PDA

View Full Version : 3rd Gate for the Well Heeled Crowd?



Pages : [1] 2

jeffthechef
03-27-2007, 03:38 PM
So the latest idea being floated around Disney is a 3rd park along Katella, in what is now a strawberry field. This is from today's column by Al Lutz on Miceage.com. What concerns me is that the execs are toying with making it a "Boutique Park," with all of the amenities priced at the high end. It would have the latest and greatest rides, the best food, and capacity would be extremely limited so that it is never too crowded. Admission would be consideably higher than existing park prices. After the rides had run their courses of popularity, they would be moved (downgraded?) to DL of DCA.

My question is this: Is this an idea that Wald Disney would have approved of? It seems to me that his concept was to build a place where the average Joe could take his family to have fun together in a safe and clean environment. I don't think it was ever supposed to seperate the "haves" from the "have-nots." It makes it seem that DL itself might take a back seat when it comes to innovation. Future E-ticket attractions with the likes of Indy and Nemo would not debut in DL. This whole idea scares me...

itig
03-27-2007, 03:50 PM
After the rides had run their courses of popularity, they would be moved (downgraded?) to DL of DCA.

I don't get it...how would they move a ride??? This makes no sense to me and doesn't seem doable. Are you sure that's what they said?

DisneylandForever
03-27-2007, 03:54 PM
They move rides all the time. The Carousel of Progress premiered in New York, was moved to Disneyland, then Disneyworld!

I didn't (and don't plan to) read the article, but based on what you said Jeff, my opinion is it's a horrible idea.

SoCalSteven
03-27-2007, 03:57 PM
Disneyland is expensive enough already, they don't need to make things more expensive. Limiting the number of people is a sort of cool concept, but if every person has to make up for the lost profit of keeping another ten out it just isn't worth it.

Rkkm
03-27-2007, 05:15 PM
Given the big, big, big bucks that ordinary middle and lower-middle class folks shell out for trips to DL - in big groups, too - not to mention the humungous number of folks who shell out $300-plus for premium annual passes, I am not surprised that the execs would float an idea like this. Just look at the ten-year wait for Club 33, with its $10K initiation fee and $2K-plus-a-year dues - and that's before you get in the door and pony up for an expensive meal. Look at the very low vacancy rates in the very expensive Grand Californian Hotel. And just stand in the DTD Disney Emporium and watch the credit cards and dollars fly out of wallets. (And how many times in the past 12 months has the park had to close early because of sell-out crowds.)

It is only natural that the Disney money-makers would believe that they could realistically up the ante when DL fans have amply demonstrated that they will spend lots and lots and lots of money at the park.

As anti as this is to what most believe to be Walt Disney's dream, it really is the next evolution. As more and more people jam themselves into Southern California, more and more people will pay higher prices to get a little breathing room. It makes sense to create a high-end SOCal DL park where folks will pay premium prices to get space. This is the future of our area - not just at DL.

LUV_U_MICKEY
03-27-2007, 05:58 PM
HHHHmmmm I think this is anti Disney and should never happen.

screamin4ever
03-27-2007, 07:16 PM
I'm already annoyed at the Premium APs who believe they are better than everyone else. Now more "Belly Stars" for these Sneetches? Jeez. Well, a fool and his money...

IdahoMike
03-27-2007, 07:16 PM
Add me to the group voting NO on this idea. I realize this isn't 1955 and we have to look forward, but in doing so, they still have to make it a place where an average family can visit, not cater to the Jolie-Pitts, Lohan's and Hilton's of the world. This just screams of greed.

JohnGar
03-27-2007, 09:01 PM
I'm already annoyed at the Premium APs who believe they are better than everyone else.

You mean some of us, not all of us, right? :confused:

And why do you say that? :confused:

exDS vet
03-27-2007, 10:50 PM
I think this "boutique" park idea will not become a reality. I recently read about Discovery Cove in Orlando where guests pay $259 for a full day which includes a 30 minute swim with dolphins. This would be a "boutique park" for sure.

Creating a park that the majority of their guests (families) can't afford to visit would be a PR disaster for Disney. Another potential PR nightmare that is brewing is Disney's efforts to stop an affordable housing development from being built right next to the site Disney wants to use for this project. If this becomes a big issue in Anaheim, Disney will have its image damaged for a long time, if not permanently.

In the end, I think a new hotel and possibly a water park will go into that area. But it will probably be as much as ten years before that happens.

kranders
03-28-2007, 05:55 AM
I'm already annoyed at the Premium APs who believe they are better than everyone else.

You don't mean me...right? :confused:

The old man
03-28-2007, 06:45 AM
...Look at the very low vacancy rates in the very expensive Grand Californian Hotel...

What is the occupancy (I assume that's what you meant) rate?

pisces
03-28-2007, 06:52 AM
What do the wealthy want?

Have they been crying out for this?

Have the screams been heard all the way from Newport Beach?

I'd be interested to know what kind of market research Disney has done on this and why they think there's a huge demand amongst the wealthy for a park of their own.

Yes, they can get people to pay the admissions price, but I'm not talking about that.

I'm just talking about demand, in general, and why Disney thinks this particular type of park is in such big demand amongst the well-off.

It seems to me that wealthy people (not being one) don't want to be told where to go, or pandered to, and they don't like being herded, like cattle, to a place that the powers-that-be want to funnel them into.

Oh, and the little thing about violating the spirit of Walt's initial premise---that of creating something for ALL people to enjoy.

WestCot, WestCot, WestCot !!!!!

pisces
03-28-2007, 07:00 AM
Look at the very low vacancy rates in the very expensive Grand Californian Hotel.

That's completely different.

That's lodging, and they can get away with creating all sorts of different types of niche lodging, and without violating the spirit of Walt's initial vision.

Walt wasn't in the hotel business.

But, when it comes to actual theme parks....they need to stick to Walt's original ideas---that of creating something for EVERYONE to enjoy.

Universal appeal---that's what Walt was all about.

With lodging and hotels, there's a lot of variation about what people will accept. People live in a variety of different housing situations and substrata.

Theme Parks have a much narrower purpose, and there's a limit to what you can get away with.

The public has very definite ideas about what they expect from a Theme Park.

The Grand Californian isn't a theme park, and at the end of the day, nobody cares what goes on, or what the GCH charges etc...

But to create an actual Theme Park where the door is slammed shut on 75% of potential park-goers......from the get-go.......Walt would be livid!

WestCot, WestCot, WestCot !!!

Rkkm
03-28-2007, 07:23 AM
That's completely different.

That's lodging, and they can get away with creating all sorts of different types of niche lodging, and without violating the spirit of Walt's initial vision.

Walt wasn't in the hotel business.

But, when it comes to actual theme parks....they need to stick to Walt's original ideas---that of creating something for EVERYONE to enjoy.

Universal appeal---that's what Walt was all about.

With lodging and hotels, there's a lot of variation about what people will accept. People live in a variety of different housing situations and substrata.

Theme Parks have a much narrower purpose, and there's a limit to what you can get away with.

The public has very definite ideas about what they expect from a Theme Park.

The Grand Californian isn't a theme park, and at the end of the day, nobody cares what goes on, or what the GCH charges etc...

But to create an actual Theme Park where the door is slammed shut on 75% of potential park-goers......from the get-go.......Walt would be livid!

WestCot, WestCot, WestCot !!!

I was just using the GCH rates as just one of example of how people are willing to pay and pay and pay for the Disney experience. As a frequent DL visitor, I am continually amazed at the amounts of money that large numbers of people spend at the park. When the execs see this willingness, then it is natural that they would go for what the market seems to bear.

I am so saddened by everything that moves away from Walt Disney's original premise. Disneyland should be a joy for one and ALL.

potterphreak
03-28-2007, 07:54 AM
I don't recall ever feeling or acting "superior" when I had my premium AP. I hate broad generalizations that like!! It's like a stereotype!! And do PAPs behave differently than Deluxe APs? Cos I started out with a DAP and only upgraded to a PAP after I realized there were 2 days I was blocked from and they were only days I could be there, near the end of my AP. Stereotypes suck!! I never thought I was more than a paying guest at DL, same as everyone else.

SHEESH!

barely
03-28-2007, 08:40 AM
I don't think the poster was referring to ALL Premium APers, just the ones who think they are better than anyone else. At least that's the way I read it.

mommy-san
03-28-2007, 09:00 AM
Add me to the group voting NO on this idea. I realize this isn't 1955 and we have to look forward, but in doing so, they still have to make it a place where an average family can visit, not cater to the Jolie-Pitts, Lohan's and Hilton's of the world. This just screams of greed.

I agree-
The world already caters to the stars- entire magazines about them, with photos of them at restaurants normal people can't get into, wearing clothes we can't afford and driving cars we'd be afraid to test drive.
Disneyland is one of the few places that caters to regular people like ME. At DLR I feel special- Once you've payed to get in the gates, everyone is equal. I would hate to have that feeling diminished because I'm at the 'value' park instead of the 'posh' park.
Read my signature- I think that about sums up how Walt woulda felt about it. Disneyland is for everyone, no matter their circumstances.

jeffthechef
03-28-2007, 10:29 AM
Walt's welcome speech, July 17, 1955:

"To all of those who come to this happy place- welcome. Disneyland is your land."

jcruise86
03-28-2007, 10:30 AM
. . . Creating a park that the majority of their guests (families) can't afford to visit would be a PR disaster for Disney. Another potential PR nightmare that is brewing is Disney's efforts to stop an affordable housing development from being built right next to the site Disney wants to use for this project. If this becomes a big issue in Anaheim, Disney will have its image damaged. . .
Good point, exDS vet!

Disney could still get a lot of cash from wealthy guests by having "private" princess parties, and by having face characters read bed-time stories to their kids in the GCH. And Adventures by Disney could have different first-class day trips to L.A. and San Diego, especially on Sunday mornings when the parks are full and the roads are less crowded.

But Disney should avoid becoming the Aspen of theme parks, or creating more of a cast system in the parks. Knowing they are in coach makes many airline customers less satisfied, and I don't want to feel that way in Disneyland. This probably reveals a character flaw of mine, but I am turned off by Universal because the rich guests can (or used to be able to) purchase passes to avoid lines.

houseofmouse
03-28-2007, 10:42 AM
Are we sure we want to believe and form assumptions around what Al Lutz says? Does he work for Disney? Does he know super important people who do? Or is he just speculating on what he hears?
I think until something is announced by Disney, we should just take it in stride. :)

Clotho
03-28-2007, 11:16 AM
Are we sure we want to believe and form assumptions around what Al Lutz says? Does he work for Disney? Does he know super important people who do? Or is he just speculating on what he hears?
I think until something is announced by Disney, we should just take it in stride. :)

This is my reaction. I don't take this assertion the least bit seriously, and I don't think anyone else should either. It sounds like a completely *broken* idea of a business model. If they ever did anything like this, I would imagine it would be in another city entirely, and not within walking distance of "The 'Hood" of Disneyland and DCA. *snort*

Mr.Abominable
03-28-2007, 11:23 AM
I will just be happy for anything new from Disney be it a water park, boutique park or regular park. I just get excited whenever they start to talk about something new. By the way, we are AP holders for DLR and WDW and we never feel like we act any different than anyone else in the park, except for maybe not being in a hurry for anything. :)

Another Dimension
03-28-2007, 11:38 AM
It sounds like a completely *broken* idea of a business model.


Welcome to the Jay Rasulo regime... :mad:

Karen256
03-28-2007, 11:52 AM
I actually like this idea. That said, I don't think it will happen.

While we're not wealthy by any means, I would pay more to visit a park of higher quality than the typical park. I already do that when I visit Disneyland vs Magic Mountain. I also have no qualms about people paying extra for a front of the line pass. As long as it's made available to everybody, those that are willing to spend the extra money ought to be able to do so. Last I checked this isn't a communist country. There are people that have more disposable income than the average person, and what's so wrong about opening a park to cater to those people?

If it was along the lines of Discovery Cove's entrance prices, I would totally pay that to get an extra special theme park experience. Yeah, I'd have to budget better and save longer, but I'd do it. It'd probably be a once in a lifetime thing for me, but that's ok. As it stands now, Disneyland is a once in a lifetime thing for some people, and they have to save and budget just for a trip to Disneyland. Does that mean Disneyland isn't being fair to those with lower incomes?

So yeah, I'd support this. But I don't think it will happen. I think it'll be a waterpark.