| # | Author | Message |
21
| Spirit of 74
Tue 5/27/2008 4:23p | <<To suggest that DCA was intended to be a minor placeholder is to willfully ignore the true events surrounding its creation. DCA was intended to be a "home run" that would drive attendance and increase the length of guest stays in the Disneyland Resort.>>
Where's Darkbeer with that great George 'Can You Beleive I'm Still a High Level Park Exec With This Company' Kalogridis quote to the LA Times in early 2001?
Paging Darkbeer to another DCA bashing thread ... Darkbeer ...
<<It would have been better, in the long run, to have created the other elements (hotels, shopping and improvements) without the theme park, since these are the elements that actually drove the less-than-anticipated growth.>>
Except it don't work that way.
None of those imrpovements from the Grand to DD to urban renewal could have or would have been justified to Disney management and shareholders without a second gate.
And that is why the heroin monkey (God, Al, the gift that keeps right on giving ... just like old Georgie K) that is DCA actually saved DL.
DCA justified all of those 'successful' parts of the resort expansion, and ultimately paved the way for a bright future for the resort.
|
22
| Spirit of 74
Tue 5/27/2008 4:26p | <<ORDDU: Indeed, Park Hopper. Our sources tell us that Disney is taking a 'wait and see how the economy is doing' before actually proceeding forth. We sincerely hope this doesn't all turn out to be a repeat of the infamous 'Disney Decade' that never was.>>
This is indeed a major concern.
Those projects were given the green light when gas was well under $3 a gallon, not approaching $5 in many areas.
Those projects were given the green light when foreclosures weren't at an all-time high.
Those projects were given the green light when we weren't bogged down in an illegal war of aggression ... oh, scratch that last one.
Bottom line is Disney is watching the economy like a preacher watching his beautiful blonde, nubile, repressed daughter as she reaches dating years ... very, very, very closely.
|
23
| Hans Reinhardt
Tue 5/27/2008 5:33p | "There is a lot of short sighted ripping out and rebuilding right there."
Depends on how you look at it. Disneyland didn't have Fantasmic when it opened - in fact it didn't have a lot of things it has now when it opened. This what I mean when I say there was a good foundation for long term growth when DCA debuted. You can either build everything on day one or design in a way that allows for additions to be build over time. For better or for worse it's clear that option 2 is what Disney decided to do. In fact, I believe it was Braverman who stated something in line with that during the park's early days. |
24
| dshyates
Tue 5/27/2008 5:53p | But they KNEW that they were going to be adding a show to the Bay eventually. And they chose not to add the suggested infrastructure before they poured the concrete. Now they have to drain the bay, rip out the bottom and start over. They are also adding the tiered viewing area suggested before it was built. This is plain ol' dumb. And Al lutz called it so when the parked opened. now the people sadled with fixing the place are pulling their hair out over how deep the fixes are required to go. |
25
| mawnck
Tue 5/27/2008 9:59p | Recessions are the time you INCREASE spending on infrastructure and advertising as much as you possibly can, to solidify your market dominance and shore up weak areas. Why? Because it's CHEAPER then, and your competition won't have enough sense to do it, thus falling further behind.
They're only concerned with looking bad in their next quarterly report, which is going to suck anyway. You should be smarter. |
26
| ArchtMig
Tue 5/27/2008 10:25p | >>>Recessions are the time you INCREASE spending on infrastructure and advertising as much as you possibly can, to solidify your market dominance and shore up weak areas. Why? Because it's CHEAPER then, and your competition won't have enough sense to do it, thus falling further behind.<<<
This time it's different. The cost of materials is not going down due to still high demands overseas. And the dollar keeps losing value, so it costs more to buy materials in a couple of ways. So it's not really cheaper, even in the upcoming bad economy. |
27
| Hans Reinhardt
Wed 5/28/2008 10:18a | "But they KNEW that they were going to be adding a show to the Bay eventually."
Did they? How do you know this?
Let's suppose that they did know. How would they have known in 2001 what infrastructure to build in the lagoon for a show that wouldn't open for 10 years? |
28
| Park Hopper
Wed 5/28/2008 11:32a | Oh for heaven's sake, Hans, stop blindly defending DCA's designers. They're really not worth the trouble.
>>How would they have known in 2001 what infrastructure to build in the lagoon for a show that wouldn't open for 10 years?<<
How about a terraced viewing area? That seems like a no brainer. And this won't exactly be Disney's first lagoon show. (2 Fantasmics, several versions of Illuminations, DisneySea Symphony, BraviSeaMo, etc.) Surely there are some basic infrastructure elements (like a power suply) that any lagoon show would need. |
29
| Hans Reinhardt
Wed 5/28/2008 11:44a | "Hans, stop blindly defending DCA's designers. They're really not worth the trouble."
And how about you stop blindly labeling me and consider my point of view. You might actually realize that I am not defending anyone.
"How about a terraced viewing area?"
I said IN the lagoon. |
30
| Park Hopper
Wed 5/28/2008 12:26p | Post 27 looks a lot like you're defending them to me. I use the term blindly because you have no facts to back up your supposition.
And how silly of me to confuse in the lagoon with around the lagoon, where apparently lack of foresight is completely acceptable.
|
