Marvel Park in the Future?

[elizabethswann]

DatelineDisneyland had posted a link from Al Lutz discussing DCA and the possibility of a Marvel park in the future. Any thoughts on that?

One other stop on the recent Iger and Staggs tours was the sprawling Toy Story Parking Lot down near the Anaheim Convention Center, and the adjacent land Disney owns but has not yet developed. Bob Iger has made public comments about his desire to get the Marvel characters “into the parks”, but the restrictive legal agreement with Universal over the Marvel characters means the Florida parks are off the table for Marvel. But Anaheim is definitely in play, and Bob is convinced the Marvel franchise is too big for just a single ride or even a small land in an existing park.

It’s no coincidence then that WDI has mocked up a detailed model of an entirely new theme park based solely on Marvel characters and stories, featuring mainly thrill rides and energetic shows aimed at teens and adults. And WDI, always looking for their next big gig, conveniently used the roughly 100 acres available to Disney on and around the Toy Story Parking Lot as their exact footprint for this new park model. The Marvel park could also be slotted in as a second park at either the Hong Kong or Shanghai resorts sometime in the next decade (or later), but the third park expansion land in Anaheim is the location where this concept would likely first appear.

Before anyone gets excited though, there are several things that must come before the Marvel park gets the green light. The first is at least a year or two of solid performance at DCA, with financial numbers that prove the park is now drawing new customers all on its own, instead of just acting as a temporary safety valve when Disneyland gets too crowded.

The second thing that must happen is that Disney and the city of Anaheim have to come up with a comprehensive parking and transportation plan to get people into and out of the Resort District more smoothly. TDA has been able to barely keep their head above water most days when it comes to parking. But the current system is stretched to its limit and made up of stopgap measures, fancy footwork by the operations teams who often squeeze 25,000 or more cars per day into 18,000 spaces, and fraying goodwill with the city of Anaheim.

With Cast Members now parking miles away at the Honda Center on days with high Annual Passholder attendance, an improved and expanded parking plan is a must before new attractions open at Disneyland, much less before a Marvel park takes over the 3,500 spaces at the Toy Story Parking Lot.

The last thing that needs to slot into place before the third park gets underway is an expansion of Disney owned hotel rooms in Anaheim, with more DVC units attached to any new development. We’ve told you in the past about the solid proposals to build a new hotel and arrival complex in the East Esplanade shuttle bus loading area, as well as a fourth DVC tower at the Disneyland Hotel slotted for the vacant land just west of the ESPNZone. But again, TDA and Burbank will be looking at the numbers coming out of DCA through the rest of this year before either of those plans gets the green light.

The lingering sour economy doesn’t help any of these projects of course, but it is impressive that they have been allowed to wait at the starting gate while DCA’s fortunes rapidly improve, as they could have easily been mothballed entirely during the recession.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2uJdVx/mi ... 62612a.htm

[Wizzard419]

Interesting, ideally they would probably want to expand the property so that people aren't having to leave to get to the other park but I have a feeling all the hotel/motel owners are not about to let their land go cheap.

[Amy]

I'm not that excited about a Marvel park. If I wanted Marvel, I would have gone to Universal years ago. I know it is Disney now, but I don't embrace it the same as I do the other parks. I can definitely see his point about needing more hotel and parking space if they want to expand though. It sounds like parking is a mess out there!
I think you are right too Wizz ~ they will not want to have to have people travel far to get to another park, but those other hotel people aren't going to give in very easily. Might be a nice chance for some of them to make enough money to retire though.

[Wizzard419]

I wonder, are the hotels/property owners surrounding the area holding out for some magic figure or are they simply refusing because they know they will always have guests as long as the parks are there.

[Amy]

I wonder, are the hotels/property owners surrounding the area holding out for some magic figure or are they simply refusing because they know they will always have guests as long as the parks are there.

I bet if the price is right, at least some of them will sell. But they know they have the power in this case, because, as you pointed out, they know they have business as long as they are open with the parks being right there.

[Wizzard419]

If they really wanted to, they could try for a political move and use eminent domain but that has got a bad rep from misuse.

That reminds me, years ago, there was a story of how some people lost their homes because the city wanted to build a post office there. I bet they are mad now that there are closures and all.

[Amy]

If they really wanted to, they could try for a political move and use eminent domain but that has got a bad rep from misuse.

That reminds me, years ago, there was a story of how some people lost their homes because the city wanted to build a post office there. I bet they are mad now that there are closures and all.

I wouldn't think eminent domain would apply in this situation though...

[Wizzard419]

Technically, it's never supposed to be used for private ventures, but if you have enough pull it can be.

I think in CA it's technically illegal for it to be used on private development, but there are ways to skirt the law. The problem is that you get a massive PR black eye from it.

Even what Disney did for WDW was shady, using shell corporations to buy up land on the cheap rather than pay realistic market value.

[dstrawn9889]

realistic market value?? you have got to be kidding, they paid the owners of the land what they asked for... it was mostly unused swampland! it was only after everyone figured out what was happening that the prices went up wicked huge, cause it was he last land that disney needed for its footprint

[Wizzard419]

Yes, but by not being truthful about who was buying it, they ended up keeping the value artificially low for longer than it should have been.

Lets say I want to wreck your neighborhood and put in some new houses, condos, etc. Would you rather I buy your place (and everyone else's) using fronts so I can bring down your price or just go in with all the details so you can actually get more than the property was worth?

[dstrawn9889]

it is only worth what the buyer is willing to pay for it.. the 'artificial' bit is not showing that you are so interested in a new car at the dealership that brought cash enough for two cars... you never want to show too much interest in something, lest the supply and demand mentality kicks in

[Wizzard419]

It's a little different when you are buying a single item rather than a region.

[dstrawn9889]

all the more reason NOT to reveal to the greedy buggers that you are willing to pay 25x the value of the land until there are only a handful of parcels left to obtain

[mindflipper]

Technically, it's never supposed to be used for private ventures, but if you have enough pull it can be.

I think in CA it's technically illegal for it to be used on private development, but there are ways to skirt the law. The problem is that you get a massive PR black eye from it.

True, it has been done throughout the country by taking the land from private individual(s) and then in turn sold to developers or corporations. The local or state governments that have done it justified their actions by stating it was done "for the public good" because the net effect would increase the property tax revenues.

Even what Disney did for WDW was shady, using shell corporations to buy up land on the cheap rather than pay realistic market value.

Shady, but it was at the time quite legal. After the price jumps in the price in property around Anahiem at the time Disney bought land for Disneyland, he didn't want a repeat in Florida for Disney World.

[Wizzard419]

I think it still might be technically legal, but now the land owners would be able to see they got screwed much sooner and make it a civil case.