9 ms·

I always wondered why Disney doesn't open a third park somewhere square in the middle of the U.S. There's literally no competition with Disney parks as they're

I always wondered why Disney doesn't open a third park somewhere square in the middle of the U.S. There's literally no competition with Disney parks as they're one-of-a-kind and it would both open more space at their other parks and bring in a huge segment of the population that doesn't go to their parks simply because of travel costs. Disneyland and Disney World are always busy. Look at the data. It might be time.

borne0 9y ago
population density maybe? for both customers and ensuring a steady supply of workers.
- Simulacra 9y ago
  I don't think it's population density. I grew up in this town called Augusta, Georgia. Every year there's this event that draws people from all over the world. Despite two hours, give or take, major cities, it draws them in. Another point of view is that areas with less population density are use to commuting long distances. Put something like a Disney park in the middle of Kansas and people WILL come, and within ten years the cities closest to that park will be booming too.
  - cuchoi 9y ago
    Maybe US Americans will go. But, as you say, there is an important share of the market that are internationals.
    - delinka 9y ago
      And they'll continue going to Orlando and LA. The idea isn't to replace the existing parks as a destination. Nor to offer something so different as to be yet another must-see Disney attraction. A copy of Orlando some place in the heartland would give access to more Americans.
    - hinkley 9y ago
      Well that argues for putting one outside of Fort Worth, TX, then. But the current hubs might not stay the only hubs. The new Boeing planes are rated for about 500 miles longer range, so that's going to put a lot of airports inland from the coasts as reachable from Europe and Asia, and a lot of coastal cities with smaller, cheaper airplanes.
  - privong 9y ago
    > I don't think it's population density. I grew up in this town called Augusta, Georgia. Every year there's this event that draws people from all over the world. Despite two hours, give or take, major cities, it draws them in. I think there's a big difference here – it's one thing to draw a large crowd for a single ~weeklong event, and another to do it continuously over the course of a year. I imagine the staffing requirements for Augusta National are different the week of the Masters versus the rest of the year (and I know that at least some of the additional staffing is done by volunteers). So the economics are wildly different. A Disneyland in the heart of the US would probably require fairly high staffing levels continuously. So this would require a fairly consistent attendance. Sure, there will be seasonal/holiday variations, but I doubt a theme park could survive the attendance amplitude swing that Augusta National sees between the Masters and the rest of the year.
Simulacra 9y ago
"Disney Heartland" right smack in the middle of Kansas would be huge, not just to the local economies, but also to the tax base, and tourism.
- xxpor 9y ago
  Too far from an airport.
- dkonofalski 9y ago
  Tornados would never let that work.
  - idlewords 9y ago
    Charge extra for the tornadoes. Call it a ride.
    - qbrass 9y ago
      Shuttle service to the land of Oz.
      - josiahpeters 9y ago
        I think they'll have to figure out the IP out first. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_The_Wizard_of_Oz_and_related_works_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_The_Wiza... Sounds like WB and Disney both have claims to different aspects. Interesting bit in the Wikipedia article with Disney having a copyright expert on set to help them choose a color of green that wasn't infringing.
    - dkonofalski 9y ago
      Thanks for my huge laugh today. ;)
- rich335z 9y ago
  Erratic weather might be a concern... large amounts of severe thunderstorms, hail, tornadoes in the Spring, and snow and ice in Fall/Winter could be quite disruptive. A little further east might alleviate some of that, though
th0ma5 9y ago
They tried: http://www.businessinsider.com/disney-america-theme-park-history-2016-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/disney-america-theme-park-his...
- dkonofalski 9y ago
  Not the same thing. Disney America was an American History-themed park that was going to be outside of Washington, DC. I mean a park like Disneyland or Disney World, but in Kansas or Texas or something like that.
  - mobilefriendly 9y ago
    Yeah Disney America was planned for Virginia horse country outside of DC, some of the most beautiful and wealthy real estate in the region. The NIMBY factor was fierce and the locals were DC elites who wanted no part of it.
    - tssva 9y ago
      It was more next door to horse country than actual horse country. The big rallying point was that it was going to encroach on the civil war battlefield nearby. Disney actually had a large buffer between the park and the battlefield. Now what would have been a preserved forest buffer is either a housing development or is planned to be one. In fact almost all the land that was going to be Disney America is all housing developments which have brought more people and traffic than Disney America would have and less jobs and tax revenue. Years before Disney America the same people that led the opposition to it blocked Legoland from opening in the eastern half of the same county. Again the area is now all housing developments and shopping centers.
- kurttheviking 9y ago
  I think the mistake with that was the focus: "the park was to have been dedicated to the history of the United States"[1]. Given the popularity of existing parks, I think it's fair to say people (especially those with kids) seeking a vacation at Disney want castles, Mickey Mouse, Space Mountain, etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney%27s_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney%27s_America
ultimoo 9y ago
I am guessing weather has something to do with this. Do other places in the center of the country have a similar all year mild weather as So Cal or Orlando? Overall this a great idea though, families could fly in to an airport close to the amusement parks, stay for a few days and directly fly out -- you're right in that there is little reason for an amusement park to be in one of the most expensive places in the country.
- dkonofalski 9y ago
  I thought about weather but there are places in Arizona and Colorado or even Texas that weather would not be a problem. It would almost definitely need to be in the southern half of the US, but I think it could still work.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    Most of the US has a "continental climate", with no moderating effect from nearby oceans, so you end up with hot, humid summers, and overcast, biting winters. So there's a zone of decent climate, where it is far enough north to have just enough freeze days in winter to kill off the worst insects, and far enough south to have a decent selection of perennial landscaping plants. The northern contour of the zone approximates lines through these cities: Pueblo, Colorado Kansas City, Kansas/Missouri St. Louis, Missouri/Illinois Louisville, Kentucky/Indiana Cincinnati, Ohio/Kentucky Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania The southern contour roughly follows: Santa Fe, New Mexico Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Memphis, Tennessee/Arkansas Chattanooga, Tennessee/Georgia North of that zone, you can't really keep a park open year-round, through the winter, and south of it, the summer months get too brutal for tourist comfort, until you get close enough to the coasts to tame the local climate. A park near the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers would have its pick of 5 different jurisdictions, decent climate, and access to nigh-unlimited water and TVA hydro and nuclear power. And you could reasonably buy up a lot of land cheaply without the locals figuring out who is doing it or why, just as it was done in central Florida.
    - idlewords 9y ago
Aloha 9y ago
Weather is the largest issue - a Disney park will generate its own traffic flows - Orlando was not a population center in 1971 (when WDW opened). You could do a park somewhere in Texas - the weather is hospitable, but I dont think Disney is interested in the investment to do so right now.
- dave5104 9y ago
  They just finished building Shanghai Disneyland, which apparently caused a few budget issues in the Parks & Resorts division, so I think you're right about a third US location being off the table for now. Disney also recently bought out the owners of Disneyland Paris, so they'll probably be putting some investment into that park as well (since it's sorely needed--DLP is considered one of the lesser Disney parks).
  - InTheArena 9y ago
    Which is a bit unfortunate. I visited it for the first time this year, and absolutely loved it. The Hollywood studios there is very “lightly” themed, but the magic kingdom there was absolutely wonderful. It reminded me of what Disneyland was like in my youth. The pirates land there, as well as the Thunder mountain close are absolutely the best versions that I have seen. Disney’s been bailing out the French corporation that theoretically owns half of DLP for a while. That structure was difficult to work with, but they also didn’t have the revenue that Disneyland Paris has (where they have a similar structure).
    - Aloha 9y ago
      DLP has been consistently underperforming when compared to the other parks. You are correct though, it is one of the most beautiful.
      - raverbashing 9y ago
        Apart from managerial issues, I wonder if weather has something to do with it (it rains a lot in Paris) South of France or Spain might have been a better pick but of course there's the issue of access
InTheArena 9y ago
Disclaimer - Disney annual passholder here. In terms of where to locate the park, Disney was a big early believer in a analytical approach. They hired SRI to determine the best location for Disneyland back in the 1950s. They came up with a amazing amount of operational and systems research that we use now. The big factors where climate, access to a huge population base, and multiple access to freeways. When it came to Disney World, the factor where those, plus the ability to buy large amount of land before anyone was aware of it, and could drive up prices with speculation. Disney has tried a number of different strategies in the past to make parks more accessible - including the idea of building a Disneyland on a boat, that would travel the world, and stop in various ports for months, before packing up and sailing to the next trip. Most of the demand for Disney growth wise is international, with Brazil probably next to get a park. In terms of line waits, there are two things at play - one Disney has realized that they have been leaving money at the table. Contrary to this article, the vast majortity of the excess demand is not single day visitors at Disneyland, but rather season pass holders in California. This is why they have jacked up the cost for annual passes a ton. I was listening to a podcast recently that postulated that as much as 45% of the daily visitors to Disneyland might be annual pass holders. Expect the cost to go way up - it’s getting close to double the cost of a Disneyland pass compared to a Disney World pass. The other thing is that Disney is putting massive capital into the parks, to grow them. They just opened Avatar land in Animal kingdom, but the most exciting are the new STar Wars Land, Toy Story Land, Epcot overhaul, and marvel land in California. Disney will be adding a ton of capacity, but they are trying to raise ticket prices to offset.
- pfranz 9y ago
  I believe the reason is because they started doing payment plans for annual passes so sales shot up. I'm sure the capital costs are crazy for building a new park, but with all the demand I'm still a bit surprised there's no talk of building a Disney park in the middle of the U.S. They appear to operate very independently (the fact WDW has had fastpass+ and magic bands for years and DL is just now announcing a completely different system, Maxpass). You mentioned demand internationally. Disneyland Paris is the only park outside of the U.S. wholly owned by Disney. Not sure if it was a concession (I could see that for China) or as a risk-sharing thing. I would imagine Disney would want to own 100% of any new park if possible.
forgotpw1123 9y ago
Weather is a huge issue for Disney parks. Both are busy all year round and a third park would be no different. It makes no sense to open parks that can only make money part of the year. The data shows the busiest times are December, March, and May so it would be really stupid to put a park anywhere those months have bad weather. This leaves the South and West Coast. Dallas and Oklahoma City are the only realistic places for another park that's easier to get to from the Midwest.
- blktiger 9y ago
  There are plenty of other amusement parks across the country that aren't open all year, why does a Disney park need to be open all year?
briandear 9y ago
They own several hundred acres slightly northwest of Houston. It’s a brilliant location: major airport hub, gateway city to Latin America, solid (but often hot) weather, far enough from the coast to mitigate serious hurricane risk, low costs, large labor pool. But it takes years and years for these things to happen, if they ever happen. The land purchase was probably 9 years ago, but with these companies, the price of that sort of land is often just a rounding error, so it’s possible they’ve bought land all over the place to keep options open.
losteverything 9y ago
If you want to see your grandchildren more often live near Disney world. 22 visits in 18 years. If grandparents lived in st Louis i doubt each spring they would get a visit ( as the child dictates vacations often)
- magic_beans 9y ago
  Sounds like spoiled children to me. Parents have a responsibility to ensure a strong relationship between children and grandparents.
  - losteverything 9y ago
    With greater income comes greater mobility. Parents retiring to a place more than a short drive away has unintended consequences. Or children moving far away for employment. In this particular case the gparents moving near WDW made this outcome: post child rearing, only 35 separate visits for the rest of their lifetime (25+ yrs) each visit required plane trip & time off. It was the gparents choice to move so far away..... And WDW was a wonderful place to share our time together.
    - cableshaft 9y ago
      Better than grandparents moving states away to Arizona. We visited them twice in about 25 years (although they visited us several times, so we still saw them once every year or two). My other grandparents lived in the same city, so I got to experience both near and far. I definitely saw the ones in town a lot more often (at least 30 times a year, I think).
- ourmandave 9y ago
  Or like most of my retired neighbors, live nearby and offer to babysit. You'll get 18 visits in 22 days.
  - JshWright 9y ago
    There's a reason we bought a house directly across the street from my parents (that reason was that my wife was pregnant with twins...)
gwbas1c 9y ago
Because no one lives in the center of the US; most of us live close to the coasts. It's easier to travel to LA or Orlando than to the center of the country.
- mercutio2 9y ago
  I live on the coast, but the notion that no one lives in the Midwest is absurd and derisive. About two thirds of the US population live in coastal states, but that includes gulf coast states which are pretty central on the east west axis. That still leaves a third of the population, with the Chicago metro area being one of the largest and densest catch basins.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    The Great Lakes megalopolis has more people in it than the Boston-to-DC Northeast megalopolis.
- dkonofalski 9y ago
  That's, quite possibly, one of the silliest things I've ever heard. At least 50% of the U.S. population doesn't live near the coasts.
  - mercutio2 9y ago
    Surprisingly, when I went to debunk the original ridiculous statement, I found that if you count the gulf coast, it’s only a third of the US population that doesn’t live in an ocean-adjacent state. “No one” is still the silliest thing I’ve heard for a while, though!
- DerekL 9y ago
  Plenty of people live all over the eastern half of the US. It's only the western half that is mostly empty except for the coast. Here's the population by time zone, in millions: Eastern: 150.2 (47.1%) Central: 92.3 (29.0%) Mountain: 21.3 (6.7%) Pacific: 53.0 (16.6%) https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-the-US-population-lives-in-the-Eastern-Central-and-Pacific-timezones-respectively https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-the-US-population-l...

borne0 9y ago

population density maybe? for both customers and ensuring a steady supply of workers.

Simulacra 9y ago
I don't think it's population density. I grew up in this town called Augusta, Georgia. Every year there's this event that draws people from all over the world. Despite two hours, give or take, major cities, it draws them in. Another point of view is that areas with less population density are use to commuting long distances. Put something like a Disney park in the middle of Kansas and people WILL come, and within ten years the cities closest to that park will be booming too.
- cuchoi 9y ago
  Maybe US Americans will go. But, as you say, there is an important share of the market that are internationals.
  - delinka 9y ago
    And they'll continue going to Orlando and LA. The idea isn't to replace the existing parks as a destination. Nor to offer something so different as to be yet another must-see Disney attraction. A copy of Orlando some place in the heartland would give access to more Americans.
  - hinkley 9y ago
    Well that argues for putting one outside of Fort Worth, TX, then. But the current hubs might not stay the only hubs. The new Boeing planes are rated for about 500 miles longer range, so that's going to put a lot of airports inland from the coasts as reachable from Europe and Asia, and a lot of coastal cities with smaller, cheaper airplanes.
- privong 9y ago
  > I don't think it's population density. I grew up in this town called Augusta, Georgia. Every year there's this event that draws people from all over the world. Despite two hours, give or take, major cities, it draws them in. I think there's a big difference here – it's one thing to draw a large crowd for a single ~weeklong event, and another to do it continuously over the course of a year. I imagine the staffing requirements for Augusta National are different the week of the Masters versus the rest of the year (and I know that at least some of the additional staffing is done by volunteers). So the economics are wildly different. A Disneyland in the heart of the US would probably require fairly high staffing levels continuously. So this would require a fairly consistent attendance. Sure, there will be seasonal/holiday variations, but I doubt a theme park could survive the attendance amplitude swing that Augusta National sees between the Masters and the rest of the year.

Simulacra 9y ago

"Disney Heartland" right smack in the middle of Kansas would be huge, not just to the local economies, but also to the tax base, and tourism.

xxpor 9y ago
Too far from an airport.
dkonofalski 9y ago
Tornados would never let that work.
- idlewords 9y ago
  Charge extra for the tornadoes. Call it a ride.
  - qbrass 9y ago
    Shuttle service to the land of Oz.
    - josiahpeters 9y ago
      I think they'll have to figure out the IP out first. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_The_Wizard_of_Oz_and_related_works_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_The_Wiza... Sounds like WB and Disney both have claims to different aspects. Interesting bit in the Wikipedia article with Disney having a copyright expert on set to help them choose a color of green that wasn't infringing.
  - dkonofalski 9y ago
    Thanks for my huge laugh today. ;)
rich335z 9y ago
Erratic weather might be a concern... large amounts of severe thunderstorms, hail, tornadoes in the Spring, and snow and ice in Fall/Winter could be quite disruptive. A little further east might alleviate some of that, though

th0ma5 9y ago

They tried: http://www.businessinsider.com/disney-america-theme-park-history-2016-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/disney-america-theme-park-his...

dkonofalski 9y ago
Not the same thing. Disney America was an American History-themed park that was going to be outside of Washington, DC. I mean a park like Disneyland or Disney World, but in Kansas or Texas or something like that.
- mobilefriendly 9y ago
  Yeah Disney America was planned for Virginia horse country outside of DC, some of the most beautiful and wealthy real estate in the region. The NIMBY factor was fierce and the locals were DC elites who wanted no part of it.
  - tssva 9y ago
    It was more next door to horse country than actual horse country. The big rallying point was that it was going to encroach on the civil war battlefield nearby. Disney actually had a large buffer between the park and the battlefield. Now what would have been a preserved forest buffer is either a housing development or is planned to be one. In fact almost all the land that was going to be Disney America is all housing developments which have brought more people and traffic than Disney America would have and less jobs and tax revenue. Years before Disney America the same people that led the opposition to it blocked Legoland from opening in the eastern half of the same county. Again the area is now all housing developments and shopping centers.
kurttheviking 9y ago
I think the mistake with that was the focus: "the park was to have been dedicated to the history of the United States"[1]. Given the popularity of existing parks, I think it's fair to say people (especially those with kids) seeking a vacation at Disney want castles, Mickey Mouse, Space Mountain, etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney%27s_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney%27s_America

ultimoo 9y ago

I am guessing weather has something to do with this. Do other places in the center of the country have a similar all year mild weather as So Cal or Orlando? Overall this a great idea though, families could fly in to an airport close to the amusement parks, stay for a few days and directly fly out -- you're right in that there is little reason for an amusement park to be in one of the most expensive places in the country.

dkonofalski 9y ago
I thought about weather but there are places in Arizona and Colorado or even Texas that weather would not be a problem. It would almost definitely need to be in the southern half of the US, but I think it could still work.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  Most of the US has a "continental climate", with no moderating effect from nearby oceans, so you end up with hot, humid summers, and overcast, biting winters. So there's a zone of decent climate, where it is far enough north to have just enough freeze days in winter to kill off the worst insects, and far enough south to have a decent selection of perennial landscaping plants. The northern contour of the zone approximates lines through these cities: Pueblo, Colorado Kansas City, Kansas/Missouri St. Louis, Missouri/Illinois Louisville, Kentucky/Indiana Cincinnati, Ohio/Kentucky Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania The southern contour roughly follows: Santa Fe, New Mexico Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Memphis, Tennessee/Arkansas Chattanooga, Tennessee/Georgia North of that zone, you can't really keep a park open year-round, through the winter, and south of it, the summer months get too brutal for tourist comfort, until you get close enough to the coasts to tame the local climate. A park near the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers would have its pick of 5 different jurisdictions, decent climate, and access to nigh-unlimited water and TVA hydro and nuclear power. And you could reasonably buy up a lot of land cheaply without the locals figuring out who is doing it or why, just as it was done in central Florida.
  - idlewords 9y ago

Aloha 9y ago

Weather is the largest issue - a Disney park will generate its own traffic flows - Orlando was not a population center in 1971 (when WDW opened). You could do a park somewhere in Texas - the weather is hospitable, but I dont think Disney is interested in the investment to do so right now.

dave5104 9y ago
They just finished building Shanghai Disneyland, which apparently caused a few budget issues in the Parks & Resorts division, so I think you're right about a third US location being off the table for now. Disney also recently bought out the owners of Disneyland Paris, so they'll probably be putting some investment into that park as well (since it's sorely needed--DLP is considered one of the lesser Disney parks).
- InTheArena 9y ago
  Which is a bit unfortunate. I visited it for the first time this year, and absolutely loved it. The Hollywood studios there is very “lightly” themed, but the magic kingdom there was absolutely wonderful. It reminded me of what Disneyland was like in my youth. The pirates land there, as well as the Thunder mountain close are absolutely the best versions that I have seen. Disney’s been bailing out the French corporation that theoretically owns half of DLP for a while. That structure was difficult to work with, but they also didn’t have the revenue that Disneyland Paris has (where they have a similar structure).
  - Aloha 9y ago
    DLP has been consistently underperforming when compared to the other parks. You are correct though, it is one of the most beautiful.
    - raverbashing 9y ago
      Apart from managerial issues, I wonder if weather has something to do with it (it rains a lot in Paris) South of France or Spain might have been a better pick but of course there's the issue of access

InTheArena 9y ago

Disclaimer - Disney annual passholder here. In terms of where to locate the park, Disney was a big early believer in a analytical approach. They hired SRI to determine the best location for Disneyland back in the 1950s. They came up with a amazing amount of operational and systems research that we use now. The big factors where climate, access to a huge population base, and multiple access to freeways. When it came to Disney World, the factor where those, plus the ability to buy large amount of land before anyone was aware of it, and could drive up prices with speculation. Disney has tried a number of different strategies in the past to make parks more accessible - including the idea of building a Disneyland on a boat, that would travel the world, and stop in various ports for months, before packing up and sailing to the next trip. Most of the demand for Disney growth wise is international, with Brazil probably next to get a park. In terms of line waits, there are two things at play - one Disney has realized that they have been leaving money at the table. Contrary to this article, the vast majortity of the excess demand is not single day visitors at Disneyland, but rather season pass holders in California. This is why they have jacked up the cost for annual passes a ton. I was listening to a podcast recently that postulated that as much as 45% of the daily visitors to Disneyland might be annual pass holders. Expect the cost to go way up - it’s getting close to double the cost of a Disneyland pass compared to a Disney World pass. The other thing is that Disney is putting massive capital into the parks, to grow them. They just opened Avatar land in Animal kingdom, but the most exciting are the new STar Wars Land, Toy Story Land, Epcot overhaul, and marvel land in California. Disney will be adding a ton of capacity, but they are trying to raise ticket prices to offset.

pfranz 9y ago
I believe the reason is because they started doing payment plans for annual passes so sales shot up. I'm sure the capital costs are crazy for building a new park, but with all the demand I'm still a bit surprised there's no talk of building a Disney park in the middle of the U.S. They appear to operate very independently (the fact WDW has had fastpass+ and magic bands for years and DL is just now announcing a completely different system, Maxpass). You mentioned demand internationally. Disneyland Paris is the only park outside of the U.S. wholly owned by Disney. Not sure if it was a concession (I could see that for China) or as a risk-sharing thing. I would imagine Disney would want to own 100% of any new park if possible.

forgotpw1123 9y ago

Weather is a huge issue for Disney parks. Both are busy all year round and a third park would be no different. It makes no sense to open parks that can only make money part of the year. The data shows the busiest times are December, March, and May so it would be really stupid to put a park anywhere those months have bad weather. This leaves the South and West Coast. Dallas and Oklahoma City are the only realistic places for another park that's easier to get to from the Midwest.

blktiger 9y ago
There are plenty of other amusement parks across the country that aren't open all year, why does a Disney park need to be open all year?

briandear 9y ago

They own several hundred acres slightly northwest of Houston. It’s a brilliant location: major airport hub, gateway city to Latin America, solid (but often hot) weather, far enough from the coast to mitigate serious hurricane risk, low costs, large labor pool. But it takes years and years for these things to happen, if they ever happen. The land purchase was probably 9 years ago, but with these companies, the price of that sort of land is often just a rounding error, so it’s possible they’ve bought land all over the place to keep options open.

losteverything 9y ago

If you want to see your grandchildren more often live near Disney world. 22 visits in 18 years. If grandparents lived in st Louis i doubt each spring they would get a visit ( as the child dictates vacations often)

magic_beans 9y ago
Sounds like spoiled children to me. Parents have a responsibility to ensure a strong relationship between children and grandparents.
- losteverything 9y ago
  With greater income comes greater mobility. Parents retiring to a place more than a short drive away has unintended consequences. Or children moving far away for employment. In this particular case the gparents moving near WDW made this outcome: post child rearing, only 35 separate visits for the rest of their lifetime (25+ yrs) each visit required plane trip & time off. It was the gparents choice to move so far away..... And WDW was a wonderful place to share our time together.
  - cableshaft 9y ago
    Better than grandparents moving states away to Arizona. We visited them twice in about 25 years (although they visited us several times, so we still saw them once every year or two). My other grandparents lived in the same city, so I got to experience both near and far. I definitely saw the ones in town a lot more often (at least 30 times a year, I think).
ourmandave 9y ago
Or like most of my retired neighbors, live nearby and offer to babysit. You'll get 18 visits in 22 days.
- JshWright 9y ago
  There's a reason we bought a house directly across the street from my parents (that reason was that my wife was pregnant with twins...)

gwbas1c 9y ago

Because no one lives in the center of the US; most of us live close to the coasts. It's easier to travel to LA or Orlando than to the center of the country.

mercutio2 9y ago
I live on the coast, but the notion that no one lives in the Midwest is absurd and derisive. About two thirds of the US population live in coastal states, but that includes gulf coast states which are pretty central on the east west axis. That still leaves a third of the population, with the Chicago metro area being one of the largest and densest catch basins.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  The Great Lakes megalopolis has more people in it than the Boston-to-DC Northeast megalopolis.
dkonofalski 9y ago
That's, quite possibly, one of the silliest things I've ever heard. At least 50% of the U.S. population doesn't live near the coasts.
- mercutio2 9y ago
  Surprisingly, when I went to debunk the original ridiculous statement, I found that if you count the gulf coast, it’s only a third of the US population that doesn’t live in an ocean-adjacent state. “No one” is still the silliest thing I’ve heard for a while, though!
DerekL 9y ago
Plenty of people live all over the eastern half of the US. It's only the western half that is mostly empty except for the coast. Here's the population by time zone, in millions: Eastern: 150.2 (47.1%) Central: 92.3 (29.0%) Mountain: 21.3 (6.7%) Pacific: 53.0 (16.6%) https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-the-US-population-lives-in-the-Eastern-Central-and-Pacific-timezones-respectively https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-the-US-population-l...