PDA

View Full Version : Disney Buying More Land...



BryanPeek
01-11-2004, 07:21 PM
Is it a chance? Or, actually, is it possible for them to buy out some of the surrounding hotels at the Disneyland Resort? It would be expensive, but would it be possible to due?

I read Walt's biography book and he always hated the fact that he could buy more of the land surrounding Disneyland and how it's become a "second-rate Las Vegas."

Forbin
01-11-2004, 07:52 PM
I read they want to buy land around DCA and DL to build a 3rd park. I forgot what the theme was.

My gosh, just change Anaheim to Disneyheim.

Tigertail777
01-11-2004, 08:40 PM
well, as I understand it, Disney already owns a strawberry field a ways away from Disneyland. They havnt yet developed this...its the place they talked of making into a water park.

But yes I think its possible for them to buy surrounding land, if they did it covertly like walt did when he was buying land for florida. He had several companies under different names buy the land. Also, I think they could buy land a little ways away like the strawberrry field I mentioned, and just use a bus system like wdw has.

I think its very very possible if they are willing to spend the money on it.

DisneyFan25863
01-11-2004, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by Tigertail777
Also, I think they could buy land a little ways away like the strawberrry field I mentioned, and just use a bus system like wdw has.


No BUSES!!! Monorail all the way! :fez:

DrIndianaJones
01-11-2004, 09:58 PM
Quite an interesting story about that field. Remind me to tell it to you sometime when I have a moment.:)

It wouldn't surprise me to see Disney do that, in fact it would surprise me if they didn't. However, they need to do it quickly since there are many nice hotels and resort-like areas being built, and thus increasing the already hefty price land in the area is fetching.

On an interesting side note, Disney owns a lot of the surrounding roads. They bought them from the city because they were being to look like the inner city of most large urban areas, and they didn't want the guests to be given a bad impression of Disney. Because of this, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Disney could build a Monorail system that encompasses most of the city's surrounding roads.

kijay
01-12-2004, 11:50 AM
While it would be nice to see more land expansion, remember we are talking about a company that barely wants to keep up their existing parks. Its hard enough to get new rides for Disneyland, or even keep up with the ones they have (Tiki Room comes to mind). I just don't see them suddenly paying out the tremendous amount of money such a project would require. The strawberry fields will see development someday, just because they already own them, and will not require the mass cash outlay property purchases would require. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see it, but I just don't think its practical. I would really like to see that outlay of cash go to new, innovative rides and shows, and to fix up Disneyland back to its former state. Bigger is not always better. Emphasis should be placed on quality, not quantity, IMHO.:)

DrIndianaJones
01-12-2004, 11:53 AM
kijay, www.riderefurbs.com shows that the Tiki Room is going to go into refurb sometime in late summer...but that is a bit off topic.:)

davebert4
01-12-2004, 12:19 PM
Besides the strawberry feild, there are quite a few other parcels Disney owns and/or was trying to aquire a few years back when the third park was a hot topic. I had seen a county parcel map back in 1999, and they definitely own more than just the strawberry fields.

Tigertail777
01-12-2004, 02:16 PM
YAY! tiki room gets a refurb! its about time! They just better not change it to that yucky show in florida... ugh.

rcman2001
01-12-2004, 02:51 PM
Yes they can buy land, and hotels definatly because before disneys paridise peir hotel was that, they bought it in 1998 from somebody else. Im not sure about all of those crappy stores along the road backing up to space mountain, but they're really ugly and if they can buy them then they should and rip them out.

BryanPeek
01-12-2004, 03:43 PM
It would be awesome for Disneyland to have more land, to expand the resort. They could have there own hotels inside the park, hopefully for a reasonable price on some of them.

And about buses, I think that would be a bad idea, just expand the monorail, and maybe have more monorail cars. If Eisner won't do this, then he better move out of the way for someone who will do this. It can be the Disneyland City.

MickeyLumbo
01-12-2004, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by davebert4
Besides the strawberry feild, there are quite a few other parcels Disney owns and/or was trying to aquire a few years back when the third park was a hot topic. I had seen a county parcel map back in 1999, and they definitely own more than just the strawberry fields.

you are correct, davebert.

there are many existing businesses in the surrounding area, operating on land that is owned by disney. my brother owns one of them and his lease is with disney and the monthly rent goes to disney. on the up side, disney is one of his biggest clients. on the bad side, my brother never knows when to expect disney to say it's time to move out.

the area i am talking about is between harbor blvd and the 5 frwy, including Clementine ... if you look closely, you will also notice bits of vacant parcels all the way to katella and haster that are discreetly hidden with green mesh fencing... these areas are also owned by disney, waiting future development.;)

BryanPeek
01-12-2004, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by MickeyLumbo


the area i am talking about is between harbor blvd and the 5 frwy, including Clementine ... if you look closely, you will also notice bits of vacant parcels all the way to katella and haster that are discreetly hidden with green mesh fencing... these areas are also owned by disney, waiting future development.;)

Awesome that they do have property but I"m mostly talking about the real close area's, like Desert Inn....HoJo...and the rest of those hotels and stuff...I'm sure they could buy, like other people have said..

BTW...How big are these areas?

sediment
01-12-2004, 05:20 PM
I think its current ideas that are supposed to get a return on investment property are not too good. Why would it waste money buying more land if it can't create a return on the investment?
Remember, the company has shareholders to consider. Not just one guy with a vision. That's the main difference between then and now. Might have been easier back then to beg for money and keep your job when you owned most of the company. Eisner's era is a lot different. He can't go buying up property just because it messes with the beauty that is Disneyland. Every investment needs to be justified.

MickeyLumbo
01-12-2004, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by BryanPeek
Awesome that they do have property but I"m mostly talking about the real close area's, like Desert Inn....HoJo...and the rest of those hotels and stuff...I'm sure they could buy, like other people have said..

BTW...How big are these areas?

i am not privy to know ALL of the land that disney has purchased (some long ago)... in many cases, even though disney owns the land, they lease it for commercial use to other business, until the day comes for expansion.

some areas are small (one building size) others are where several buildings once stood. instead of having fields of weeds and urban rot, disney keeps them cleared and surrounded with the green mesh fencing (with barbed wire) and some landscaping.

they own much more area than is perceived and when the time is right, they will develop it. in some cases, they may need to wait for a small chunk to sell off before a larger area is completely available for development.

the anaheim resort landscape project looks terrific. remember what katella and harbor and west and ball USED to look like:rolleyes:

this was a very succesful project IMO, and i look forward to what ever they do in the future.

BryanPeek
01-12-2004, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by sediment
I think its current ideas that are supposed to get a return on investment property are not too good. Why would it waste money buying more land if it can't create a return on the investment?
Remember, the company has shareholders to consider. Not just one guy with a vision. That's the main difference between then and now. Might have been easier back then to beg for money and keep your job when you owned most of the company. Eisner's era is a lot different. He can't go buying up property just because it messes with the beauty that is Disneyland. Every investment needs to be justified.

I think that investment would be justified, but, really, who wouldn't be happy if Eisner was fired anyhow?

cemeinke
01-12-2004, 06:00 PM
Disney bought the Wrather Corporation to get the Disneyland Hotel, picking up the Queen Mary in the deal. Ultimately they sold off the assets of that Company that they didn't wish to retain. There are many ways to aquire property - I'm sure Disney has done them all.

sediment
01-12-2004, 06:11 PM
Starting with buying a billion dollars in land for a third park is not a good start to an investment that could not bring the first dollar back for at least three years after groundbreaking.
At a modest 10% required return, an investment like this would be $331 million (cumulative) in the hole before it opens. It would have to make that and earn a 15% return on investment in order to break even in 15 years. It certainly is possible to create an investment that could do that.
This does not even include building anything.
Let's compare this to the last albatross invested on its own property, known formally as DCA.

Not only that, but when DIS starts buying land/hotels, it has to be very discreet, else the marginal value of the last piece of land would be staggering, possibly even prohibitive without government interference.
I suggest it buys the Convention Center lands from the city/county/whomever. At least that has current cash flow and can be built around.
A third park would most certainly require more hotels.

cemeinke
01-12-2004, 06:19 PM
There's always eminent domain through the city of Anaheim.

MickeyLumbo
01-12-2004, 06:50 PM
i think i may have been a bit unclear in what i was trying to say...

there is quite alot of land in the area that disney has already bought, yEARS ago, -- some empty fields surrounded by green mesh fencing, and some is being leased to commercial business in the area. my brother's is one of several that i know of. there must be many more that i am not aware of.

just because a building doesn't have a sign out front that says "owned by disney" does not mean that it isn't. some of the motels may also be leasing the land from disney to operate...until the time that disney decides to utilize the land for something "DISNEY".

they capital investment has already been made, and the land is bringing income into the coffers via lease/rent... when the time is right, future development can occur.

imagine the possiblity of TDA buildings and (north) backstage warehouses being relocated to create room for park expansion to the north and east;) :p

remember, as long as there is imagination left in the world...:fez:


seamonkey: give a squeeze to NA for me:)

Ferris
01-13-2004, 01:56 PM
I have always heard that the big wigs in Burbank have wanted to make Disneyland a resort destination (more like WDW) rather than a one day tourist stop on the same level as USH and SFMM. While I have to admit, they haven't exactly done a great job of it so far, think of the potential that is there: Let's say you are from somewhere on the western United States (San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, Colorado, etc.) wouldn't it be fun to take a weekend cruise on the Disney Cruise Line that lets you off in Long Beach where you are whisked away to DLR to spend a few days touring the 3 or 4 Disney parks! I think that'd be pretty cool. And it seems to make sense for Disney because they can keep tourists in the "Disney cocoon". With the speculation that I have read about the other land that Disney owns in Anaheim, the hiring of Matt O and rumors about DCL having a west coast port, it all seems at least like a possible direction to go over the next 5-10 years.

But I say first thing's first...take care of the dilapitated Disneyland and beef up DCA.

sleepyjeff
01-13-2004, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Ferris
Let's say you are from somewhere on the western United States (San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, Colorado, etc.) wouldn't it be fun to take a weekend cruise on the Disney Cruise Line that lets you off in Long Beach where you are whisked away to DLR to spend a few days touring the 3 or 4 Disney parks! I think that'd be pretty cool.

I think it would be easier for the Cruise Ship to come up the Columbia to Portland, than for it to make the long ocean voyage to Colorado.................................. l ;)

Just messing around...I know what you were really saying:D

sneekin-in
01-13-2004, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by sleepyjeff
I think it would be easier for the Cruise Ship to come up the Columbia to Portland, than for it to make the long ocean voyage to Colorado.................................. l ;)

Just messing around...I know what you were really saying:D

Sleepyjeff, didn't you say that HB Tigger Fan had taken that
ocean voyage to Colorado:confused: :eek:

ToursbabeC3po
01-14-2004, 01:20 AM
Disney owns a lot more land then people know about.... Most of the businesses in the area are on Disney's land!!!! Disney buys a little here and a little there that is the smart way to do real estate..... Think about it, If you were an owner of land near Disney and found out that Disney wants to buy your land you would say sure for 10 million dollars!

sleepyjeff
01-14-2004, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by sneekin-in
Sleepyjeff, didn't you say that HB Tigger Fan had taken that
ocean voyage to Colorado:confused: :eek:

:|