Fewer Imagineers in Glendale California starting this week
Fall is a season of change. Yesterday, as I write this, WDI laid off between 100 and 200 Imagineers. During my decades with the company, I saw this cycle repeat, most notably during the Disney Decade. Planned projects drove a major hiring expansion, with new employees regularly announced in WDI’s company newspaper. Those notices stopped when most of the projects were cancelled, and mass layoffs followed. Imagineering is a project-based business: fewer projects mean less need for a large staff.
Why did this happen, and what parallels can we draw?
Reason #1: Financial Struggles. Euro Disneyland’s disappointing opening and heavy debt put severe pressure on Disney’s finances. Then, as now, economic downturns prompted the company to reassess investment in future projects. In 2026, rising energy costs reduced visitation to Walt Disney World, with no sign of near-term relief.
Fewer guests visited Walt Disney World in 2025
Reason #2: Attendance Decline. The TEA Global Experience Index tracks attendance at the world’s most-visited theme parks, water parks, and museums. Produced by TEA with research partners Entertainment + Culture Advisors (ECA) and The Park Database (TPDB), and presenting partner Storyland Studios, it reports that attendance at the top 25 theme parks was essentially flat in 2025, down 0.2%. Disney World is particularly sensitive to global conditions, which are reflected in its 2026 attendance figures.
Current dirt and future site of Disney Abu Dhabi
Reason #3: Global Disruption. In 2026, Disney Abu Dhabi faces risks that were unforeseen when the resort was announced. Those risks will likely persist through 2018.
What Comes Next?
Disney’s announcement of a $60 billion investment in parks and cruise ships raised expectations. Cancelling projects disappoints people, but the financial math suggests that some projects and parks will be cut.
Such cuts may make financial sense, but the human cost is painful. A new generation of Imagineers joined expecting to work on projects such as Avatar, Abu Dhabi, or a second theme park in Shanghai, only to face unemployment if those projects are cancelled. Villains Land could also be vulnerable. Its site has been cleared, with rough grading and retention ponds, but it remains a construction site rather than a build-ready one. At this stage, work could still stop. Its likely price tag—comparable to the reported $1 billion cost of Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge—could put it on the chopping block.
Will Villains Land become dirt behind a fence?
Cuts to Villains Land, Abu Dhabi, and Shanghai, combined with smaller reductions—such as scaling back Disneyland Resort’s Eastside parking structure and cancelling Avatar land at Disney California Adventure (DCA)—could eliminate enough work to explain roughly 200 Imagineer layoffs.
This cycle has happened before and will happen again in a project-based business like Imagineering. Disney’s America is another example and when was the last time you visited that park?
Disney’s America was announced but never built
If we are entering a period of cancellations and lowered expectations, what is likely to remain? At DCA, we can still expect Coco and an expanded Avengers Campus.
In Florida, Tropical Americas may open later than planned, alongside the Monsters, Inc. coaster and Piston Peak at Magic Kingdom. These additions are not disappointing in themselves. The disappointment is that Disney promised something even better—and much more.
I ordered Bob Chapek’s new book, “Behind the Castle Walls,” with great interest and anticipation because of both the period it covers and my personal connection to it. As an Imagineer, I pitched ideas to Chapek in Glendale while he oversawDisney Parks. Earlier in his 30-year career, he led Consumer Products and, before that, Direct-to-Home Video. That career arc offered rich material for an entertaining and informative book, but this is not that book.
Because of the limits imposed by a confidentiality agreement, these views are confined to the public record. Based on that record, however, Chapek’s book is ultimately disappointing: it reads less like a book than a letter of complaint. He portrays himself as poorly served by the circumstances of his tenure as CEO of The Walt Disney Company and blames others for its brevity.
A history book without a index
More complaint letter than book, it resembles a note sent after a new sofa arrives in the wrong color, does not fit the room, or has the armrest on the wrong side. Yet the book neither examines the causes of Chapek’s grievances nor accepts responsibility for his brief tenure.
The book’s central failing is its missed opportunity to illuminate an important era at The Walt Disney Company. Chapek held a rare succession of roles across the business—from Consumer Products and Home Video at its peak to Parks and Resorts and, finally, CEO. He may not have seen everything, but he was in the room for many consequential moments. Missing are stories such as John Lasseter’s influence on Home Video and evidence supporting the claim that Bob Iger retired because he anticipated COVID’s impact on the company.
The book’s tone and structure may reflect Chapek’s co-author, whose published work consists largely of sports books. On a second reading, this book feels much the same: it keeps score, tallying each loss as if recounting a series of games.
Image: CNBC
Biographies are inevitably filtered through personal perception, memory, and bias, but they can still provide a factual record—a standard “Behind the Castle Walls” fails to meet. This material might have worked better as an essay or complaint letter than as a book. Even its presentation raises questions: it lacks an index, and the cover appears to have been created with artificial intelligence.
This book is a missed opportunity—for researchers interested in The Walt Disney Company and for Chapek, if his goal was to provide the definitive account of this period.
D23’s announcement from the chairman was welcome, a little unexpected, and long overdue. It has been years—if not decades—since Disneyland had a truly new Tomorrowland. I know because I worked on the last one, Tomorrowland: Imagination and Beyond. That project was doomed from the start because there was never enough money to fulfill the vision or meet the land’s needs. In Disneyland’s earliest days, Tomorrowland was a technology-focused land with a simple story: a vision of the future set around the time Halley’s Comet would pass Earth.
Starting 1967 Tomorrowland was a ‘World on the Move’.
Tomorrowland remained a showcase of technology until the mid-1960s, when it was reimagined as “the world on the move.” Nothing has topped that version because it had one clear vision: technology served the story. Today, Tomorrowland feels like a mix of ideas, and its central conflict remains unresolved. Fixing that conflict is the key, but finding the right balance is essential. So how should Tomorrowland change?
This is subjective, and reasonable people can disagree. But the first step is to break Tomorrowland into its individual attractions and apply sound creative design principles to each one. From that approach, a list of options begins to emerge, starting with the land’s entrance.
The best welcome Tomorrowland has ever had.
First, I would remove the Astro Orbiter and place a Tomorrowland marquee facing the hub. It serves no purpose where it is other than to block the views into the land. Currently it’s a wall when what’s desired is a doorway.
A billboard is what’s needed at the doorway, and If the park is serious about hope and optimism, there is no stronger statement than bringing back the House of the Future.
The House of the Future was inspirational and helped define the tone ofTomorrowland. Ruth Shellhorn’s drawing shows how clearly, she organized the approach to the land: simple, direct, and framed by two buildings. One was the Hall of Chemistry, sponsored by Monsanto, which would continue sponsoring attractions in this location for years to come. Inner Space was part of Tomorrowland’s DNA and holds up as a classic example of Disney theme park design.
Before Star Tours guests visited the Hall of Chemistry.
After Monsanto left, Star Tours moved in. It is hard to argue that this space needs to change, but I will offer two possible options.
The first is Iron Man Experience. The second is Body Wars.
Body Wars would serve as a tribute to Adventures Through Inner Space and to the version that premiered at Epcot’s Wonders of Life. Both options are simulator attractions, so the ride system is already in place, and both films are strong. Iron Man, however, has one clear advantage: it would give Marvel, and specifically Iron Man, a presence inside Disneyland.
Body Wars was the star ride at Epcot’s Wonders of Life.
For the location housing Buzz Lightyear, there are two options. The obvious choice is to keep Buzz and improve it by coping elements of the recent update made to the Florida version.
The other option is to follow Tokyo Disneyland’s lead, where Tomorrowland is preparing to open a new Wreck-It Ralph attraction. The ride system could stay, while the story and characters change completely.
For the beam way that runs through the land, there is only one real option: bring back the PeopleMover. It would not be simple, but no better choice exists. There is a unique charm in watching guests glide overhead.
The PeopleMover embodies hope and optimism, ease of use and net technology. If Tomorrowland is going to make a statement, this is the one to make.
Rocket Rods had its merits, but nothing has replaced—or ever will replace—the PeopleMover.
Screenshot
Return the Rocket Jets and the PeopleMover to deliver ‘Hope and Optimism’.
Earlier, I removed the Astro Orbiter from the front of the land. Now I would returnit to its original home. To make that work, the park would need either a new elevator or an exterior ramp. Just don’t put your fingers in the metal cage.
For the carousel building, there are again two options: bring in Florida’s updatedCarousel of Progress show or build an Anaheim version of the Tron roller coaster. Much like Florida Tron would then be placed next to Space Mountain but a big, launched coaster would be popular. Both present challenges, but becausethe carousel sits at the end of the path, the space needs a stronger purpose.
When it comes to theater options, there’s really only one that feels natural. Disneyland doesn’t have an enclosed live theater right now, so this would be the place to build one. And then there’s the submarine lagoon. This is the kind of big, out-of-the-box idea I’d consider: replace the subs with Aquatopia.
Aquatopia replacing the Subs would add a ride and kinetic activity.
Tomorrowland has too much nostalgia—and too many memories—to simply erase it and start over. So, for me, the perfect Tomorrowland is a mix of the old and the new, while still holding onto Walt’s original vision: hope and optimism, told through stories grounded in technology. So, looking back at all of theseoptions, this is my list for building a better Tomorrowland. You may agree, you may disagree, and that’s part of the fun. Leave your thoughts in the show notes, and we’ll keep the conversation going there. But no matter where you land, a new Tomorrowland is exciting—as long as they keep the neon, Mickey Mouse.
Neon Spacemouse Mickey defines Hope, Optimism and fun.
When Disney has a successful ride, it usually recreates it elsewhere. Tower of Terror was different: each new version changed in design and purpose.
Tower of Terror concept art Walt Disney Studios Paris
The various Tower of Terror versions differ not only in appearance but also in height. At Disney’s Hollywood Studios, the building stands 199 feet tall—just below the FAA’s 200-foot threshold for requiring an aircraft beacon. A weathervane was built for that purpose but ultimately was never installed. At Disneyland Resort, the structure is a 183-foot-tall tower, and the drop distances vary in different Disney parks.
The first Tower of Terror
The first free-fall ride opened at Six Flags Magic Mountain in 1982. It featured eight coaster-like tracked cars, each seating four passengers in a single row. After backing out of the station, the cars stopped at the base of the tower, were lifted straight up, and then released into the drop. Brakes brought each car to a stop atthe bottom, leaving riders lying on their backs and facing the sky. The cars then returned to the station, completing a short but popular ride.
To experience an original freefall ride, visit Movie Land Studios in Lake Garda, Italy. There, you’ll find the Hollywood Tower, a distinctive attraction whose name echoes Disney’s version but is not the Walt Disney World ride.
Complex but with low ride capacity
It’s right there at the front door and you can see it. It’s a lot of fun, but when you ride it, even when you look at it, it presents its problem immediately. It’s a high demand ride with a very low capacity. The free fall drop tower is a simple idea in theory, but not in practice, at least not when it came time to bring it to the Disney MGM studios. The standard ride would not do for various reasons. So, the Imagineers designed a brand-new system based on a very old system.
Otis Elevator supplied the ride’s transportation system, but Disney wanted something more advanced than a standard free-fall drop. Traditional freefall rides rely on gravity, which limits how fast they can fall. Imagineers wanted the elevator to drop faster than gravity, so they developed an entirely new ride system. The design required separate ride paths, including four trackless routes where vehicles followed an invisible path in the floor. Disney California Adventure’s later version used a different mechanism to move the elevator cab in and out of the drop shaft, but every version ultimately centered on the same experience: the long plunge downward.
Different ride profiles in different Disney Parks
At the top of this article, I pointed out that when Disney has popular new rides, they clone them. But that wasn’t the case with the Tower of Terror. Even though the ride was popular, and no one could dispute that, when they built the second, third, fourth, it wasn’t the same thing. It was for reasons of where it was being built, the materials it was being built out of, the story was being told each and every time. They kept the idea, the core essence of this thrill ride, but the idea and story and the presentation would be completely and utterly and forever different.
Paris is the same yet different from DCA
The Towers of Terror differ in several ways. In France, for example, The Twilight Zone aired under a different name, while Tokyo DisneySea uses a cursed statue as the source of its story. The buildings also look different: Florida’s version is Gothic and horror-inspired, while California’s combined Art Deco with Pueblo Revival influences. Construction methods varied as well, with some towers built from steel and others from concrete. Guest approaches differ, too. In Florida, visitors walk up a hill to enter; in Paris, they enter directly from the sidewalk. In every park, however, the tower serves as a dominant landmark, which helps explain why Paris wanted its own version—whatever name it ultimately carried.
Tower of Terror is Avengers Tower at Hong Kong Disneyland
Perhaps that version will become Mission: Breakout someday as well. For now, that brings us up to date—but another tower is on the horizon. The next Tower of Terror-style attraction is planned for Hong Kong Disneyland and appears to involve Tony Stark, also known as Iron Man. Based on the available artwork, it looks unlike any previous version. It will be built on reclaimed land from the South China Seaand, notably, the tower has no windows or visible openings. Those differences help explain why, despite Tower of Terror’s success and its many versions around the world, it is nearly impossible to rank the attractions from best to worst. Each one is too different in setting, story, design, and purpose for a simple comparison.
In a summer marked by disappointment and uncertainty, Disney offers a useful business lesson: social media influencers cannot rescue a weak idea. The live-action version of Moana reportedly cost about $250 million to produce and another $100 million to market, meaning it needed an extraordinary box office performance to turn a profit. Its underwhelming results likely stemmed from several factors: the original film was released only about a decade ago, an animated sequel had recently arrived, and the remake did not meaningfully differ from the animated version.
The live-action Moana stumbled because it reflects a recurring problem in Hollywood: the people making movies often misjudge what audiences actually want. Supergirl, for example, was never built as a true star vehicle. More recent films such as Strange World, Elio, and Wish may have sounded promising on paper and checked the right boxes, but that does not guarantee an audience will show up. Disney has repeatedly tried to elevate properties such as the Muppets, Winnie the Pooh, and Tinker Bell, raising the same question each time: why commit major resources to a brand without clear audience demand?
The Disney Princess was successful enough for the a Tinker Bell brand.
These efforts usually begin with a premise. The Disney Princess line, for instance, emerged almost by accident, but once it generated significant revenue, Disney naturally tried to expand it. That impulse helps explain the push behind Tinker Bell, even though the character had little narrative foundation: she was a silent pixie who appeared alongside Peter Pan in one film and had no obvious story of her own. Cars followed a similar pattern. The first film turned ordinary toy cars into must-have merchandise, which encouraged sequels. But after Cars 2—essentially the Mater movie—and then Cars 3, the franchise lost momentum and appeared to reach its natural limit.
CARS 2 aka “The Mater Movie”.
Over reliance on brands leads to brand extensions, and brand extensions can eventually create bubbles. You cannot predict exactly when a bubble will burst, but eventually it does. Marvel is a clear example. At one point, the studio was releasing three films a year, and if Disney had been able to build a Marvel-focused fifth gate at Disney World, it likely would have. The company could not do so because of the existing agreement between Marvel and Comcast, but Disney still expanded Marvel elsewhere. For a time, the films were produced in Georgia and arrived at a relentless pace. Today, that momentum has slowed, and production has shifted to the United Kingdom. Recent Marvel Studios releases have been less successful, and the gap between Fantastic Four and Avengers: Doomsday will be roughly a year and a half. The issue is not simply that individual films are bad; the problem is that audiences can grow tired of consuming the same thing again and again. Even steak loses its appeal if it is served at every meal.
Is Avengers Doomsday doomed?
What Disney is confronting being the law of diminishing returns. The problem is not that these projects stop making money; it is that they make less money than expected. Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland succeeded because it generated an unexpectedly large return, earning about $1 billion and reviving the Alice brand after decades of dormancy. Its influence was strong enough that Shanghai Disneyland’s Alice maze was based on Burton’s version rather than the classic animated film.
Tim Burton’s Alice in Shanghai Disneyland. Credit: Dan Brace
But no tree grows to the sky. When Alice Through the Looking Glass was released, it did not collapse as a film so much as fall short of expectations. That is the risk of brand extension: eventually, the bubble bursts.
Everybody likes lists so I’m marking the 60th anniversary of it’s a small world by ranking all five versions of the attraction around the globe.
“Old Mill’ canal boat ride dates to 1901.
It’s a Small World is an Old Mill–style boat ride found in Fantasyland areas at Disney parks around the world, with versions at Disneyland, Magic Kingdom, Tokyo Disneyland, Disneyland Paris, and Hong Kong Disneyland. Although five versions operate today, the original debuted at the 1964 New York World’s Fair. The fair version sits at the bottom of my list but if Robert Moses (who led the fair) hadn’t invited Walt Disney to participate, there likely wouldn’t be any ‘small worlds’.
‘its a small world’ New York Worlds Fair 1964.
Walt Disney Productions created four attractions for the Worlds Fair. The one I want to focus on is it’s a small world, which used the Old Mill concept but improved the ride system. Instead of relying on a water wheel to move boats through a wooden flume, Disney partnered with Arrow Development to create a pump-driven system that carried boats at a steady, predictable pace.
That breakthrough allowed Disney to place show scenes along the flume with confidence, knowing guests would pass each moment at the right speed. It was a major innovation, and the company would use that controlled boat system many times afterward.
Classic ‘its a small world’.
At the World’s Fair in Flushing Meadows, it’s a small world featured and needed the Tower of the Four Winds, a bold marquee that drew guests to an otherwise plain pavilion. Without it, the building offered little visual interest beyond signage and sponsor branding. The tower of the four winds addressed the problem on the bland unappealing building with a giant mobile filled with colorful wind-driven shapes, including propellers, flying fish, butterflies, winged dragons, and a miniature carousel of animals such as giraffes, camels, and llamas. The ride was a gentle cruise which lasted over 10 minutes, and during the fair’s two-year run, the attraction carried more than 3,000 guests per hour. When the fair closed, it’s a small world had to sail on to a new home.
Next on my list is the Magic Kingdom version at Walt Disney World. It improves on the original in several ways, including a more expansive canal, water that surrounds the show sets, and a wonderfully groovy 1960s design sensibility. Still, I rank it lower because it lacks a meaningful exterior statement: no clock, no tower, and no true arrival moment. It is tucked inside Fantasyland, competing with the surrounding midway rather than announcing itself.
Tokyo Disneyland version has changed since it first opened.
Tokyo Disneyland’s version should rank higher because it is beautifully maintained, but it also feels tucked away between nearby attractions. Bright and cheerful as it is, it lacks the theatrical impact of the stronger versions.
Hong Kong Disneyland’s version feels like a retro throwback, with a classic Anaheim-inspired exterior and a plastic flume that keeps the show sets dry and off to the side. Guests board a cozy boat for an approximately nine-minute cruise along the Seven Seaways canal, accompanied by the attraction’s familiar anthem of world peace and hosted by the children of the world. It also deserves credit for introducing Disney characters into it’s a small world, a bold experiment even if not everyone agrees with the choice.
‘small world’ at Hong Kong Disneyland sits on its own plaza.
Coming in at number two is Disneyland Paris. It borrows directly from Anaheim’s classic DNA—the facade, clock, train, and front-facing station—while adapting the experience for a wetter climate with covered approaches and a fully enclosed design. It even once included a post-show sponsored by France Telecom, complete with original animation, show sets, and an extended musical message about global connection.
The Paris version has a blue painted ceiling which is unquestionably unique.
That post-show no longer exists, and the space now serves a different purpose, but the ambition was impressive. Disneyland Paris misses the top spot for one reason: the blue ceiling. It reflects too much light, making the show sets feel smaller and more visibly staged. If that ceiling were black, this version could easily be number one. It is charming, important, and beautifully conceived, but the best version remains the original Disneyland installation in Anaheim.
Image of the Paris version under construction.
When the World’s Fair closed, the show moved to California, Disneyland expanded its boundary, and the attraction received a new show building at the back of the park. The Small World Mall created a grand approach from Fantasyland, and the exterior transformed the graphic language of the original poster into a dimensional architectural landmark. Over the decades, the ride has evolved with new boats, added scenes, greater representation, character additions, holiday overlays, projections, and even a new musical lyric. The queue has changed, the surrounding land has changed, and the Toy Story shop was added, but the attraction remains lush, vibrant, high-capacity, and deeply tied to Disneyland’s identity.
The Anaheim version also benefited from decisions made after the fair, including leaving the Tower of the Four Winds behind. In New York, the tower worked as a necessary marquee, but in Anaheim it would have felt out of scale and out of step with Fantasyland’s charm.
Disneyland’s version on the ‘small world’ mall. Note the rooftop trees.
it’s a small world opened with a true mall-like approach and was promoted widely, including in Vacationland magazine. The land around it has changed repeatedly, from the arrival of Mickey’s Toontown to the loss ofrooftop trees that once suggested a forest setting. Later changes, including the reversed queue, Mattel-era facade updates, the Toy Story shop, and the remaining Light Magic towers, all reshaped the plaza into a stronger entry statement. Through every change, Disneyland’s it’s a small world remains the best version: iconic, flexible, charming, and inseparable from the park’s DNA. After all, who can deny the appeal of the dolls—or the enduring truth that it really is a small world?
That brings our happy cruise back to the dock. If you liked reading this then go watch my video about all it’s a small world. You will find the video over on YouTube.com/jimhshull
Disneyland study model with Tower of the Four Winds.
What links Walt Disney and Bluey? Both connect to dancing, though in very different settings. More importantly, both reflect Disney’s long use of adaptive reuse. Across the parks, buildings have often taken on new purposes over time. In Tomorrowland, for example, the Monsanto Hall of Chemistry eventuallybecame Star Tours. Spaces like these may start as temporary solutions, but they can last far beyond their planned end dates when they continue to serve a useful purpose. Spaces like these are examples of ‘Adaptive Reuse’ in the Disney Parks.
Why This Happens
Screenshot
Entertainment offerings are usually cheaper than building new rides.
Cost of expanding Disneyland in 1958 – 1959:
Matterhorn Bobsleds — $1.5 million
Submarine Voyage — $2.5 million
Disneyland Monorail — $1.5 million
Videopolis in its prime
At Disney parks, rides require major investment, while entertainment can often be added at a lower cost. That makes flexibility valuable. The Hall of Chemistry, for example, became Adventure Through Inner Space and later Star Tours. When attractions such as the Matterhorn, Submarine Voyage, and Monorail cost millions to build, reusing existing spaces helps Disney stretch its resources. It also lets the parks react quickly when something unexpected becomes popular. Bluey shows how this can happen: although Disney does not own the property, the character found a place in the parks, became a hit, and began reshaping the surrounding space. At Disneyland, Bluey now uses the former Fantasyland Theater, a site that was once Videopolis and, before that, open land visible from the train.
Here are several examples.
Screenshot
Carnation Gardens
Carnation Gardens opened as a popular venue for swing dancing and big-band performances, and Walt Disney himself was known to dance there. Though originally labeled temporary, it lasted for decades. Today, the area is Fantasy Faire, and the former theater space is the Fantasy Faire Theatre.
Videopolis in Disneyland California
Videopolis opened behind Fantasyland on June 22, 1985. Located near “it’s a small world,” the $3 million outdoor venue included a 5,000-square-foot dance floor and 70 video monitors. By day, it served as a performance stage; at night, it became a high-tech teen dance club.
The club was popular, but it didn’t last.
Videopolis was repurposed for events
The dance-club era ended in 1989, but the venue continued hosting daytime shows. On June 23, 1995, it was officially renamed the Fantasyland Theater.
Notable Fantasyland Theater productions include:
Tale of the Lion King (2022–2024): A vibrant, story-theater adaptation of The Lion King featuring a traveling troupe of storytellers.
Mickey and the Magical Map (2013–2020): A visually stunning stage show where Mickey Mouse interacted with various Disney characters through a magical, living map.
Princess Fantasy Faire (2006–2012): A royal, interactive meet-and-greet and stage presentation featuring Disney royalty.
Snow White: An Enchanting Musical (2004–2006): A Broadway-style adaptation of the classic animated film.
Animazment – The Musical (1998–2001): A Broadway-style revue celebrating classic Disney animated films.
The Spirit of Pocahontas (1995–1997): A live musical stage retelling of the 1995 animated film.
Today home to Bluey
The land that became Videopolis was once outside Disneyland, across Winston Road. When the park opened, Disneyland sat south of the road; the land to the north was outside the park. As Disneyland expanded with “it’s a small world” and the railroad area, that land was absorbed but remained vacant for a time, visiblefrom the train as future development space. When Michael Eisner and Frank Wells wanted a quick new offering, the empty site became Videopolis, a teen dance club built on a fast timeline.
A second Videopolis opened in Discoveryland at Disneyland Paris, combining a theater, dining, and, at one time, interactive displays for sponsor Philips.
Key details
Videopolis included a 5,000-square-foot dance floor, 70 television monitors showing popular music videos, and live performers such as Debbie Gibson, Janet Jackson, and New Kids on the Block.
After Videopolis closed, the space became Fantasyland Theater. Over time, Disney added the equipment, roofing, and support facilities needed for a full theater.
Today, that theater is home to Bluey. Bluey also appears in coaster form at Alton Towers in the UK.
Disney–MGM Studios WDW
The Backlot greeted guests some time after Disney MGM opened
When Disney-MGM Studios opened, guests could only see the New York Street backlot from the Tram Tour. After the park became successful, Disney opened the area to pedestrians, but it offered little for guests to do. To activate it, Disneybrought in outside properties, including the Power Rangers, Ninja Turtles, Ace Ventura, and Goosebumps. New York Street became a flexible setting that could temporarily host whatever the park needed.
In that sense, New York Street became a template for temporary use: a space adaptable to different characters and experiences.
Alpine Gardens at Disneyland California
Alpine Gardens was home to the House of the Future
Near Disneyland’s hub was a site that began as bare ground when the park opened in 1955. Ruth Shellhorn designed the area. Monsanto’s House of the Future opened there on June 12, 1957, and closed on December 1, 1967. Afterward, the space was transformed into Alpine Gardens, named for its landscaped water feature. Later it became a Little Mermaid meet-and-greet area, and today it serves as the Tinker Bell character greeting location.
Bluey at Animal Kingdom Walt Disney World
Bluey at Walt Disney World is another example of reusing existing facilities. The characters could have been placed at EPCOT in Celebration Hall, which has indoor space and sits next to a theater, but instead they went to Animal Kingdom’s Conservation Station. That location originally focused on education, with some entertainment, and included a veterinary hospital, interactive exhibits, and a petting area at the end of a train ride. Over time, it became Rafiki’s Planet Watch, and today it also serves as a home for Bluey.
What’s the impact?
One drawback of temporary measures is that they often rely on licensed properties Disney does not fully own. That can limit flexibility. Pixar is a good example. Before Disney acquired Pixar, projects had to be coordinated through Emeryville, which made the process slower and less efficient. After the acquisition, collaboration became much easier because Disney had direct access to files, approvals, and answers.
What’s the future?
Will Bluey get an entire land?
Sometimes the result is a property being fitted into existing spaces rather than receiving a dedicated land. Duffy is a good example. Although Duffy originated in Orlando and later appeared in California, the character became especially successful in Asia, particularly at Tokyo Disneyland. Even so, there is still no dedicated Duffy land. Instead, Duffy appears across multiple areas and events, including strong presences in Shanghai and Hong Kong. Rather than anchoring a single themed land, Duffy has been woven into different parts of the parks.Adaptive reuse is not the same as new construction. For example, building Cars Land on a former parking lot at Disney California Adventure is park expansion, not adaptive reuse. Same with Camp Minnie Mickey where the land became Pandora.
Disney Parks are full of examples of Adaptive Reuse.
A Rubik’s Cube symbolizes Disney’s California Adventure due to its complexity and difficulty to alter. Coco will soon debut in Paradise Pier, fulfilling the original promise of a water ride themed around the park’s distinct districts, including one inspired by the Pacific Ocean.
Surf City concept art.
This area historically supported a significant portion of Disney California Adventure’s show capacity (World of Color) and was successful in that regard. However, it lacked distinct charm and featured few characters. A feature was the wave machine, which, when operational, was highly impressive. Unfortunately, creating waves proved expensive, and water from the wave machine interfered with the coaster’s launch mechanism.
Wave crashing in Paradise Bay.
Despite this, the notion persisted—given the extensive waterfront, there was continued interest in finding ways to utilize and enhance this unique space, rather than leaving it as an inactive beachfront adjacent to the water suitable for a water ride and that ride type is a key feature at Disney parks. Disneyland has several, while California Adventure has few by comparison.
This is a partial list of Disneyland water rides.
Pixar Pier features two distinct areas, and one is set to become Coco’s new home within Paradise Park. Technically, Coco isn’t located on Pixar Pier—it’s in Paradise Park, which is adjacent but not part of Pixar Pier. However, this detail isn’t crucial. The decision was made because the ride required a suitable property, space for the attraction, and a compatible ride system. Coco is an ideal character since it’s beloved, fits well with the water ride concept, supports a musical show, and there’s room to build it. Although the location isn’t perfect—as is often the case in Imagineering—it presents an opportunity: removing the wooden gate and creating an entrance into Coco’s vibrant village world.
Currently this is a access gate and future village gateway.
To understand what Coco might be like, consider Epcot’s Mexico Pavilion. Originally, its River of Time ride used mostly screens but also featured two notable physical scenes with real depth.
Image captured prior to opening of Epcot Center.
The original attraction drew inspiration from Blue Bayou and Pirates of the Caribbean in Anaheim, though it did not feature an old hermit. Instead, it included a pyramid and multiple hallways lined with screens displaying scenes of people enjoying vacations in Mexico. While this was partly due to a sponsorship agreement, the primary advantage was its high guest capacity. However, demand remained limited, likely due to the storyline and the attraction’s location. Although the location and capacity have remained unchanged, guest engagement increased significantly following the introduction of Donald Duck and Friends. This integration linked the attraction more closely to a classic Disney film and enhanced its appeal through memorable music.
Mexico pavilion in World Showcase.
Given the compact yet distinct footprint, it is feasible to consider relocating it to available land within California Adventure designated for the Cocoa Ride and assess its compatibility with the site. Although the park was constructed on a modest scale—approximately 55 acres—including infrastructure such as a road linking the toll plaza to a parking lot, this particular road has been obsolete since the opening of Cars Land. Nonetheless, the land remains available for development, presenting an opportunity that had not previously been pursued. Until Coco.
Route of 2001 parking lot road.
Coco’s seasonal event in DCA has been consistently successful, celebrating the film’s culture with food, music, and entertainment. The character’s popularity makes it a prime candidate for a new ride. Disney sees an opportunity to integrate Coco into the park by placing the ride and a Mexico scale pavilion on the available real estate, requiring only the land of a portion of the service road. This setup ensures that guests will soon enjoy Coco’s characters, music, and vibrant atmosphere.
Image of the seasonal event featuring Coco.
Disney’s California Adventure underwent years of planning and construction and continues to evolve with the addition of Coco.
The phrase “informed speculation” is helpful, and I use it because during a recent trip to Disney California Adventure, I assessed the progress of the four significant projects currently being developed to revamp the park. Although work is happening, nothing has been finalized yet for a couple of the announced projects.
You may have visited Disney’s second gate when it was called Disney’s California Adventure—now it’s just Disney California Adventure. I worked on the team aimed at making DCA equal to Disneyland, a goal the team achieved. Currently, three major projects are in progress: a new parking structure, a Coco ride, and Avengers Campus expansion.
Site of three new projects at Disney California AdventureAvatar in the Hollywood Studios at DCA
There’s another project, a fourth one, that is the most complex of the four because the biggest project in Disney California Adventure expansion can’t happen without the parking structure coming on line. But first, about casting. Disney Imagineering designers are type cast. There are those who do Epcot, there are those who do Animal Kingdom, and there are those who do cute. I found myself in the cute category and I think I did it well. To that end, as I look around Disney California, that in the location that WDI have the Navi penciled in to occupy. Well, the Navi are impressive, but cute, they are not. Putting Zootopia and Bonnie and all the little cute furry animals in that location would check the cute box at DCA, a park that since opening day has really lacked cute.
Zootopia 2 was hugely popular in China
Not everyone loves cute things, but visitors to Shanghai Disneyland do. Many come specifically for Zootopia Land, which saw massive success—its movie sequel earned over $100 million in a day, and the land itself drew crowds for its rides, entertainment, shops, and merchandise. While there’s interest in expanding Zootopia Land in Shanghai, the real question is whether it could be brought to California Adventure—and the answer is yes.
Avatar is successful at Disney’s Animal Kingdom
Although Avatar has been announced, progress remains limited to early planning stages—no construction has started yet. The new east side parking structure, part of Disneyland’s upcoming entrance, will offer 6,000 additional spaces, adding to the existing Mickey and Friends and Pixar Pals lots with about 16,000 spaces. Preparations and planning are ongoing, including changes for arrivals via South Clementine Street off the five. Disney owns property at this location, which I visited recently to better understand the area. Has anything been done to understand what is going to happen? what has to happen in order for any of the other projects to occur. Because one thing is aside from the fact that Disneyland Forward has been approved, all the new rides, shows, and attractions are going to be happening within the boundaries of DCA as it currently exists. When the parking structure goes in, there’ll be an elevated bridge that’ll dump people at the new entrance, which is kind of like the old entrance. But in any event, once they’re inside the gate, they can go to Hollywood Land. And that’s where the story gets interesting.
Hollywood Pictures Backlot opened at DCA in 2001
On February the 8th, 2001, California Adventure opened, and it was not a land, but a district. There were no lands in DCA as part of its charm. But there was the Hollywood Pictures backlot. And that was very unusual because it took its cues from the Disney MGM Studios in Orlando, but on a fraction of the space. As a result, you had a lot of concrete. You had not much shade, and you had some rides, well, a ride that failed to connect with the guests. I remember riding behind a group, a family group for uh his superstar limo and when we got out of the load station, unload station, the pre-teen son turned to his parents and said, “What was that?”
Concept art of Zootopia at DCA
Avatar vs. Zootopia: The Future of the Expansion
To that end, the land needs some greenery, some lushness, or at least a presence. And obviously Avatar would give them that because Pandora, if nothing else, has got mountains and water and trees and bushes. Great. And DCA would benefit from all of that. But if you have a choice between going with Avatar in Pandora or going to Zootopia that also has some opportunities for green water, why not go that direction? So, for my purposes, I look at this as a piece of empty land where anything could be built. I’m not aware if the Tween ever returned to DCA to experience the Monsters Inc. Overlay on Limo, but if they haven’t, they should make tracks because it’s going to go away in one form or another. And it’s been announced that Avatar from that was proven popular at Animal Kingdom DCA is coming to that park in Anaheim. And it makes sense. It’s green. It’s lush. It’s a popular IP. It makes sense. But so does Zootopia and maybe for other reasons, stronger reasons than Avatar.
Pixar Pier features a collection of Pixar characters
The area today is a land of substitutions and plugs and fill-ins. Mickey’s PhilharMagic is a good show, but it’s not the show that premiered at Disney Hollywood Studios. It’s a plug into the theater for another show. It was the old Muppets Show. And we’ve already covered the fact that Limo gave way to Monsters, Inc. a dark ride, a very big dark ride, a very ambitious dark ride. And right next to it is a kitchen, a restaurant that opened as Hollywood and Dine, which has since been used for pin training and character greetings. And then the park build a temporary quick building that’s not so temporary and well, not quick because today, well, it’s closed, but before it’s been used for lots of things like millionaire or a shop. So, let’s get back to Zootopia. Zootopia is a cityscape and it’s been built in Shanghai and it’s been proving successful. So, if you brought that program here to California, you could bring in Hot Pursuit, and it fits. You could bring in the Zootopia Zoo better together and it fits and you’d have something popular and proven and it would be cute. It’d be family friendly.
Coco is a seasonal character in Paradise Gardens at DCA
And those are a some of the check boxes that DCA needs to check in order to be successful because as far as characters, they have Pixar Pier, but that’s a collection of characters. They don’t have a dedicated land of one brand, one franchise. And besides that, if you opened a Zootopia Land, the Big Donut alone could pay for the entire project. Where do you want to do? I’ve been asked many times for the list of tools for any concept designer, anybody at WDI, how should they approach their work?
For work tools are employed, and tools are like hammers and chisels and saws. They serve a purpose. Once you understand what the problem is you’re trying to solve, then you can pick out the appropriate design tool. And so, it is. When I look at the Hollywood Pictures backlot, now Hollywood Studios or Hollywood Land, whatever you want to call it, it still lacks in one monumental area. It doesn’t have queue. It doesn’t have presence. It’s a lot of stuff, but it really doesn’t sell itself as one big idea or definitely not a place you want to go to. You don’t want to make it your trip to DCA in order to see back there. And this is an opportunity to create a new land. And honestly, with the amount of land left at DCA, it’s the last time you’re ever going to be able to create a new land there in Anaheim in Disneyland Second Gate. I’ll make a note that whenever I would work on a project, I would always come up with the idea and it starts with lines on paper, but then it progresses to is it feasible? Can we afford it? Can we meet a schedule? Now, very often the idea never succeeds. It doesn’t get opened. It just simply goes into a drawer or vault to come back at another day. But that doesn’t mean the idea didn’t have merit, which is the reason why it went into the vault in the first place.
Tomorrowland 2055 was announced but never built
Speculation and Precedents
A question comes up about Zootopia: Has Disney ever announced something and then cancelled it? And yes, yes, indeed they have. Tomorrowland serves as a notable example, with various concepts publicly shared for both Lucas Port and Tomorrowland 2055 that ultimately were not realized. California Adventure, built on roughly 55 acres, has evolved and is currently being expanded within its original boundaries. Initially designed to showcase the best of California in a single day, the park’s focus is shifting beyond just California. Insights from the last D23 event in 2024 suggest more changes ahead, though plans like Avatar remain uncertain until finalized. Overall, the park appears to be transitioning from Disney California Adventure to Disney’s Adventures in California.
Is this the future of what began as Disney’s California Adventure?
As an Imagineer, I am frequently asked about my preferred ride, show, or themed land. My response has consistently been Rock and Roller Coaster. Upon learning of its upcoming closure, I boarded a plane and traveled to the event to meet with several team members to reflect on our shared history and exchange memories.
Rock n’ Roller Coaster team members February 28, 2026
As with all good stories this one starts in an expected place. Whether one enters Disneyland or Magic Kingdom, the guest experience is rooted in narratives inspired by fantasy—sometimes whimsical, sometimes elevated—but always imaginative. Other Disney parks similarly embrace this tradition. Notably, Disney MGM Studios (now Disney’s Hollywood Studios) exemplifies this approach through Rock and Roller Coaster, featuring Aerosmith. In the idealized recording ‘Studio C’, guests encounter the band preparing for a concert, and through the immersive storyline, they are cast as VIP fans invited to a special event by limousine, encapsulating the essence of fantasy.
Studio ‘C’ video filmed using the Showscan system
The origins of Rock and Roller Coaster can be traced to signage in the Disney MGM Studios parking lot, which included a “Music” section despite the park opening with an absence of music-themed attractions. Entertainment yes, but not attractions or rides. Having identified this gap, musical innovation was prioritized, particularly as the park sought to transition from primarily educational offerings—such as insights into movie and television production—to more dynamic rides.
Disney MGM Studios Theme Park in 1989
Tower of Terror provided the initial shift, but further development led to the concept of integrating a high-speed roller coaster with a musical motif, thus initiating the journey towards Rock and Roller Coaster.
DMGM Studios parking lot had a section named “Music” in 1989
Space Mountain’s success in Paris demonstrated the appeal of combining rapid launch mechanisms, multiple inversions, and onboard audio. While adaptation for Orlando seemed promising, logistical constraints prevented its direct implementation. The narrative continued to evolve, drawing inspiration from Premier Rides’ Outer Limits: Flight of Fear. This ride located in Ohio was notable for its pre-show and launch vehicle, though it lacked onboard audio and featured an intricate indoor track layout. These elements informed the Florida project for the ride, but as typical in the development of a new Disney ride, it faced challenges. Among the challenges was securing naming rights. Although “Rock and Roller Coaster” was readily understood among project stakeholders, there are another company in front of Disney because Universal Studios initially held a claim. Subsequent research revealed Opry Land in Tennessee had previously used the name, but with the park’s closure by Gaylord Entertainment, Disney was able to acquire the rights. Had circumstances differed, the attraction might have proceeded under another designation; however, “Rock and Roller Coaster” ultimately became exclusive to Disney Imagineering.
Disney secured the name ‘Rock n’ Roller Coaster’ from Gaylord Entertainment
Pulling from my background in animation and storytelling, I directed efforts to create a compelling environment that conveyed the ride’s narrative prior to entry. Inspiration was derived from Los Angeles recording studios, notably locations such as the former Charlie Chaplin studios (later A&M Records and subsequently Jim Henson Company headquarters) and RKO Records. The interiors of these facilities prioritized functionality, characterized by narrow corridors, sound booths, and stages. Early design iterations considered replicating Space Mountain from Paris but eventually evolved towards a music studio aesthetic. The addition of a prominent guitar was deemed essential; dimensional design utilized real instruments as templates, culminating in a large-scale installation fabricated in Tampa, Florida, with complementary components developed in Logan, Utah, and Daytona Beach.
Art credit: Jim Shull 2026
The roller coaster train and track was constructed in the Netherlands, incorporating rigorous testing and safety evaluations. During the project’s construction phase in Florida, extensive oversight was maintained, including practical solutions for site-specific challenges such as utility placement and theming adjustments. Building an attraction typically requires three to five years, while a new park demands five to seven years, underscoring the complexity and commitment involved.
The author in the field during construction
Upon completion, the project was handed over to park operations, and the ride opened on June 29, 1999.
Rock n’ Roller Coaster opened July 29, 1999
On February 28, 2026, the Rock n’ Roller Coaster Project Team reconvened at Walt Disney World to commemorate the closing of Rock and Roller Coaster, reflecting on how conceptual elements—including the acquisition of a guitar, billboard artwork, and prop integration—contributed to an innovative and memorable guest experience. Through collaborative effort, a small, dedicated group succeeded in realizing a unique attraction that fulfilled the creative intent associated with the music-themed parking sign: an exhilarating VIP concert experience headlined by Aerosmith and delivered via super stretch limousine.
