Orlando Attractions Area News & Developments

[orlandoguy]

Sea World Orlando To Add Sesame Street Land
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/travel/attractions/seaworld/os-seaworld-sesame-street-theme-park-20170518-story,amp.html
(From the Sentinel)
Is this the game changer Sea World needs to compete locally with Harry Potter and Darth Vader?

Speaking from an industry perspective and with a company in a similar licensing position as Sesame, this intellectual property should be perceived as value-added for SeaWorld guests, but it's hardly a game changer. To-date, SeaWorld Parks hasn't had the resources or interest in developing highly-themed lands that utilize game-changing technology or levels of immersion. For an example, look no further than the existing Sesame lands at the two Busch parks: a series of standard flat rides aimed at a junior audience (not even a family audience) with basic theming. In other words, an IP slap.

As well, from a narrative perspective, Sesame- despite the fact it uses some non-human characters- is for the most part grounded in our reality. That's not to say they couldn't take a Sesame land or park in a fantastical direction but it makes the task that much harder.

The second Sesame Place location is an interesting notion (and I'm glad to see Sesame broadening their reach - I love their way of speaking with kids) but I'll be paying far more attention to see if SW can pull themselves out of the hole before I'll get excited about a new SP Park.

[WAJAS]

12 minutes ago, orlandoguy said:

Speaking from an industry perspective and with a company in a similar licensing position as Sesame, this intellectual property should be perceived as value-added for SeaWorld guests, but it's hardly a game changer. To-date, SeaWorld Parks hasn't had the resources or interest in developing highly-themed lands that utilize game-changing technology or levels of immersion. For an example, look no further than the existing Sesame lands at the two Busch parks: a series of standard flat rides aimed at a junior audience (not even a family audience) with basic theming. In other words, an IP slap.

As well, from a narrative perspective, Sesame- despite the fact it uses some non-human characters- is for the most part grounded in our reality. That's not to say they couldn't take a Sesame land or park in a fantastical direction but it makes the task that much harder.

The second Sesame Place location is an interesting notion (and I'm glad to see Sesame broadening their reach - I love their way of speaking with kids) but I'll be paying far more attention to see if SW can pull themselves out of the hole before I'll get excited about a new SP Park.

Joel Manby has confirmed that the new land in Orlando will not be like the ones at their other parks.  His description made it seem like a mini-Sesame Place, so I'd expect a similar amount of capital to be spent on this as will be spent on Infinity Falls (their new raft ride/land for 2018), which is significant.

The Sentinel updated their article with quotes from Manby.

That park is a really good idea though because it adds a revenue source for SeaWorld that isn't directly connected to animals.

[aent]

2 minutes ago, WAJAS98 said:

Joel Manby has confirmed that the new land in Orlando will not be like the ones at their other parks.  His description made it seem like a mini-Sesame Place, so I'd expect a similar amount of capital to be spent on this as will be spent on Infinity Falls (their new raft ride/land for 2018), which is significant.

The Sentinel updated their article with quotes from Manby.

That park is a really good idea though because it adds a revenue source for SeaWorld that isn't directly connected to animals.

They're also giving an opening date thats still 5 years away...

[shardoon]

Universal plans out for the Wet n Wild site hotels. Anybody got better renderings or site plans? 

 http://www.orlandosentinel.com/travel/attractions/universal-orlando/os-universal-wet-wild-hotels-20170519-story.html

[WAJAS]

I like it so far. I thought Universal was going to try to really separate their hotels from I-Drive with a berm and lack of connections to the road, but I'm proven wrong.  I'd only hope for there to be more right up against the ROW.

EDIT: Upon viewing the actual documents, my opinion has reversed.  They are proposing a berm between the roads and side properties and the hotel.  I hope this doesn't go through the City Council looking like this because they should force Universal to abide by the same city ordinances that all other new developers have to follow.  The buildings should be built to the road (at least on I-Drive), and encourage visitors to walk I-Drive.

Edited May 19, 2017 by WAJAS98

[jrs2]

^^

I saw those plans on the OBJ.  I had no idea the land where the WetnWild parking is located was so vast; that's 3x more development than I anticipated they would do over there.  All of that vacant undeveloped land will be improved.  That's huge for N. I'Drive.  

I wonder what other plans Universal has for that area.  I figured they may have eyes on the former Skull Kingdom land and former Skydive attraction land as well.

[Pete C]

On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 5:06 PM, WAJAS98 said:

I like it so far. I thought Universal was going to try to really separate their hotels from I-Drive with a berm and lack of connections to the road, but I'm proven wrong.  I'd only hope for there to be more right up against the ROW.

EDIT: Upon viewing the actual documents, my opinion has reversed.  They are proposing a berm between the roads and side properties and the hotel.  I hope this doesn't go through the City Council looking like this because they should force Universal to abide by the same city ordinances that all other new developers have to follow.  The buildings should be built to the road (at least on I-Drive), and encourage visitors to walk I-Drive.

So help me envision this...the hotel will basically be surrounded by a landscaped wall on all sides?

Edited May 23, 2017 by Pete C

[prahaboheme]

If the buildings are indeed setback from Universal Blvd, this may be in preparation for a future transportation connection to the land they bought by the convention center.

[WAJAS]

4 hours ago, Pete C said:

So help me envision this...the hotel will basically be surrounded by a landscaped wall on all sides?

Correct.  Theme parks do this a lot actually to try to separate their 'world' from the outside world.  Disneyland Anaheim has a berm around the whole place with trees that makes it so you can't see the hotels along the edges from within the park. It will separate them on all sides except the entrance into each property from Universal Blvd. and onto the lake/pond.

 

These companies make the most money by limiting the ability for their guests to leave their property because it keeps their money spent within the company.  It's why Disney and Universal provide shuttles straight from the airport to their hotels. Honestly, it's what those hotel guests pay a premium for.

 

2 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

If the buildings are indeed setback from Universal Blvd, this may be in preparation for a future transportation connection to the land they bought by the convention center.

That definitely is not the reason.  Those may be in the plans, but the setbacks are for the reason above.

[prahaboheme]

4 hours ago, WAJAS98 said:

Correct.  Theme parks do this a lot actually to try to separate their 'world' from the outside world.  Disneyland Anaheim has a berm around the whole place with trees that makes it so you can't see the hotels along the edges from within the park. It will separate them on all sides except the entrance into each property from Universal Blvd. and onto the lake/pond.

 

These companies make the most money by limiting the ability for their guests to leave their property because it keeps their money spent within the company.  It's why Disney and Universal provide shuttles straight from the airport to their hotels. Honestly, it's what those hotel guests pay a premium for.

 

That definitely is not the reason.  Those may be in the plans, but the setbacks are for the reason above.

Universal does not need to create a setback to obstruct views of the outside world.  If there is indeed a setback, I think the reason stands that there are future considerations including potential monorail or dedicated bus lanes (or any number of other transportation alternatives) that would require the space. 

Also, the renderings released seem like nothing more than concepts at this point.  I'm sure we will get a better idea of their intentions when plans become realized.

[WAJAS]

1 hour ago, prahaboheme said:

Universal does not need to create a setback to obstruct views of the outside world.  If there is indeed a setback, I think the reason stands that there are future considerations including potential monorail or dedicated bus lanes (or any number of other transportation alternatives) that would require the space. 

Also, the renderings released seem like nothing more than concepts at this point.  I'm sure we will get a better idea of their intentions when plans become realized.

That's literally their purpose though...

The amount of space they'll take up is way more than needed for any kind of additional transportation.  Berms are used throughout the theme park industry for that very purpose and none more.  There's a huge berm around the main resort on the north and west sides if you want to look. It probably shows up on google maps.

[AndyPok1]

And I don't have an issue with the berm around Universal proper.  But on I-Drive, it should get vetoed.

[aent]

7 hours ago, WAJAS98 said:

These companies make the most money by limiting the ability for their guests to leave their property because it keeps their money spent within the company.  It's why Disney and Universal provide shuttles straight from the airport to their hotels. Honestly, it's what those hotel guests pay a premium for.

Of course that is Disney's theory, but it could not be true for Universal, and especially for a hotel that is not directly connected to Universal's property. The problem for Universal is for those staying on longer, week long (or more) trips (especially international), there flat out isn't enough to do at Universal currently. I doubt Universal has tons of visitors that are staying more then 3 days currently... they're just succeeding on getting shorter vacations and some people to cut a few days off of a Disney trip to do Universal, so Universal is already failing to achieve that goal. If they integrate into International Drive, there is potential for people to do a week long I-Drive vacation at Universal's hotel...

And in all likelihood, Universal will be the best of anyone at taking the vast majority of visitors money when competing vs anything else on I-Drive, even if its not 100%. But when Universal is splitting it with Disney... Disney is gonna get the vast majority of the money.

And as much as Universal doesn't like it, I-Drive is getting new attractions that, on the way to Universal, will cause people looking out the window of their buses (or worse, an elevated line) to be interested in exploring the area. They can try to fight it all they want, but its not gonna work... and they're going to end up with a shuttle right outside of the resort to allow people to explore...a problem Disney doesn't have.

Universal should embrace its differences... there is no doubt Universal's parks aren't as "immersive" as Disney, they're denser, and have a different feel. They should try to be a different experience, so people want to experience a week at Universal one year, and a week at Disney the next.

[WAJAS]

1 hour ago, aent said:

Of course that is Disney's theory, but it could not be true for Universal, and especially for a hotel that is not directly connected to Universal's property. The problem for Universal is for those staying on longer, week long (or more) trips (especially international), there flat out isn't enough to do at Universal currently. I doubt Universal has tons of visitors that are staying more then 3 days currently... they're just succeeding on getting shorter vacations and some people to cut a few days off of a Disney trip to do Universal, so Universal is already failing to achieve that goal. If they integrate into International Drive, there is potential for people to do a week long I-Drive vacation at Universal's hotel...

And in all likelihood, Universal will be the best of anyone at taking the vast majority of visitors money when competing vs anything else on I-Drive, even if its not 100%. But when Universal is splitting it with Disney... Disney is gonna get the vast majority of the money.

And as much as Universal doesn't like it, I-Drive is getting new attractions that, on the way to Universal, will cause people looking out the window of their buses (or worse, an elevated line) to be interested in exploring the area. They can try to fight it all they want, but its not gonna work... and they're going to end up with a shuttle right outside of the resort to allow people to explore...a problem Disney doesn't have.

Universal should embrace its differences... there is no doubt Universal's parks aren't as "immersive" as Disney, they're denser, and have a different feel. They should try to be a different experience, so people want to experience a week at Universal one year, and a week at Disney the next.

Let's agree to disagree. You'd be surprised how many people take trips only to Universal.

 

The way their current plans are laid out makes me believe that they are going to attempt to keep as many guests isolated from outside attractions as possible.  Anyways, the part of I-Drive that's actually becoming competitive isn't near this location. It's the portion in Orange County were the codes actually make sense for the district (thanks to my man Vargas).

 

Btw, it may have originated with Disneyland Anaheim, but berms are common in most parks these days.  SeaWorld has a few on the south side of their property to hide some of the taller back of house areas.

[prahaboheme]

5 hours ago, WAJAS98 said:

That's literally their purpose though...

The amount of space they'll take up is way more than needed for any kind of additional transportation.  Berms are used throughout the theme park industry for that very purpose and none more.  There's a huge berm around the main resort on the north and west sides if you want to look. It probably shows up on google maps.

Renderings and plans to share?

[metal93]

7 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

Renderings and plans to share?

http://www.cityoforlando.net/city-planning/wp-content/uploads/sites/27/2017/05/MPBProjectOverview2017-06_ABN2017-00001_MPL17-17.pdf

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/travel/attractions/universal-orlando/os-universal-wet-wild-hotels-20170519-story.html

I am not liking what they are currently proposing. Two garages that block the property from I-Drive, and "Landscape Buffers" along these garages, which probably translates to 60' setbacks comprised of a berm and what I like to call a "potemkin forest" to hide the garages.

 

There is already this kind of condition along the Kirkman edge of the main property where the Loews Portofino garage sits, that is exactly what I'm imagining what most of the edge along I-Drive will look like if Universal had their way. Not a good look.

Edited May 24, 2017 by metal93
addition

[shardoon]

This is horrible. It makes that portion of Idrive no mans land. 

[codypet]

Isn't that the case already for the exception of the actual entrance to Wet n Wild?  I mean the only people really walking that stretch were walking between the lot and Wet n Wild or they were already walking past it, at which point that won't change.

[WAJAS]

1 hour ago, codypet said:

Isn't that the case already for the exception of the actual entrance to Wet n Wild?  I mean the only people really walking that stretch were walking between the lot and Wet n Wild or they were already walking past it, at which point that won't change.

True, but the point is that future development should try to change that.

[prahaboheme]

This looks similar to the treatment of convention center area hotels - Hyatt, Hilton, etc.

If this development include retail, it probably would have had more urban, pedestrian elements.  Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Pete C]

16 hours ago, WAJAS98 said:

Let's agree to disagree. You'd be surprised how many people take trips only to Universal.

It must be the case, otherwise why keep building hotels. It will become even more of a singular destination once they develop the huge 475 acre piece of land they purchased near the convention center. No doubt it will be a 3rd theme park along with its own resorts and entertainment.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/os-universal-land-purchase-20160205-story.html

[WAJAS]

21 minutes ago, Pete C said:

It must be the case, otherwise why keep building hotels. It will become even more of a singular destination once they develop the huge 475 acre piece of land they purchased near the convention center. No doubt it will be a 3rd theme park along with its own resorts and entertainment.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/os-universal-land-purchase-20160205-story.html

Wait, I think I misinterpreted the post I was replying to then. I do agree that they are going to attempt to become more and more of a singular destination.  The new land will definitely be used for a new park, entertainment complex, and a few hotels when it's complete.

[tc01]

I'm sure the visibility of the new hotel would be similar to Cabana Bay. I'm more concern of the corridor between Wonder Works and where Skyplex will be built. It looks horrible......... 

[shardoon]

4 hours ago, codypet said:

Isn't that the case already for the exception of the actual entrance to Wet n Wild?  I mean the only people really walking that stretch were walking between the lot and Wet n Wild or they were already walking past it, at which point that won't change.

correct. something that i hope would have changed with redevelopment. gotta start somewhere. would love for them to have embraced I-drive with easy walking directly into the hotel. i know some nearby business owners that are banking on universal buying them out one by one. over time, universal could have owned I-drive. 

[Pete C]

2 hours ago, WAJAS98 said:

Wait, I think I misinterpreted the post I was replying to then. I do agree that they are going to attempt to become more and more of a singular destination.  The new land will definitely be used for a new park, entertainment complex, and a few hotels when it's complete.

I don't think so, I was agreeing with you.