and wanted to turn its back to the rest of Anaheim. In the process, they upset a lot of people in the community." You, sir, are crazy. Disneyland does not have the luxury that WDW has of being set on thousands of acres. It must shut out the slum that is Anaheim in order to transport guests away from the real world. Having gaping holes in its perimeter would lessen the experience for all. It would be like poking a hole in a swimming pool so that others can have a nice view of the water.
Originally Posted By aracuanbird >>You, sir, are crazy. Disneyland does not have the luxury that WDW has of being set on thousands of acres. It must shut out the slum that is Anaheim in order to transport guests away from the real world.<< First, EightDwarf, thank you for calling me "sir." And I have to agree with you, I must be crazy, because I think I have X Ray vision or something...I SWEAR I can see the Hilton and the Convention Center from inside DCA. I am mad! Because somehow inside the Disneyland Resort I can see the real world! I'm the madman who remembers Disney leveraging its muscle to force a rezoning and beautification project on Anaheim. This was in exchange for a fancy new resort. Yet, after beating its neighbors into shape, your suggestion is that its own prescribed "fix" to the area wasn't good enough, forcing Disney to retrench, point its flashy resort inward, defend its border, and leave its neighbors to admire its chainlink fences and facilities buildings. Yeah, my crazy head thinks that everyne in the Anaheim Resort area OTHER than Disney got the short end in that deal. As for your reference to WDW, I don't get it. Disneyland Resort's problem is that it IS trying to be too much like WDW. Why did DL need a companion full-day theme park? Particularly when its primary audience is local? Forcing a park onto an undersized tract of land, building a convoluted infrastructure to support it, draining a shallow pool of potential workers to the point where quality guest service--that makes no sense to me. Disney could have done so much better by itself by admitting it would never be like WDW. They were on autopilot, in my crazy opinion. A second park is an obvious answer to growth. But not here. If reports are accurate, Disney will spend a billion or more dollars on top of the, what $500m spent just to build DCA plus maybe another $400m in capital expansion/"adjustments" since 2001. A $2 BILLION dollar theme park? And now we get back to my point...when will Disney recoup these dollars? What's the ROI? The resort should go after every available revenue stream that doesn't involve serious felony. Conventioners are easy money, so long as you make spending that money easy. Turning your ugly end to conventiners does not serve those ends. Shareholders should demand that management get that audience and its dollars flowing easily onto its property.
Originally Posted By bean "Concentrating the resort into the Esplanade was a mistake. It is easy to see how in its initial planning DCA could have featured an axis that would have extended from the park entrance all the way to Katella. The DtD development could have remained as the primary development, with a second entry (complete with ancillary services) feeding into the park from the south. This point could later have supported a hotel at the southern part of the property, as well as routes to the Strawberry Field, Convention Center, and Garden Walk." The resort confiruation was not soemthing that was decided in one seating. There were many ideas developed and configurations considered. The one that is there now was the most logical for the property. Having DTD expand south with a major opening along Katella would have worked. Besides DTD was never and will never have been the primary development. DTD is basically a family friendly mall. A mall no matter how clean and spectacular it is is not a strong selling point to convince tourist that they need to thousands to visit. DTD is an establishment that is suppose to add extra activities for guests of the Anaheim resort. The two gates are the primary developments. Those are the two that bring the company its revenue. The layout that was chosen had specific reasons why it was felt to be the best. There were ideas about having a second esplanade along Disneyland drive with DCA's entrance basically facing the paradise pieer hotel. That idea was found to be innefective. You need to remember that the Anaheim's resots main problem is space. Land is scares. I understand the idea you are trying to portray but it is illogical. Using valauble land on the main parcel just to allow access DTD would had been the biggest waste of land use for the resort. The layout that was selected will eventually allow DCA to grow to the approximate size of Disneyland. DCA has the advantage of not needing alarge backstage infrustructure since it shares that with Disneyland. Lets just say that DTD had been builtfrom the GCH down south to Katella. Basically a long strip north to south to allow the oppurtunity of having access in Katella for convention guests. A Large chunk of park property would had to be used for buildings, backstage delivery access and proper street and pedestrain access. Not oonly that but it would also most likely have been very unapeaaling since most of the shops would have had the back of the buildings with access road and gates facing the treelined Disneylands drive. Another consideration that you have not considered is safety of resort guests. The resort was built with safety and protection in mind. If needed the whole resort can be locked out. both parks and DTD are completely surrounded by security fencing. This made DTD even more guest friendly then having an open strip (mall) that would had resembled the block at Orange. By building DTD in the middle of the two parks Disney was also able to put to better use the limited amount of land. Have you noticed that not only DTD but GCH and DCA are carefully designed to use some portions of the same land. They share access roads backstage infrustructure and to top it off they were even able to build the hotel over many of the shops in DTD. Now lets forget about land use and safety as well as logical building reasons. Lets say that Disney had gone with your idea. What diference would it had made? DTD would have had to been built along the property edge across from the Paradise pier hotel. The walking distance from the convention center to that corner of Katella and Disneyland drive is much greater than just crossing the street directly in front of the convention center parking lot and main entrance and boarding a tram to the esplanade. The resort was not built for a a couple thousand conventioners, it was built with the intention of making it a safe place for the MILLIONS that visit. Let me also remind you that the resort is in its infancy. DTD is in its first phase, the area around Paradise pier hotel is future devlopment area that could eventually consists of more hotels and dining oppurtunities. On the other side of the convention center along Harbor there might eventually be another gate that will most likely include other hotel and dining options and just a short walk away there was always the idea of a major mall "GARDEN WALK" that would be the primary focus for convention organizers renting out the facility. I the future Disney could also build the third gate with its main gate facing the convention way. Many might also later think that if Disney did not do that then they were being selfish and not paying attention to those people but there would be reasons for not having the entrance facing Harbor. One could basically be the logistical nightmare of traffic with two major facilities entrance right next to eachother. So before you start labeling Disney as being greedy you need to consider the amount of planning that goes along with building an infrustructure for a resort.
Originally Posted By mstaft I had never even thought of the safety considerations, Bean. Fascinating- and it makes alot of sense.
Originally Posted By jonvn "The one that is there now was the most logical for the property." That strikes me as pretty obvious. The way it is laid out right now is about the best way to do it. I do wish they'd enlarge DTD already, though, because it's really crowded and it is very hard to find a place to eat there cause the restaurants are all booked up.
