Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Your argument seems to be assuming that DCA was a success right from the start." It all depends on how success or failure is defined, who is defining it, and what measures are being used. I think it's safe to assume that Disney sees where DCA has fallen short, however the overall impact on the bottom line from the expansion cannot be ignored. As others have pointed out this investment is a sure sign that Disney believes that Anaheim is a potential gold mine.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<So what happens when the dust settles and this project is finshed and attendance and guest spending don't increase accordingly?>> That's a good question! If they STILL can't convince people to give this park a shot after all the fixing and money thrown at it, maybe they will just have to open its doors wide open and charge people per attraction like the old days or just make it a permanent fixture to DL by including it in the full day admission price from now on with a bump in the price. But I read recently these parks are now a whopping $65 for ONE just to get into now, so I'm not sure they could force people to pay more automatically for a park they simply don't want to see. I remember standing in line and the guy in front of me who wanted to buy an AP was complaining he only wanted DL and didn't want them attached to DCA (thinking the idea would be cheaper and its basically the same price, right?), so that may not work. But, I obviously people ARE attending the park, as much as they like? That's open for debate lol, but hopefully with the new (and praying) improved additions, people WILL take notice.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<As others have pointed out this investment is a sure sign that Disney believes that Anaheim is a potential gold mine.>> Didn't Al in his article say since 2005 and all the 50th anniversary stuff that showed record attendance (hell, I was one of the few who came from Asia to see it ) kind of showed them that WHEN done right, Anaheim is just as thriving when they get the people excited!! Again, EVERYTHING in the resort sine the 2001 expansion has all been pretty sucessful....except DCA! There doesn't seem to be any arguments that DTD draws huge crowds, local and tourists, especially with packed restaurants. The new hotel is always sold out in the busy periods and its not exactly cheap. DL is as popular as ever and it has record breaking attendance. The ONLY issue is just DCA itself, but the resort as a whole is pretty damn sucessful, so maybe their thinking is that if they put a little more capital in that theme park, maybe it could be as big of a sucess as they planned it, if not bigger! So the potential has ALWAYS been there. IMO, they just dropped the ball on the 2nd gate and if it wasn't for that, we would've saw that potential a long time ago. Again, the rest of the place seems to buzzing along just fine. Its not perfect, but its getting people in there. If DCA can get that same appeal as the rest of the resort, DLR can truly grow into something special!
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<The program also showed the soccer player's wife doing some house-hunting in L.A., touring one very expensive mansion that looked about as tacky and cheesy, if not more so, as the house where she had previously attended the get-together.>> Beckhams California Adventure?
Originally Posted By jonvn "The capital expenditures on DCA have nothing to do with previous success or failure, but reflect the business plan all along of building small and expanding over time." Yes. It's not like they are dumping $1B (American) on the place in one year, they are doing it over the course of a decade. That's quite a different story.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Didn't Al in his article say since 2005 and all the 50th anniversary stuff that showed record attendance (hell, I was one of the few who came from Asia to see it ) kind of showed them that WHEN done right, Anaheim is just as thriving when they get the people excited!!" I don't know if Al said that, but if he did he conveniently forgot about the fact that DCA's attendance has been on the rise since 2003, which was long before the 50th. Furthermore, under Pressler, DL saw record attendance while maintenance slipped and few, if any, major new attractions were added. Yes, the 50th was a huge success, but several external factors helped make it that home run that it was for DLR and WDW including a strong economy and pent up demand after several years of stagnant attendance.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Again, EVERYTHING in the resort sine the 2001 expansion has all been pretty sucessful....except DCA!" How do people know to make these sorts of statements? I don't understand that. Anyway, $1b over a five to 10 year period is 1 to 2 $100,000,000 attractions per year. It's like Disneyland in the old days.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Oops, my last point for Hans. Thanks for getting in the way Jonvn . "Again, EVERYTHING in the resort sine the 2001 expansion has all been pretty sucessful....except DCA!" <<How do people know to make these sorts of statements? I don't understand that.>> No, you're right, sorry. I guess what I was trying to say was SURE FIRE sucess, maybe that's a better wording . Fact is, DTD and the hotel had no problems from the beginning attracting people, at least none that I'm aware of. So, THAT part of the expansion was an instant hit! DCA on the other hand...well, they thought it would start by flying out the gate, but that didn't exactly happen. That's all I was trying to say with that statement . <<Anyway, $1b over a five to 10 year period is 1 to 2 $100,000,000 attractions per year. It's like Disneyland in the old days.>> I guess what people are simply saying is that if they would've done that at the BEGINNING when DCA was in its infancy, we would probably see an entire new perception of the park. Instead, Pressler and the rest thought if they added filler here and crap there, they could turn it around WITHOUT any huge investments like they are now. Just like they were with their thinking of the park, they were wrong on how to handle it after attendence was pretty dire that first year.
Originally Posted By jonvn "they thought it would start by flying out the gate" I really liked it out the gate, mostly. But they tossed what they were trying to do almost immediately and went with a lot of junky stuff. It made it look like DIsney has a rather low opinion of its customer base. "Throw some character and other crap on there, that's what they like. Good enough for who it is for." "if they would've done that at the BEGINNING when DCA was in its infancy" The problem is that it wouldn't have been built like that, because of the financial disaster of EDL. What was built was what was possible given the financial situation. So, it's a good thing that it got built at all, and now it's a good thing it's going to be expanded. I hope what they do with this expansion is worth the money. The original idea of the park, about California, isn't a bad one. But when they built it? Too many film attractions, too many places to eat, themed areas with no attractions, and so on. As time goes on hopefully these shortcomings will be addressed. But remember, as those are fixed, new ones will crop up. It's not ever going to be perfect, and it's not ever going to be what any of us exactly want.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney "they thought it would start by flying out the gate" <<I really liked it out the gate, mostly. But they tossed what they were trying to do almost immediately and went with a lot of junky stuff. It made it look like DIsney has a rather low opinion of its customer base. "Throw some character and other crap on there, that's what they like. Good enough for who it is for.">> Heeeey, you're speaking to the choir here . Yeah, I didn't think DCA was great or anything when I first saw it, but what was there was okay and it had potential. A year later, that potential was sandblasted like you said and THAT'S where my bitterness reeeeaaaally begin. They got desperate and went another direction TOO soon and now we have a hodge podge park that doesn't even know what it is anymore. So, I'm hoping these changes will, well, change all that . "if they would've done that at the BEGINNING when DCA was in its infancy" <<The problem is that it wouldn't have been built like that, because of the financial disaster of EDL. What was built was what was possible given the financial situation. So, it's a good thing that it got built at all, and now it's a good thing it's going to be expanded. I hope what they do with this expansion is worth the money.>> I agree with that, but I just wish if they weren't sure they could build the best park possible, money or not, just waited until they came up with something concrete and really thought it out a little more. Like a certain poster has mentioned here, it wasn't JUST about the money, but the creative ideas and concepts that came out of that money as well. It took YEARS to come up with TDS to be designed the way it was in Japan and it shows. It litterally took a weekend in Aspen to come up the DCA concept and THAT shows as well. <<The original idea of the park, about California, isn't a bad one. But when they built it? Too many film attractions, too many places to eat, themed areas with no attractions, and so on.>> Yeah! LOL, that's all I got. <<As time goes on hopefully these shortcomings will be addressed. But remember, as those are fixed, new ones will crop up. It's not ever going to be perfect, and it's not ever going to be what any of us exactly want.>> And it doesn't have to be. People STILL complain about the shortcomings of DL to this day. All we have to do is click on that section to see people battling it out over what belongs in the park, what should stay, what attractions fits it themes and etc. TDS isn't perfect either. The difference is while people moan and why about these parks, they are doing it while they are standing in line to pay for them . Look, I give DCA a lot of crap, but its 'tough love' crap . Just want the park to be better and NOW it looks like someone in charge finally figured out I'm not the only one . (A little off subject here, but Jonvn, PLEASE don't take this the wrong way, but ever since you came back to these boards, you been well, civil lol. Again dude, I don't want you to be offended, just being honest, but back in the day I would litterally dread to see what you wrote back to me. These days, I anticipate your next post, even when you don't agree with me....but very few people agree with me most of the time ;D. Just wanted to say that.)
Originally Posted By bean The full sum of the budget is not known but it is in the billion mark. The plans include more than a handful of new attractions not including Mania. This is all seperate from the money already allocated for the GCH hotel expansion, The Disneyland hotel renovation and the possibility of another two or three hotels behind the Paradise pier hotel. This is above and beyond the regular budget that is normally put together for the resort by TDA
Originally Posted By jonvn Thanks. I try to be civil. "just waited until they came up with something concrete and really thought it out a little more." They had to build when the corporation said "Build." Given what Pressler said at the time, the executives finally figured out that they needed a second gate to keep the Anaheim property viable. So, they said, ok, go design and build something. Now. So they did. Walt Disney himself talked about expanding into the parking lot. 40 years ago. Sometimes you can't just wait. You have to do it when you can, and if need be, fix it up later. Otherwise, we'd be sitting here not discussing a theme park, but why they do nothing with the parking lot, and why Disney no longer puts any money into Anaheim at all. Pressler described the place as an "eroding asset." Given that, they probably got a corporate bug up their nose to get something done about that, and right away. With this many dollars. So they did. They recycled the Disney's America theme park, and called it Disney's Californa. With what Eisner wrote in his book about how they felt the name of Disney's America didn't sit well, they added the word Adventure to it so it didn't sound quite as presumptuous. They built it small to keep the finances from running out to control. Because of the insane cost overruns of EDL, they clamped down very tightly here. That's likely how and why the park got built as it did. So now it's going to get more stuff built out on it. So it works out eventually.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “Instead, Pressler and the rest thought if they added filler here and crap there, they could turn it around WITHOUT any huge investments like they are now.†I guess in a way that effort worked. They dumbed down the place and attendance rose without much investment. According to Lutz, the conceptual drawings for the new things they are planning are impressive. I am crossing my figures that they will enhance the themes and storytelling elements that were established when the place opened and stop pandering to the lowest common denominator in order to get people through the gates.
Originally Posted By bean I know there has been some discussion here about this being the first time that any Disney park got such a large investment after just a few years. That is true but one thing many need to consider is that DCA,Hong Kong, and Disney studios were three of the least expensive parks to be built with a low initial cost to build. If you were to add the proposed budegt to DCA's initial budget it is still lower than some of the other older generation parks. Earlier management made a mistake, that is a fact. They expected to much for what was built next to one of the most popular places in the world. It was also not enough for a second gate. If it had been a third gate or fourth than it would have made much more sense. Even then there has been large investments like this done to individual parks that were wasted on overly expensive attractions that went way past their budget. Consider the investment made for Mission Space in WDW. It is actually one of the most if not the most expensive attraction to date. It is also an attraction with the worst reputation at the moment and one of the simplest "4" ticket built recently. It was much much more expensive then the lavishly and detailed Mount Everest. The investment being made to DCA should bring it up to the standards that the park should have had when it opened in 2001. The only other park of the past generation that i could think of that had a significant investment after its initial opening was MGM. The focus in Burbank at the moment is to go through its already built theme parks and see which ones need more capitol invested into to take advantage of the resources it offers. Most likely You will not see any new theme park gates built anywhere in the world besides the possible smaller venues that Jay rasulo is so determined in building. The only exception to this would of course be the now in blue sky third gate for Anaheim which is back on everyones minds. Burbank has realized that Anaheim has huge potential that has never been looked at. Once DCA gets a stronger foothold and continues to keep its attendance numbers growing Everyone here might hear the news of a third gate
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt I promise to eat my computer if a third theme park is announced within the next 5 years.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I'm assuming he meant to type the "E" key but pressed the adjacent "4" key.
