Developer unveils plan for Myrtle Beach park

Posted Monday, May 17, 2004 8:53 AM | Contributed by coasterbruh

A roller coaster would weave around hotel towers, an amphitheater, shops and restaurants on the site of the Myrtle Beach Pavilion Amusement Park if a developer’s vision unveiled Wednesday becomes reality. The city’s Downtown Redevelopment Corp. and Pavilion owner Burroughs & Chapin Co. Inc. moved a step closer to deciding the fate of the 56-year-old landmark Wednesday when both backed California-based Webster Realty Investors as the park project’s master developer.

Read more from The State.

Monday, May 17, 2004 9:06 AM
Another charming seaside town becoming a bland, commercialized shell of what it once was... sounds perfect. Shows how important are the opinions of the people that live there, since this is moving forward despite the majority of residents being opposed to it.
+0
Monday, May 17, 2004 9:10 AM
Glad my wife and I are making a stop in Myrtle Beach this June. Two Soon-to-be Defunct parks in one trip: Pavillion and Miracle Strip.

I read the article and the first two words that came to mind were: How boring.

*** This post was edited by SLFAKE 5/17/2004 9:11:11 AM ***

+0
Monday, May 17, 2004 9:38 AM
Sounds like a watered-down version of Vegas. Which begs the question: Why not just go to Vegas?

Saks Fift Avenue? A Bellagio-inspired water show? Yeah, that stuff will make people forget all about the amusement park that was once there. "Who cares about an entire amusement park when we can stare at some dancing fountain for six hours?"

Yeah. Right.

+0
Monday, May 17, 2004 12:19 PM
What is going to happen to the "Hurrican" Roller coaster? I seriously dought they can/would keep this.; Considering they are filling the whole property with a bunch of useless retail & commercial buildings, ect... I don't think this is going to be good for MB at all. Are there still plans to help the entire park move to a different location in MB?
+0
Monday, May 17, 2004 1:20 PM
The article states that the moving of Pavillion is a touchy subject and nothing has yet been announced. From the way it sounds, the owner of the park is more than happy to just sell his land and run with the money, so I can't see there being a huge push to relocate the park if no one is interesting in owning it. I would imagine the Hurricane would be destroyed or sold to an interested party. Any chance that Family Kindgom (down the street) would be interested in being the home to two wood coasters?
+0
Monday, May 17, 2004 3:24 PM
Isn't Hurricane built on and around tons of flat rides? Seems like it be kinda expensive to just move it down the road considering all the additional work that would have to be done. Does Family Kingdom even have the room?
+0
Monday, May 17, 2004 3:57 PM
I would think the Hurricane's structure would make it an excellent ride for a land-strapped park such as Family Kindgom. I wasn't saying that FK has the room, the funds or the desire to buy the Hurricane, I was just fantasizing out loud, hoping someone would hear me!
+0
Monday, May 17, 2004 6:52 PM
I find something really ironic about the closing of these seaside/gulfside amusement parks. Coming from New Jersey (originally) I have always felt that a seaside community should have three things; great beaches, a boardwalk and an amusement area or pier. Apparently New Jersey realizes this also with its many great seaside resorts (except in Atlantic City where the casinos made a bigger mess).

Here in Florida a push was made to get rid of the amusements at Daytona Beach. Small ride areas were replaced by high rise condos and shops leaving the chair lift and observation tower, on the pier, the only rides at the beach. The elected officials periodically cry that there is no entertainment for young people (pre-bar age) other than the beach and shops. A water park called Adventure Landing couldn't make a go of it (since it has been closed for over a year and is for sale) yet they talk about redeveloping the boardwalk with the inclusion of an on again-off again amusement area (at the expense of established businesses already there). I think it would have been better for a redevelopment of an amusement area that once existed there.

I know the insurance thing has gotten out of hand for amusement places, and real estate has created an opportunity too good to miss for many park owners but one has to realize that if the amusement areas are not there the beach areas suffer after nightfall. Buckroe Beach and Norfolk both suffered when their respective seaside parks closed. Several areas in California would have been more profitable if the amusement piers still operated. I feel that Myrtle Beach and Panama City will loose some of this as well (Myrtle Beach less so since Family Kingdom down the road will - hopefully- continue operations). Then people will start crying that there is nothing for their kids to do at night at these resorts. Short term money gain - long term loss.

As a sideline, these huge rise condos benefit only a few - not only do they block the view of the ocean for many but prevent offshore breezes from cooling the interiors making those areas a hot box (just look at what has happened in Florida the past 50 years).

+0
Tuesday, May 18, 2004 8:49 AM
However, is it a case of attracting people, or attracting the "right type of people."? Amusement areas attract families. Upscale condos etc attract a usually more "affluent" group... the "country club" set. Perhaps not as many people, but people who are more willing to lay down big bucks for things.

However, agreed... short term gain, long term loss.*** This post was edited by SLFAKE 5/18/2004 12:56:21 PM ***

+0
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 7:17 AM
coasterqueenTRN's avatar So sad to hear about this. I pretty much spent my summers at the Pavilion as a kid and I really hoped it wouldn't come to this.

Now I need to get my butt back down there (as well as Miracle Strip....somehow). :-(

-Tina

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...