Will $ 1 Billion save DCA???

Originally Posted By FerretAfros

Dalmatians-in-the-process-of-recieving-their-spots!!!

 

Originally Posted By ImgineerBob

yes, but keep in mind, the park is still new, and has lots of time to add new rides in the future, I think a total redo of HPB should be next though, as it certianly has the room for a lot of new things and looks.

 

Originally Posted By FerretAfros

That's the thing though, most of the park's expansion space was turned into Cars Land (still a stupid name). There are still a few places that could be added in (Maliboomer area could lead to a backstage show building), but there just isn't a ton of room left. They expanded the hotel to the edge of the park on the northwest, the norteast is already as close to the street as possible, the southwest has a bit of room but would need to reconfigure a lot of backstage, and the southeast is all Cars Land. As we've seen with Mermaid, they can add an attraction in the middle of the park, but it's not really an ideal situation for the construction or guests. It just seems like they've added things in a fairly foolish layout, considering how little space they're leaving for the park's future.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<Closing earlier than D/L was not part of DCA's original plan of operations.
>

No doubt. But that's not even close to the same thing as closing it.

 

Originally Posted By crapshoot

<<The single biggest piece of proof that none of the ideas rumored to have been tossed around by Disney about what to do with DCA were serious is the fact that the company ultimately chose to reinvest $1 billion dollars to dramatically expand and improve the place.>>

But it is a different management team that made the decision for these current round of upgrades. In other words, a different set of champions came on board.

I have no reason to doubt that all of the original "fixes" tossed around were legitimate for the time.

Also I believe that once John Lassiter came on board a different direction was proposed and put into affect.

Just because it was the same Walt Disney Company that was around when DCA was built, and it is the same WDC that is around with all of the enhancements does not mean that internal direction is the same then as now.

 

Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt

"Hans, what other choice did they have but to dump a Billion and a half into fixing the place"

You said yourself that they considered consolidating with Disneyland. They also could have closed the place. It certainly would be the fist amusement park in the history of Southern California to close down.

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

>>It certainly would be the fist amusement park in the history of Southern California to close down.<<

What do you really mean to say here???

 

Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt

<<The single biggest piece of proof that none of the ideas rumored to have been tossed around by Disney about what to do with DCA were serious is the fact that the company ultimately chose to reinvest $1 billion dollars to dramatically expand and improve the place.>>

"But it is a different management team that made the decision for these current round of upgrades. In other words, a different set of champions came on board."

That only emphasizes the fact that the people in charge deemed it worth dropping more money on the place. Iger doesn't seem like the sort of CEO to throw a bunch of money at something like WOC or Cars Land unless he believed that they would yield specific results over time. Spending $1 billion on DCA was as a much of a strategic move as the initial capital outlay for the DLR expansion back in 2001.

 

Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt

"What do you really mean to say here???"

Sorry Doug, I meant to say it wouldn't be.

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

>>Spending $1 billion on DCA was as a much of a strategic move as the initial capital outlay for the DLR expansion back in 2001.<<

Yes, it is a strategic move, but not one that was originally planned or budgeted.

 

Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt

"Yes, it is a strategic move, but not one that was originally planned or budgeted."

And neither was New Orleans Square or Tomorrowland '67.

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

Walt ALWAYS planned to update Tomorrowland. NOS was an addition to a successful park.

 

Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA

I would say that the difference between fixing up Tomorrowland in 1967 is very different from the huge fixes that DCA has seen in the past 10 years.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

Each park has its own unique circumstances.

Having said that, fixing up the weakest part of the park, which didn't have enough money (or, arguably, creativity--Bathroom of Tomorrow or Dutch Boy exhibit, anyone?) allocated to it on the original incarnation, into what it perhaps should have been from the beginning, 11 years later... isn't SO radically different from what they're doing to some of the weaker parts of DCA.

And yeah, I know there are differences and it's not an exact analogue. Still... Just sayin'.

 

Originally Posted By Youtub

You people know so much about DCA, and being just a puppy here, I'm afraid to say that I love DCA

 

Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt

"I would say that the difference between fixing up Tomorrowland in 1967 is very different from the huge fixes that DCA has seen in the past 10 years."

Uet there are similarities. Whether it was planned or budgeted isn't the point. The main idea that I'm trying to get across is that businesses don't reinvest billions in something that has been deemed a complete failure.

"...fixing up the weakest part of the park, which didn't have enough money (or, arguably, creativity--Bathroom of Tomorrow or Dutch Boy exhibit, anyone?) allocated to it on the original incarnation, into what it perhaps should have been from the beginning, 11 years later... isn't SO radically different from what they're doing to some of the weaker parts of DCA."

Exactly.

 

Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt

Uet -> Yet

 

Originally Posted By crapshoot

<<The main idea that I'm trying to get across is that businesses don't reinvest billions in something that has been deemed a complete failure.>>

True. But in the case of the DLR, DCA was now the 200,000,000 ton elephant in the middle of Anaheim.

The WDC couldn't very well walk away after turning the lights off, no matter what degree of "failure" the park suffered.

 

Originally Posted By dshyates

And maybe have your beat talent actually focus on it as opposed to being a sidebar to the paying gig in Tokyo.

 

Originally Posted By CuriousConstance

Woulda, coulda, shoulda!