PDA

View Full Version : DL waterpark thoughts



SimpTwister
07-14-2001, 07:59 PM
I don't think it would be a good idea to make the 'Third Theme Park' a waterpark.

As others have said, there are many waterparks in the area, and waterparks are seasonal.

That said, the DL resort could really use a waterpark.

SimpTwister's solution: Build a compact, indoor, highly-themed waterpark elsewhere on the property.

Where? Oh, I dunno... How about just west of the PPH? This would provide easy access for DLH and PPH guests, and it would also be quite near the GCH.

visual aid HERE (http://www.mapquest.com/cgi-bin/ia_find?link=btwn%2Ftwn-map_results&uid=u1w5hel9pex5i6ab%3A2ll4bnl6tn&SNVData=3mad3-h.fy%2528abguy7_%2529u2ah0bx%252495-dut%253bvj%257cs0w%2Cbb6%257c.mt3y%252br%252bOu%25 12%2514ZP%252b%2514%25180w-ChJNVC%2515-gu%2525v%252b%252bnlrqkb%2524ftvq%252ay%2510.1tz4f t-%2524m6hqmnt.f_xi%253a%252bm_%2529shcr%252by%252b% 25136%2513DY%2519%252bD%2514zr%2521NfM%2514%2517%2 513G%252156%25253%252b%252bcrwwjx%2540gh3b%2526z%2 511%25290h0pgh%2521%2540s7bbsca%2529g%2521yx%2524% 252bv%253d%253dubnl%252bg%252bV7COXN%252bONt5_%251 21VPJOF_r7%25252%252b%252b8w1r7l%25290b2h%253a0F%2 53dabg90b_%2529u2ahu80%253d0%2Crb%253b%252b7%253a_ 9a2x%252b5%252bP2NPI%2514%252bPCaq%2528%2513w%2517 %2519MKE%2528y2%25257%252b%252b41l56a.1a7w%253dgG_ layn1a%2528.9utw94z_1.lq%2528%252bj%2528.mt3y%252b r%252bOu%2512%2514ZP%252b%2514%25180w-ChJNVC%2515-gu%2525v%252b%252bnlrqkb%2524ftvq%252ay%2510.1tz4f t-%2524m6hqmnt.f_xi%253a%252bm_%2529shcr%252by%252b% 25136%2513DY%2519%252bD%2514zr%2521NfM%2514%2517%2 513G%252156%25253%252b%252bcrwwjx%2540gh3b%2526z%2 511%25290h0pgh%2521%2540s7bbsca%2529g%2521yx%2524% 252bv%253dabgu07_%2529u2ahu7n%253d6%2Chtb5m%2528ls r7dc%253bwh%257c2%2524hgv%2528l3iedgv%25245l1t%253 b8%253b2hm-9&pcat=&aphoto=1&MAP_AB_LABELS=&WORK=&mouse_mode=zoomin&map.x=257&map.y=254) - Click on the 'aerial photo' tab for the good stuff.

This seems quite suitable, since this waterpark would mainly be marketed to resort guests anyway. Locals have many more waterpark options, and that's OK - the purpose here is to give resort guests a reason to stay an extra day.

Those who aren't resort guests would be welcome, of course, but because of this smallish park's limited capacity, those staying on-property would be given priority (like at Typhoon Lagoon).

Since it's indoors, the location on the very edge of the property isn't a problem - Who needs a berm when you have a wall?

There should probably be a few outdoor elements for the hot summer days, but not enough that you would miss them much in the winter (when they may be closed).

The transiton between indoor and outdoor should be highly themed - through grottoes, etc. rather than through a door.

This plan gives the DL resort a waterpark, and keeps the strawberry field free for better things.

Whatcha think?

Napsto
07-14-2001, 09:12 PM
no waterpark, ill protest that (:cool: )

DisneyFreak2000
07-14-2001, 09:28 PM
I think they should build an ACTAUL theme park for the third park. Then when they get Disneyland Resort and all its parks & hotel running up to par, they can use the waterpark for an added extra. In the mean time, a waterpark would most likely be a bad idea.

SimpTwister
07-14-2001, 09:46 PM
Yeah, that's what I meant.

It would be cool if they had a waterpark at DL, but NOT, I repeat NOT as the Third Theme Park.

More of a River Country than a Typhoon Lagoon, but partially indoors for year-round use.

Morrigoon
07-14-2001, 09:53 PM
I think using Timon to add a waterpark section at DCA would solve a lot of problems. Both the complaints about not much for the young set and the percieved need for a waterpark. But I'm not sure its practical. My guess is they want it to be a separate ticket item. Did anyone see my last post about the different aquatic themes with an indoor section? That would be a cool way to do it. And if the Swiss Family Robinson Island was large enough (It would be on top of the indoor Atlantis section) it could house the shops, a restaurant or two, and a kiddie play area, thus using less land. I'll try and figure out where I put that post and link it for ya. If they must do a waterpark, I want them to do it RIGHT - not a single theme, but a multi-themed park like Disneyland, where all the themes flow together.

SimpTwister
07-14-2001, 10:51 PM
Hey, 'goon! I knew you'd show up here :)

Yeah, I read that post... might have to give it another look.


I was once a supporter of the Waterpark-Within-DCA concept, but I've seen the light, and changed my ways.

Why? I dunno, it's just... inelegant. The requirement of changing clothes to move between sections within a park just doesn't do it for me.

Building a smallish indoor/outdoor waterpark adjacent to the Paradise Pier Hotel works well theme-wise... PPH is ocean-themed, at least somewhat. Sounds like a good place for a waterpark, IMO.

BTW, I think Timon should be reserved for (dry!) DCA expansion.


Again, my whole point here is to provide a waterpark *without* taking up valuable Third Theme Park space.

(Third Theme Park needs to be somewhat whimsical, in contrast to DCA's 'hip, edgy' reality, and full of E-Tickets, in contrast to DCA's... well, you know.)

zapppop
07-14-2001, 11:00 PM
I think a water park would be a bad idea.

Why ?

One word:


LAWSUITS.


Think about it. Stupid people could say they're slipping and getting hurt and say that it's Disney's fault and sue the company.

It would be too risky. Some people now-a-days are all too eager to sue Disney.

Mandrake Linux
07-14-2001, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by SimpTwister

SimpTwister's solution: Build a compact, indoor, highly-themed waterpark elsewhere on the property.


Indoor Waterpark. Hmmm....it would take a really BIG plastic dome (the ones you only see in sci-fi stories) and alot of electricity to heat the water. Plus if it's indoor it would be humid inside. Wouldn't be too easy to breathe in there. I say tear down DCA, the parking complex and build a new land there. Forget another park because:

a) We know what the future of Disney theme parks are going to be like.
b) Come on! They don't even have enough money to clean a few parrots in the Tiki Room! What makes you think they'll make a quality park? Even water costs money.

Mandrake Linux
07-14-2001, 11:07 PM
You all talk like building a new theme park is that easy. and they can just put it anywhere,

"Hmmm I know! The parking lot looks like a good place! Let's put it there!" Or or maybe right inside DL!" "Yeah I think that would be cool."

I suggest none of you ever become imagineers.

SimpTwister
07-14-2001, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by Mandrake Linux
You all talk like building a new theme park is that easy. and they can just put it anywhere,

"Hmmm I know! The parking lot looks like a good place! Let's put it there!" Or or maybe right inside DL!" "Yeah I think that would be cool."

I suggest none of you ever become imagineers.


Nah, just havin' some fun. I don't take this Amateur Imagineering stuff too seriously.

Some people like to discuss the 'what ifs'. If you're not one of them, read another thread.

Morrigoon
07-14-2001, 11:18 PM
SimpTwister : Hey, 'goon! I knew you'd show up here

Like flies on... (oops, this is a PG site ;) )

I have to agree with you, really. I don't like the whole "bathing suits and flip flops" in the park thing. Anyway, I like the other suggestions for DCA expansion better. I'm surprised Disney doesn't buy up all those really bad apartments in the neighborhood behind the DLH. They could use the land. Imagine if they built a park over there, all of a sudden DLH and PPH would be centrally located! I would raise the property values of all the immediately adjacent land. On the downside, with property values going up, some people might be property-TAXED right out of their homes, so that would not be so wonderful. But for the rest of this post I'm going to ignore the neighborhood around the park. Why? YOU MOVED IN NEAR A 45 YEAR OLD THEME PARK... DON'T TELL ME YOU DIDN'T KNOW IT WOULD BE THERE!!!!! Okay, lemme just get off this soapbox first...

A waterpark is both necessary and a waste. None of us really wants Disney to waste "3rd park land" on a bunch of waterslides, especially since it would probably be themed as an old style waterslide park =P (you know, visible flumes, no landscaping, long lines and nothing else to do but wait in them) If they learned their lesson and poured some DLP-style funding into it, it could be revolutionary.

The problem with Disney building new parks is they seem to be single theme minded and can't break free of it. Disneyland was one park intended to encompass MANY themes, ANY themes. The new parks lose a lot in that their themes are so directed, there is little room to grow. Animal kingdom- duh, it's animal themed. California adventure- everything based on a california stereotype. Great thinking guys. How would I improve it? Well for starters... why build a park just about california when you could do one about the whole nation? Or how about an upgraded world showcase? Tower of terror could have been the empire state building, there could have been a texas rodeo show (like they have in paris), Oregon trail (land version of WRE), things like that. Really, I think world showcase offers more options. But to criticize myself, that's still just one theme... EPCOT is a better park because it's not just the world theme, it's got the Future world section (I hope I got the name right there...)

(getting back on topic)
That's why I liked the idea of a waterpark that had a few landed areas. Not everyone in the family wants to get wet, but there ought to be stuff to do there that they can do, which still accomodates people in swimsuits. A few attractions could be log flumes or boat rides, that don't necessarily require one to be in a bathing suit, and a kiddie play area (a REAL one, not like that one in ToonTown) would accomodate those too young to safely enjoy themselves in the water. Maybe a few dark rides fitting into the themes of the areas would be appropriate. That way (surprise!) the whole family could enjoy themselves at the park together! A waterpark might not be a bad venue for a semi-fancy sit down restaurant (preferably one with a view) for parents to while away the hours sipping wine while their kids splash around. Just a thought, might work might not. The point is, a Disney park has to appeal to the whole family. The kids so parents want to take them there, the parents so they'll be WILLING to go there. And I think this rings true of a waterpark as much as any other. I haven't been to Raging Waters since I was 8... not because I didn't like it, but because I could never get my parents to go - they didn't have any fun. If there had been an elegant pool, with cabanas and poolside drink service (even non-alcoholic), you can bet more parents would want to go. Better yet, offer an admission at one price for the pools alone, and another price to include the slides - then kids can go do their sliding and parents don't feel like they're paying out a fortune to watch their kids have all the fun. Wow, sounds like the old ticket book system... maybe Walt knew something Mikey doesn't?

Morrigoon
07-14-2001, 11:31 PM
Okay, found the link to my last waterpark suggestion, and since I really don't want to retype the whole thing, you can go here to read what I meant http://mousepad.mouseplanet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1126&pagenumber=2
I'm still kinda working the whole SFR Island on top of Atlantis thing... Basically, I see them digging down a bit, so that the island isn't too high. It would be accessible from tunnels (Just like Atlantis), but they'd have to go a ways in, because I'd want the island to have some kind of reasonable slope up to it, and only a few cliffs (if there were "cliffs", they'd probably have a waterfall running over the edge of them into a pool below where people could go enjoy it. I think my favorite aspect of this (besides the theming possibilities of Atlantis) is the fact that the park would use less land for more stuff. And it would be quite a thing to see... drawing people to the park.

SimpTwister
07-15-2001, 12:49 AM
Morrigoon - I agree with your paragraph on waterparks. Most waterparks appeal to a fairly limited demographic, generally about the 8 to 30 year-old range.

If a park was to offer some waterpark activities and some more traditional activities, we again run into the problem of changing clothes - unless the park is designed with either swimsuits or streetwear in mind.

Still, there you have the issues with 'dry' people boarding rides after 'wet' people get off (soaking the formerly dry butts), etc.

I'm just not sure the two could ever mix, unless it was really a waterpark with a few token attractions for the older and younger crowds.

OK, I'll go read that previous post now...

Mr D
07-15-2001, 10:02 AM
I still think it would be the best idea of building a retractable roof dome, this way there can be no escuse for "bad weather" after the park opens, as far as to what goes inside it well of course a water park is the top of the list but what else is there for a new adventure? Is the idea of an Atlantis them dead just because the movie bombed? And do we really need a state or country theme? At the very least I would look at the Tokyo Disney Seas for ideas such as the Jules Verne theming. Its just that in Japan the ocean is the main supplier of food and industries whereas here in the US its mostly farms. No I do not want to see another Bountiful Farms park. But I would like to see a mor exclusive themed rides/shows that are much like Spiderman at IOA in Orlando that uses 3-D technology. The trend of the future is more of an experiance such as half or one hour rides that offer more without the extremes. No rollercoasters, no space shots, no Mad Mice, basically anything that has not been done before at the other parks and absolutely no copies, something absolutely original and specifically unique is the answer.

Napsto
07-15-2001, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Mandrake Linux
You all talk like building a new theme park is that easy. and they can just put it anywhere,

"Hmmm I know! The parking lot looks like a good place! Let's put it there!" Or or maybe right inside DL!" "Yeah I think that would be cool."

I suggest none of you ever become imagineers.

llikwise

DisneylandKid
07-15-2001, 11:00 AM
As many of you have said earlier... I think that adding a waterpark is actually a good idea as long as it is VERY HEAVILY themed. There are many waterparks in the OC-area, so Disney would have to do something extra special with it. However, I do not think that they should build a waterpark instead of a third theme park. I think it should be in addition to, as long as they are both up to what we think of as "Disney-standards."

mrfantasmic
07-15-2001, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by DisneylandKid [B]
I think that adding a waterpark is actually a good idea as long as it is VERY HEAVILY themed.[B]
As he said. In order to make this a profitable park it would have to be completely disguised. Although, DLR could use one of these, it should not be in the Third Park.

Mandrake Linux
07-15-2001, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by Mr D
I still think it would be the best idea of building a retractable roof dome

ROTFLMFAOWBMBWD!!!!! AHAHAHAHA! Sure, maybe they can also make it gravity proof. It will look like you're underwater. AHAHAHHAHAHA!!!

You guys are interesting.

Morrigoon
07-16-2001, 12:25 AM
ACDC (Linux),

Perhaps a retractable roof is not the most practical of suggestions, but do you suppose you could give your input in a more constructive manner? Maybe you could break down the reasons you feel it couldn't happen, and do so in a less conciliatory manner? It would be greatly appreciated. Or, if you don't like what we're discussing, perhaps there's another thread which you will find more entertaining.

We welcome your input, please keep it that way.

:)