• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Potential New Universal UK Park

ScottishChris said:
It's a tad concerning the amount of people releasing 'click bait' video's, blogs and such about this project. Clearly a number of 'enthusiasts' don't actually understand what is proposed, what is currently happening and the process this needs to go through. Someone was posting pictures of a digger and a tipper on the proposed site proclaiming "construction underway".

Another issue I have with these people on the internet that know nothing but talk like they do is they are setting an expectation that we will be getting the full Universal 'Florida style' product. Of course that isn't true. If it happens, I am sure it will be more along the lines of the Singapore Universal park... to start anyway.



The following statement in the letter to residents makes me believe the Government will be bending over backwards to grease the wheels to get this moving... I doubt Universal will need to do too much to get what they want. They might even get some cash from the notorious Levelling Up fund to get the project moving.
1712683358973.png
Click to expand...

This is my first post and I have no issues with your vlog aspect, the leeches will clickbait the crap out of every morsel of news.

What I have issue with is your assertion that it'll be a Universal Singapore type park. Which is very unlikely, USS itself is 49 acres and housed in a resort that totals only 120 acres, and it is not owned by Universal but the Universal name is licensed to the Genting Singapore company who own and maintain the park.

The section of land assigned to the Park itself in the material Universal dropped is around 128-130 acres, the total size of the 'Core Zone' is 225 acres. This size when compared to the full-fat Universal parks is about the same, hell it's 20 acres larger than IOA's park which is 110 acres.
 
Benjsh said:
What's interesting is they estimate that at least 40% of all visitors would travel by train.

Quite an optimistic target I'd say due to the reliability of our trains and more so the price.
I won't be travelling from Manchester by train I can guarantee it. It would be far cheaper for me to drive.
Click to expand...
The line from London to Bedford is a good one, and East West Rail is going to provide access from other dense cities in the region too. On top of that, there are going to be far more tourists flying into London than into Manchester.
 
xtpower said:
This is my first post and I have no issues with your vlog aspect, the leeches will clickbait the crap out of every morsel of news.

What I have issue with is your assertion that it'll be a Universal Singapore type park. Which is very unlikely, USS itself is 49 acres and housed in a resort that totals only 120 acres, and it is not owned by Universal but the Universal name is licensed to the Genting Singapore company who own and maintain the park.

The section of land assigned to the Park itself in the material Universal dropped is around 128-130 acres, the total size of the 'Core Zone' is 225 acres. This size when compared to the full-fat Universal parks is about the same, hell it's 20 acres larger than IOA's park which is 110 acres.
Click to expand...
Totally get your point, and maybe I didn't convey my point well enough. What I was trying to get at was we are not going to have sprawling multi-gate parks and I would suggest the ride line-up would be not as thrill orientated. Honestly, Singapore came to my mind first mainly because of their use of indoor areas and covered walkways... which would be handy in a year-round UK park. That said, I've never been to the Singapore park and all I know is what I have seen on YouTube.

I totally accept your point :)
 
xtpower said:
This is my first post and I have no issues with your vlog aspect, the leeches will clickbait the crap out of every morsel of news.

What I have issue with is your assertion that it'll be a Universal Singapore type park. Which is very unlikely, USS itself is 49 acres and housed in a resort that totals only 120 acres, and it is not owned by Universal but the Universal name is licensed to the Genting Singapore company who own and maintain the park.

The section of land assigned to the Park itself in the material Universal dropped is around 128-130 acres, the total size of the 'Core Zone' is 225 acres. This size when compared to the full-fat Universal parks is about the same, hell it's 20 acres larger than IOA's park which is 110 acres.
Click to expand...

Just because they own the land doesn’t mean they will initially be building on all of it.

Also I don’t think Singapore has hotels etc as that’s all encompassed in the Sentosa resort, it’s purely a theme park whereas I believe it’s indicated this would so the theme park element is only going to be a section of the site, albeit a sizeable one presumably.

I think the Singapore comparison is very apt, I said so as soon as this was announced and I’d put money on it being closer to that than it’s Florida equivalent, if nothing else because the UK weather will only support a 365 park of that nature, something DLP were very aware of.
 
Benjsh said:
What's interesting is they estimate that at least 40% of all visitors would travel by train.

Quite an optimistic target I'd say due to the reliability of our trains and more so the price.
I won't be travelling from Manchester by train I can guarantee it. It would be far cheaper for me to drive.
Click to expand...

An hour from central London on the train, where the % of tourists with a car must be single figures, and where nearly half of households don't have access to a car?

And with one rail change at Milton Keynes from Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow?

AND two onsite stations?

40%, easy.
 
ScottishChris said:
Totally get your point, and maybe I didn't convey my point well enough. What I was trying to get at was we are not going to have sprawling multi-gate parks and I would suggest the ride line-up would be not as thrill orientated. Honestly, Singapore came to my mind first mainly because of their use of indoor areas and covered walkways... which would be handy in a year-round UK park. That said, I've never been to the Singapore park and all I know is what I have seen on YouTube.

I totally accept your point :)
Click to expand...

I agree with that, the big Universal Parks weren't built all at once, it was done in stages. Universal Studios Singapore feels very unlike the other 4 parks, it's not a full-fat Universal experience. If anything (as mentioned by another poster) Beijing should be the comparison people should be making, especially in how Beijing was designed with an emphasis on indoor or covered attractions.

I'm of the mind that the Lake Zone will house a potential second gate but that is a long time in the future, definitely not before 2035, when Universal knows that the UGB park gets enough people through the gate to justify a second gate.
 
Bowser said:
Just because they own the land doesn’t mean they will initially be building on all of it.

Also I don’t think Singapore has hotels etc as that’s all encompassed in the Sentosa resort, it’s purely a theme park whereas I believe it’s indicated this would so the theme park element is only going to be a section of the site, albeit a sizeable one presumably.

I think the Singapore comparison is very apt, I said so as soon as this was announced and I’d put money on it being closer to that than it’s Florida equivalent, if nothing else because the UK weather will only support a 365 park of that nature, something DLP were very aware of.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to multi post, but you do deserve a reply.

Have you looked at the master plans that Universal put in their new PDF? They have two parcels of land, and I have only been referring to the 'Core Zone' the smaller of the two parcels. Which on the masterplan has the areas already assigned - Hotels/Citywalk have a section independent of that assigned as theme park space. The makeup of that 'Core Zone' speaks to them going for a full-fat park, all the Florida Parks and the Beijing Park are around 110-130 acres - even the brand new Epic Universe Park is itself only 110 acres.

Attraction wise it'll probably reflect Beijing more, due to Beijing being more aligned to indoor and covered attractions. But the weather for that very location is very similar to the weather DLP receives, so the chance for outdoor thrill rides is still high.

I think why the comparisons to Universal Studios Singapore bothers me is that USS wasn't built by Universal, it's a licensing deal, it's also much much smaller than every single Universal built park.
 
xtpower said:
I don't mean to multi post, but you do deserve a reply.

Have you looked at the master plans that Universal put in their new PDF? They have two parcels of land, and I have only been referring to the 'Core Zone' the smaller of the two parcels. Which on the masterplan has the areas already assigned - Hotels/Citywalk have a section independent of that assigned as theme park space. The makeup of that 'Core Zone' speaks to them going for a full-fat park, all the Florida Parks and the Beijing Park are around 110-130 acres - even the brand new Epic Universe Park is itself only 110 acres.

Attraction wise it'll probably reflect Beijing more, due to Beijing being more aligned to indoor and covered attractions. But the weather for that very location is very similar to the weather DLP receives, so the chance for outdoor thrill rides is still high.

I think why the comparisons to Universal Studios Singapore bothers me is that USS wasn't built by Universal, it's a licensing deal, it's also much much smaller than every single Universal built park.
Click to expand...

I don't know the Beijing one tbh. I guess what i was getting at with the Singapore model is rather than acreage i'm not convinced it'll be a full fledged Universal park to the scale we see in the US or Japan but as you say in your other post, part of that could be because initially it'll only be one "zone" and perhaps long term it'll get there. I feel like the number and scale of attractions will more likely reflect Singapore if it opens in 2030 (or Beijing as you say) rather than a park full of gigantic rollercoasters but then really Orlando is the anomaly on that front.
Ryan said:
Car 32%
Train 46%
Plane 14%
Bus 3%

From this study https://www.researchgate.net/public...Disneyland_Paris_and_Futuroscope_case_studies
Click to expand...

Interesting thanks. Seems very likely this would reflect that, if not more so in an era where the push for public transport is even greater.
 
Bowser said:
I don't know the Beijing one tbh. I guess what i was getting at with the Singapore model is rather than acreage i'm not convinced it'll be a full fledged Universal park to the scale we see in the US or Japan but as you say in your other post, part of that could be because initially it'll only be one "zone" and perhaps long term it'll get there. I feel like the number and scale of attractions will more likely reflect Singapore if it opens in 2030 (or Beijing as you say) rather than a park full of gigantic rollercoasters but then really Orlando is the anomaly on that front.


Interesting thanks. Seems very likely this would reflect that, if not more so in an era where the push for public transport is even greater.
Click to expand...
Haven't Universal repeatedly said that they intend this to be a fully fledged park, though? Why get such a large parcel of land with the option to purchase even more beside it other than to create a fully fledged park.
 
benpicko said:
Haven't Universal repeatedly said that they intend this to be a fully fledged park, though? Why get such a large parcel of land with the option to purchase even more beside it other than to create a fully fledged park.
Click to expand...

Well i suppose it's better to have more land than not enough.

Maybe i'm too sceptical and simply can't believe a park of that scale is going to exist in the UK. Very much look forward to being proven wrong!
 
benpicko said:
Haven't Universal repeatedly said that they intend this to be a fully fledged park, though? Why get such a large parcel of land with the option to purchase even more beside it other than to create a fully fledged park.
Click to expand...

I think another pertinent point is out of the Universal built Parks out there, which one wasn't a fully fledged deal? Universal Singapore was not built by Universal, so it not being full-fat makes sense, it's a licensing deal.

I just find the idea of Universal buying up nearly 500 acres of land with the option to make that over 700 and only planning to begin with a smaller less involved Park as far-fetched. Every bit of info we've got from Universal has indicated that they are going full steam ahead with a proper Universal Park (if it goes ahead).

It just seems short-sighted to have your first ground-up Park on a new continent be a smaller less involved park, when you have the land and resources to enter a new market with a BANG.
 
Bowser said:
Well i suppose it's better to have more land than not enough.

Maybe i'm too sceptical and simply can't believe a park of that scale is going to exist in the UK. Very much look forward to being proven wrong!
Click to expand...
from what i recall in florida british tourists spend a lot of money (it is why tickets are only £340 for 2 weeks!) I could see it working very well if they were able to steer part of that crowd and more people who may not be able to travel to florida
 
xtpower said:
I think another pertinent point is out of the Universal built Parks out there, which one wasn't a fully fledged deal? Universal Singapore was not built by Universal, so it not being full-fat makes sense, it's a licensing deal.

I just find the idea of Universal buying up nearly 500 acres of land with the option to make that over 700 and only planning to begin with a smaller less involved Park as far-fetched. Every bit of info we've got from Universal has indicated that they are going full steam ahead with a proper Universal Park (if it goes ahead).

It just seems short-sighted to have your first ground-up Park on a new continent be a smaller less involved park, when you have the land and resources to enter a new market with a BANG.
Click to expand...

I'd only skimmed through the PDF before but i've just spent 20 minutes going through it and i rescind most of my previous comments, it really does look like they intend to go all in based on those plans, if this goes ahead,.

Do still think it will (and should) be heavily but not exclusively indoor focused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top