Are we at the end of the Silver Age of Roller Coasters?

That being said, I don't think "too many" coasters needs to make you a BAD park...PCW has too many, WAY too many mediocre ones, and is a great park DESPITE all that....

Fewer coasters isn't a bad thing. Too many coasters *aimed at one demographic*, well, that's a large part of why CP's admission is going down, right? Also helps to explain SFMM's current situation.

FAMILIES are what parks are based on....

And by "families", do you mean the traditional "red state" familes, or does that include single enthusiasts and their kids, two dad families, two mommy families, big brother raising the two youngins' families and so forth.

Shapiro needs to be more specific! ;)

Euclid Beach did well in the WWII era.
One of the problems they faced was lack of steel for repairs, which was due to the steel shortage because of the war.
When the soldiers came home on leave, they'd hit the parks.

Most of your older parks back when had BallRooms and judging by the pics i've seen, they were packed with guys in uniforms.

It wasn't so much lack of interest so much as lack of materials or funds.

Shapiro is being too one dimensional when he says coasters are not compatible with families.

Rollergator, the "aimed at one demographic" thing is not the reason CP's attendance went down a little. A well balanced park, like CP, uses coasters as a way to attract families. Most people think coasters are a cool ride, and families will ride coasters together, provided they are the right kind of coaster.

That is why CP maintains family coasters like Mine Ride, Iron Dragon, Disaster Transport, Wildcat, Gemini, Corkscrew, Woodstock's Express. Even MF, while a great ride, is what I consider a gentle giant. Lots of fun for everyone, and the ride action is not intimidating or too harsh for the family. And the height requirement is a family friendly 48".

While Shapiro's strategy is adding some atmosphere and fun to the parks, his view of coasters not being appropriate family attractions is very flawed.

Look at PKI's Italian Job as a perfect example. PKI had an excellent year, attracting a lot of families. Credit a coaster for that.

I predict that CP's 2007 project will also be very family friendly and not an extreme ride. Lot's of fun to be sure, but also something small kids will enjoy along with the adults.

Teens don't have money, but teens will convince their parents to take them to the park. The trick is to have thrill rides for teens that also appeal to parents, in addition to other entertainment. That way families will go because parents are drawn to the park also, and park won't just be for baby sitting. This type of diversity is what made CP the great resort that it is, and the cash cow for Cedar Fair.

Go over the top with characters, shows for young children, etc. and attendance will plummet. You need thrills to get the teens to ask their parents to take them, and the thrills have to be family thrills to get the parents to enter the park along with the teens. It's very rare that a parent will drag teens along with them if the parent wants to go, but the teen does not have much interest. Most likely, the family will just not go.

I think this is lost on Shapiro, and I believe you will see Six Flags attendance continue to decline as the teens loose interest and the high prices discourage family visits.

I agree that family friendly parks should have some coasters. First of all. the right kind of coasters will have the family riding together. Mine trains, themed coasters like BGEs Big Bad Wolf, juniors like Idlewild's Rollo Coaster, even some of the mid sized woodies fit this nicely. Second, many families do have teens and preteens. If such a family goes to a park together, they will want a park that provides an adequate amount of thrills. That's one reason that parks like HW added new coasters, even big ones, in recent years. Even in the kiddie areas it is becoming more important to have a coaster that the little ones can ride.

---

Pete said:

Even MF, while a great ride, is what I consider a gentle giant. Lots of fun for everyone, and the ride action is not intimidating or too harsh for the family. And the height requirement is a family friendly 48".

{SNIP}

Teens don't have money, but teens will convince their parents to take them to the park.

---

Millie is *way* too big to be appealing to anyone but thrillseekers. The sheer appeerance of the ride is intimidating to many. Despite what the ride action may or may not be, the ride "looks" frightening and scares off many before they even ride it.

I dont know about you, but I think your teen theory is flawed. I grew up in a "roller-coaster family" where my mom and dad *still* go to amusement parks now (and we, their "kids" are in our 30's). But even having parents who were down with parks didnt stop me and my sister for eschewing them in favor of going to the park with our friends/cousins. It was rare as a teen to go to the local park with the parents when I could find a friend with a license and access to a car and go ourselves. :)