Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << It would kill the idea of a multi-park destination in Anaheim. >> I wouldn't use the term mult-park as much as "resort" destination. People are comfortable visiting multiple parks in Anaheim. There are multiple parks throughout So Cal that do decent buisness. The big question is whether you'll ever get the huge numbers of people who will commit their entire vacation to Anaheim and spend all of their time at the DLR. Unlike WDW, Anaheim doesn't have all the recreational options (lakes, golf, water parks, expansive resort hotel properties). I can't imagine making DLR my primary vacation destination. It's a weekend diversion, maybe, but not a resort.
Originally Posted By dshyates I have no problem considering DLR a destination resort. But it does require leaving the property to take advantage of proximity to world famous landmarks like Hollywood, L.A., San Diego and yes Universal. It is a great base camp from which to explore SoCal. That coming from someone living in West Virginia. I really enjoy the resort experience provided at the DLR. But a good indoor waterpark complex servicing only resort guests would be cool.
Originally Posted By dshyates "And after spending what would amount to at that time to be $1.8 billion, and the public didn't care for it, that'd be about all she wrote. It would kill the idea of a multi-park destination in Anaheim." I think the performance of the resort expansion as a whole proved to them that a resort is a viable product, now all they need to do is rebuild one of its engines and it will soon be kickin' on all cylinders. No reason to junk it when you can pimp it. Hey, new ABC reality show, "Pimp My Park"
Originally Posted By dshyates "Who Wants to be an Imagineer" "The Price is Right" Nah, thats already taken.
Originally Posted By jonvn I think so too. Just needs a little adjustment here and there, and it will make them even more money. Just keeping people on property longer is what they probably are shooting for right now, more than attracting more people.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Well, allow me to split hairs. It was the resort expansion that 'saved' DL, to use your overheated terminology. DCA was the weakest link in the expansion, easily surpassed by GCH and DTD in viability and profitability ...So I'd say the expansion in it's entirety moved DLR to a better position for growth, but it was in spite of DCA and it's inherent weaknesses, not because of DCA. >> And there is just one very basic fallacy or maybe faulty assumption in your perspective of things. That the GC and DD and all the resort improvements ONLY happened BECAUSE DCA was built. I won't disagree that the GC and DD were far more succesful in meeting and surpassing their goals than DCA was. But it simply makes no difference. If DCA hadn't of been built, DL would have had been in dire trouble within a decade (or less) ... the neighborhood (the same one that baffoon Jim Hill quotes an 'alleged' Anaheim city official as saying was better off econmically without Disney ... yeah, sure, Jim ... your basic understanding of economics is astounding!) No DCA = no GC, no DD, no DLR and shortly thereafter, unless Disney was going to station armed guards around the whole perimeter, no DL either. And, Darkbeer, the Convention Center expansion and crowds all came because of the DCA/resort expansion. I am no DCA apologist. I could sit here and write a 4,000 word post on its failing from conception to today. But, guess what? It still doesn't change one basic, and very important, fact -- DCA saved DL.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<It's statements like that that I live for! I know no one (other than my DCA CM brother who usually knows less than I do about Disney!), so I can only argue from the standpoint of this is my opinion based on what I've read. It's nice to have a close to first hand opinion to hang a hat on. Nice job, ol' dude!>> Thanks, Danny. There are so many things I'd like to put out there, believe me. But I just can't. But I do know what the mood was at TDA in summer/fall 2000 ... heck, I remember them dicussing scenarios for the 'massive' traffic jams that would arrive. Common sense tells you DCA opened far, far short of the company's goals for it.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 I will tell you from personal discussions with Cynthia, George and Mary Niven (still head of food and bev) that from summer 2000 right up until 2/01, they expected the place to be packed" <<Perhaps they did. But WDI didn't expect that many people, and were not projecting that, at least that's what they've said. For it to be PACKED it would have had to have 14,000,000 visit it that first year. That would have been more than how many people visited Disneyland in the previous year. That would be a completely ridiculous thing to expect. >> Jon, I don't know what WDI projected. And, let's be blunt (something you're very good at, and I mean that in a good way!)there were two warring factions at WDI at the time ... one that wanted DCA to succeed to show you could build that type of park and rake in the profits and one that wanted it to fail miserably based on the way it was created and built. So when you say 'WDI projected' ... it really has no meaning. Unless they put out an official number, which I just don't recall at all. And I hate playing semantics games. When I said the Prez of the resort, the Sr. VP of Ops of the resort and the VP head of food and beverage of the resort all expected it to be packed, I wasn't referring to it having a specific number every day. Just that they expected to have to close the gates for months at the start and they really didn't expect crowds to wane much until fall 2001. Just because Queen Cyn didn't turn to me and say 'Spirit, we expect to put 34,765 bodies in DCA every day' does not equate with her not expecting the place to be packed.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 As to the 6 p.m. closings, well, that was NEVER the plan back in 2000-01. DCA was designed with a heavy food and beverage and shopping component. You can't sell if your gates are locked. The thought in TDA was always 'we will never be successful unless we can keep this park open later than 6.'
Originally Posted By jonvn "That the GC and DD and all the resort improvements ONLY happened BECAUSE DCA was built." Exactly what I said! "Jon, I don't know what WDI projected." What we have is Barry Braverman saying in an interview that they built the place based on a projection of 7 million people visiting per year. That is where this infamous number comes from. He said that in one interview, and the entire world has gone off on that one figure. "there were two warring factions at WDI at the time" Yes, that's what it really looked like. A lot of the snarky nasty comments coming from inside the company and leaking onto the net, poisoning the waters. This was very obvious to me. "When I said the Prez of the resort, the Sr. VP of Ops of the resort and the VP head of food and beverage of the resort all expected it to be packed, I wasn't referring to it having a specific number every day. " But "packed" means a certain thing, doesn't it? There are certain numbers that have to be involved, and there just is no way all these conflicting ideas could have happened. This is not to say that what you are saying is not correct. If it is correct, it's simply incompetence, and different departments within the company not talking to each other at all!
Originally Posted By jonvn "DCA was designed with a heavy food and beverage and shopping component. " It was ridiculously heavy especially considering DTD was right outside the gate, with half a dozen very nice places to eat at. Too many food places, too many films, not enough family things.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 Ah, so it was Barry Braverman projection. Interesting. I've often wondered where that figure came to be. But, really, that could have simply been his projection or the DCA team's ... who knows? As to packed? Well, my definition or answer would be simply: pretty damn crowded. Does that help? And incompetence? That was certainly a very apt adjective to describe most of the TDA execs of that time. They really were clueless ...
Originally Posted By jonvn What he said when asked about how they designed the park was that they worked backwards from a projected attendance figure of 7 million. "Does that help?" Well, not really. No. Sounds like the corporation was too big and the person at the top couldn't keep it all together and communication was non-existent.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<Well, allow me to split hairs. It was the resort expansion that 'saved' DL, to use your overheated terminology. DCA was the weakest link in the expansion, easily surpassed by GCH and DTD in viability and profitability ...So I'd say the expansion in it's entirety moved DLR to a better position for growth, but it was in spite of DCA and it's inherent weaknesses, not because of DCA. >> And there is just one very basic fallacy or maybe faulty assumption in your perspective of things. That the GC and DD and all the resort improvements ONLY happened BECAUSE DCA was built. I won't disagree that the GC and DD were far more succesful in meeting and surpassing their goals than DCA was. But it simply makes no difference. If DCA hadn't of been built, DL would have had been in dire trouble within a decade (or less) ... the neighborhood (the same one that baffoon Jim Hill quotes an 'alleged' Anaheim city official as saying was better off econmically without Disney ... yeah, sure, Jim ... your basic understanding of economics is astounding!) Well to put it accurately, GC and DD wouldn’t have been built if A SECOND GATE PARK hadn’t been built. If they had built an outstanding park that rivaled Tokyo DisneySea, they still would have been built. If the park had been worse than Disney Studio Paris, they still would have been built. DCA in and of itself had NO impact on the development of the rest of the resort. As has been stated, the rest of the resort was successful in spite of DCA. Now we have to see what the new investment can do to bring DCA up to the level of the rest of the resort.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<jonvn: "I am amused when people keep comparing it to MGM to prove the park is OK. (which I don't recall you doing jon)" I kind of did, actually. In that MGM has been completely done over since it was originally built, and it was built insufficiently for its needs. MGM was a complete let down for us when we visited. We spent very little time there. >> The Disney/MGM Studio wasn’t completely done over, but they DID push through a number if enhancements in an expansion spurred by the popularity of the park. The park was fairly weak at opening, but struck a positive note with visitors. It was initially conceived as a half-day park. But it soon became apparent by it’s popularity that it needed to be developed into a full day experience. The challenge was that the initial park was developed in a location that wasn’t readily expandable (poor prior planning). So the expansion was more costly than it would have been if they had taken the precaution not being boxed in.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<jonvn: "If the efforts they make, with whatever their investment is, fails to change the public’s attitude towards the park (baggage), they would need to make some major shift in the direction the park takes." What it would mean is that the idea of a multi park destination in Anaheim is not viable. But what is more likely to occur, or at least what Burbank thinks will occur, is that with additional investment, they will see additional returns. I think a multi park destination in Anaheim IS viable. Unfortunately, due to it’s apparent lackluster reception, DCA was NOT the park to prove it. Definitely further investment will improve things. However, if it’s just used for half-hearted concepts, improvement won’t be made. And it appears that the concepts currently under consideration are those promoted by WDI’s former management. I’m not saying that they have consistently produced weak attractions, but a good deal of what has come out of WDI (under Disney corporate budgets) over the past decade have been less than the expected Disney quality. If Weiss can inspire a resurgence in breakthrough creative concepts, the new budget could result in true benefits for DCA.
Originally Posted By dshyates MGM also flung its doors open nine months prior to its scheduled opening with a large portion of it attractions inoperable. They did this of course to beat Universal to be the first movie studios theme park in Orlando. The initial construction phase was to end with Star Tours. As it went down Star Tours and a bunch of other weren't ready until the scheduled opening date nine months after they flung the doors open. MGM was never intended to open light and then build it out. It just happened that way. Now it SOP.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<dshyates: I have no problem considering DLR a destination resort. But it does require leaving the property to take advantage of proximity to world famous landmarks like Hollywood, L.A., San Diego and yes Universal. It is a great base camp from which to explore SoCal. That coming from someone living in West Virginia. I really enjoy the resort experience provided at the DLR. But a good indoor waterpark complex servicing only resort guests would be cool.>> I think Disney has missed a great opportunity by trying to make their limited Disneyland Resort be the whole package for visitors. They should have been promoting all of Southern California, with the Disneyland Resort as the jump off point for all Southern California visitors.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I think Disney has missed a great opportunity by trying to make their limited Disneyland Resort be the whole package for visitors. They should have been promoting all of Southern California, with the Disneyland Resort as the jump off point for all Southern California visitors. >> If you paid attention to DL marketing materials for the past 25 years, you would find that they have tried going that route many times. It's just not nearly as lucrative as having a captive audience on your property for their entire vacation.
