Disney Diluted

In cases where brand is intimately linked to place, to what degree is it possible for a brand gremlin to undermine the sanctity of a themed landscape? In the case of Disney, there was initially a clear (although likely unintentional) intrusion from outside its walls – the success of Disney led to intense development of the surrounding area, and in turn forced Disney to acquire for itself what land that it otherwise could not control. Purchasing this land for use as a buffer zone makes sense in that it helps to contain fantasy solely within its borders, but was 110km2 really necessary to accomplish this? Although my knowledge on the subject is extremely limited, I would argue that, although the purchase of 110km2 of surrounding land does indeed protect the realm of fantasy from distillation by outside forces, a more problematic scenario presents itself as a distillation in the opposite direction - what happens when surrounding hotels and restaurants begin to “Disneyify” their services; not to the point of total immersion, but to try to assimilate themselves into the realm of fantasy on the most basic level? Ultimately, Disney’s purchase of the surrounding land suggests that a themed environment must be fully immersive and isolated to prove successful; the undermining of Disney’s borders by the extension of a pseudo-Disney environment causes one to question the validity of the “real” staged environment.