Originally Posted By oc_dean May I re-word that? Please What we have here is a poorly designed park that the main stream public didn't buy into. There! How hard is that to figure out!
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> What I meant (and believe I said) was that NO PARK would be able to do what Disney Execs were predicting. << But a truly fine, truly Disney-ized park would have done a lot more of what the DisCo executives had been predicting, including, yes, even the prediction of it drawing away a certain portion of visitors from Disneyland. However, if such an assumption is likely to be wrong, then the ability of the DisCo to create a new theme park that captures a lot of the attention, excitement and imagination (and dollars) of the public must have fallen quite a bit over the years. The only unfair burden that could have been applied to DCA -- or any second Disney park in Anaheim -- is the idea that it should attract as large an annual attendance, and certainly an even larger one, as Disneyland. The only non-Magic-Kingdom park in the world to have come close to achieving that goal is DisneySea in Tokyo.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But a truly fine, truly Disney-ized park would have done a lot more of what the DisCo executives had been predicting, including, yes, even the prediction of it drawing away a certain portion of visitors from Disneyland.> But a truly fine, truly Disney-ized park would have cost a lot more, and therefore may also have been a failure. There are no guarantees, especially when you open the park at a time of a faltering economy, and then a devastating incident occurs.
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster By far the most profitable facet of any Disney Resort is its resort hotels. Notice that no new Disney theme park is built today without accompanying expensive resort hotel properties. New theme parks are now built with hotel profits factored into the equation. Try to book a room at any of Disney's Anaheim hotels and you will know how full they are at all times. Could Disney have consistently filled three resort hotels before DCA was built? Since 2002 Anaheim hotels (not only Disney but all area hotels) have seen a surge in attendance: up 19.9% in terms of actual guest rooms sold, up 12.3% in hotel occupancy, up 31.5% in revenue per available room, and up 13.5% in actual room rates. Source: <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/local/article_1265163.php" target="_blank">http://www.ocregister.com/ocre gister/news/local/article_1265163.php</a> While a lot of the credit must go to the expanded Convention Center and the wildly successful 50th celebration, I would have a hard time believing there isn't a lot of profit being made by Disney and other hoteliers. I would believe that the total resort expansion (DCA being the largest part) has had a tremendously postive impact on how long guests are staying and spending their money on property. Any expansion of existing resort hotels or any new resort hotels that are built would serve to prove that demand is high enough to warrant such investment. Where is that demand coming from?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>There are no guarantees, especially when you open the park at a time of a faltering economy, and then a devastating incident occurs.<< Asked and answered. The economy was not "faltering" when DCA opened. The first Summer season (which everyone now seems to acknowledge as a disaster) was over well before 9/11.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I would believe that the total resort expansion (DCA being the largest part) has had a tremendously postive impact on how long guests are staying and spending their money on property. Any expansion of existing resort hotels or any new resort hotels that are built would serve to prove that demand is high enough to warrant such investment.<< This is certainly a reasonable assertion. Historically, though, Disney's hotels have always had a higher rate of occupancy than area hotels. Indeed, the idea of expanding into a full fledged resort was driven to a certain extent by this fact. But look at the reality. Planned for the new resort were FOUR new hotels. The original Disneyland Hotel was to be almost completely refurbished, and three new themed hotels were to be built. What do we have six years later? The Disneyland Hotel has been redecorated, but there has been no major construction. The Company bought the Paradise Pier (as it is now called) and redecorated it. And ONE new hotel was built, the Grand Californian. This hotel wasn't even built to its full footprint. And it is only now that there is discussion of doing this. There is NO talk by Disney of building anything else. Only what was accomplished BEFORE the opening of DCA has been done in the last six years. >>Any expansion of existing resort hotels or any new resort hotels that are built would serve to prove that demand is high enough to warrant such investment. Where is that demand coming from?<< Apparently, it isn't coming from anywhere, since there has been no expansion in the last six years, ever since DCA opened.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The economy was not "faltering" when DCA opened.> DCA opened in Feb of 2001. In the year before it opened, the Nasdaq had lost half its value, while the DOW was flat. Many economists believe the recession started in late 2000. It was definitely underway by March 2001, only a month after DCA opened. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38826-2004Jan22?language=printer" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ac2/wp-dyn/A38826-2004Jan22?language=printer</a>
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Since 2002 Anaheim hotels (not only Disney but all area hotels) have seen a surge in attendance: up 19.9% in terms of actual guest rooms sold, up 12.3% in hotel occupancy, up 31.5% in revenue per available room, and up 13.5% in actual room rates." Thanks for providing factual information to back up your point. There is no question in my mind that DCA and the accompanying DLR expansion is driving increases in tourism in the area since the early part of this decade. "The economy was not "faltering" when DCA opened." Oh yes it most certainly was.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>"Since 2002 Anaheim hotels (not only Disney but all area hotels) have seen a surge in attendance: up 19.9% in terms of actual guest rooms sold, up 12.3% in hotel occupancy, up 31.5% in revenue per available room, and up 13.5% in actual room rates."<< But there is no relevant proof that any of this is due to DCA. That is the crux of this. Sifnificantly, the figures above are for a five and a half year time period, starting AFTER 9-11, and ending just before the end of the huge public response to Disneyland's 50th. From the article cited: >>The report examined figures from Jan. 1, 2002, through June 30 of this year. The report shows that the resort area is rebounding from the post-Sept. 11 slump that hurt tourism markets nationwide. More recently, area hotels were bolstered by the 18-month celebration of Disneyland's 50th anniversary, which ends this month. The surge in hotel stays also is tied to the expansion and increase in events at the Anaheim Convention Center and the 2001 opening of Disney's California Adventure, as well as the beautification of the resort district. Other hotel rooms, including the Doubletree Guests Suites, have recently been added.<< I would also point out, again, that Disney's stated plan was to open three new hotels as part of their Resort strategy. The fact that they have opened only one, after six long years, shows their reaction to the success or failure of their second gate. As far as the "faltering" economy goes, I had no recollection at the time that there was great concern over the economy. (I'm talking Summer 2001). In searching the net, I have found articles appearing late that year that fix the start of a recession at about March. But this was being identified in the Fall, well after DCA's initial disappointing Summer season. Now we see that there is further discussion of just when the recession started. (The article cited earlier is from 2004.) It could be noted that Disneyland was having no trouble attracting guests during the recession that may or may not have started a month after DCA opened to tepid reaction. (Hey! Maybe DCA caused the recession! Yeah, that's it. You know-- cause and effect and all that...)
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <As far as the "faltering" economy goes, I had no recollection at the time that there was great concern over the economy.> I distinctly remember President Bush, prior to assuming office, talking about how the economy was faltering and how we should accelerate his proposed tax cuts to spur economic growth. <It could be noted that Disneyland was having no trouble attracting guests during the recession that may or may not have started a month after DCA opened to tepid reaction.> Because Disneyland still was selling annual passes. As I recall, DCA required a single day admission, or a minimum 3 day hopper. I didn't visit DCA on my first visit to the resort in 2001, because I had an annual pass and didn't want to pay a full day admission to DCA.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But there is no relevant proof that any of this is due to DCA. > Nor any that it's not due to DCA. It's only anecdotal, but I know in our case, DCA made the difference. As much as I love DL, I had never visited for more than a 2-day stretch before DCA opened. Since then, we've stayed for 3 or 4 days. Others here have said similar things. And if they planned for more hotel openings, well that's like the "they planned for 7 million" visitors stuff. True on one level, but it still doesn't translate to DCA is failing in 2007.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh We usually agree about Disney stuff. It's only politics where you're almost always completely wrong.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney LOL, you guys are STILL discussing this?? I bowed out about a week ago . Wow, no matter WHAT people keep trying to tell themselves, the "DCA sucks" threads brings on the most spirited and lively debates, 6 years on. Amazing. More amazing I was #2 who posted on this thread. I saw maybe 20 posts commenting and then it would die. I guess I was wrong about that lol....but very rarely about DCA though ;D. Take it easy guys and don't hurt each other!
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Because Disneyland still was selling annual passes. As I recall, DCA required a single day admission, or a minimum 3 day hopper.<< I have never used any ticket media for admission to DCA. I bought a two-park Premium Annual Pass in early 2001. Not long after that, they suspended sales of them because of concerns that the park would be overwhelmed with APs and day trippers. They later quietly resumed the sales of two-park APs, and the next year discounted them by $100, essentially giving the public DCA for free. Not that is significant of anything, apparently...
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Nor any that it's not due to DCA.<< If anyone could offer anything approaching evidence that this was the case, then the argument would be moot. The difficulty on my part is proving a negative. I will reiterate that the fact that the DLR has built NO new hotel rooms in the six years since DCA opened (despite the fact that they announced THREE new hotels) is some proof that DCA has been a failure, as far as attracting the numbers of guests anticipated.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...the "DCA sucks" threads brings on the most spirited and lively debates... I saw maybe 20 posts commenting and then it would die.<< If this was nothing more than a "DCA sucks" thread, I would have bowed out long ago (if I had participated at all). I have enjoyed the civil exchange of ideas on this, and am grateful that it has been kept clear of only subjective opinions based on personal animus.
