Disney Experts: Why no resorts in these locations?

[Mississippian]

The picture I've included isn't of the best quality because I tried to keep the size down, but I've circled three places around EPCOT that are either undeveloped or relatively undeveloped. I've circled these places in red. Two of these sites look like they could easily be serviced by Epcot Drive.

Given the absolutely insatiable demand for resorts -- hotel or DVC -- that are within walking distance of a theme park, why hasn't Disney tried to do anything with any of these sites? A quick look at BWV and the Yacht and Beach Club shows that a resort doesn't have to have a very big footprint.

Two or the areas I've circled would have easy access to the EPCOT monorail station as well as the front entrance to EPCOT. The other would have easy access to the EPCOT resort area and MGM.

Has development of these areas been considered, and if not, why not?

 

[DVC Grammy]

So THAT'S where the Munch picture went!!!!!

 

[Chuck S]

Drainage requirements perhaps? Or the area may simply be designated for "future development." The two areas to the North, on either side of the EPCOT parking lot may have some potential raodway access problems, requiring some expensive road work to give adequate access for a resort.

 

[Claire L]

I am guessing environmental and building regs may be the reason why.

Claire

 

[Doctor P]

The lower area, if I remember, is indeed a lower area and probably has some drainage and building issues. The other two areas would be directly "backstage" from what I can tell and would likely not be consistent with Disney's segregation of areas and lack of interaction of guests with backstage areas. BCV has some backstage types of views, but the resort still is pretty insulated from backstage. Traffic at those two locations could also be a major issue given their locations basically on World Drive or Epcot Center Drive.

 

[salmoneous]

The lower space (between MGM and CBR/POP) is conservation land and cannot be built on.

I don't think there is anything "wrong with the upper spaces - just that Disney choose other places instead.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Yes, as you can see, each of those areas appears to already have a drainage ditch running through them. My guess is that is why they can't build in those areas.

 

[Deb & Bill]

The upper left area has the monorail running through it; plus it could have access problems with the orientation of the roadway and parking lot. The upper right area is half parking lot and leads to backstage areas (we've run through that during the Family Fun Run 5K a few years ago).

 

[vonpluto]

According to info available at the Reedy Creek site, the upper areas are currently considered part of the EPCOT park area and the lower plot is a Conservation area:

In addition, the lower area is rated Unsuitable for construction

If you're wondering where expansion might occur, this was the plan in 1998:

“During the next 10 years, the District’s development will be directed to those areas identified as suitable in the above analysis. The largest areas of suitable land are located west of Animal Kingdom, between World Drive and I-4 between Osceola Parkway and US 192, around Lake Mable, north of the Magnolia Golf Course, east of the Magic Kingdom parking lot, and west of Disney/ MGM Studios. Other areas identified as suitable are scattered throughout the District on sites of less than 100 acres. Figure 2-6, later in this chapter, shows the location of suitable land based on land use designation. “ (pg. 2B-23)RCID CP 1998

 

[spiceycat]

the area between OKW, POFQ and Epcot - is a protected area. It has a lot of wild life. You can often see deers and other animals here.

the Epcot Center Drive here is above this area.

I don't think the back stage area - is a problem. BCV is in a bad stage area.

so far the only DVC resort to do this - but if they did it once.

besides if the CRV is what will be build - it is high enough to see the bad stage area at the MK.

 

[spiceycat]

forgot - there is some kind of problem - building on the monrail going to Epcot.

now I never understood the explanation. but the other monrail stops were planned.

there was never a planned monrail stop to Epcot?

I certainly don't see why that would be a problem. but then I don't understand the engineering involved.

Maybe one of the engineers can say if this makes sense or not. Or there is a real reason why there is no hotel on the Epcot monrail - despite it length and lots of opportunities for one.

 

[rocketriter]

Right now, WDW is saturated with hotel rooms. Disney is even stalling on finishing the budget resort rooms, which sell very well.

 

[doubletrouble_vb]

Looks like the left hand circle has a suitable/marginally suitable designation. So who knows maybe one day you'll see development there.

What I wonder about is why Disney wastes so much square footage on parking. This is one of the areas I think Universal was pretty smart about what it did. Every level of garage frees up a similar amount of land and it keeps the patrons cars cool. Garages big enough to house the amount of traffic they get in September or January would be good. A biggish one in Trans & Ticketing and a smaller one in EPCOT. They could be really nice and have the new garages feed directly into the Monorail via a bridge. The view from the MK hotels won't be any worse than it is now since they face the parking lots anyway.

 

[Doctor P]

the area between OKW, POFQ and Epcot - is a protected area. It has a lot of wild life. You can often see deers and other animals here.

the Epcot Center Drive here is above this area.

I don't think the back stage area - is a problem. BCV is in a bad stage area.

so far the only DVC resort to do this - but if they did it once.

besides if the CRV is what will be build - it is high enough to see the bad stage area at the MK.

Actually, BCV isn't really in a backstage area. Although the resort overlooks a couple buildings that might be considered backstage, there already was access that didn't involve backstage and a good portion of the panorama from BCV doesn't involve ANY backstage area.

 

[Deb & Bill]

...What I wonder about is why Disney wastes so much square footage on parking. This is one of the areas I think Universal was pretty smart about what it did. Every level of garage frees up a similar amount of land and it keeps the patrons cars cool. Garages big enough to house the amount of traffic they get in September or January would be good. A biggish one in Trans & Ticketing and a smaller one in EPCOT. They could be really nice and have the new garages feed directly into the Monorail via a bridge. The view from the MK hotels won't be any worse than it is now since they face the parking lots anyway.

Parking garages are a lot more expensive to build than a parking lot if you have the space. And more expensive to maintain.

 

[Chuck S]

Looks like the left hand circle has a suitable/marginally suitable designation. So who knows maybe one day you'll see development there.

What I wonder about is why Disney wastes so much square footage on parking. This is one of the areas I think Universal was pretty smart about what it did. Every level of garage frees up a similar amount of land and it keeps the patrons cars cool. Garages big enough to house the amount of traffic they get in September or January would be good. A biggish one in Trans & Ticketing and a smaller one in EPCOT. They could be really nice and have the new garages feed directly into the Monorail via a bridge. The view from the MK hotels won't be any worse than it is now since they face the parking lots anyway.

Multi-level parking structures, especially given the Florida ground water table, are very expensive to build. And bridges to connect them to monorail stations would add to that cost, along with elevators. Why build it if they don't have to?

 

[doubletrouble_vb]

Just seems like they are sacrificing some really great real estate just for parking.

 

[DVCJones]

So THAT'S where the Munch picture went!!!!!

Now that is too funny!!!!!

 

[Mississippian]

Parking garages are a lot more expensive to build than a parking lot if you have the space. And more expensive to maintain.

Parking garages aren't expensive at all when you extract the kind of money that Disney is able to extract from its guests, particularly at a Deluxe resort. In fact, having the spread-out parking seems to be an extravagant use of land!

 

[Doctor P]

Parking garages aren't expensive at all when you extract the kind of money that Disney is able to extract from its guests, particularly at a Deluxe resort. In fact, having the spread-out parking seems to be an extravagant use of land!

The per space cost of developing parking varies substantially between surface and deck parking when you factor away land costs. If you own the land, and you have plenty of it, which Disney does, surface is much cheaper. Furthermore, you have more flexibility with respect to the routing of traffic. Furthermore, it is easier to manage control of the capacity with a surface lot. Furthermore, it is much cheaper to maintain a surface lot. Furthermore, it is less of a visual intrusion to built surface lots. Keep in mind that there was a huge difference in the development status of the surrounding land at Universal as compared with Disney. There was already development in the areas around Universal (I stayed in a hotel across the street from what was to become Universal several years before it was built, and there was quite a bit already in the area). Disney bought up large parcels of land before there was any inkling of the mecca that Central Florida has become.