New concept art revealed for the Pixar Place Hotel at Disneyland Resort

May 25, 2023 in "Disneyland Resort"

Pixar Place Hotel concept art at Disneyland Resort
Posted: Thursday May 25, 2023 2:52pm ET by WDWMAGIC Staff

Disney has shared new concept art of the reimagined Paradise Pier Hotel that will become the Pixar Place Hotel at Disneyland Resort. 

The 15-story Paradise Pier Hotel remains open during the transformation, which will be completed by the end of 2023. The finished project will be the only fully Pixar-themed hotel in the U.S.A.

As guests enter the hotel lobby, they will be greeted by the Pixar Lamp. A whimsical, colorful character-inspired mobile will hang above, welcoming guests to the new, reimagined lobby atrium.

Opening this summer, an all-new water play area inspired by "Finding Nemo" will include a 186-foot-long waterslide.

Coming soon to the deck is a family play court featuring activities inspired by Pixar's beloved short films. Engaging games and imaginative free play will showcase favorite characters from "La Luna," "Bao," "For the Birds," and "Burrow." After all the fun, guests can unwind with food and drinks under the romantic umbrellas from "The Blue Umbrella."

This fall, the hotel will debut a new restaurant at the resort, Great Maple. This Southern California-based modern American eatery specializes in playful takes on upscale comfort food. The restaurant will serve breakfast, lunch, and dinner all day and will be conveniently located on the ground floor for hotel guests, local residents, and visitors to the theme park.

Signature dishes will include the Buttermilk Fried Chicken & Maple Bacon Doughnuts, the Cajun Shrimp & Cheddar Biscuit Benedict, and the Soda Pop-Braised Baby Back Ribs. Great Maple will also have a full bar, including beer, wine, and cocktails.

Great Maple will also offer food and beverage service at the pool, as well as a new grab 'n' go coffee shop and café near the lobby and eventually at the hotel's new concierge lounge.

Discuss on the Forums

Get Walt Disney World News Delivered to Your Inbox

View all comments →

gerararFeb 25, 2024

PiratesMansionFeb 15, 2024

I still don't think the continued existence of PPH necessarily proves anything conclusively one way or another except that in the 90s, DLR was clearly acting in the interest of creating a hotel inventory as quickly and cheaply as possible. This could be proof that PPH is a valuable part of their portfolio, but the fact that it didn't have any operating restaurants until recently and a retheme had to occur to draw guest interest suggests otherwise. As I said previously in the thread, it could be something as simple as Disney refusing to close the hotel-and lose roughly a third of their resort inventory-unless sufficient lodging capacity is built elsewhere to absorb the loss of revenue. That doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't make sense to tear it down, it just means that they're not willing to do it yet. If new resorts are built on the Toy Story Lot, and PPH continues to operate largely as it does now once they're up and running, then it would make more sense to definitively say they find long-term value in the hotel. Until then, I'll remain skeptical.

aleh021Feb 14, 2024

Ultimately, if it had made more sense to tear down Paradise Pier Hotel and rebuild, they would've done it. But there are clearly more implications then any us will ever really know about.

Disney IrishFeb 08, 2024

This seems like a valid assessment to me. Besides other than aesthetics Disney may not see any reason to tear it down at the moment. Save the big CapEx investment for when DisneylandForward get approved.

chadwpalmFeb 08, 2024

I'm not a historian when it comes to this stuff, but was Googling around about it. According to this article ( Disney bought the hotel in late 1995. It's not specific about the property (land), but this quote: "Like many Japanese investors who bought at the height of the real estate market only to see property values plummet in recent years, Tokyu recently has attempted to untangle itself from its California land holdings and recently sold properties in San Diego." ...leads me to think that the purpose of the sale was to get rid of and the building on it. Disney most likely owns it all, but I don't think that's the issue here. As @NobodyElse stated above, that land falls under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, not the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. The ARSP was adopted in 1994 and the DRSP adopted in 1993......both before Disney owned that land, hence why it was adopted into the ARSP. DisneylandForward deals with the modification of the DRSP, so I would assume that since that property falls under the ARSP that is why it is not being earmarked to be torn down for any expansion or changes done on that side of Disneyland Dr. According to the ARSP, that land is zoned for Retail, Office, and Hotel Activities. Perhaps Disney didn't think it was worth pushing to try amd get two Resort Specific Plans updated for the sake of of DisneylandForward. It's a tough enough uphill battle just to get one plan changed to favor Disney to use their land however they want. Just my two cents. I could be totally off on all of this.

NobodyElseFeb 08, 2024

You bring up two separate points (that may or may not be related). Yes, normally refurbishment should normally be less expensive than tearing down and rebuilding a structure. But most all of us have seen instances where a refurbishment doesn't achieve the end results a developer wants, so they opt for the tear-down (full or partial) and rebuild. Now to the "Urban myth". I have no more first-hand knowledge than you do. The concept has been batted around here several times, and I haven't seen the mystery contract that supposedly lays out the conditions of use, etc., but to me there's clearly something different about that property. Take a look at this (2021) document. (CLICK HERE) Lots of pretty maps where that parcel sticks out like a sore thumb for various reasons I don't claim to fully understand. Notably it fell under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, but not the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. Many other distinctions, like it's considered a Low Density C-R district, as opposed to a Low - Medium Density C-R district, etc. The last page gives us this Disney-owned or Controlled Properties info: And a bonus clip for reference, showing ARSP differentiation, and other "owners". So, there seems to be something(s) that set this property apart from (for instance) the other Disney hotels. If I knew the Chao Family, I might ask them.

PhroobarFeb 07, 2024

Urban myth. We don't know that for a fact. No one online has ever confirmed that with actual physical documentation. Razing the building and starting over is far more expensive than a referb.

NiryaFeb 06, 2024

Point of order, but Disney still doesn't own the plot of land that Pixar Place stands on, or even the building itself, right? So I imagine they were given a budget by the company that does own the land and made do with that. I only say this because I assume Disney's first option here would have been to just tear the building down and replace it with rooms on the new construction for Toy Story Lot.

Disney IrishFeb 06, 2024

Nope, they spent $400M on it and had to take a $300M loss write down when they shut it down.

mlayton144Feb 06, 2024

The starcruiser was profitable?

Disney IrishFeb 06, 2024

Lets be clear, I'm not asking them to do anything. It was something wondered by another poster, and I just commented. For all we know Disney will sit on the property for the next 100 years, we don't know. Its a discussion with no impact on anything Disney does. And so who is getting fired for Starcruiser? That thing lasted less than 2 years and already is needing more money spent on it just so they can do something with it. So tell me again that Disney cares about foregoing profits. Because if they really did they would have just lowered the price for Starcruiser and rode it out until it was profitable. As the idea itself was sound but just too expensive. So with all due respect Disney's own actions counter your argument.

mlayton144Feb 06, 2024

it doesn’t take 50 years to recoup the costs of the existing build. And I highly doubt Disney is keeping 90 rooms for cash sales. From what I understand Disney retains 2% of rooms when all is said and done. They probably have to sell less than half of all units (guesstimate 2 years) to recoup the cost and then its profit from then on out. You are asking Disney to forgo these profits to tear down and rebuild the same thing half a mile away? Why would they do that? What about Disney , or any other profitable business would you point to as a model for this idea? With due respect , It would get people fired for malpractice

Disney IrishFeb 05, 2024

If it really took 50 years of the lease to not only recoup construction costs but to make additional profit off a timeshare hotel, then no one would get into that business. And there are hundreds if not thousands of these properties across the world run by many companies, DVC isn't the only one. Also there are something like ~90 rooms set aside for regular guests bookings. That is money coming in monthly over and above any DVC lease. That would end up being something like $60-75M after just 5 years and that is just on the conservative side of something like 80% occupancy. So they aren't taking a loss on this even if they do decide to demo it in 2034. Besides lets be real, Disney doesn't have an issue with completing construction only to turn around and do something else only a couple years later if things don't work out, ie see Starcruiser as an recent example.

mlayton144Feb 05, 2024

Not to beat a dead horse, but How would they recover the loss of construction, these are largely timeshare units. The money is all collected as points are sold up front , ongoing maintenance is paid via dues by the owners. Disney doesn’t make any money on these after that , other than management fees and renting the small percentage of units they’ll retain until the 50 years are up. Just an FYI in case you didn’t know