Posted Friday, December 1, 2006 9:50 AM | Contributed by Blaster_1578
After years of failed efforts to land some sort of tourist attraction, the Garden Grove City Council has agreed to let an investment firm move forward with plans to construct a $4-billion amusement park in a city best known for its annual strawberry festival. The park, which would include three resort-style hotels, would be built on a 150-acre site on Harbor Boulevard, three miles down the road from Disneyland.
Read more from The LA Times.
The price tag seems high for a brand new company.
he identified its president as Korean American Chris Yang, a Los Angeles building inspector who has a doctorate in quantum physics from Hamburg University in Germany.
Weird. Just plain weird.
Another tourism expert said that if Six Flags sells Magic Mountain in Valencia to clear the land for houses, the Garden Grove plan would be even more attractive.
"If that happens, you could argue the 3 million Magic Mountain customers a year are up for grabs," said John Robinett, of Economics Research Associates, a consulting firm to the leisure and real estate industries.
So like, why don't they put in a bid for Magic Mountain instead? Wouldn't it be cheaper?
The city has been eyeing a theme park of its own for five years, and a recent city-commissioned study predicted that a theme park could bring up to 7 million visitors annually with gross revenues of $350 million the first year.
So if those 3 million aren't up for grabs, would they only expect 4 million a year and $200 million in gross revenues?
The council has heard plans of building a replica of London Bridge across a faux river, a music-themed entertainment complex called Riverwalk, a cultural center dedicated to the late King Hussein of Jordan, a Las Vegas-style-casino and, most recently, an NFL stadium.
Man, I want to go to a Garden Grove city council meeting just for kicks. Here's an idea, set up a studio audience and charge admission. Then Disney would really have something to worry about. ;)
In all seriousness though, I'd love to have more park options. Who wouldn't? But a building inspector with a PhD? Smells like grade A boondoggle to me.
*** This post was edited by janfrederick 12/1/2006 11:27:38 AM ***
If they are going to make a grab for the SFMM customer (if indeed that void does happen in 2008), it would make sense just to buy the coasters/rides off of SF and relocate them to the GG location if they are available for sale. Or to just mimick what SFMM has that are the draws, but improve upon the installations in theme.
What would be really unique to the area would be if they did the indoor waterpark/hotel combo. That would clearly make GG different than Disney.
Also, I'm hoping the threat of a deep pocket competition will force Disney to kick the DCA makeover into high gear.
$4-billion on 150 acres? That land area seems small to me. What parks are around 150 acres to compare that to?
The 160-acre Knott's Berry Farm 10-minutes north of Disneyland comes to mind.
You must be logged in to post