GL's Steel Venom probably also on it's way out....

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:05 AM
Yeah, I didn't even think about the idea of switching main parking lots. Geauga Lake could build up an RV/campground, or even just another hotel (they have one already... I even tried to stay there... the lodging situation in that area is pretty bad, trust me).

Cutting your infrastructure is a good thing when your park is too big, but the park really has a lack of balance. I'm not going to say anything new here: a dark ride, a family coaster, more flats, etc. But how far will removals go? CF has already done a LOT to this park so far, and I'm just wondering when it's going to start turning around. It's a damn nice park, now give me a reason to get excited about it.


+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:27 AM
Why on earth would they send SV to KD? They have a very, VERY similar coaster made by the same manufacture and it does the same thing except that it has two separate launches, is a complete circuit, and goes through a mountain.

I like what CF is doing to GL. Making it smaller will allow it to save money in operating costs, which will make it more profitable, which will allow for a new attraction every now and then. The way the park has been running lately they were lucky to break even each year.

+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 1:15 AM
One thing I don't understand: if CF is so hellfire determined to shrink the park, why did they build a huge $30 million waterpark all the way across the lake? They could have taken a few rides out, kept Hurricane Hannah's and perhaps renewed or expanded the wet ride selection, moved a few flats over from Happy Harbor landing, and sold off the entirety of the Sea World property. Voila! Smaller park, tighter footprint, and a tidy chunk of change from a lucrative land sale.

I have to say, as much as I adore Cedar Fair, they are mystifying me about their plans for the Lake.

+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 7:16 AM
Jason Hammond's avatar

Arson said:
It's a damn nice park, now give me a reason to get excited about it.

I agree. I'm also somewhat frustrated that they keep making change after change without knowing what the bigger picture is. However, I am 100% confident that Cedar Fair isn't just randomly pulling out rides. I have faith in them to rebuild the park back into it's former glory. You know... before Six Flags threw 5 Coasters in over a 2 year span.


Ensign Smith said:
One thing I don't understand: if CF is so hellfire determined to shrink the park

Who said they were?


Ensign Smith said:
why did they build a huge $30 million waterpark all the way across the lake?

Because that's the market they need to concentrate on. As a general rule, Enthusiasts don't keep parks running, Familys do.
*** Edited 1/31/2007 12:17:01 PM UTC by Jason Hammond***


854 Coasters, 34 States, 7 Countries
http://www.rollercoasterfreak.com My YouTube

+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:24 AM
matt.'s avatar Yeah, it's not about physically shrinking the park, it's about removing rides that are just not justified by the current attendance. It doesn't just cost money to build these coasters, it also takes money to run them.

The waterpark is the way to go, at the end of the day this is going to be the cornerstone of a park like this.

The course is, as prescribed by Dr. Matt, to rip out most remnants from the Six Flags methodology (dump coasters here, there, and everywhere RCT style) and go with the world-renowned Coasterbuzz Plan for What Your Mid-Sized Park Needs.

Namely a nice wooden coaster (the park potentially has 3!), a spinner (within the next 3 years I'm betting), maybe a dark ride or something with dark ride elements (those folks who used to work for Paramount probably have expertise there), and *of course* a waterpark! And whaddayahknow they're already doing pretty well there, too.

Maybe it's just me but I think the park is pretty sweet as is, just wait a few years from now, I'm sure the place will be rockin'. *** Edited 1/31/2007 1:37:46 PM UTC by matt.*** *** Edited 1/31/2007 1:39:04 PM UTC by matt.***

+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:48 AM
Reading this thread I am amazed.

When other parks / companies remove rides and "shrink", people complain.

When there is talk about other parks / companies selling off land for development, people complain.

However, if CF does it, not only do people NOT complain, but they acually laud it as a sound business decision. Yet again another example of the prevailing thought that CF can do no wrong... many other companies can do no right.


"Yes... well... VICTORY IS MINE!"
+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:29 AM

kRaXLeRidAh said:

Jason Hammond said:
Yeah I missed that. That seems a bit extreem. I can't say I ever visualized the park from that direction. Is it possible that SV would be out of frame to the left?

Yeah, it does seem a bit extreme. I looked at that photo again and it is very likely that from the angle it was taken on that bridge, Steel Venom may just have happened to not make the shot.



I don't see how. Because your looking directly at Head Spin right there. The straight spike might be off the side of the photo since it would be to the left of head spins lifts but the twisted spire should be somewhere around the left side or the middle of the photo. I think that red roof under head spins lifts is the roof of SV's station. I was trying to look through some old photos I had of GL but I really don't have much from the bridge at all so I could not figure out where the spire should be.

+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:46 AM
eightdotthree's avatar

SLFAKE said:
However, if CF does it, not only do people NOT complain, but they acually laud it as a sound business decision. Yet again another example of the prevailing thought that CF can do no wrong... many other companies can do no right.

They kind of can't as of today. They are a really successful park chain, you can' deny that. They know what they are doing.

As for removing the coasters, Six Flags FAILED by adding all those rides, Cedar Fair knows they can't support 10 coasters at that park so they are doing something about it. It sucks if your a GL regular, but I personally would rather see a smaller, better run, more focused park than what SFWOA was. I am really curious what they plan on doing with all that land over there.


+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:56 AM
eightdotthree couldn't be more correct!:)

I think the park is really trying to downsize its self into a (unfortuanly) smaller park.

The park can't keep operating the way it currently is now.


The legend continues
+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:05 AM

halltd said:
GL still has way more coasters than most parks its size. So, I'm not sure why everyone is complaining so much.

At 750 total acres, GL is one of the largest park complexes out there. It's more than twice the size of Cedar Point.

+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:06 AM
eightdotthree's avatar I wish it were a different situation. I miss SFWOA, it was a cool park even though it was run poorly.
+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:42 AM
DawgByte II's avatar 750 acres includes the entire lake, bud... so it's not as large as you might think land-wise.

+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:42 AM
rollergator's avatar ^^^ LOL, I think *size* needs to be decided by acreage OR attendance, trying to use both only confuses the issues... ;)

For a park with it's ATTENDANCE figures, GL had *way* too much in terms of high-maintenance, high-operating-cost rides...CF is fixing that. Some fixes are more painful than others.

What CF would probably LIKE to end up with is something resembling the former SFEV, where there's a *Dominating* waterpark and some amusement rides thrown in to offer a MIX of attractions...

edit: Stupid arrows go out of synch when people post faster than me...I need to be more...succinct... ;)

*** Edited 1/31/2007 3:44:02 PM UTC by rollergator***

+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 11:24 AM
matt.'s avatar

SLFAKE said:


However, if CF does it, not only do people NOT complain, but they acually laud it as a sound business decision. Yet again another example of the prevailing thought that CF can do no wrong... many other companies can do no right.


Easy to make vast generalizations about your own perceptions - some direct quotes or something would be more useful if you think certain people are being hypocritical or wrong-minded or unfairly biased about this or whatever.

I dunno, I see GL and SFMM reducing their coaster line-up at them moment and they seem pretty well praised to me on both accounts.

+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 11:35 AM
Rihard's avatar ^ I was thinking the same thing. Six Flags usually gets a pretty harsh beating around here, but the removals from SFMM seem to be pretty well received.

- R.A

+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:15 PM
Your not wrong about the location of Venom in that picture of the bridge. The twisted spike should be in view, but it has been blatantly edited out.

Yes the red roof is Venoms staion, Head spin's lift hills run right over the middle of the ride.

It's been edited out of the picture, no ands, ifs, ors, or buts about it. I am at that park every single weekend in the summer, and know it's layout like the back of my hand. From that vantage point Venom should be totally visable. It's gone.

+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:20 PM
Geauga Lake dosnt own the lake
+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:21 PM

DawgByte II said:
750 acres includes the entire lake, bud... so it's not as large as you might think land-wise.

It's only a 50 acre lake. That leaves about 700 acres (Cedar Fair only claims 690) of land, which is still about twice the size of the typical amusement park.

*** Edited 1/31/2007 6:03:17 PM UTC by Jeffrey Seifert***

+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 1:02 PM
matt.'s avatar Right, but in this case we can safely say that the physical acreage of a park isn't always only what we mean when we refer to a park's "size."
+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 1:14 PM
I would think GL's being turned into Dorney, where there are some nice rides but the waterpark's the focus. Do that, throw in a comprehensive Nick area if they keep those rights (and they should) and you're all set. GL could bounce back in a big way.
+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2021, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...