Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/Latest-ID-77995.asp" target="_blank"><b>Latest: Is Walt Disney World Too Big?</b></a> <p>Chad Emerson at BlooLoop.com writes about the huge energy cost of operating Walt Disney World and the impact higher energy prices have, particularly on its transportation system, and compares it to the size of much smaller multi-park resorts - Disneyland and Universal Studios.</p>
Originally Posted By dshyates It is nit to big, it was just developed by morons. Could they have made it MORE difficult to get from point A to point B. I am not sure they could if they tried.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper First of all, I agree with the previous post. The resort was planned out terribly after Epcot. Plopping down DHS and DAK where they currently are makes no sense what so ever. Also, the resort clearly got too big too quickly, considering we still have 3/4 of a park that opened 20 years ago and 1/4-1/2 of a park that opened 13 years ago.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper That is an interesting story and one that doesn't come as a big surprise. But, if it were THAT big of a concern...particularly in the long term...then you would think Disney would get a little more creative with transportation. My guess is that they have done their CBAs over time and have found that it still doesn't make a lot of sense to expand the monorail or go with light rail. That said, if fuel prices continue to rise and they don't convert the fleet to some cheaper alternative energy then maybe the discussion will turn back to trains or monorails. I suppose they could get out of the "resort" business by selling off the hotels (or leasing them long term) and then making the new owners pay for the transportation ala Mears but my guess is that there is still too much bottom line revenue coming from those resorts.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Disney World would not be Disney WORLD without the sprawling 20,000-acre layout. That is what makes you feel as if you are in an entire fantasy world and not just a theme park. The cohesiveness of design just would not be possible without all the land... you would end up with a hodgepodge like you have in Anaheim. You also can't have a full-featured resort with boating, para sailing, five golf courses, etc. with a footprint the size of Disneyland or Universal Studios. None of this is to say that WDW shouldn't devote considerably more effort to planning future transportation solutions for the World.
Originally Posted By dshyates It is not the amount of land per se. It was just developed with out a master plan. And for a company to not have a masterplan for their property is asinine. I am pretty sure they threw darts at a map to position their parks and resorts. They could have easily developed the property to still give the sense of space and yet be conducive to mass transit. Like why isn't MGM along that 11 mile stretch of monorail between the TTC and Epcot. Then there would have been no need to expand the monorail to MGM. Just build a station. Alas, WDW was developed in as fling stuff at the map method as imaginable.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer Far too big. Not in size, but in aspects of planning and management. There needs to be more attention to how things work with each other in WDW. Largest problem, being transportation, of course.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Disney World would not be Disney WORLD without the sprawling 20,000-acre layout. That is what makes you feel as if you are in an entire fantasy world and not just a theme park. The cohesiveness of design just would not be possible without all the land... you would end up with a hodgepodge like you have in Anaheim. You also can't have a full-featured resort with boating, para sailing, five golf courses, etc. with a footprint the size of Disneyland or Universal Studios.<<<< Obviously. And that's what makes WDW special. But that "Blessing of Size" comes with problems, and ones that plaugue WDW today. There was too much, built too quickly, and I think quality in upkeep and in things to do at the parks slips because of it. Especially at the last two parks built.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 Not too mention the number of CM's that are required to run the place. Do I think it is too big? Yes. When you have a problem staffing, keeping things up to standards, too big to find a unified theme in many parts, too many middle managers to run the place, then yes you are too big. That doesnt mean that the place isnt exciting, entertaining and pretty to look at but just yesterday I was at the Hollywood Studios and as soon as I walked in I noticed that there was at least one light bulb burnt out in each letter on the Mickey's of Hollywood sign. Size is a problem when you are so big that all decisions are made on a cost factor basis
Originally Posted By ChiMike ^^ Can't agree more Sjhym The article was fine, kind of pedestrian when it comes to applicable use of common sense and observation. Anyways, a bigger cost is not in guest transportation but maintaining that large of a spans of guest accessible area. More roads, more logistics for supplies and public safety, more labor to maintain, etc. Not only would I say sjhym's point is a great example of little things now being a low priority with limited resources, but the lights that do work have all been changed out for high efficiency bulbs. In some areas the brighter light conditions are awful. Really distracting and counter to the intended design of the area they are lighting. Really bad.
Originally Posted By -em Park wise? Not particularly.. 4 is a nice number Resort wise? Very much so. Sheer size? As others said- its not the acres its how they used them that is the issue... -em
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 Will have to read the piece later. But I'd hope that Chad isn't making excuses for WDW's decade-plus neglect and two decades of transportation issues by suggesting it's all size-related and more can't be done. If you expand, then you spend for the infrastructure needeed to do so (a foreign concept in FLA to be sure ... here you can build anything without worrying how it impacts everything from traffic to schools to enviornment because we're pro-business, doncha know?) Disney would need to spend billions now on a transport solution. Many. But what if they had gone ahead with the EPCOT to EPCOT Resorts and Disney-MGM monorail line planned back in the late 80s? And then followed with intelligent solutions every time they decided to expand? Oh, yeah, I used the word 'intellligent' ... I forgot, something only us progressive, intelectual elitists think about ... nevermind.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<But what if they had gone ahead with the EPCOT to EPCOT Resorts and Disney-MGM monorail line planned back in the late 80s? And then followed with intelligent solutions every time they decided to expand?>> I think WDW knew EXACTLY what it was doing. How do you sell the Monorail Results as Super-Premium resorts with highest prices of any Disney Deluxe if ALL resorts are on the monorail? It doesn't take a genius to see the pattern. The monorail resorts have monorail transportation to the two most popular parks. Next in the pecking order are the Epcot Deluxe resorts with boat transportation to the #2 and #3 parks. Below that you have the Moderates, where 2 of the 4 have boat transportation to Downtown Disney. At the bottom of the pecking order you have the values, which use bus transportation for EVERYTHING. Why do you think Animal Kingdom Lodge is the least popular and lowest priced Disney Deluxe? Because like the Values, you have to take a bus everywhere. I think clearly Disney used convenience of transportation as a way to differentiate between the various levels of resorts.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer I always find it funny that the basis of EPCOT City was how it was laid out and always connected. And when WDW was built, it wasn't EXACTLY like that, but it was efficient. EPCOT was too. And then that plan went to hell. Even though I am a firm believer that EPCOT Center is a logical step away from EPCOT City in scope, but not in theme, I really do wonder how and why, even back then, something as simple (but expensive, probably my answer) was nixed. Maybe this whole getting farther away from quality isn't a new thing?
Originally Posted By ChiMike No ee, I don't think so. It wasn't a unwillingness to go the extra mile. Certainly not pre Eisner. It was the notion that they would be good neighbors and not really focus on their own hotels. One of the things that was pushed on eisner right away from the bass boys was the need to cut a deal on the ground lease that ended up being the swan and dolphin So with the plans drawn up for the monorail line to lake buena vista, and the only hotel planned was for that area, I don't think its fair to compare their motives with those of eisner or the pricing/transportation tiers rt pointed out.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>No ee, I don't think so. It wasn't a unwillingness to go the extra mile<<<< Well, I don't think that it was that, but there is the fact that they they didn't plan that far out.
Originally Posted By ChiMike But again, pre eisner they did have a pretty comprehensive plan. Basically what today would be a planned unit development. It was all thrown out the window or modified (lbv, international gateway) once eisner came in. In 1987 with dd, mgm, tl, they passed the point of no return in favor of quick growth
Originally Posted By Christi22222 I don't think the title of this thread should be if Disney is too big. I just think it would be better as "Should Disney solve their frickin' obvious transportation issues before they drive guests off property or have more bus accidents?" And I agree that Sjhym pretty well hit the nail on the head.
