Demolish Club 33?
Demolish Club 33?
Posted Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 11:46a Pacific Time
A few years ago, a friend invited my wife and me, along with another couple, to use his Club 33 membership for a day. I loved everything about it. Well, almost everything. The food--while good--wasn't the best I've had at a Disney resort (the Napa Rose at the Grand Californian blows it away), but in every other way I was in heaven. I loved the free entry into the park that his membership granted us; loved entering through the club's secret door; loved the fact that I could get a better-than-average meal inside of Disneyland; loved that I could take a break from the hustle and bustle of a day at the park; and loved most of all the fact that I could drink a martini and peer out a window overlooking my favorite place in the world. It's every Disney fan's dream to live in Disneyland: this felt, a little bit, like a fulfillment of that dream. Yet Club 33 troubled me in a way I had a hard time resolving.
When the Cinderella Castle Dream Suite opened in the Magic Kingdom in 2006, I was excited as anyone to see what it would look like...yet disturbed that it might be the beginning of a trend towards premium attractions for the ultra-rich inside a park that I've always believed was for everyone. Things like this have been rumored in the past (I wrote about my fear of special FastPasses available only for resort guests a while back). Then I realized: isn't Club 33—the place I loved visiting, the place created by Walt himself—the real beginning of this trend? Is the "elite" Club 33 in conflict with what I think Disneyland is supposed to be?
I believe it is. (And I suspect that if Disney today tried to build a super-premium private club in a park, the fan community wouldn't be terribly enthusiastic about it.) But that doesn't mean I think that Club 33 has to be demolished. What I enjoyed about Club 33 wasn't its exclusivity, but rather, the opportunity to have a leisurely meal in beautiful surroundings at Disneyland. I got nearly as much satisfaction out of eating at Walt's in Disneyland Paris, a restaurant similar in design to Club 33, yet accessible to anyone who bothers to make a reservation.
How do you feel about Club 33? Does a private club inside the park clash with what Disneyland stands for? And if it doesn't, should there be more Club 33s—along with other "members-only" attractions, including DVC-only perks—opening up in the Disney parks?
41 Comments permalink link with comments
tags: Disneyland Resort Food and Dining, Grand Californian Hotel, Disney Vacation Club, Disneyland Paris, Magic Kingdom, Disneyland Resort, Disneyland Resort, Other Disney Destinations, Walt Disney World
Demolish Club 33? No I wouldn't demolish it. When it was built it was used to schmooze current and potential future Disneyland clients. So the original intentions were OK. Opening it to the general public is OK too but their annual membership charge is rediculous. Some people want to feel they have exclusive privledges. That's OK. My feeling on that may amuse some people. If people want to feel exclusive, go ahead. Just don't include me, I'm not interested, nor am I impressed.
Posted By ksargen Monday, January 19, 2009 at 1:11p Pacific Time
I'm no expert on Club 33, but I remember some years back talking with a fellow college student about her family having access to it because her dad was a major contractor for the park. Plain and simple. They did a lot of work for the park, they got the perk. Makes sense. This business of playing 5k or more for this "priveledge" just cheapens the whole thing, and makes it more like upgrading your seat on the airplane. do I think the club needs to go? No. Do I think the management needs to use better judgement in dealing with what was originally intended to be a room for Walt and his friends to enjoy? YES.
And I agree with the person who thought the Dream Suite ought to be a Make a Wish, etc. "rest" room. Absolutely. It would also make a decent holding/rest area for visiting celebrities, etc. Put them somewhere the cast doesn't have to kill themselves keeping nutty fans away. *LOL*
Posted By HappiestPlaceonEarth Thursday, December 25, 2008 at 8:23p Pacific Time
I think the dream suite is an awesome promotion/idea. I would LOVE for my family to be chosen to stay there for a night! What it does for me is add just a little bit more magic to an already magical place.
The only thing that bugs me is when the chosen family doesn't seem very excited. Don't they realize what kind of opportunity that is? My husband and I talk all the time about how awesome it would be and how excited we'd be. We'd be happy just being the Grand Marshall for the parade! :)
As for Club 33...if Walt wanted it, I want it! :)
Posted By wilbear64 Thursday, December 25, 2008 at 6:24p Pacific Time
"You must study the big picture in all things you comment on." - ID
Thanks dude for making me feel stupid. I feel I have a very valid point. Just because we disagree doesn't mean you are right and I am wrong. I still believe having an elitist area in the park is archaic. Again, I FEEL those kinds of areas would be better served outside the park. A little more tolerance please, and less arrogance.
Posted By whtrabbit Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 8:35a Pacific Time
Club 33 has always been part of the park and unless you know it is there or your attention is drawn to it then it does not cut into your enjoyment of a day at DLR. I was furious with them for taking out the Gallery, tho! I loved going up there and, even if it was the same display, you could take a few minutes in a quiet area that allowed you to decompress before jumping back into the throng. This is why they have the baby center soundproofed. It gives mom and baby a quiet area where the baby can relax from all the stimulation they get outside. The presence of Club 33 is not the problem. The problem is Disney catering to an elite group and closing off parts of the parks that were previous for all to enjoy into areas that only a "select few" can enjoy. At least Club 33 has history with Walt. All the new "exclusive" areas are just snobbish, elitist garbage.
'davewasbaloo' has the right idea in making the suite into a "Make a Wish" suite for cancer children/terminally ill children. THAT would be a better use for it.
Posted By ImaginingDisney Monday, November 24, 2008 at 7:05a Pacific Time
???????? With space in Disneyland Park at a premium, can they really afford to have elite parts to it? - > SNIP < - Having a “members only” type club or function belongs outside the park. ??????????
Disneyland is not esclusive to having a private area for special guests, All the parks ( including non-disney ) have them. It is a necesary part of serving people of higher status in the human chain of commands.
Popular people, Actors, foreign dignataries, and just plain private parties are entertained in such areas and any place, airport, restaurant, thrill park will have such accommodations. The Demise of Club 33 would put Disney in a position where they are less than prepared to serve such "special" guests. It's just good business to be able to offer such support to important guests.
Walt did say that DisneyLand was your park. And he meant it, saying it a little tongue in cheek. He knew he would be entertaining royalty as well as us "commoners" and he took care to be able to treat them in a comfortable manner.
Just because he said it is "Your Park" did not mean you can go into the employees areas either. Try walking in to a " Cast Members Only " area and you will soon have lots of friends come visit you from the DL security department.
Special guests areas are a part of the business, like it or not.
I don't understand why it is such a big deal if you do not rub shoulders with movie stars and presidents or leaders of countries outside the United States. They require, and expect, protective areas, and all parks offer them.
Its more than just a business move, its actually foreign affairs at a lower level.
Just because you don't care about it does not mean it is not needed. You must study the big picture in all things you comment on.
Posted By wilbear64 Sunday, November 23, 2008 at 12:25p Pacific Time
Walt said on opening day, "Disneyland is your park..." , that is a pretty inclusive statement. I think club 33 day has come and gone. Everything in the park should be open to everyone. With space in Disneyland Park at a premium, can they really afford to have elite parts to it? As for the Walt Disney Suite above Pirates, it’s a bad idea. I miss the art galleries that use to be there. Having a “members only” type club or function belongs outside the park.
Posted By toddnbeth Saturday, November 22, 2008 at 9:01p Pacific Time
"With Club 33 they aren't penalizing any guests in the same manner. To the best of my knowledge Club 33 didn't replace anything that people could access before, didn't replace a restaurant. It actually added something"
This is a good point. Before the gallery was opened to the public, I never gave the apartment much of a thought, any more so than I do with Walts apartment over the firehouse. I know its there and am curious about it, but know that I will likely never get to see it.
Once the apartment was opened to the public in the form of the Disney Gallery, it became to me a nice place to visit and over the years it became a place that I expected to be able to visit.
I dont have any problem with Club 33 for this very reason. Club 33 has always been there in that space and didnt take away from another special "regular" guest experience. I have had the good fortune to be able to dine there once, but before that, I never expected to be able to go there. The fact that I did eat there was a totally unexpected surprise.
What they have done with this ridiculous (in my opinion) Dream Suite would be akin to them closing down Pirates or HM permanently to the general public and making those rides available only do Dream winners or guests willing to pay thousands of dollars just for a ride.
Posted By Goofyernmost Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 2:57p Pacific Time
>>>Or how about we get rid of FP all together, so the parks feel a little roomier and the queues moves quicker (psychologically).<<<
From your mouth to gods ear.
Posted By fkurucz Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 2:21p Pacific Time
<<My feeling about Club 33 is SO WHAT it exists???>>
That's how I feel. Other than its membership requirement ther eis nothing really special about the place. If you have your heart set on a truly memorable meal at DLR, then make ressies at the Napa Rose.
Posted By ImaginingDisney Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 12:33p Pacific Time
?????????? With Club 33 they aren't penalizing any guests in the same manner. To the best of my knowledge Club 33 didn't replace anything that people could access before, didn't replace a restaurant. It actually added something. ??????????
My feeling about Club 33 is SO WHAT it exists???
Walt built Club 33 so he could entertain special guests. It was never advertised as a restaurant in the park and even the door is tucked away pretty much out of site.
Most places, airports, hotels all have spaces reserved for special guests and we as the groveling commoner, do not know much about it and pretty much don't care.
Club 33 filled a need for Walt and we grovelers should care not if it exists for we should not even know about it.
The current management of The Disney Company, does not look at the parks or attractions or restaraunts or even the magic as Walt did. They have a totally different mind set, and that pretty much is the dollar. Any magic that filters down to us guests is not from the top but from the designers that find a way to convince these guys that it is cost effective. If they cannot prove it cost effective, it won't exist.
To Demolish Club 33 would be another of Walts memories gone. Many of the little things that make the magic work have been turned off already. One of Club 33's perks was a talking bird in the dinning room. A mic was hidden in the chandeleir and the Animatronic bird was to the side and would talk ( via a cast member ) to the guests. According to a Disney Magazine article, this bird has been silenced for a while now.
Is Club 33 needed, If they would use it right, yes.
Will it be used as Walt wanted, I doubt the board members will see it cost effective, thus, a hole in the money making scheme of things.
It all comes down to the change of management since Walt passed.
All us older guests have watched all the changes and the little thing being taken away. You younger guests will start to notice them from the lesser level of entertainment that you began enjoying.
Its all money now, little regard to the magic. Farewell Club 33, You were Walts dream, not the present boards.
The Original Mickey Mouse Club
Posted By davewasbaloo Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 11:23a Pacific Time
Or how about we get rid of FP all together, so the parks feel a little roomier and the queues moves quicker (psychologically).
Posted By Ursula Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 11:15a Pacific Time
Oh, I disagree.
The rules for FP are clearly written out on the maps. Any average Joe can read, so if they just read their maps or even ask ANYONE with a badge, they'd be equally informed.
(Says the seasoned CM and Knott's info clerk) No one reads the maps and that drives me crazy.
If you went to the grocery store and you see people getting free discounts, for example, wouldn't the smart ones at least ask what it is all about?
Posted By davewasbaloo Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 10:26a Pacific Time
I agree Avromark, perhaps FP for resort and day guests only! That would be cool.
Posted By avromark Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 10:30p Pacific Time
Club 33 is fine, but if they had a private club for every land that would be over the top. The problem with FP is the people who take advantage of it well tend to be APers or the odd guest that researches their visits. Years after many people from my area visit WDW annually and there is a good chunk that doesn't know how to fully utilize FP. (especially the ones who are computer adverse) FP penalizes some guests.
Now with many locals here on the boards and in the parks would disagree, but maybe FP should be limited to non AP users, people on pay per day tickets. After all they are paying a premium for the amount of time they're in the parks.
With Club 33 they aren't penalizing any guests in the same manner. To the best of my knowledge Club 33 didn't replace anything that people could access before, didn't replace a restaurant. It actually added something.
Now the argument for the dream suite is it did replace something the average guest could enjoy (Disney Gallery).
Posted By davewasbaloo Saturday, October 11, 2008 at 4:16a Pacific Time
>>>there are other parks that also have a similar amount of rides<<<
But there are none that offer the same quality.
Posted By MarilynMouse Saturday, October 11, 2008 at 3:59a Pacific Time
Disneyland seems like a privilege to get into on it's own, what with a high ticket price... although I do love and enjoy Disneyland, there are other parks that also have a similar amount of rides, similar offerings such as meals, restrooms, shops, amusement... yet the ticket price is not as expensive. I understand it must be a business thing, maybe if you have it and people want it, you may as well set your price because you know they'll come.
BUT, back to the point, I am not mad that there is a club like "Club 33" that only allows certain people and not others... I paid enough to enjoy my day at the park, so I won't dwell on what could be, I'll contently wait in lines and eat my chicken strips :P
You could say that it is wrong because DL is supposed to be for everyone and the happiest place on earth (and what more could you do to make someone happy than offering them everything and then some?), but I just don't think it is something to dwell on despite it's perks... if you have the money, go and enjoy, if you don't, at least be happy you had enough to enjoy DL!
Besides, if you want to go to a ritzy DL restaurant, don't they already have a few that just require a reservation?
Posted By ImaginingDisney Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at 9:12a Pacific Time
>>>>>>>>> Sounds to me like people who can't get in feel no one else should be there either. I would love to get in there but I am not going to punish the people who have the money because I don't. <<<<<<<<<<<<
Club 33 was Walts Idea, plain and simple. He saw a private restaurant somewhere and wanted one in DisneyLand. One of Walts Perks was a bird that talked to guests at the table. The microphone was hidden in the chandleirs. The bird has long been silenced and just sits on his perch.
The annual fee to be a member is quiet high, I recall a figure of around $5000 so it is definately for the commercial or actors scales. The average guest would not spend that kind of money.
To demolish it would be to demolish yet another of Walts dreams. Well its been done before, and I have little say in the matter.
MagicKingdom / EpcotCentre / DisneyMGM / AnimalKingdom
Posted By chipndale16 Thursday, October 2, 2008 at 6:15p Pacific Time
I think that Club 33 has it's place in Disneyland history, and should remain a private club. As gottaluvdavillains points out, Club 33 was planned by Walt himself as an exclusive club. I think that Club 33, Walt's apartment above the fire station, etc., gives DL a special place in Disney history that the other parks don't have. The fact that Walt was so involved in the creation of DL and spent a lot of time there makes DL more special to me.
That being said, I'm not crazy about the idea of private clubs all over the Disney resorts.
Posted By gottaluvdavillains Wednesday, October 1, 2008 at 3:24p Pacific Time
< exclusive facilities are contrary to the founding principles of the park. Remember-" Disneyland is your land>
Club 33 was a place Mr and Mrs Disney had planned and decorated together for their friends - so it was planned to be an exclusive club from the beginning. Mr Disney unfortunately passed before it's completion.
Posted By pitapan16 Wednesday, October 1, 2008 at 3:16p Pacific Time
I think in moderation, things like Club 33 do have their place."
-Here, here! I beleive the focus should and is focused on quality attractions and entertainment for everyone, but in moderation "private clubs" add an additional dimension of unknown and curiosity to the place. I always wonder whats it's like inside, the door alone creates interest every time I pass by.
Posted By hatbox Wednesday, October 1, 2008 at 2:27p Pacific Time
"Where kings are commoners and commoners are kings." Every thing in DL was meant to be for the enjoyment of all guests. I think all of the special ticket events and exclusive facilities are contrary to the founding principles of the park. Remember-" Disneyland is your land "
Posted By Ursula Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 10:25a Pacific Time
^ Yes, the Dream Suite and the extra stuff with the birthday party things they have coming. I think we as a society need to pull back on the "special" emphasis we place on kids (i.e. Sweet 16 on MTV) as it is raising a generation of spoiled rotten people who rarely think of others. A $250 ticket to see Miley sing two songs? What is next?
What I'm trying to say is that by having all of the extra goo-gaws, a parent no longer can just take the kids to DL and have it be special. They need to add on the $10 birthday party, the $50 special cake, the $500 suite (I'm guessing the price), etc.
Lee-I don't think Michael Jordan likes me much. Okay, granted sitting at the Napa Rose bar with a giant Minnie balloon in park clothes drinking it up on a birthday may have been too much for him...and he did later send over a free appetizer...but I always got the feeling from the servers that my palate wasn't sophisticated enough to appreciate the chefs there.
Okay, Lee. I'm up for it. Next time you are in town we should hit the Club and then Napa Rose and do a comparison test!
Posted By gmaletic Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 8:14a Pacific Time
@Ursula > But, but stop with the added premiums already. Adding more takes away the specialness of which that is there already.
What do you mean by "added premiums"? I'm interpreting that you mean things like the Dream Suite?
Posted By leemac Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 12:59a Pacific Time
<<I've always felt that the club deals rather well with my eating idiosyncrasies and Napa Rose gets offended when I want to substitute.>>
Ursula, I'm surprised to hear that. I would definitely raise it with GM Michael Jordan - he would welcome the feedback. I've eaten there a zillion times with fussy people (Doobie, this means you!) and they have always been exceptionally accommodating. They do know me well in Napa but I've still never heard of snotty behavior from any of the servers.
Posted By Ursula Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 12:52a Pacific Time
<Something else to consider: Club 33 offers corporate memberships, with companies able to grant up to 9 associates use of the club.
How do people feel about this? This feels very sky-box-y to me...>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this was around even before skyboxes. As much as we don't like to admit it, the corporate game needs to be played.
Posted By Ursula Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 12:48a Pacific Time
Nope, I love the club just the way it is. There is a class-system all over and it is very American. Not everyone can afford a BMW, not everyone can afford a car at all.
But, I like the Club's food much better than the foo-foo food at the Napa Rose. I've always felt that the club deals rather well with my eating idiosyncrasies and Napa Rose gets offended when I want to substitute.
Before the intergoogle, no one knew what nor where Club 33 was, either.
But, but stop with the added premiums already. Adding more takes away the specialness of which that is there already.
Posted By davewasbaloo Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 10:59p Pacific Time
One could argue that the AP has had a more profound impact. The teens that are dropped off by their parents. the recitals in the stretch room of the HM, the swing dancers, the people that camp for hours for Fantasmic. No doubt this could adversely effect the experience for a first time, day or infrequent visitor. then again the Apers give DL a part of its charm.
Posted By Liberty Belle Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 7:31p Pacific Time
>>How many people who visit the park on a given day even know (or care) that the suite is there? What you don't know won't hurt you.<<
I was going to say that. It's tucked out of the way, and very discreet.
I'd love to go, but it really doesn't trouble me that only "certain" people get to go. It would be a great bonus and a special experience, but I'm at Disneyland - I really don't need an added experience like that to have a wonderful time!
Posted By Elderp Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 6:50p Pacific Time
Club 33 was fun to go once. I enjoyed it a lot, but I can never see myself becoming a member there. There is just too many other things Disney I'd rather do. If I ever get invited again I will go hapily, but to me it is kind of more of an expensive museum than a viable restaurant.
Posted By Hans Reinhardt Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 6:16p Pacific Time
How many people who visit the park on a given day even know (or care) that the suite is there? What you don't know won't hurt you.
Posted By gmaletic Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 5:52p Pacific Time
@bobiascastle >Sounds to me like people who can't get in feel no one else should be there either.
Though perhaps some people feel that way, I want to make it clear that I don't. (In fact, in the spirit of full disclosure, I'm on the waiting list to become a Club 33 member.) The question is whether a Disney theme park is a suitable place for "class-based" activities; if so, how much and what types are activities are allowable before the atmosphere changes in a negative way (if, indeed, it does change at all.)
Some hypotheticals off the top of my head:
- If, instead of offering FastPasses for free, what if they charged $10 for them?
- Would it be okay if there were a Club 33 in every land?
- What if every land in the park had a Dream Suite?
- What if there were a special "golden train car" that DVC members got to ride in, with special perks?
Just trying to probe the extremes of what premium add-on perks could mean...
Posted By bobiascastle Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 5:34p Pacific Time
Sounds to me like people who can't get in feel no one else should be there either. I would love to get in there but I am not going to punish the people who have the money because I don't.
Posted By gmaletic Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 9:49a Pacific Time
Something else to consider: Club 33 offers corporate memberships, with companies able to grant up to 9 associates use of the club.
How do people feel about this? This feels very sky-box-y to me...
Posted By davewasbaloo Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 12:26a Pacific Time
Hmmm, interesting question. I think something small like a DVC/Shareholder lounge is fine. But I think the Dream Suite went a little far (then again if it became a rest room for Make a Wish kids, I think I would be over the moon. So I suppose it does beg a question as to motive.
As for property perks, I wonder if Disney is lower their room utilisation and are therefore looking for other enticements. It's sad that they have to turn to this (in DLP by the way, people in the DLH get a free extra FP per day, and in the Castle Club of the DLH or Suites at any Disney Hotel, guests get unlimited FPs - so this already happens in Paris). Funny, I would be happy with decent cleaning, turn down again, proper room service and 24 hour facilities (and in WDW a decent transport system).
Posted By gmaletic Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 1:39p Pacific Time
davewasbaloo>And in the days of Ticket books, you could argue that was an economic caste system too.
I'd actually argue that that was a fairer system, because everyone could afford to enter the park, then decide precisely how much they wanted to consume. Under the current system, everyone has to pay like they're riding a lot of rides, whether they are or not. The high price keeps people out. (And makes attraction lines a lot longer.) I know there's almost no chance we're going back to the ticketing system, but there was a lot to like about it. (Not to mention the fact that rides at that time were viewed by management as revenue generators rather than costs. So much of what goes wrong at Disney parks today can be traced to that accounting switch.)
I guess the gist of my argument is not that there isn't inequality at Disney resorts--we can see that easily at the hotels. I don't think Club 33 is much of a problem really, but the Dream Suites bother me a bit; rumored "enhancements" like DVC members-only lounges and special attraction lines for resort guests bother me further. At what point do premium offerings in the parks become a problem?
Posted By Hans Reinhardt Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 12:36p Pacific Time
Nothing wrong with services or offerings that screen out the general public. There is a cost to pass through the park's gates. Not everyone can afford that you know.
Posted By davewasbaloo Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 12:33p Pacific Time
And in the days of Ticket books, you could argue that was an economic caste system too. I remember when we would go with friends, they wouldn't always want to go on the same stuff for fear of running out of E Tickets.
then when Magic Kingdom card members had day passes while the rest had ticket books. This is not altogether new. No matter how we slice it, not everyone is equal.
Posted By davewasbaloo Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 12:29p Pacific Time
I think in moderation, things like Club 33 do have their place. I love good table service restaurants and high end hotel experiences in my Disney mix. I have aspired to earn the opportunity to enjoy them. I do not much care for the hustle and bustle of the counter service offerings. I would not want the counter service offerings to go away, because they have their place, as does Club 33 (there is also a Club in Tokyo, and we have a Shareholders lounge in DLP). In moderation, I think these things are great, but like toons or upcharge events in the MK, things can go too far, and for now I think they have the balance about right.
Posted By FerretAfros Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 12:04p Pacific Time
For some reason, I don't really have a problem with Club 33, but I do have a problem with them theoretically renting out the Dreams Suite to people for the night. I guess the suite gives you a really unique experience that nobody else will have, while you share your Club 33 experience with the other people there. Disneyland is a social place and you should be with other people there (even if you don't know them and aren't talking to them).
Another thing that bugs me about the Dreams Suite (and to a lesser extent, the castle suite) is that it used to be a place where everybody could go. Sure, the Gallery wasn't the greatest attraction in the world, but it was a nice little diversion. Adding the Suite there sort of makes a clear seperation of people (especially if they are paying to use it) within the park. Using the extra space above some shops for a club where you can eat lunch, when you can just as easily eat lunch on the first floor of the exact same building, doesn't seem as bad to me.
For some reason, letting people pay an arm and a leg for lunch doesn't seem unfair to me. I've only been to the Blue Bayou once, even though I've visited the park countless times. It just doesn't really seem to be the type of place that I would want to have a super-high-end meal very often. On special occasions, it might be nice, but it just doesn't seem practical for every day use.
I guess a lot of it boils down to splitting hairs and taking into account the traditions of the park and what Walt did and didn't do (he did sleep there on occasion too).
Posted By DyGDisney Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 11:50a Pacific Time
It doesn't bother me at all that there is a "private" restaurant inside the park that I can't visit. Maybe others don't feel that way though.