Clementon Park's new owners hope to improve experience

You don't need a majority to fill a hotel! What part of that do you not understand?

I get it, you don't., but you also need a hotel that is going to operate longer than Palm Sunday to Labor day and weekends into October to make any money, or overcome the cost benefit ratio involved in improving the infrastructure to get to the point where you can even build a hotel. Six Flags has buildable land zoned for a hotel and has had the zoning for years. Still no hotel.

But you don't need a hotel that operates that long. YOU keep insisting that us a fact. It's not. The hotel as with any business, simply needs to be profitable. It doesn't have to sell out every nite of the year to be profitable.

My goodness you have really no idea how business really works.

billb7581 said:
The majority of those 3 million are only in town for the day.

...Because they don't have a place to stay overnight.

What is someone supposed to do if they want to visit the theme park one day, the water park the next day, and finish off a third day with a ride through the safari and then a visit to the nearby outlets? They will have to travel to the closest hotel each day. A hotel built closer is going to be a winner when it comes to these people.

@ Lost Kause... it's not ridiculous. It's common for people to escape heatwaves inland by going to the shore.
...10 degrees not make a difference? Set your AC to 80 on a 90 degree day and check out how much better 80 with low humidity feels than 90 with high humidity...

But if someone wants to go to Six Flags Great Adventure instead of the shore, the temprature has no value to this conversation whatsoever. What does the idea that "Everyone wants to go to the shore instead of Six Flags" have to do with building a hotel near Six Flags? Three million people already go to SF. I don't see how that has anything to do with this conversation, except that it is a elaborate distraction.

A nice nearby hotel would be air conditioned, Billb. Several attractions at SF are also air conditioned. The park also offers an ample amount of trees, which guarantees shade, which is cooler to stand in than direct sunlight.

Recap - If people want to go to a theme park, they will go to SF, and if they want to go to the shore, they will go to the shore. It doesn't have anything to do with temperature, or humidity.

:) If Billb can double post...

billb7581 said:
...you also need a hotel that is going to operate longer than Palm Sunday to Labor day and weekends into October to make any money, or overcome the cost benefit ratio involved in improving the infrastructure to get to the point where you can even build a hotel. Six Flags has buildable land zoned for a hotel and has had the zoning for years. Still no hotel.

We've probably talked the "why" to death as to the reasons the hotel hasn't been built yet. Do we really need to do that again?

As for the amount of time the hotel is open during the year, if it was open only when the water park, safari, and theme park were open, it isn't guaranteed that it would be a money loser. We have also been over this over, a-and over, a-and, over, a-and over, a-and over... (Pee Wee's Big Adventure reference, for anyone who didn't get that right away.)

Many hotels operate on a season schedule. A lot. They were built. They are profitable. A lot of hotels in Sandusky, for example. "closed for the season" is common for a lot of resorts and hotels in the U.S. It's normal.

Maybe I should pull a Gonch and reply with quotes from older posts.

I tried guys...I tried.

LostKause said:

Several attractions at SF are also air conditioned.

Only good reason to venture into the Dark Knight warehouse!

Lord Gonchar said:
I tried guys...I tried.

Look at a google map of the area zoomed about halfway out. I already explained to you why there is nothing out that way, the suburbs of Phila just dont sprawl that far out. You are just not buying it.

Follow 537 south and to the east and as you get closer to Philadelphia there are exponentially more roads.

It's just not that desirable to live that far from Philly adjacent to an Air Force base, I guess. I dont get up that way often except when my son's fooball team plays New Egypt.

Traveling 537, once you pass Mount Holly is all just farmland. If it were desireable to develop, it would have happened already like it did in Glouscter county area (Sewell, Mullica Hill, etc.)

Those farms are all gone. Heck even where I live the apple orchards are gone because of the prime real estate they were sitting on adjacent to Route 73/90 just a few miles from the Betsy Ross and Tacony Palmyra bridges which lead to NE Philly and Bridesburg. It's the sole reason I live where I do. I have a 7 minute commute to work, in a different state.

I'm soooo lost here. What does that have anything to do with whether or not a hotel would be successful at Six Flags. Less people living in the area should mean that the three million tourists who visit the theme park, the water park, the safari, and the outlets need a place to stay when they visit.

You keep saying stuff that supports the idea that a hotel would prosper at Six Flags. It's hard to follow your argument sometimes.

And Gonch's response, "I tried" doesn't really require you to reply. It comes off as trollish. You don't want to come off as a troll, do you? ;)

I know this board very well, and you are not going to change many minds. We are all stubborn in our awareness of what is real and what is not real.

Embrace disagreement, Billb. Don't take it personally. People used to tell me that the world would be a perfect place if everyone were more like me, and I would tell them over and over that they were wrong, it would be really boring.

*Edited to correct weather to whether.

I wasn't trying to be a troll.

Gonch mentioned that it was odd there was nothing much else in the area, aside from the Tanger outlet.

The reason is suburban sprawl hasn't reached out that far from Philly. The closer you get to Philadelphia, the more jammed up it is. Simply looking at Google maps and the number of roads bares this out.

My "suburban sprawl" remarks had nothing to do with the hotel, just an explanation why there are no other ammenities near Six Flags, golf courses, etc. It's a rural area and not really a suburb is the short answer.

Why this is so unbelievable, I'll never know. As people move away from the city it's less desirable to live 45 minutes away as opposed to 15.

How this supports a hotel flourishing exactly, I'm not sure. One could need to commute to the city for their job, and need not be inconvienienced by a 45 minute commute to Six Flags once a year but that is a tangent I said I wouldnt get back on again.

So if no one can change Bill's mind and Bill can't change anyone's mind why does this thread keep going and going and going?

Well if we all took that attitude, there wouldn't be much to talk about, would there?

I think it has more to do with people not even understanding Bill's point and Bill trying to articulate it in a way that other people will understand it.

Recap - If people want to go to a theme park, they will go to SF, and if they want to go to the shore, they will go to the shore. It doesn't have anything to do with temperature, or humidity.

Or if their kids are young they'll go to Sesame Place or Storybook Land, or Clementon, or The Falls. If they want a water park only they can go to Seaside Heights, or Ocean City, or LBI, or Wildwood, or Coco Key, or Sahara Sams

or Casino Pier, or Funtown Pier, or Fantasy Island in LBI, or Castaway Cove, or Gillians Wonderland, or Gillians in Sea Isle, or Moreys

and enjoy more ammenities, and better weather. The weather here in the middle of Summer sucks....not so much in absolute temperature, but the humidity is often high. With a few quadrillion gallons of water offering the benefit of evaporative cooling the coast almost always has better weather.

.add in a few parents who dont like to ride anyhow, and the beach becomes the better alternative for your buck. You can hang out on the beach all day, kids dig in the sand, boogie board or whatever for free, then you can get them a bracelet at Moreys and not pay to ride yourself if you are so inclined, but still be able to walk around the "park"

I will agree that people will go to whatever park (or attraction) they want to go to. That was my point. Six Flags, as well as their water park, car safari park, and the local outlet stores offer a unique experience from all of the other attractions that you have mentioned. The other attractions offer a unique experience from Six Flags too. Why are we talking about this?

We already have an estimate of how many people go to Six Flags, so I don't see how the temperature at Six Flags being 10° higher makes any difference as to why a hotel would be profitable there. I also don't see what people visiting other parks or attractions have to do with anything. It's a distraction to the real issue, which is...

"Why hasn't a hotel been built near Six Flags Great Adventure yet?"

Again, three million people per year already visit Six Flags. Keep that in mind when I ask:

1. What do other parks within a days drive of Six Flags have to do with this argument?

2. What does the climate at other attractions withing a day's drive have to do with this argument?

If you are saying that people prefer other attractions to SFGAdv for whatever reason, that doesn't matter to the issue. Again, about three million tourists visit the NJ Six Flags theme park, water park, Safari, and the local outlet stores yearly.

Let me reiterate, one more time, about three million people visit SF, and arguing that people want to go to different nearby amusement parks or attractions because the climate is cooler is not a good argument for whether or not a hotel should be built near SF.

I wonder if I need to reword that in a different way?

Okay, here it goes. The climate of other area attractions has no place in the argument as to why a hotel has not been built yet at Six Flags Great Adventure.

:)

Without knowing how many of those 3 million are there are school trip types or had no intention of staying there, whether a hotel existed or not, noone can really answer that.

Those other things do come into play. Places with amusements and other ammenites, have ample lodging.

In order for something to be a destination it needs other ammenities.

It was already stated that at least 1% of the total visitor count are not day-trippers (i.e. they're got to need a place to stay). I would be willing to bet (given the two different resort climates I've worked in) all of those guests would be willing to pay more to stay closer to the park (i.e. a park hotel or one down/across the road).

All of the reasons to build a hotel already exist, and they have a big enough visitor base to build one (yes, I would say at least 1% of 3 million is enough to justify a smallish hotel). Gonch also went through pretty much all the possible land-use reasons why there isn't one, and I mentioned the possibility of utilities issues (the park has had electricity load issues in the past).

The whole thing about being a destination requires other amenities is really a chicken and egg question, and in fact, in the modern history of the industry, the chicken came first, and the egg (other amenities) followed. So why has the egg not come yet? I can tell you one thing, it certainly isn't because there is not a need. There may not be people clamoring for a hotel when they visit the park, but that's only because they don't realize they need it. Make them realize they need to stay overnight and extend their trip, and they'll follow like sheep. ;)

billb7581 said:

Traveling 537, once you pass Mount Holly is all just farmland. If it were desireable to develop, it would have happened already like it did in Glouscter county area (Sewell, Mullica Hill, etc.)

Ok, I've stayed away, just laughing at the thread until now ... but you have to be kidding me with this one.

It's one thing to keep repeating your "If there isn't already a hotel there, then there will never be one" argument - but to say that because farmland isn't already developed, it never will be is just ridiculous. I don't know anything about that particular area, but all you have to do is look at Any City America to realize that just because there's nothing there today, it doesn't mean that it won't will be developed in 5, 10, or 20 years from now.

Using the West Cleveland to Sandusky area as an example (because that's where I and many others on here appear to be from), all you have to do is look at I-90/Rt-2W. 20 years ago, there was almost nothing along the highway between Avon and Cedar Point. In that time, they have built thousands of houses and apartment complexes, several shopping centers, stores, restaurants, gas stations, movie theaters, hospitals, offices, car dealerships, etc. on what was once just farm and woodlands. In fact, Cedar Point had been around for 100 years before there was even a highway to get there. Before Rt-2 was extended in 1970, you had to take Lake Rd (Rt6), a 2 lane residential road, or the turnpike to get there from the east. If there was no highway before1970, why did they ever build one?

Hell, from your post, what did the Glouscter county area look like years ago? You say "those farms are all gone". By the sound of that, there was a time - probably not too long ago - that it too was just a sprawling rural area. Were you saying that area would never be developed back then, because it wasn't already???

BTW: The area I mention above is also more than 45 from the nearest "big" city (Cleveland).

billb7581 said:

Those other things do come into play. Places with amusements and other ammenites, have ample lodging.

In order for something to be a destination it needs other ammenities.

(Smacks forehead) Other amenities like a water park, car safari, and an outlet mall?

And I still don't understand what you are trying to point out when talking about other vacation destinations. Because they have a better climate, and now hotel accommodations, you come up with a hotel will not work at Six Flags?

Help me out here. Why do the hotels near attractions an hour or so away from SFGAdv (and a 10° drop in temperature at the shore lol) mean that a hotel not work at SFGAdv. The fact that there are hotels that are profitable near other nearby destinations tells me that the same thing would work at SF. Why is this wrong?

You are not making any sense.

People vacation at the shore for weeks at a time. People go to Six Flags for the day.

What does the road situation at CP 100 years ago have to do with anything?

It's not like access to GA is the issue.. you have a spur from one of the busiest interstates in America, you've had Hotel Zoning for years, and still hotel. The prior plan to that was to build 200 million in other stuff to do to necessitate having a hotel nearby.

Glouster County was a sprawling rural suburbs close to Philadelphia. We just arent as geographically spread out as Ohio, why live 45 minutes away when you can live 20 minutes away in similar surroundings?