Bye bye Astroworld! - CoasterBuzz

The SLC didn't help and it was new.

AW is/was the poster child for what's wrong at SFI. Poor customer service/guest relations can't be solved by a new SLC, or a new SWAT, or even a trio of Antons and the best CI-clone in existence.

Fix what's broke, THEN worry about rides and (Heeeeere's Dan Snyder) marketing.

Those parks are 3-4 hrs away from Houston. That's over $50 in gas just to get there from here.
What you have a gas guzzler or something? It might cost you $50 round trip, not one way.

I wasn't planning on staying forever in Dallas or San Antonio once I got there, duh,

rollergator said:
Without a doubt parking was AN issue for SFAW....THE issue, I'm not buying that.
The reason AW is going away? Poor performance. Maybe some *newnew* coasters woulda helped? Doubtful!

Burke himself stated in an video interview that the reason they didn't invest in the park very much these past few years was due to uncertainty about the parking situation. And if you don't add much to a theme park, it's not going to perform well. Therefore, yes the parking issue WAS one of the root causes.

Performance was fairly acceptable given the minimal level of expenditures done in the park. Amusement Business ranked Astroworld in a tie for the 39th slot with Fiesta Texas in its 2004 listing of the top 50 attended theme parks in North America - which is better than half the other Six Flags properties. It's preposterous to accept that SFAW vastly underperformed.

The park's performance has NOTHING to do with the decision to close and sell it. Simply the land is FAR more valuable that what's currently sitting on it.

End of story.

To the fans of Astroworld...we here in Chicago feel your pain after losing Riverview Amusement Park in 1967. The park closed before I had a chance to know it, let alone visit it for myself (I was only three years old at the time and, at best, have only a sketchy memory of the park). Many people who did visit it tell me it set the standard for amusement parks—at least in the Midwest.

I was asked to describe Deja Vu in one word. The word? AAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!

So it will turn into a parking lot now for the 'dome and stadium?

I survived a Japanese typhoon and the Togo flat ride of death!!!!!!

thrillerman1 said:
So it will turn into a parking lot now for the 'dome and stadium?

thats what i'm thinking, if so thats not no fair

...OR perhaps a parking lot to go with a bland mills mall.

I survived a Japanese typhoon and the Togo flat ride of death!!!!!!

Mamoosh said:
The park's performance has NOTHING to do with the decision to close and sell it. Simply the land is FAR more valuable that what's currently sitting on it.
End of story.

Basically, yeah. But only if you look at the picture in very near-future terms. Selling the plot of land for $100 million outpaces what the park would generate in profit in a couple years. In the long term, say a decade or more, the park would likely gross more than that.

Burke is being very short-sighted and sacrificing the Houston investment to merely put an immediate dent in his debt because he's mismanaged the whole chain so badly and has creditors on his back. Houston is paying for Six Flag's overzealous mistake buying all those other rinky dink properties in the late 90s and early 2000s.

$100 million is at the low end of what they can get for the land. I can easily see $2-3 Million an acre because of its location. *** Edited 9/13/2005 11:24:40 PM UTC by otterkpr***

otterkpr said:
$100 million is at the low end of what they can get for the land. I can easily see $2-3 Million an acre because of its location. *** Edited 9/13/2005 11:24:40 PM UTC by otterkpr***

Maybe, but Jeff Peden, a director at Cushman and Wakefield, the real estate company that will market the land, said there is no asking price for the 109-acre site, but he estimated that it will sell for $95 million to $145 million.

(from the Houston Chronicle article)

I can assure you parking is the reason. Negotiations broke down on Sept. 6. The park anounced closure on the 12th. Why would they be negotiating until the 6th of September if they were planning on closing?

It comes down to parking. SFI was unwilling to build a parking structure and with no where to park customers, decided to close the park.

Here's an interesting question--what happens to the amplitheatre? I remember it being of decent size from what I could see of it. F.P., let's refer to the company as Premier Parks, as it was they who bought the rinky-dink properties, not Six Flags former. I know you know the score, but someone people still get this confused, and rightfully so.

I do understand what someone said too about the landlocked excuse only being part of the picture. I'm sure something could've been worked out with the car dealership next door, and I seem to remember a western-wear shop to the right of it. When you've got parks like Kennywood, Indiana Beach, and Blackpool Pleasure Beach building under and over things to fit rides in, the landlocked excuse doesn't hold a lot of water. But that doesn't fit the Six Flags criteria, as they want rides that can be relocated to get more value out of them. I can't fault them for that.

What had obviously happened at SFAW though is that the rides never re-entered the rotation program once the Premier takeover happened, with the exception of Taz's Tornado now known as Zonga. That itself was a fluke because of the supposed heat problems that affected the tire driven lift.

btw BatwingfanSFA, no Enterprise at SFAW.

Pancake - agreed, especially the short-sited comment.

Basically, yeah. But only if you look at the picture in very near-future terms. Selling the plot of land for $100 million outpaces what the park would generate in profit in a couple years. In the long term, say a decade or more, the park would likely gross more than that.

Or is that money needed now so other parks don't follow? Maybe they are thinking long term and by dropping SFAW they save 5 other parks down the road?

coasterimage - lordgonchar

Fierce Pancake said:
otterkpr said:
$100 million is at the low end of what they can get for the land. I can easily see $2-3 Million an acre because of its location. *** Edited 9/13/2005 11:24:40 PM UTC by otterkpr***
Maybe, but Jeff Peden, a director at Cushman and Wakefield, the real estate company that will market the land, said there is no asking price for the 109-acre site, but he estimated that it will sell for $95 million to $145 million.
(from the Houston Chronicle article)

It makes it seem as though they need the money and want to dump it as quick as possible and are not worried about top dollar.

Mamoosh said:
The park's performance has NOTHING to do with the decision to close and sell it. Simply the land is FAR more valuable that what's currently sitting on it.

Yeah uh huh. And since when did you work with Six Flags upper management to make such a confident statement? I'm pretty sure the park's declining attendance over the years played some part in the decision for its closure.

Gonch: Maybe Burke is capable of thinking long term, but i have not seen it yet.

If they could have gotten a new lease for parking, the park would be open next year. They didn't get the lease they wanted so they pulled the plug. That simple.

I really hope that we (SFSTL) get SOMETHING out of this. Dungeon Drop would definitely be a nice addition to our towerless park. Maybe send Jet Scream back up here (as mentioned above) also.

Of course, if we got SWAT, I wouldn't complain.