DCA, Future Expansion
Topic: Tom Staggs basically confirms the massive upgrade

#	Author	Message
61	jonvn Mon 9/24/2007 12:24p	"I really am interested in reading about this, as I have never run across this assertion before." Well, I suggest you start by reading the Bob Thomas book about Walt Disney. I vaguely recall it might be in there. I have read about 25 to 30 books on the subject. So, where it was exactly stated, I'd have to do research. It is either in this book, or it is in an interview I saw. Books are good things. I suggest that you read the THomas book on Roy Disney. You might find that interesting.
62	DlandDug Mon 9/24/2007 12:37p	I understand completely. After bleating repeatedly for statements made by those involved in the creation of DCA, the production of them is greeted by lame excuses along the lines of, "Well, we don't really know what they were thinking about when they said them." It's a statistical fact that DCA has NEVER met any kind of predicted attendance goal. (Yes, numbers have been up every year since it opened. But six years later it still hasn't met the goals established for 2001.) It is a fact that DCA's shows, shops, restaurants and attractions were cut back from the first month the place opened. It is a fact that most of the high profile people involved in the creation of DCA are no longer with the Walt Disney Company. These facts all indicate, to a logically minded individual, that the place has been a failure. (P.S. The assertion that DCA was part of the reason tourism declined in Southern California in 2001 wasn't mine. It was the LA Business Journal, perhaps a bit more qualified to make a statement about this then a couple of schlumps arguing on a Disney discussion board.) You may argue all you want about the quality of DCA. Or guest experience. Or whether or not it was a good idea. But when confronted with some simple facts, don't fall back on the same absurd, pointless arguments.
63	DlandDug Mon 9/24/2007 12:46p	>>Books are good things.<< Yes, yes they are. I have some of those. I just took a few minutes to go through Bob Thomas' book. Using the index listing for Disneyland, I found no reference to Walt's desire to expand the Park into the parking lot. So maybe it's in some other book? If you do recall, please let me know. Because I am genuinely interested.
64	DouglasDubh Mon 9/24/2007 12:56p	<It's a statistical fact that DCA has NEVER met any kind of predicted attendance goal.> Really? You have access to all the attendance goals and the actual attendance numbers? <It is a fact that DCA's shows, shops, restaurants and attractions were cut back from the first month the place opened.> It's also a fact that the economy was declining in the late winter and early spring of 2001, when DCA opened.
65	jonvn Mon 9/24/2007 12:58p	"I understand completely." Actually, no, you don't seem to. There are all kinds of figures in terms of goals. 7 million, low goal, high goal? Medium goal? Did it miss that? Maybe so. Is that the ONLY thing they based the entire expansion on? I would think not. It's not a "lame excuse." It's simply that you really have no information. And when asked for it, you provided little else than what everyone has already heard. "It's a statistical fact that DCA has NEVER met any kind of predicted attendance goal. " Let's discuss this one sentence because it may be useful to discuss what is a fact. You claim it is a statistical fact. First, what is a statistical fact? What statistic are you looking at? There are no statistics that back up what you claim. Second, you say "NEVER met any kind of predicted attendance goal" Other than the 7 million figure, what predicted attendance goals are you referring to? What attendance figures do you know that they did not meet? Other than that one utterance, you likely don't know ANY other attendance goal. Other than guesstimates on the part of outside agencies, you don't even know whether they have even met that original goal or not. I've heard from some reliable sources that they have now, but don't know if that is true, because I've not seen actual figures. So, no, it's not a statistical fact or any other kind of fact. It is speculation based on the tiniest shred of information. "It is a fact that DCA's shows, shops, restaurants and attractions were cut back from the first month the place opened." It's a fact that some restaurants closed, yes, and other changes were made. That is a fact. "It is a fact that most of the high profile people involved in the creation of DCA are no longer with the Walt Disney Company" Well, it took long enough. It's been six years. But I've heard that most of the people who actually worked on the place are still there. But, who are you referring to specifically? Pressler, who became CEO of Gap? Braverman? Yeah, he's gone. Tom Fitzgerald? Isn't he still there? Just got a different job now. So, I'm not entirely sure it's a fact that these people are all gone, or left because of this project. Companies have turnover. In six years, you would expect a good number of people to have left. How many are there, how many are gone? "The assertion that DCA was part of the reason tourism declined in Southern California in 2001 wasn't mine." No. You misunderstood. I'm saying you were reading it wrong. You took it backwards. DCA didn't cause the decline, it suffered from it, as did the original park, and that caused that number to go down. "when confronted with some simple facts" You don't really have any facts. This is your problem. If you actually had facts, I'd be happy to hear them.
66	DlandDug Mon 9/24/2007 1:06p	>>Really? You have access to all the attendance goals and the actual attendance numbers?<< No, nor have I claimed to. I do know what the stated goals of the Company were, and know they have never been reached. >>It's also a fact that the economy was declining in the late winter and early spring of 2001, when DCA opened.<< Asked and answered (more than once). Here is an article (also cited above) which serves to bolster your point of view: http://findarticles.com/p/arti cles/mi_m5072/is_31_23/ai_77338313 Bear in mind, though, the same article cites DCA (specifically) as a contributing factor to the decline in tourist revenue. So maybe you're right. Maybe it was the economy that caused the management at Disneyland to cut back severely on the shows, shops, and restaurants at DCA, while maintaining Disneyland and seeing DownTown Disney do well. Maybe this was the reason both Wolfgang Puck and Robert Mondavi chose to take a major financial loss by pulling out. In hindsight, it's a very reasonable point of view.
67	jonvn Mon 9/24/2007 1:17p	"No, nor have I claimed to. " Actually, you have. You said it was a statistical fact that DCA never met any kind of attendance goal. That would be declaring something to be a fact, you see. "Maybe it was the economy that caused the management at Disneyland to cut back severely on the shows, shops, and restaurants at DCA, while maintaining Disneyland and seeing DownTown Disney do well." Or maybe Disneyland was cut back, too, and you don't realize it. Somehow, everyone complained about Disneyland falling to pieces during this same time, restaurants being closed early, rides being closed early, and so on. Again, you need to take everything into account, not just what you want to see.
68	DlandDug Mon 9/24/2007 1:19p	>>There are all kinds of figures in terms of goals. 7 million, low goal, high goal? Medium goal? Did it miss that? Maybe so.<< The reason the 7 million number is used is because it is a firm number that was clearly stated. The context is that the design of DCA was backward engineered from a predicted attendance of 7 million. Ergo, we understand that the Comapny predicted that 7 million would visit DCA in a given year. We also know this has never happened. How? By looking at the readily available facts and figures? No. By using common deductive reasoning. AB released figures for many years following the opening of DCA. While there was always quibbling over their accuracy, there was never the slightest effort to assert that DCA was achieved anywhere near the goal of 7 million visitors. Waht is most telling is what we have NEVER seen: An press release touting DCA's attendance. Disneyland and other Disney parks are routinely feted for meeting attendance milestones. This did not hbappen for DCA, and seems unlikely to happen. Whether it does or not, the fact will remain that its attendance numbers historically were disappinting. Or challenging. Or a disastrous failure. (Depending on one's level of hyperbole.) >>I'm saying you were reading it wrong. You took it backwards. DCA didn't cause the decline, it suffered from it, as did the original park, and that caused that number to go down.<< No. Let's look at the quote. >>Disney's California Adventure, which opened to lukewarm response earlier this year, was in part responsible for dampening tourism visitors through the region, Kyser said.<< If you choose to disagree with Jack Kyser, Chief Economist of the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. in 2001, that's fine. But don't try and twist what he said.
69	DlandDug Mon 9/24/2007 1:25p	>>"No, nor have I claimed to. " Actually, you have. You said it was a statistical fact that DCA never met any kind of attendance goal. That would be declaring something to be a fact, you see.<< Sigh. What I have never claimed is that I have, "access to all the attendance goals and the actual attendance numbers." I will (again) say that DCA has never met the predicted attendance goal of 7 million guests in a year. It certainly did not meet that goal the first year, if you want to leave it at that. >>Or maybe Disneyland was cut back, too, and you don't realize it. Somehow, everyone complained about Disneyland falling to pieces during this same time, restaurants being closed early, rides being closed early, and so on.<< No. I hope you are not suggesting that Disneyland was "falling to pieces" because of the economy. It was due to management decisions. The Summer of 2001 did not see an appreciable amount of closure in Disneyland. DCA, however, was another story...
70	DouglasDubh Mon 9/24/2007 1:44p	<I hope you are not suggesting that Disneyland was "falling to pieces" because of the economy. It was due to management decisions. The Summer of 2001 did not see an appreciable amount of closure in Disneyland.> Why would management have decided to cut back on maintenance at Disneyland if the money was rolling in? Cut backs because of a recession are still cut backs because of a recession, whichever form they take. I went to the resort several times in 2001 and 2002 because I got great deals on the hotels, and neither park was busy when I was there.

All times are Pacific Time (US)

Note: Information on the discussion boards is sometimes based on rumors or incorrect information and should not be assumed true. Messages do not necessarily reflect the opinion of LaughingPlace.com or its editors.

More messages:	1-10	11-20	21-30	31-40	41-50
	51-60	61-70	71-80	81-90	91-100
	101-110	111-120	121-130	131-140	141-150
	151-160	161-170	171-180	181-181

< Previous Topic

Next Topic >

You must be a registered user to post messages.
Click here to register.
After registration you will automatically be brought back to this topic

Laughing Place Podcast
The LPP-oddcast celebrate Mickey's birthday, discuss the reopened Space Mountain and Christmas at Walt Disney World plus Reader Mail, Stump the Crew, the Captain's Challenge, 50 Words on 2012 and much more. Sponsored by HoJoAnaheim.com and MouseEarVacations.com.

What's on
The Latest
Miley Cyrus tour bus in fatal crash, Miley not aboard
Captain EO on the way back?
Mobile Magic Application Transforms Verizon Wireless Phones Into Electronic Tour Guides to Navigate Disney Parks
Disney Executives Swap Jobs
2009 Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade Sailor Mickey Mouse Plush Available Online
Disney Digital Books Expands Its Vast Library with Princess and the Frog Books
Disney Interactive Studios Starts a New Holiday Tradition with Disney's A Chrsitmas Carol Video Game
Jonas and Sonny With a Chance Video Games Invite Fans Onstage, Backstage and Beyond
Disney Cruise Line in Macy's Parade for the first time
Space Mountain preview

Click here for The Latest