A VERY interesting article, WELL worth a full read:

...Walt’s proposal to build his own attractions was met with skepticism. The naysayers said, “Custom rides will never work. They will cost too much to buy and they will be constantly breaking down, resulting in reduced ride capacity and angry customers.” They suggested, “Only stock off-the-shelf rides are cheap enough and reliable enough to do the job. And besides, the public doesn’t know the difference or care.” They also determined that there was not enough ride capacity to make a profit.

After reviewing the park’s layout as designed by Marvin Davis, they were critical. In their experience, the fatal flaw was the single entrance into the park. This would mean a bottleneck at the front gate and that was unacceptable. They suggested the need for entrances all around the park next to parking lots and transit if Walt wanted to be successful....

http://micechat.com/forums/blogs/samland/1809-wheres-window-buzz-price-story-part-ii.html

See also:

http://www.patheos.com/community/deaconsbench/2011/04/21/further-proof-that-no-one-knows-anything/

Wasn't it Walt himself that said; "It's kinda fun doing the impossible"?

Only stock off-the-shelf rides are cheap enough and reliable enough to do the job.

What point are your trying to make by posting a map of Disney`s California Adventure?

I think his point is off-the-shelf rides are cheap.

I believe his point is that when Disney did in fact use that concept of "off the shelf"/"traditional" rides, it didn't work out too well as California's Adventure has certainly been met with moderate success.

While I`ve never been to Disney`s California Adventure, I know that not all of their rides were off the shelf rides. Yes, Disney didn`t get California`s Adventure exactly right the first time, which is why they are spending so much money on that park right now. Yes, certain elements of the park appeared cheap when they first opened, and Disney was also scorned for their imitations of California culture. I visited Animal Kingdom back in 2004, before the Nemo musical and Expedition Everest were completed. Back then, the park was at best a half day park. Disney has invested in new attractions in the park to round out its attraction lineup, but it is still not an all day park like the other Disney World parks.

Disney parks are remarkable for the way that they handle capacity on rides, and the attention to even the most minute details. If you have never been to a Disney park, I HIGHLY recommend a visit. It is well worth the time. Even for those that are "big kids" because we are all young kids at heart. Personally, I hope to be able to get out to Disneyland and Disney`s California Adventure some day. Doesn`t look like it will happen in the next few years, but that is my ultimate goal.

Although, I don't think DCA always got a fair shake. I was there the first time before the park actually opened to the public for an Anaheim hospitality industry preview, then again just last October. And, while I think it's significantly better now than the first time, I never thought it was as bad as some people reviewed. Now, if DCA were a stand-alone park I might feel differently, but I think it makes a good companion park to DL. I spent 3 full days at the DL resort in October, and never felt challenged in filling that time there.

If you have never been to a Disney park, I HIGHLY recommend a visit. It is well worth the time. Even for those that are "big kids" because we are all young kids at heart.

Agreed! I was 21 the first time I visited Disney World and honestly feel I enjoyed it far more then I would have at 5-6.

I was 43. A determined Disney despiser. From corporate philosophy to American blandizing, I knew I would not like Disney. A good friend was going to WDW for his graduation trip, and I was fortunate enough to tag along. I had told myself I would not be a killjoy (and we largely had separate trips together, except for the getting there and getting back). Man, was I ever surprised. I was assimilated! And how.

Now, Disneyland (and yes, California Adventure) is among my top tier, most favorite parks. Same for The Studio Park (it's still MGM to me) in Florida....Some day, I simply must get to Paris, and to Japan...but the parks won't be the predominant reason for those trips. But they will be included.

Disney is not just for kids.

"

“Most of Mr. Disney’s proposed park produces no revenue but it will be expensive to build and maintain,” said the focus group. “Things like the castle and pirate ship are cute but they aren’t rides so there is no economic reason to build them. There is too much wasteful landscaping.” They also found other examples of waste. Spaces like Town Square with its little park, City Hall, and a fire station were not designed to make any money. That was a poor use of real estate and did not add to the bottom line. Even the Main Street vehicles like the horse trolley, fire truck, and omnibus would be money-losers because they also suffered from a

capacity issue."

If only other parks saw/see what disney sees in the little extras.... reminds me the way a certain park once looked/felt

"Even the Main Street vehicles like the horse trolley, fire truck, and omnibus would be money-losers because they also suffered from a

capacity issue."

I think the horse trolley is one of my biggest dissapointments with WDW. I feel SO sorry for those poor horses having to haul the tourists up and down the street.

I think the same "atmosphere" effect could be acheived just by having the horse & trolley standing still (in the shade) for a photo op.

I am truly surprised that the park still sees the need for this "ride".

I personally liked DCA better when it opened than now. Replacing a fun thrill ride with a "park area" is one of the worst decisions I've seen from Disney in quite a while.

Of course, I'm stupid enough to think that animated characters and Esurance commercials don't belong in Epcot, so that shows what I know. Oh, and I very dearly miss Dreamflight.