Originally Posted By bean "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, that a portion of it is being used for off site employee parking. If memory serves, that lease is some astronimical figure the family held out for because of the hardball negociating tactics that Disney conducted that caused one of the landowners to commit suicide over. So Disney has to be paying out that lease on a property they have no realistic plans to build the third park for the near future. Thus adding expenses on fallow land. I'm sure that the utilities and labor costs for both DCA and DTD equals that of DL. It appears that DTD may be making a profit just as any major retail development would be expected, however, it is doubtful that DCA is making much over costs since TDA has been desperatly trying anything to attract paying guests" and who says that Glendale or TDA has no realistic plans to build a third gate in this land. Obviously you don't seem to understand that wether the park is built tomorrow or ten years from now DISNEY has the right to the land some of which it owns already. If the company did bussiness by just looking at TODAY and not the future then that land could have been eventually sold to someone else and gave the reosrt less room for growth. You do realize that Disney actually owns land throughout the area that are actually developed and used as either condos, restuarants, and other bussiness. You make it sound like their are a bunch of idiots running the company and have no plans for what the resorts future. Many quote the 1+billion investment as if it was a waste. This investment in DTD, DCA and other infrastructures as well as the parking structure which also was a shared construction by the city were necessary for an aging infrastructure that was falling apart. If it was not for these additions Disneyland could have become an aging investment with little possible growth. Disneyland infrastructure needed a complete overhaul and the park is also running out of space. To keep it viable new things would have to be added. I could just see the cries of internet fans if aging attractions like Jungle cruise were removed to add new more innovative attractions. Instead they went ahead and build a new infrastructure that could continue to grow for the next 50 plus years while minor changes were done to the aging park.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “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".†That may be the mandate from the folks overseeing the design of a project in an effort to sell the concept to upper management. What I question is whether upper management is really that gullible to be influenced by the inclusion of a few extra smiling faces in a concept drawing.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> however some people would likely view Paradise Pier to be no less cheesy than Disneyland Park itself. Cheese is in the eye of the beholder. << As I've said a million times before, ATTITUDE is the primary reason DCA is DCA---and a lack of enough dollars ain't got nuthin' to do with that.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> If it was not for these additions Disneyland could have become an aging investment with little possible growth. << Based on the Aspen conference in particular, DisCo. executives seemed to treat their land in Anaheim as though it were more of a chore, more of a pure real-estate-only issue, if not an outright nuisance. I know Paul Pressler was described as wondering whether Disneyland itself could be even bundled up and relocated to another location in California. I think from these factors originated the uninspired, clumsy thinking and decisionmaking that eventually brought about DCA.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^^There is no way they could buy some decent land, in a reasonable (non desert) location, in sufficient quantities, at a reasonable price, in California. I'm sure that they feel that there hands are tied by being landlocked in Anaheim, but there is no way they could afford to build a WDW-West in California. I don't think that Barstowland would cut it. Too many super hot days.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<What I question is whether upper management is really that gullible to be influenced by the inclusion of a few extra smiling faces in a concept drawing.>> Only remember that these folks are neither "Showmen" "Story Tellers" or "Themeparkers", they are MBA's still trying to quantify "FUN". They don't get emotionally connected to projects. They barely understand the dynamics of a Disney themepark, they merely turn on the dollar faucet every so often. And it hurts them to do so. So yes, these people respond to pretty colors, precieved excitement and could care less about content as long as personal liability and costs are kept to a minimum.
Originally Posted By tangaroa >If it was not for these additions >Disneyland could have become an aging >investment with little possible growth. What growth at Disneyland Park can you directly attribute to the success of DTD/DCA? How can you say that Disneyland the park is in a better position now with DCA than it was without? Lets put it this way - if you accept that Disneyland was an aging park that had limited future growth - then how could you also believe that the answer to that problem was building a park that wasn't designed to compete with Disneyland, but instead rely on it as the primary draw? It seems to me that if you're faced with a park that faces a slow decline, you would want to build a park next to it that could easily replace it as the primary draw someday. DCA is not that park.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Only remember that these folks are neither "Showmen" "Story Tellers" or "Themeparkers", they are MBA's still trying to quantify "FUN".<< Close. They are trying to quantify Return on Investment. >>They don't get emotionally connected to projects.<< I think that you are confusing MBA's with Accountants. >>They barely understand the dynamics of a Disney themepark, they merely turn on the dollar faucet every so often. And it hurts them to do so.<< Actually, its the guys in Accounting and Finance that control the money spigot. MBA's are supposed to champion projects by convincing the money gatekeepers that it is worth opening the spigot. This is accomplished with lots of spreadsheets and calculating things such as Net Present Value. Now, it is entirely possible that these "champions" won't have a clue regarding what will sell. It happens. They aren't always storytellers or showmen. But then, showmen are often very bad when it comes to convincing the bean counters that its time to spend money. Walt Disney was fortunate to have Roy Sr. at his side. Walt was the dreamer, but it was Roy who convinced the people controlling the purse strings to put the cash on the table.
Originally Posted By Captain Jack Sparrow What growth at Disneyland Park can you directly attribute to the success of DTD/DCA? How can you say that Disneyland the park is in a better position now with DCA than it was without? I'm not exactly sure if the author was trying to attribute growth at DL park to the success at DTD or DCA. What I am sure of is that Disneyland would have survived with or without DCA,DTD. But, you have to admit Disneyland has become more of a resort destination because of DCA and DTD. Especially out of towners,who spend more money and stay longer because of the expansions. Is this not what Disney wants? Is this not what Disney planned? I think the introduction of the park hopper has generated new business for DL and created more potential growth for future investments than anything else. It creates a bigger experience and Disney does not care where the customers spend their money as long as it is on Disney property. <<It seems to me that if you're faced with a park that faces a slow decline, you would want to build a park next to it that could easily replace it as the primary draw someday. DCA is not that park.>> No one said it was. Put the pieces together and what you get in Anaheim is Disney(yes they are smart people)looking to keep the out of towners longer and giving the average Disney spender more to do to spend more money and THEY have done that.DCA and DTD richen the experience and give greater incentive to re-visit. I think this is pretty much undisputable.
Originally Posted By Clotho So in this very lengthy thread (which I have only been able to read about 150 posts of before I totally glazed over), I would like to add something my husband pointed out on our trip this weekend. Cast members. Specifically, in Disneyland, they are all playing a role. They are a futuristic spaceport operations host. Or a grim-faced matre d at a mansion. Or a spelunking adventurer taking you for a ride through caves of wonder. Everything in Disneyland is themed, and thus even the CM's are playing into that experience. At DL, there is something magical in the people who work there, as well as the environment in which they work. What do they have over at DCA? What kind of "roles" do they play? Very few, actually, we noted. Mostly, they were...ride operators. No magical character to fit a magical theme. They just...ran things. And their attitudes largely reflected that. They were in suit pants, white shirts, and vests, looking bored. I wonder how much of the themeing of the entire park (meaning lack thereof) has trickled down to a lackadaisical approach to customer service over there. We had no stellar experiences with CM's at DCA like we regularly do at Disneyland. To be fair, this is a broad statement based on our limited experiences. I am sure there are stellar experiences and employees around. But honestly, we didnt' get that on our most recent trip, and hubby theorized it has a lot to do with the lack of popularity of DCA versus Disneyland. Any thoughts on that?
Originally Posted By woody "It creates a bigger experience and Disney does not care where the customers spend their money as long as it is on Disney property." Do you really think DCA is helping customers part with their money? I don't think so. DCA isn't exactly a tourist site that encourages much enthusiasm. I think DCA is doing a good job of keep customers in Disneyland. At most, people are extending their stay for half a day or perhaps 3 hours. The AP prices are fairly close to pre-DCA days despite the current price increases. If DCA was a good park, they could easily command AP prices beyond $400 a year or $200 per park. I suppose DCA helps in a small way, but that's hardly an endorsement of the Disneyland Resort. DTD and the Grand California are the real money makers of the resort.
Originally Posted By woody "Not sure if you realize the diference between the parks breakeven point for a day of operation and the cost for infrasturcture and additions." "the cost of the park infrastructure is completely seperate. Since the cost is spread out by several years." Of course I do, which is why the 3000 breakeven point sounds fishy to me. Since you make it clear that the "capital investments" are not included in the 3000 breakeven figure, it really does not say anything about DCA's success. IT'S BOGUS to say DCA is NOT a FAILURE. It is perhaps at best a ZOMBIE. NEITHER DEAD OR ALIVE. Disney could have spent more money for a better park than DCA especially if capital costs are spread over the years. Bean: There is nothing there in your defense of DCA.
Originally Posted By bean "Based on the Aspen conference in particular, DisCo. executives seemed to treat their land in Anaheim as though it were more of a chore, more of a pure real-estate-only issue, if not an outright nuisance. I know Paul Pressler was described as wondering whether Disneyland itself could be even bundled up and relocated to another location in California. I think from these factors originated the uninspired, clumsy thinking and decisionmaking that eventually brought about DCA." Funny you mentioned this. Many don't know that at one point it was considered to move Disneyland. To someplace in the San Diego county. It was then when they even thought of rebuilding the matterhorn in the new location larger and with newer technology. They felt that it would be a better investment then trying to improve an aging property. So maybe DCA saved Disneyland from demolition
Originally Posted By bean wody the problem is that you want to keep bashing DCA and i am in no way defending it. Why, cus i really do not care what you think. you hate the park yet you you visit it and spend money in there when you drink and snack there and even when you buy your AP and you know what i don't care. WHY because your feelings and arguements don't make a diference to me and if you did not enter the park i am sure the other 6+ million entering wouldn't notice.
Originally Posted By Blacksheep Uncle >>IT'S BOGUS to say DCA is NOT a FAILURE.<< I'm sure the hotel managers there (both Disney's and those "off property") would probably disagree with that assessment... getting a last minute hotel room around Harbor and Katella is a whole bunch harder now than it was 5 or so years ago...
Originally Posted By patrickegan Did anyone factor in insurance against the daily take? Man the liability and workers comp has got to be a killer but then again they probably make that up in the profit margins of the cheap Chinese prisoner made souvenirs -
Originally Posted By Imagineer This People are saying different things here. So what everyone wants to know is does DCA suck swamp water or not? (
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>does DCA suck swamp water or not?<< No. However, its not as good as DL, and probably never will be. Nonetheless, I am looking forward to spending some time at DCA in a couple of weeks. If it "sucked", we wouldn't bother going at all. Its a nice complement to our visit to DLR.
