Originally Posted By DVC_dad Don't you agree that the new Pooh playground is a great use of space for the old 20,000 leagues under the sea lagoon? In fact wasn't the MK long over due for a play ground?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I think I will have to respectfully disagree with that. The 20K lagoon was huge, and could have housed several entire lands, but we got a playground instead. It is nicely themed, but nothing spectacular.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 okay I already put this on another post, but I;ll repeat here as it is the best I can do without getting admn'd plain and simple-- I can go to a better quality playground in my own neighborhood -- they did a half donkey job on it and why put a freakin' playground in the middle of Fantasyland, some of the most expensive property on earth ? This was the best they could come up with -- a place for parents to dump their kids while they get their 'me' time ? For starters there is a LOT of property there - think of the size of the 20K ride and the building behind it-- it could have housed an e ticket easily.....and if not that, how about a dark ride or two ? Anything but a McPoo playground in that location. There are playgrounds in the hotels, playgrounds in the neighborhoods.....when Walt decided to build DL, he did so, so that familes could have time together ina great place outside of the playground...we have come full circle..... Other than that, no reasons I can think of....
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I've given my opinion ad nauseum on this topic, but as long as it's here... This whole notion that kids need a playground at the Magic Kingdom to 'burn off some energy' is a relatively new phenomenon of this generation's stroller set. To me, young kids at The Magic Kingdom get plenty of visual and aural stimulation, plus plenty of exercise -- without having to 'burn off' additional energy at a playground. But that's just me. If parents are excited that 18 month old Billy and 2 year old Jessica get to romp around a playground for 20 minutes and that they've burned off energy, and they feel that it's valuable -- right on!
Originally Posted By trekkeruss It's only a great use of the space in the context of it is better than absolutely nothing, which for over a decade that is what the space was: nothing. But compared to the attraction that was there oh-so-long-ago, it's a poor excuse of a Disney attraction, and as vb points out, a _very_ poor use of _very_ expensive real estate.
Originally Posted By FiveBearRugs Hmmm, I guess that they could have used that space for Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, The Rescuers (where you go through both films) and Ariel's Underwater Adventures... Assuming that WDW actually thought of creating the latter two and bringing back Toad.
Originally Posted By BlazesOfFire I wish they built Pooh over there and kept Toad! But alas, a playground was buitl instead. I consider all of MK a "playground." I guess if kids need to jump, slide, and burn off energy while parents can just sit back and watch, why not do it at the resorts? Oh well I guess...i basically just came here to see what vbdad had to say lol
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, something new to chat about. I am a "local" who doesn't necessarily stay at the resorts when I visit the park. I have a 3 year old and another on the way. I can see that playground coming in really handy the first time we come up with the new baby. A. It is a nice respite. Prior to having children I would often sit on a bench at the MK and watch people. I just enjoy doing that. With a 3 year old that isn't much on an option but he might spend 20 minutes on the playground while I get a chance to rest and people watch. B. The playground will be a nice diversion for the boy if we have to stop and feed/change or otherwise care for the baby. Will everyone enjoy the playground? No. But, will everyone enjoy Expedition Everest? No. But, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be an E-ticket attraction. That said, I do believe Disney could have been more fantasmical in designing the Pooh Playground but I doubt a 2-5 year old is going to care. My son made me take him to the little tot lot in the mall every day for 2 hours each day while we were visiting family up north. And, it wasn't much to look at.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad BlazesOfFire wrote: << Oh well I guess...i basically just came here to see what vbdad had to say lol. >> HAAAA hahahaha rofl Shhhh... *whispers* ...truth be known I posted the topic to see what vbdad would say. lol I will confess though that we DID use the playground for abou 20 minutes while me and two of my older kids went for a slide down Splash Mountain. We hustled back over to Fantasyland after that to continue our journey. There IS afterall something to be said for putting the playground in. I mean it IS better'n'nothin' which is what has been there for a decade. I think they put it there for a few reasons, but for one I think certainly was to make a statement that the submarine ride (however themed) would NOT be coming back to the MK as with DL.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad The SAD thing is, eventhough as an adult I am lucky enough to visit WDW somewhat often, As a child I only visited WDW ONE SINGLE TIME the first year it opened in 1971, and I was only 3.5 years old. I never went back until 1997 and I was, I dunno what...30'ish. Anyway, the three things I remember the MOST about my one trip as a 3 year old was: 1.) The Moon in Peter Pan 2.) The beginning of the ride in IASW 3.) Of course DUMBO! 4.) 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea So truth be known, my heart misses 20,000 leagues very much, but now that I have 5 kids (my oldest is only 11, and number 6 is on the way) I am really LOVIN' having that playground there. I just wish it was somewhere else in the park and 20,000 was STILL there and open. I admit it really IS a poor use of space.
Originally Posted By MinnieSummer I agree it is a poor use of that space -- especially when there is a playground in ToonTown. It is also a somewhat sad excuse for a playground. If people are using it for a place to park the little one while they ride something inappropriate for a toddler (Thunder or Splash) then maybe a larger play area by Splash would have made more sense. I did like being able to park my daughter and rest for a few minutes when she was younger but I'm older than most parents of toddlers so that could be why.
Originally Posted By demderedoseguys I dislike the whole concept of any playground in a theme park. The Magic Kingdom in itself is a big playground, so basically Pooh's is a playground within a playground. That being said, it's still better than the contruction wall and has opened up that area of the park.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I dislike the whole concept of any playground in a theme park. The Magic Kingdom in itself is a big playground, so basically Pooh's is a playground within a playground. That being said, it's still better than the contruction wall and has opened up that area of the park.< wait until Roo's playground opens up inside Pooh's Playground -- the we'll really have something -
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom I had stated ad nauseum how I feel about this subject. My biggest complain is that Tom Sawyer Island is suppose to be a playground for children. Why do we need another. I have also stated that I believe that space could have been better utilized for an attraction OR part of Mickey's Toontown. Back in January I had the opportunity to check out Poo's Playfun Spot. I was not impressed. I recently purchased The Walt Disney World episode of Mordern Marvel's on the History Channel. I was surprised to learn that the original concept for The Tree of Life in DAK was going to be a small tree that children could climb on and play in and around. I'm sure this is where the idea for Poo's Playfun Spot originated.
Originally Posted By KachinaBear Tom Sawyer's Island is great, but it really fills a different niche than the Pooh playground. Tom Sawyer is for bigger kids. Pooh is primarily for toddlers. While I definitely agree that they could have made Pooh a much neater playground with more original equipment, it does have it's uses. On my last trip to WDW we used it a meeting ground a couple times where our party split up and we weren't sure exactly what time we would be done with our separate endeavors -- that way, my two year old could be playing while we waited on the others of the group instead of growing restless sitting on a bench somewhere. Also, my sister took him to the playground a couple times while I was busy feeding and changing my six-month old. So for my family, it was a useful place, if not a very inspired or exciting one.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Good point about TSI. It isn't a place I could let my 3 year old loose and be comfortable. Of course, I never "let my kid loose"...even on local playgrounds, but I can sit and watch and not have too many worries at one vs the other. Maybe this wasn't the best place...but while nothing else seems to be on the horizon a 2 on a scale of 1-10 is better than a zero.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad MinnieSummer wrote: << but I'm older than most parents of toddlers >> Minnie how old are you and how old is your toddler may I ask? My wife and I are 38, and we have ... a toddler.
