So is that good or bad?
Just showing the connection to project 89 and the permit filed today.So is that good or bad?
oh ok. I was reading the part about them having to stop boring because of ground water and thought maybe that was bad.Just showing the connection to project 89 and the permit filed today.
Interesting possible connection!Project 89? The first DVC was selected in 1989 and announced in early 1990 (I think!). '89 was an important year for DVC. If really wanting to go off the "deep end," maybe the project, if DVC, will be something that "reimagines" DVC like a rebirth. Or just a nod to DVC (arguably) turning 30 next year when the project is announced, if going forward.
Speculating is way more fun than reacting to announced news.
I think the biggest reason is the prime real estate. You’re close to the Magic Kingdom which is a huge selling point for a resort.This one is still a bit of a head scratcher.
What are the compelling reasons to build in this spot?
-River country is an eyesore, so tearing it down to build a new is a positive.
-Likely already has utilities to the area.
-It's already waterfront
-Services already exist in the area with Fort Wilderness, and to a certain extent wilderness lodge
-Already close to existing DVC property, if River country were included in Wilderness lodge complex, it would still be smaller than Riviera/CBR complex.
Reasons not to put a resort here?
-Soil makes it unfavorable to have a large scale building on site($$$)
-Limited on theme, do to other resorts in close proximity.
-Is the campground counter to the image of DVC.
-Tough area for transportation, but not insurmountable.
I guess this comes down to a couple of things.
-Why is this the best place to build new lodging?
-Could this be something other than lodging?
I'd love for them to build a bridge to the Island as part of this build, even if it means the boats have to go around, or better yet dock at the bridge.
It's very true.I think the biggest reason is the prime real estate. You’re close to the Magic Kingdom which is a huge selling point for a resort.
I would think if that spot was suitable they would have built in it by now.It's very true.
Just wonder how bad the land is to build on between the transport center and contemporary, the far side of contemporary, and the space between the MK and Grand Floridian? I know they aren't favorable to build on, but are they worse than this spot? I would think if you wanted to build something cool and new, those are the spots you would target. Project 89 feels more like an add on to Wilderness lodge/Ft Wilderness. If the soil isn't great for large scale building, it might be just fine for more bungalows and a services building.
There was a reason river country closed in the first place. Somehow I doubt something similar would go back in. It would have to be something with a totally different concept.
There was a reason river country closed in the first place. Somehow I doubt something similar would go back in. It would have to be something with a totally different concept.
Yeah. There is a 0% chance they are building a water park. Now they might build an enhanced water feature as a throwback to the River Country days at a new DVC in the location, but it won't be a general admittance water park. Maybe just a bigger pool with more amenities, maybe a lazy river, and a big slide.
But the reasons why River Country closed weren't to do with the location, it was to do with the concept. Disney had simply outgrown it. In the last few years it was so packed it was uncomfortable. The attractions had to be giving the lawyers fits, as they were much more risky than Disney's other more controlled water parks. The use of lake water, which Florida law was making impractical if not illegal, was also a big problem. River Country was great. I have fond memories and I wish they had converted that area to a FW/WL focused play area, but that was also one of those 0% ideas. River Country was just past it's time in execution, concept, and use, and the drop in visitors following 9/11 was simply the straw that gave Disney a closing date. It was going to happen regardless.
Maybe. But that wouldn't have solved the lake water issue or the execution. Some of those slides hurt. Others were just too... physical? Or independent? I'm not sure how to describe them but they weren't sit and experience type things that Disney targets. They were more risky, dangerous type things and I just don't see them having lasted 20 more years.Glad we got to use it while it was still there. As for it's overuse well like stormalong bay at BC maybe they should have restricted it to FW and WL.
Maybe. But that wouldn't have solved the lake water issue or the execution. Some of those slides hurt. Others were just too... physical? Or independent? I'm not sure how to describe them but they weren't sit and experience type things that Disney targets. They were more risky, dangerous type things and I just don't see them having lasted 20 more years.