Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “Take the Mickey & Friends parking lot, the construction costs of that mamoth structure probably costs more than the shell of the Grand Cal Hotel and since DL lost it's already paid for parking lot, it has to deduct former profits into liabilities to pay off the costs.†First of all the costs for the parking structure are old history, so other than current depreciation, labor and maintenance, and other current expenses associated with it the construction costs do not figure into DLR’s bottom line. Disney wanted to increase its revenue by making money from the large expanse of land sitting right in front of DL. Therefore, let’s suppose that Disney had chosen to sell off the old parking lot for a profit to a shopping mall developer rather than build DCA. Disney would then need to build the Mickey and Friends garage to substitute the old lot. Therefore, another parking lot or garage had to be part of the expense of operating DL even without DCA. DCA’s “parking lot†operating expenses are reduced because a parking facility had to be somewhere on the site because operating DL requires a parking facility. A good example of the converse of this is WDW, where each of the four theme parks and two water parks have their own individual parking lots. DLR was able to cut down on the operating expenses by latching DCA’s parking onto DL’s. “You forget that included in the building of DCA and Downtown Disney, TDA also took out a 99 year lease on the Fujishige strawberry farm, …..†I know nothing about the terms of the lease and I’ll take a bet that you don’t either. However, if the expense of holding the lease along with all the other resort expenses is LESS than the earnings from the overall resort operations then this is a moot point. “I'm sure that the utilities and labor costs for both DCA and DTD equals that of DL.†That would be impossible. DCA has less of everything than DL does. This is a point that people have bickering about here for nearly half a decade. Do you think that Legoland’s operating expenses are the same as DL’s too? How about Knott’s or SeaWorld? “That 3k attendance breakeven figure sounds pretty unrealistic. If that was the case, the 8k to 12K daily attendance would appear to be a "boffo" box office for DCA and would preclude any of the many fizzling additions they'd made to the place.†I certainly won’t contend that the figure is true, however it seems plausible given the assumption that DCA’s operating expenses are far lower. I think what’s troubling to you and others is that such an assessment flies in the face of the contention that DCA is a failure.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Didnt Walt once say something about carnival rides?" I don't know what he said, but the original concept of Disneyland adjacent to the Studio had a carnival in it.
Originally Posted By SJHYM "I think what’s troubling to you and others is that such an assessment flies in the face of the contention that DCA is a failure." Thats pretty arrogant. Whats troubling me about that 3k number is that it is substantially lower than any other American Disney park. Even with the lower CM rate that number just doesnt seem realistic.
Originally Posted By SJHYM "I don't know what he said, but the original concept of Disneyland adjacent to the Studio had a carnival in it" But then he didnt build it that way.
Originally Posted By 9oldmen >>"I don't know what he said, but the original concept of Disneyland adjacent to the Studio had a carnival in it" But then he didnt build it that way.<< I wonder why?
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Thats pretty arrogant." Yes, I guess I was a bit bold, and I hope that I didn't offend. However, there is some basis to the remark since if DCA's so called "break even" point is truthfully somewhere under, say, 10000 daily visitors, it would likely cause wreak havoc among DCA's internet critics.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "But then he didnt build it that way." Well yes and no. Most of what was the carnival section in the original plans morphed into Fantasyland, which circa 1955, looked a lot like a medieval carnival.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss If you look carefully at Progress City, i.e. EPCOT, you'll see a Ferris Wheel. Walt wasn't opposed to carnival rides (obviously... DL had many), just the atmosphere that typical ones had.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Walt wasn't opposed to carnival rides...< But the difference is that the there was never an off-the-shelf ride in DL. Sure, Dumbo is the same as any orbiter available in carnivals across the country. But you're riding in an ELEPHANT! Even the carousel was beautifully themed with music and murals. The problem with Paradise Pier for me is that the theming is almost non-existant. That's where they broke down in the design of this section, IMO.
Originally Posted By 9oldmen "I don't know what he said, but the original concept of Disneyland adjacent to the Studio had a carnival in it" And the original concept for "Pirates of the Carribean" was a walk through wax museum. Does this mean that you just can go ahead and add a wax museum to one of the parks, and try to pass it off as an E-ticket? In the 21st century? Sure, no one's going to stop you, but don't do it and then sit around wondering why people aren't breaking down the doors to pay $56 to see it.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>And the original concept for "Pirates of the Carribean" was a walk through wax museum.<< As one of my UK in-laws said after she forst experienced PoTC at DL: It's like Madam Tussaud's (sp?) but they do things!
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>Cheese is in the eye of the beholder.<<< But EVERYBODY can smell the stink when it's rotten. Obviously people are smelling something, because they're staying away. That's the bottom line. I'm laughing at the 3,000 figure. Do some simple math - consider that the average guest is actually NOT buying a discounted pass. Be generous - figure that the average guest spends 150 bucks on top of their ticket for food and souvenirs. That lands you a little over $600,000. It's easy enough to do some minimums for just ride and attraction operators. Then the restaurant workers, both at the register and in kitchens. Then there's support personnel, entertainment, and any number of departments that are staffed with backstage workers. Give them all minimum wage, even though we know they aren't all making minimum wage. Figure in a short day. 3,000 guests. Sure. That has a certain smell about it, as well.
Originally Posted By crapshoot From #142 <<Then and only then will the "suits" realize what a great idea they have on their hands.>> <<You don't really believe that nonsense, do you?>> Are you kidding? I have seen concept art returned back to the artist to actually punch up their work by simply adding MORE images of smiling, happy guests. It is a strong psychological tool used to sell the "suits". <<A new park is a capital investment. If the calculations of the estimated return on the investment don't pan out then it isn't getting off the ground no matter how pretty the concept art looks.>> True enough. And in the case of a single ride attraction, it is designed to meet a minimum ridership goal. But it is up to the concept art and architectural models to get everyone moving in the same direction. And it has to look fun in order to get past the decision makers. Plain and simple.
Originally Posted By idleHands "And it has to look fun in order to get past the decision makers." Especially when they bring their offspring with them.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Especially when they bring their offspring with them.>> "Oh Daddy, build me this ride here. AND I WANT IT NOW!!!!!!! WAHHHHHHHHH!
Originally Posted By 9oldmen <<Especially when they bring their offspring with them.>> >>"Oh Daddy, build me this ride here. AND I WANT IT NOW!!!!!!! WAHHHHHHHHH!<< More like,"Daddy, build me this ride to order now! I want to have fun, just like the people in the concept art appear to be!". "And,...I want an Oompah Loompah too! And a squirell!".
Originally Posted By bean "The 3000 guest breakeven point for DCA sounds fishy because it can't possibly include the infrastructure costs and the constant additions and renovations. Also, how does APs get figured into the mix" Note that we are talking about 3,000 paid admissions. No one is talking about AP's at this point. Not sure if you realize the diference between the parks breakeven point for a day of operation and the cost for infrasturcture and additions. At this point we are talking about what attednace level the park needs to reach in paid admissions to break even on a dailey operating cost. the cost of infrastructure and additions are a completely diferent subject. When a park adds anything new it is not intended to be recooperated in a day or even a couple years. Attractions are seen as capital investments that will recupe its construction cost in a detrmined amount of time. Additions are also assumed a means of attracting new customers wether they be AP, park hoppers or full paid admission that will eventually bring in revenue to the park. revenue includes purchases of anykind wether it be in the park or on the property. the cost of the park infrastructure is completely seperate. Since the cost is spread out by several years. My posting in these boards is not to make anyone see things my way. Everyone has their opinions its up to each indivdual to believe what they want to believe.
Originally Posted By bean You mean like loosing more money than DCA cost on GO.COM? Hey but they made up for GO.COM by overpaying by the cost of several DCA's (the overpayment has been estimated to be more than $2B) for The Family Channel. Although i agree with you in the idea of paying so much for the fox family channel was a misstep, you must understand that Disney had to eventually do something to maintain its footing within the industry. Disney had to jump in a nd make a purchase of this magnitude to be able to compete with the decline of networks because of the strong growth in cable channels. This purchase of course was not for one channel as some might think. as for the go.com idea, you must also realize that at the time this venture went thru internet portals were a high comodity that could have grown to something huge. like someone mentioned look at yahoo or google. At the time disney was pushing hard to get some of the growing trend of the internet world. Did it work out NO but it was necessary to take the risk. I think execution of the idea was what killed it not the idea itself.
