Star Wars Land

Still being so far off, picking exact dates is extremely difficult. However, Disney has been clear that the Disneyland version of Galaxy's Edge would open first, and current construction progress would back that up. If you absolutely had to commit to a date today, I wouldn't pick anything before Memorial Day for Disneyland's opening or anything before July 4th for DHS. It's likely that both lands will be open before Memorial Day weekend to accommodate summer crowds, and it's inevitable that both will soft open in the weeks preceding their official unveiling, but I would not bet a costly vacation on that. Plus, as every recent major Disney and Universal attraction opening has shown, ride capacity and efficiency are extremely low during the first few months of operation, so even if you happen to pick the grand opening date 18 months out, you're likely to be standing in long lines and extreme crowds as people jam the parks to get a first glimpse at the new lands. Waiting a couple of months not only protects against project delays, but can be valuable to avoid some of the initial overcrowding. We have deliberately planned our Orlando trips in the fall for Hogsmeade, Diagon Alley, and Pandora, and have been pleased with our decisions to do so based on reports from the first months after each of those lands opened. Yes, it's still crowded 4-6 months after a major expansion opens, but the crowds are much more manageable, and attractions are more reliably operating at or close to peak capacity. Both versions of Galaxy's Edge are guaranteed to draw historic crowds to Disneyland and DHS, so waiting a few months for the buzz to die down is a valuable strategy, especially when a theme park vacation can be so expensive theses days.

We're tentatively planning a trip to California in the late summer of 2019 (August) and then a Florida trip in the fall of 2019 (October), but that's so far away that it's only in very light pencil at this point with no plan to outlay any cash until at least a year from now when opening dates and land details are more clear.

I know people are excited, especially with The Last Jedi opening in a little more than 2 weeks (and Solo opening next summer), but there's absolutely no reason to start committing resources based on what would be a complete shot in the dark right now.

Thank you Russell. How long will Star Wars be open for in Disneyland before it opens in Disney World?

It's anyone's guess, but I think it's safe to say that both lands will be fully armed and operational before the end of summer 2019. I don't think you'll see DL's version open more than 3-4 months before DHS's. Their construction timelines have been about 3 months apart with DHS topping off structural steel a couple of weeks ago, while DL topped out in August.

DL had a lot more preliminary groundwork to complete (including rerouting the Rivers of America), so that's why construction appeared to start so much sooner than at DHS, but based on the recent topping-out announcements, both lands are running about 3 months parallel to each other.

It will be open in December 31, 2019 for sure.

I don't get the need to know "exact dates" especially 2 years before and you still see lots of dirt. Do you want to be there on Opening Day? There's no guarantee even with announced dates. They can always delay or have extensive soft openings. It won't happen until they're ready.

Best bet is buy an Annual Pass and visit every day and hope you get invited for a soft opening.

Thank you for all the information!

There are no exact dates because Disney doesn't have exact dates. Opening dates usually aren't finalized until an attraction enters testing, and Star Wars Land is still over a year from that point. I previously heard that the Disneyland one would open in Spring 2019 (specifically in time for Episode IX's premiere before it got pushed back), and DHS's would be Fall 2019 (said to be about 6 months behind Disneyland's). That is about as specific as things get right now.

Thanks AJ. Is Disneyland still slated to open 6 months before Disney World?

According to the latest I've heard, yes. If everything goes well, Disneyland will likely begin doing previews in early 2019 with a grand opening in the spring. DHS's will most likely open shortly after the end of peak season in Florida.

Sounds good. What would be considered the end of peak season? Also, what are the main attractions in Star Wars Land? Will Disneyland and Disney World share the same attractions?

Summer peak season in Florida is from Memorial Day to mid-August. If I had to guess right now, I would say September for the land's opening in Florida (so that it can be tied into Episode IX marketing), but it very well could open a bit earlier. Mid/late July is probably the absolute earliest, though it makes more sense to open it after peak season rather than 2/3 of the way through it.

Both areas will be 99% identical, with the only changes being to accommodate slightly different footprints in the two parks. The two main attractions will be a motion simulator attraction themed to the Millennium Falcon and a trackless dark ride themed to a battle between the Resistance and First Order. The area will also feature shopping, dining, and other interactive experiences. Disney hasn't released many details on exactly what all these will be yet, but they've promised it will be the largest and most intricate project they've ever done. My best guess is that we'll start hearing more concrete details about the exact contents of the land next summer/fall, particularly if previews start in early 2019 in California.

Sounds awesome! Thanks AJ!

When are Tron, Mickey ride, and Ratatouille supposed to open? When will Marvel land open in California Adventure?

Everything announced for Florida will be open by 2021. Most speculation indicates 2019 for Mickey, 2020 for Ratatouille, and 2021 for Tron and Guardians, but that could always change.

Marvel Land was originally scheduled for 2021, but I believe that's getting pushed back. It will be open by the 70th in 2025, but it's anyone's guess exactly when it will be ready.

How come Marvel Land is getting pushed back? Since Disney World are getting all these new rides, what else is Disneyland getting other than Star Wars?

Due to the cancellation of the Eastern Gateway, Marvel Land is being reworked to take over Bugs Land rather than Hollywood Land. This requires extra time in design. Furthermore, when the Eastern Gateway ran into trouble Disney put a hold on all expansions that had not started construction until the infrastructure problems could be resolved. Presumably that hold has now been lifted, but I haven't heard anything reliable on the project since the summer. I also wouldn't be surprised if Disney is investing so heavily in Florida that they're waiting until after the 50th there before the next major project in California. Either way, it's entirely possible Marvel Land could only be delayed a year or so, but it's also possible it may not happen until the mid-2020s.

As far as I know, there aren't any projects definitively planned for the resort that will open before the new hotel does. There are rumors that a clone of Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway is under consideration as an addition to Toontown, and presumably that could happen in 2020/2021, but it's a bit early to tell there. I suspect Disney plans to get 3-4 years of increased attendance out of Star Wars Land, so there probably isn't much need to add something major until after that time period has passed.

So it sounds like Disneyland is focusing more on Star Wars. Which is smart. Since it will be extremely popular. I was just curious, since Florida is getting so many new projects. Why not focus on Disneyland as well? Mickey and Minnie’s Runaway Railway would be a nice addition to Toontown. Speaking of Toontown, I heard rumors Disneyland was getting ride of it. Do you still see that happening? If so, what may take it place?

Is a Frozen dark rice and/or mini Land part of Disneyland’s plans? It would be a nice addition to the park. Also, when does the 4th hotel open?

@timbo23 - I'm not sure why you're being so obsessive about this. Disney has made a number of formal announcements that are pretty easy to Google, and anything outside of that is mere conjecture/rumor. Given the length of time it takes for Disney to design and build new attractions (even overlays), it's not worth mulling over date-specific details of something that's 18 months or longer away from opening, or attractions/overlays that haven't even been announced or broken ground.

Regardless of when you plan a vacation to WDW or DL, there's going to be some new attraction or land that's going to be on the schedule to open in the 2-3 years following your visit. Disney parks are no longer static like they were through much of the 80's and early 90's, so accept that there's never going to be a "perfect" time to visit. If you're the kind of person that absolutely needs to be at the Grand Opening of a new attraction or land, I would go with AJ's suggestion to get a season pass and plan on coming to the parks multiple days/weeks as the projects near completion. If not, but still feel the need to plan almost 2 years ahead, I'd recommend giving yourself at least a 3-5 month buffer from the current planned openings (late spring for DL and mid-summer for DHS) to ensure you're not missing the new lands/attractions during an expensive, intricately planned vacation.

As far as what Disneyland is focusing on, they need to complete Galaxy's Edge and rework Downtown Disney before any other pieces of the puzzle fall into place. They've already announced the Pixar invasion of Paradise Pier, so there's that too. After that, it all comes down to how they finally decide to implement Marvel, which took a hit when Anaheim killed Eastern Gateway. Disney had planned to announce Marvel at both D23 and then later at ComicCon, but kept silent, probably because they're altering their original plans following the Eastern Gateway bust. Trying to make any further predictions is pretty foolish right now, because there are a myriad of directions they could go that would have wide ranging impacts for the new attractions and existing attractions at DL/DCA.

"I would go with AJ's suggestion to get a season pass and plan on coming to the parks multiple days/weeks as the projects near completion."

AJ did not suggest this. I did.

The cancellation of the Eastern Gateway essentially required Disney to go back and re-evaluate everything planned for after Star Wars Land. As a result, some projects are still happening as planned, some have gotten rescheduled, and some have gotten replaced or cancelled. Additionally, the delay of the Los Angeles Olympics to 2028 rather than 2024 has removed some of the pressure for immediate improvement, so major projects have a little less urgency so they remain fresher at that time.

If Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway happens, it will replace a portion of Toontown. Depending on where it is built, it could either take out the western side (Gadget's Go Coaster) or the eastern side (Roger Rabbit's Car-Toon Spin), but whatever side it occupies will be radically changed. While it was considered, I highly doubt Toontown will be completely demolished at this point, at least not anytime in the near future.

Frozen has been shelved for now, and whether or not it happens will likely depend on how Frozen 2 does. It seems the property does not have as much longevity as Disney anticipated, so committing to a whole themed area that won't open for 5 or so years isn't going to happen right now. If it does happen, I suspect it will be in the form of a Fantasyland expansion for the 70th.

The new hotel is scheduled to open in 2021, but as always those plans may change between now and then.

I do not expect any big announcements about future attractions until the next D23 Expo in 2019. Star Wars, Marvel, and possibly the Mickey ride are the only things I've heard strong enough rumors about to indicate they may happen in the next 5 years, and everything else has essentially been sent back to the drawing board for revisions. Disney is mostly focused on Florida right now, as they need a lot more help there than the California parks. The focus will return to California after the 50th anniversary WDW projects are all underway.

I'm glad to hear about the Bug's Life area making way for Marvel Land instead of the Hollywood area. Despite the delay, that area is atrocious and needs to go (although I will miss the Bug's life theatre). This will allow for more space in the Hollywood area for other stuff later on, probably with even more room once the eastern side of the park gets sorted out.

@Anton - Sorry for the improper credit.

I simply don't understand the thought that theme parks would drastically modify their development schedules for the Olympics. Certainly, if the Olympics are coming to a city with a theme park nearby, it behooves the owners to make sure it's in tip top shape prior to the beginning of the event. However, this notion that Disney or Universal are dramatically bumping up/back project schedules to accommodate the Olympic games is silly. Yes, the Olympics carry a huge following and bring millions of tourists to the host city/country for not only the 17-day event but also for the weeks before and after. However, a theme park is no more marketable to those tourists/visitors with an extra attraction or 2 than it would if it just looked great and/or had excellent customer service during that time. Spectators coming the LA2028 are not going to visit Disneyland because they're opening a new attraction or land just prior to the Games, they will visit Disneyland because it's there and offers something to do when not attending events. Spending extra money to accelerate a project won't change the appeal of the park to tourists one iota (most of them would come to the park anyway, even if nothing new had been added for years because it would be their first, and likely last, time in that city). Same goes for Tokyo Disneyland and Tokyo DisneySea. Those two parks are already regarded as 2 of the best theme parks in the world, so why would they spend significant capital to speed up projects or initiate new projects just because 20% more people will be in the city for 6-8 weeks? It's all just a waste of money, and in fact, it might even be more valuable to deliberately hold back certain projects or at least announce future attraction developments to get those first time guests to consider a return visit in the years following the Games to see those coming attractions.

I work for a firm that will be building and designing much of the enhanced infrastructure for LA2028, and while I think it's necessary for cities to spruce up for the Games, this idea that cities have to build all of this extra stuff that will sit around unused for years following the 17-day event is a complete waste of time and resources.

Just on the olympics, forgive me if I'm misremembering, but I think I read that previous games didn't do much for Disney, so actually it might be a quiet time to visit the park (presuming you can get a hotel room of course).

>>>>and while I think it's necessary for cities to spruce up for the Games, this idea that cities have to build all of this extra stuff that will sit around unused for years following the 17-day event is a complete waste of time and resources.

The rotting infrastructure you can see on urban explorer blogs from Olympics and Expos is a crying shame. These events should make "long term sustainability" one of their key criteria.

LA is unlike many cities since much infrastructure for the games are already built and are in-use. For instance, the Opening and Closing Ceremonies and Track/Field events will already have the Memorial Coliseum and the new Rams Stadium.

Disneyland's major hotel project will be done by 2021. That's 7 years ahead of the 2028 Olympics. The LAX Construction and People Mover will be done by 2024. 4 years ahead of schedule.

I agree the tourism at the theme parks will be largely unaffected by the games. I recall the lack of crowds at Disneyland during the 1984 LA games. It was an embarrassment. Times have changed. Disneyland will crowded regardless. Actually, few attending the Olympics will stay the entire 2 weeks.

I do think Disney will revisit the Eastern Gateway in purpose. They have an extra 7 years after the completion of the new luxury hotel to consider an expansion of Downtown Disney towards the east (after reduction of tenants), a new hotel resort complex (my suggestion), and a new mixed use parking structure (for Downtown Disney East and theme park parking for 5 Fwy North commuters). This will all depend on a new Anaheim City Council and Mayor, the expiration of the US Government lease in 2020, and the cooperation of the Harbor businesses.

Olympic cities continue to tout sustainability in their plans, and the companies building the infrastructure for the Games echo those desires. However, time after time, we see the Olympics leaving a wasteland in their wake of haphazardly constructed facilities to meet IOC demands, unnecessary facilities that are never utilized even if rock solid plans are in place for post-Olympics use (West Ham United just moved into London's Olympic Stadium last season after essentially being bribed to take it 4 years later - London officials expected all the London-based EPL clubs (Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, West Ham, and Crystal Palace) to bid against each other to use the new facility, and that's in a city flush with cash), and a promise of economic revitalization that never arrives. Ironically, the most promising success of the modern Olympic movement has been Sochi, which was a resort town for the privileged few, but the Olympics put it on the map and now is a thriving year-round tourist destination, but it's questionable if it was worth the $51 billion Russia invested into the event.

LA2028 will be no different, and while it's nice that they're trying to reuse as many facilities and existing resources they have, I can tell you that companies that make a living building and designing things are licking their chops to upsell LA for every last penny they can extract by using LA2028 as leverage. Just because they're using a existing stadium doesn't mean they won't find a way to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to update/renovate the facility under the guise of "show the world our best". Then that facility that was perfectly suitable in its previous state has to pay off millions of dollars of additional investment as a rec center or community college arena.

Until the IOC stops the host bidding process (hopefully LA2028 is the last one), and simply creates a rotation of designated Olympic cities, the muckity mucks will party for 3 weeks every 2 years leaving billions of dollars of debt in their rear view, looking for the next city to fleece and trash. I'm so glad I don't live in Southern California, and that the push for DC2020 never got past the USOC.

Why are glad you won't be in Southern California? I'm actually glad I don't live in Rio where the latest debacle happened. Southern California will be unaffected by the Olympics. The economy is much more diversified. I live in LA County, but 45 minutes outside of the City of LA. I never go to Downtown LA. The City of LA has it's own budgets and government. Their bad decisions don't spread to other places.

Anyways, the Olympics bidding process is already on it's last legs. That why the Olympics committee gave the 2028 Olympics to LA despite not favoring LA for the 2024 Olympics. They are afraid the loss of the 2024 bid means LA won't bid any future Olympics. They are correct to fear the implications.

>>>Anyways, the Olympics bidding process is already on it's last legs. That why the Olympics committee gave the 2028 Olympics to LA despite not favoring LA for the 2024 Olympics. They are afraid the loss of the 2024 bid means LA won't bid any future Olympics. They are correct to fear the implications.

Indeed. The Winter Olympics has already become a case of "Its either Beijing, or some country thats an actual kleptocracy"

@russell Meyer, I’m not being obsessive over anything, I’m just wondering why Disney World is adding all these new attractions? I was there over the weekend, and was just curious as to why Disneyland is not adding as many attractions?

For example, Pandora is new, Toy Story Land opens next year. Then Star Wars Land, Ratatouille, Tron, Mickey and Minnie Ride, and Guardians of the Galaxy. Yes, Disney World owns a lot more land in Florida, however, why is California not being focused on as much? Yes, Disneyland is also getting Star Wars Land, but why not other attractions sooner? I know they just rethamed Tower of Terror to Guardians of the Galaxy, and are planning on Pixar Land next year. However, that doesn’t seem to be a lot compared to what Florida is receiving. It’s pretty insignificant, if you ask me, I’m sure Pixar Land will be nice, but it’s not as exciting compared to what’s coming to Disney World.

I know Disneyland is re-theming California Screamin’ to The Incredibles, but it will essentially be the same ride. Yes, Marvel Land is on Disneyland’s radar. By wait until 2025? When attractions are announced, people don’t want to wait ten years for them to be built. I know it takes a while to build them. By why wait so long? Just announce it the closer you get to the opening. Why keep people waiting so long?

@russell Meyer, yes, I know, I can google it myself. I have many times. I’m just curious as to why Disney World is being focused on so much more than Disneyland? I know it attractsa more visitors annually. I, myself, prefer Disneyland. But why won’t Disneyland add more attractions in the next few years as Disney World is?

Timbo: Disneyland doesn’t lack attractions like Disney World. Apples and oranges. Disneyland has a ton of attractions. Instead you should say why don’t they add more attractions to DCA and why not more hotel resorts. Disneyland Resort is starved of hotels and parking.

Disney World is horribly neglected for many years so they’re playing catch-up. Why should their progress be questioned? Even DCA has more E-Ticket heavy hitters than DHS, AK, and Epcot combined. In one tiny park, DCA has Soarin’, Racers, Tower (Guardians), Toy Story Mania, Screamin’, and Grizzly Rapids. DCA has more flat ride spinners than all of Disney World. DLR has 2 carousels while WDW has one. And on and on and on. WDW definitely has more hotels. Even Universal Orlando with 2 parks has more hotels than Disneyland Resort. Disney Springs has more parking structures than DLR. That’s the real problem.

I'll echo what Anton has said. Disneyland has far more attractions than WDW. If you examine each resort closely, you'll see in fact that between DCA and DL, those two parks practically mirror what is contained within FOUR parks at WDW. So, if you have two parks with plenty of attractions to keep people busy, while on the other side of the country you have 4 parks that are struggling to keep people busy for 1 day each, where would you invest your resources?

Since DL50, when Disney "gifted" attractions around the world, WDW had remained relatively stagnant for nearly 10 years. The only true additions (not rethemes, reskins, etc...) at WDW between 2005 and today have been New Fantasyland, Everest, and Avatar. Also consider that all of the "gifts" that WDW received during DL50 were attractions you could see somewhere else in the world (aside from that ugly Castle makeover) like TSMM, Lights Motors Action, and Soarin'. Let's face it, WDW has been seriously neglected for nearly 20 years, and until Universal Orlando gave the Mouse a serious kick in the pants with WWoHP, Disney had zero incentive to invest in the WDW parks because they could always point to attendance and per-cap spending increases. Now Disney has finally recognized that they need to continue to invest in their Florida parks or attendance will flatten due to competition in the area, and is playing catch up with lots of new additions planned. There are also big anniversaries coming up in 2021 (WDW50) and 2022 (EPCOT40) that provide opportunity for Disney to give the parks a boost to further increase attendance and per-cap spending and maintain/increase their lead on the local competition.

Disney is not ignoring Disneyland, and has actually invested far more in the California resort in recent years (over $2 billion for DCA 2.0), but it will never change the fact that the resort is land-locked and any additions to the parks are far more costly and complicated than WDW.

What do you want them to do Timbo?? At this point, any new addition would either require approval from Anaheim to expand the current park boundaries or necessitate the elimination of current attractions that are needed to meet current guest demand during peak attendance days.

Anton and Russell, I agree with you that Disneyland park itself has many attractions. Anton, you are right, instead, I should have said why Disney isn't adding more attractions to California Adventure. That's what i meant to say. When they complete the 4th hotel, I think that will be plenty. They don't have the land like they do in Florida, to build a bunch of hotels. I usually stay at the Disneyland Hotel when I go, and all 3 hotels are within walking distance to the park. If they built more hotels, they would have to expand further away from the park. Which would mean a longer walk to get there. The reason Disney World has more parking structures is because they have the land. Disneyland doesn't have the land as Disneyland does. But I agree, they do need more parking structures, but not necessarily hotels.

Russell Meyer, you make some valid points. Yes, Disney World has always relied on their attendance rather than their attractions. Yes, I understand they want to add more attractions for the upcoming anniversaries. Yes, expanding in Disneyland would require permission from Anaheim, and eliminate current attractions. But that's my point, they don't need to do much, since they receive so many visitors each year. Especially internationally. Other than Vegas, it's the most visited place for people from other countries. What does it matter if add more rides or not? People will come regardless.

Yes, I also agree with you that Universal Orlando's attendance has created more competition in the area. However, many families would prefer to take their children to Disney, rather than Universal. Lets face it, Universal is built more for teenagers and young adults. It's mainly rollercoasters, or more intense rides. Really, the only rides really suitable for children are "The Cat in the Hat," "Shrek," "Despicable Me," "E.T.," and "Men in Black." Many of the other rides, including Harry Potter, tend to be a bit scary or intense for kids. Disney has more of a variety or rides, which everyone can go on. That's why Disney World is so popular. There is something for everyone. I've brought my kids to Universal Orlando and Hollywood, there were not that many rides they wanted to go on. It was kind of a waste of money. But they enjoy Disney World and Disneyland. Universal tends to cater to teenagers and adults. Where Disney caters to everyone. So they don't necessarily need to add more rides People will go regardless, because there is something for everyone. From shows, rides, fireworks, characters, parades, etc.

Maybe I should have been more clear, California Adventure could use more attractions. Yes, the ones they have now are very good. They also have a decent amount. However, they could use more in the future. Marvel Land should have began already in my opinion. Why have people wait so many years for rides that are announced ten years earlier? It doesn't make any sense. When they open, people probably won't even really care anymore that it's opening. Since it was announced so many years earlier. Who's cares about something that happened 10 years ago? All I'm saying is California Adventure should look to add more things.

DCA has plenty of attractions - more than DAK and DHS combined, and the park just completed a $2+ billion investment in that park just a few years ago. They're spending additional capital to do the Pixar makeover and continue to improve and tweak their existing attractions. However, at some point you need to let the park make some money back from such huge investments or you're liable to go bankrupt.

Disney has not announced Marvel Land, so any speculation regarding where or when that project gets off the ground is pure conjecture. There have been tons of rumors and Mission Breakout was the clearest sign that Disney was ready to give Marvel Land the official green light, but it simply hasn't happened. Until Disney makes a formal announcement regarding Marvel in California, you might as well wait for Godot.

Since when have people been waiting 10 years for attractions?? DCA 2.0 was a 5+ year project that completely made over the park (the investment is in line with what it originally cost to build the park). Galaxy's Edge is coming in a rather rapid 4 years, especially since it required completely reworking the backstage areas in that part of the park. I'll agree that Disney tends to be pretty slow and methodical in building new stuff, but they have never taken 10 years from announcement to completion.

"Other than Vegas, it's the most visited place for people from other countries."

Where did you get that from??? LA has a pretty strong market for international visitors, but I think NYC would have it beat. In fact, a quick search drew me to the following...

http://www.escapehere.com/destination/the-10-most-visited-cities-in-the-us-by-foreign-travelers/5/

The ranking doesn't have a date or a source for their data, but seems credible nonetheless and backed up by some other sources. It lists LA 3rd, above Vegas at #6 and Orlando at #4, but below Miami at #2 and NYC at #1. Plus if you're trying to frame this around attendance at the Disneyland resort, it brings in far more locals than international and domestic tourists. LA does have a large international tourist base, but that doesn't mean everyone is going to Disneyland. On the other hand, Orlando's international tourism market is almost single-handedly dependent upon Disney (and to a lesser extent Universal and other attractions).

I really don't know where you're going with this discussion. Sure, it'd be great if Disney could just build and build and build with reckless abandon so they have fancy new attractions all over the place. The reality is that new attractions and lands cost money that at some point needs to be repaid, and those costs to build and develop them are slowing increasing. Also, new additions don't just happen overnight. It takes years of design and development before a single shovel hits the ground, so what Imagineers are working on today probably won't be seen by guests for years, if at all. Would it be great if Disney could bulldoze Toontown and replace it with a Frozen land, or take out Bugs Land and replace it with Marvel. Absolutely!!! But that's just not happening right now, and getting excited about such rumors and possibilities are not worth getting lathered up over, and certainly not worth planning expensive vacations around.

So what is it that you're looking for here Timbo?

Russell, the point i'm trying to make here is why Disney World is getting such an extensive expansion, as opposed to Disneyland? Yes, I know Disneyland and California Adventure have plenty of attractions. You're right, Disneyland's 2 parks have just as much, if not more attractions than Disney World's 4 parks combined. I understand that.

I'm just not sure why Disney World is getting so many new lands and attractions in the coming years? Isn't Star Wars Land enough? They are getting Ratatouille, Tron, Toy Story Land, Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway, etc. They just the new Pandora expansion. I admit, Animal Kingdom needed that update. Frozen Ever After is fairly new. It just seems like so many new projects for Disney World. I know Disney World needs to continue expanding. I understand that. But it just seems like too many new rides and attractions coming to Florida. That's the point I'm trying to make. It's just too many.

On the other hand, Disneyland is getting only getting Star Wars Land. Which is great. But Florida is getting that too, in addition to other rides. To me, it just seems like Disneyland is getting the shaft. Yes, Disneyland does have plenty of attractions. But that's not the point i'm trying to make. The fact that Disney World is getting so many new attractions and lands, and Disneyland is not, other than Star Wars.

Yes, I admit, maybe I was exaggerating that it takes them 10 years to build an attraction after it's announced. I'm just saying sometimes I feel they announce things too early, and expect people to wait for these rides. Yes, Star Wars Land didn't take four years...but we still had to wait 4 years from the time it was announced. Four years is a long time to wait. A lot can happen in 4 years. We still have to wait 2 more years. That's not exactly tomorrow per say. I mean think about it, if you found out you were getting a billion dollars, but had to wait 4 years...how would you feel? Wouldn't you want it right away? Four years is a long time. Maybe Disney shouldn't announce projects so early. They should announce them as they are getting closer to completion.

I'm not sure how credible the data you found is? If there's no date or source for your data, I don't find that to be very reliable. That would not offer much validity. Yes, New York City is probably the most visited city from international tourists. That I agree with. Yes, Orlando does depends on international travel. That's the point I'm trying to make. Disney World doesn't necessarily need to make so many new attractions. They already have the visitors, and tourists. People will go to Disney World regardless if they expand. It's a very popular destination for families, both internationally, and domestic. On the other hand, Disneyland relies on tourists from California residents.

Russell, to respond to your question: "So what is it that you're looking for here Timbo?" Basically, why Disney World is building so many new attractions and lands, where Disneyland is not getting the same thing. Also, the fact that Orlando's tourism relies solely on Disney World's attendance, and the fact that they will make money, regardless if new attractions or lands are built.

Both coasts are waiting 4 long years. So you can either still go in Disney Parks crippled state or enjoy the fruits of the labor in 2019 for Star Wars or 2022 for everything else. It's more safe to wait. There's no point to complain about what it is. Not everything that's announced will take 4 years. Toy Story Land will open in 2018, that's one year earlier than Star Wars Land. The Runaway Railway is a 2 year project since it's announcement (opening 2019).

Complaining about what Disneyland Resort isn't getting compared with Disney World is a waste. Just go to Disney World. Why is water wet?

I Think the key word is land. WDW has the land, and more importantly, DIsney has control of the land. The Gateway project at DL died because of that.

Disney isn't a charity. They don't owe you a living or a theme park experience. They put the money where they get maximum bang for their buck.

Anton, I don't mean to complain. I'm just curious as to why Disney World is suddenly getting all these new attractions and not Disneyland? Yes, Disneyland is building Star Wars Land, just as they are in Disney World. Which is great! I'm looking forward to that. I know they are also updating California Adventure with a Pixar Land. That should be nice as well. I'm not saying that Disneyland never invests in their parks, they obviously do. I'm just wondering why Disney World is receiving all of these new rides in the next several years?

Disney has invested in Disneyland. California Adventure received an expansion with Buena Vista Street (which I enjoy). As well as Cars Land, which is my favorite land in all the Disney parks. They included the Little Mermaid ride as well. They also re-themed the Tower of Terror with Guardians of the Galaxy - Mission: Breakout. Which is nice as well. However, it's essentially the same ride as Tower of Terror was. The only difference is it now features the Guardians of the Galaxy. Which is a nice addition, but basically the same ride as Tower of Terror was. In fact; it's the newest attraction since Cars Land opened in 2012 at the Disneyland Resort. Yes, Disneyland features many great attractions. However, majority of them are at least 10 years or older. Although great rides, some of my favorites at any Disney park, such as Indiana Jones, the best version of Pirates, and Radiator Springs, just to name a few.

Yes, Disneyland has expanded in the past 20 years. They built California Adventure, and have expanded the park as well. They have done a great job with that. However, the park opened in 2001. It's already 16 years old. In my opinion, there is still work to be done with the park. Although it's come a long way since it first opened. As great as Cars Land is, it' will already be 6 years old next June. Other than the Little Mermaid, and re-theming Tower of Terror, there hasn't been a whole lot done in that park. Disneyland hasn't added any new rides If you think about it, other than updating "Star Tours," Disneyland Park has not had a new rides since the 1990's. Although all the rides still hold up, and are some of my favorites. The Nightmare Before Christmas, A Small World Holiday, and Space Mountain holidays are very nice. But the rest of the year are the original rides. Which are very good in their own right.

So yes, Disneyland offers many attractions, however, Disneyland Park itself has not been updated since the 90's. California Adventure will expand in the future. Which will be a nice upgrade to the resort. But look at Disney World. In the past 5 years alone, they've added the Seven Dwarfs Mine Train, Pandora, and Frozen Ever After. Now they are going to be adding Tron, Ratatouille, Guardians of the Galaxy, Star Wars Land, Toy Story Land, and Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway. I'm not sure why you guys aren't the least bit curious? With all the new rides that will be in Disney World, they could have created a 5th park if they wanted to. After all is said and done, they would have added at least 10 new attractions. It just seems like an awful lot to me. Where Disneyland is receiving just Star Wars Land. Which will be in Florida as well. I just don't understand it. I'm just more curious as to why?

“With all the new rides that will be in Disney World, they could have created a 5th park if they wanted to.”

So the trade off is the continued deterioration of the other half day parks?

To ask the question is to answer it. Disney spends its money where it wants.

Timbo: Why are you so impossible? why why why?

I’m so curious why Timbo keeps asking the same questions over and over again. Why? Why?

“So the trade off is the continued deterioration of the other half day parks?” What does that even mean? I’m not sure what you mean by that? Yes, Disney can spend its money how it wants. I don’t care about that. I don’t care how they spend their money.

How am I being impossible? How? How? How? Well, Anton, can you, or anyone else explain why Disney World is building so many new attractions, and Disneyland isn’t? Do you know the answer. Since you seem to be such a them park expert. All is want to know is why? And “Disney spends its money where it wants” is not a strong enough answer.

I feel that Robert Niles, or AJ Hummel are the only ones who can provide me with a clear, and concise answer.

Timbo: AJ already given up on you.

You’re not willing to accept an answer. You’re impossible. Saying my answer isn’t strong enough for you is a special kind of arrogance. I’m not a theme park expert, but most certainly you are. You’re such an expert to deny any answers we give you. Good luck trolling other discussion forums.

Contrary to what you may think, Anton, I have not necessarily given up. I have just been too busy to check back in...my hours at work got unexpectedly doubled this week.

Timbo, as mentioned above, the quantity of existing attractions and the amount of available space are significant reasons why Disneyland appears to be getting less investment. However, demographics also play a large part. To examine this, let's start with Walt Disney World...

At the moment, Walt Disney World contains four theme parks, two water parks, and numerous hotels and other attractions. It is a huge tourist destination, and sees more visitors than any other theme park-related attraction in the world. However, it has gotten increasingly expensive, and the resort relies on guests visiting for a vacation in order to survive. While some may go every year or two regardless, a fair number will not return without a reason to go back. However, in the past 10 years, New Fantasyland and Pandora have been the only travel-worthy additions to be added. As a result, people have started to look elsewhere for their vacations, and many of those making return trips are shortening their visits to just see Magic Kingdom and Animal Kingdom, spending the extra time at Universal Orlando or elsewhere. Notice that Epcot and Hollywood Studios are getting the brunt of the refurbishments, and for good reason...Epcot is more popular with locals than tourists right now, and a fair number of visitors don't even visit DHS. Disney wants to change that, and wants people to resume the week-long vacation that was the norm 10 years ago (the average is now 4 days). Currently, Magic Kingdom is worth about 1.5 days, Epcot and DAK are worth a day each, and DHS is worth about a half day. Ideally, Magic Kingdom and Epcot should be 2 day parks, while DHS and DAK should be able to fill a full day. That is the goal of all these additions.

Meanwhile, Disneyland consists of two theme parks that together offer about three-fourths of the attraction count of all four Walt Disney World parks combined. The rest of the resort consists of little more than three hotels and an outdoor shopping mall. For someone traveling from some distance away, that doesn't seem too impressive. However, 80% of Disneyland's attendance consists of visitors who live within a two hour drive of the resort, and the overwhelming majority are just there for the day. As a result, a lot of visitors hold annual passes and make frequent visits, and for those that don't it takes a lot less to persuade them to make a return visit. In the past 10 years, Disneyland has added 8 or 9 "new" attractions that would be tempting to most local visitors, as well as a number of other additions that play on the nostalgia factor in order to get people to come back. Unlike the Florida parks, major renovations and new versions of old attractions are often sufficient to draw non-AP guests back for another visit, and when an actual brand new ride opens the crowds are overwhelming.

This leads to a question: If Disneyland can remain near the maximum viable capacity of the resort with only moderate investments, do they need to spend billions of dollars on travel-worthy additions? No, at least not to the extent that is being done in Florida. Unlike Walt Disney World, there is limited growth potential for Disneyland, as many of those who are going to visit already do. While a major attraction like Star Wars Land may create a temporary spike in attendance numbers, it alone will not result in long-term effects, and repeated investments of that scale would have a similar effect (spikes with below-average periods in between). The only way investments on the scale of Florida would make sense is if Disneyland can successfully increase their audience to have less reliance on locals who would likely visit anyway, and more reliance on tourists who may not have considered a visit otherwise. To do that, much infrastructure work is needed first, or the tourists will be unable to visit.

Lastly, keep this in mind: In Florida, most visitors do not park hop. Because of the time involved, it is generally not worth it. In California, however, park hopping is very common, so the need to add attractions to one park over the other is lessened. Until Disney decides to eliminate (or at least restrict) park hopping, most visitors are fine with Disneyland offering twice as many attractions as DCA because they can still access well over a day's worth of attractions easily.

Thank you AJ, for all of the information. I really appreciate it. I have a much better understanding now.

Interesting comments. I agree that Disneyland is extremely limited in what it can do due to geography and political limitations (which is why Walt created WDW in the first place). I like both DL and WDW for different reasons, with DL getting the slight edge since it uses the old FP system instead of FP+, but WDW is wonderful. The comment that intrigued me what that people park hop more at DL than at WDW. That surprises me. I rarely ever park hop at DL. I like to totally immerse myself into DL and, if I do park hop, only spend half a day at DCA, and go back to DL. A perfect DL vacation is three days for me with the first and last day at DL. You can also spend time seeing the sites of Southern California if you are brave enough to fight that traffic.

At WDW, or Orlando, I always park hop. Usually I will send full days at MK, but AK closes early, DHS is a half day, and later in the trip we bounce around. We have even hit three parks a day. Starting at MK early and unwinding at EK for dinner is great. Of course, The optimal Orlando trip for us is Disney for six days and Universal for three, with Universal at the end with Express Pass to get the FP+ taste out of our mouth.

It will be very interesting to see how they plan to manage the crowds for Star Wars. The current system will certainly not work. People will accept the delays and downtimes for Avatar. Not sure they will for Star Wars. The traffic in Anaheim will be horrendous.

"can you, or anyone else explain why Disney World is building so many new attractions, and Disneyland isn’t?"

In addition to AJ's rather detailed response, this question was answered a number of times throughout this thread.

The bottom line is that the WDW parks did not get much investment for over 10 years, so overdue additions and other investments have been announced to address this shortfall (in addition to the pivot of DHS away from the Studio Park concept). The Disneyland Resort recently completed a huge investment cycle and has announced plans (as well as tentative plans) for more additions/replacements, but as with anything at the California parks, anything not formally announced is contingent upon the City of Anaheim and freeing up park space. It shouldn't be that difficult to understand or process. It still doesn't explain your reasoning behind the original subject of the thread. If you wanted to know why WDW was getting more additions than DL, why didn't you ask that in the first place? Instead you cryptically asked what the exact dates for the debuts of the Galaxy's Edge projects were going to be.

AJ: To answer to your question, you actually didn't. "If Disneyland can remain near the maximum viable capacity of the resort with only moderate investments, do they need to spend billions of dollars on travel-worthy additions? No, at least not to the extent that is being done in Florida."

Disneyland reached capacity at 16 million yearly visitors according to TEA estimates. MK is always higher at 17 to 18 million yearly visitors. For Disneyland to exceed demand at higher levels, it HAS to increase park capacity in acreage and attractions. Star Wars Land will help tremendously to do this. The added 14 acre addition with 2 new E-Ticket attractions will put Disneyland beyond MK, at least until Tron opens. I predict Disneyland will add at least 8 to 10K additional daily visitors. Surely, 3 to 4 million on top of current attendance. In admissions alone, that's another $300 million in additional revenue. That's worth the billions of dollars in investment.

Russell Meyer, originally, I did want to know the dates of Galaxy Edge. But I also wanted to know why Disney World was getting a large expansion, rather than Disneyland. I understand now. I just wasn’t sure before. Thank you everyone for your responses. I’m sorry if I confused or angered anyone. Please know that was never my intent.