Is Wildwood the future home for the NRCM?

Monday, July 30, 2007 2:53 PM
rollergator's avatar LOL, signed up for a good old-fashioned ACE-bashing thread (I'm shocked!)... ;)

ACE has its problems, no doubt. Every organization is going to have some. But ACE is taking action, and moving in the right direction...not as quick as some of us might like, but stuff takes time. Also, I think your opinions mighta carried more weight had you taken the time to make yourself *known* first.

"Transparency"... :)

*** Edited 7/30/2007 6:55:37 PM UTC by rollergator***

+0
Monday, July 30, 2007 2:59 PM
Agreed on everything except the Wildwood part. But we've been through this before on RRC? Nice to see how our rants from a year ago have resulted in so little getting done. I wonder when Crowther's going to actually say something about preservation?

But getting back to the point, I still don't see why Wildwood- or any seaside location for that matter- is a bad idea. Hurricanes aren't a major factor in the northeast and if arson is a problem, it's going to be a problem anywhere. Regardless of where this thing goes (provided it gets built), it's not going to be very high-profile so it's not going to warrant people keeping an eye on it. In fact, it will be high-profile in Wildwood, so that could end up working in its favor. As far as historically-appropriate places to build this thing, PA makes sense except for the lack of people in most parts of the state or somewhere along the shore in the northeast. Both those places have played a huge role in this country's amusement park culture.

+0
Monday, July 30, 2007 3:33 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

millrace said:
Ohio's problem is that nobody wants it. Midwesterners think it's in the east. Easterners think it's in the midwest (or don't think about it all)

Sorry to stay off topic, but that's a great line. :)

There's more to consider than state lines when trying to group the states by area. I think morals, values, lifstyle and things like that come into play as well.

I have my own wacky ideas about things in life and this is no exception. To me, once you get west of the appalachians, you're in the midwest (that includes places like Pittsburgh and Buffalo).

Once you cross the Mississippi you're in the Great Plains and once you cross the Rockies you're in the West.

The geographical features seem to divide us much better than the man-made state lines.

As far as the north/south thing, I'll leave that up to the experts because I often feel like the south is put too far north. :)

Anyway...back to your regularly scheduled ACE bashing. ;)


+0
Monday, July 30, 2007 3:51 PM
I keep hearing about the 'storm wipeout'. Really, big deal. Look at all the operations on the coast: Morey's Piers, Steel Pier, Jenkinson's at Pt Pleasant, Casino Pier/Breakwater Beach waterpark in Seaside Heights.

Santa Cruz, Sea World and all the stuff in Mission Bay, Santa Monica Pier, Coney Island, and of course, the Atlantic City Casinos.

Oceanfront access is the price you pay for that potentially 75ft tidal wave that may send everything 4 miles inland.

I think if that ever ever happened, the more important story would be Morey's $100 million empire of 4 piers, 2 waterparks, 6 hotels, employee housing, warehouses, and other building wiped out vs. a building full of relics, which could be re-produced and filled again with more donations.

A museum displays AND educates. Changing exhibits does just that. *** Edited 7/30/2007 7:52:56 PM UTC by Agent Johnson***

+0
Monday, July 30, 2007 4:45 PM
I do agree that the big story would be the loss of the amusement empire. I don't agree that the loss of museum relics wouldn't be important. Historical relics can't simply be replaced but things like a Vekoma Boomerang and a Wave Swinger can be replaced.

But again, I don't see why the threat of natural disaster is something to seriously consider. I said it a few pages back- the threat of that 75-foot tidal wave hasn't kept every inch of American coastline from being developed.

+0
Monday, July 30, 2007 5:04 PM
^No it hasn't, but those folks are just dumb. Perhaps not all the way up to the Jersey shore, but they do still get major Hurricanes there. Many people live on the shores of the Mississippi too. Every once a while a new word is used to describe them, usually it is "homeless", or "people that lost everything".

I'll never understand why anyone would live on the Gulf shore or the Eastern seaboard, or damn near all of Southern California anywhere near a forest.

It isn't a question of if a natural disaster will destroy your home, it's when. And will you live to see that day. There were lots of 100 year old homes destroyed by Katrina. The builders probably lived their lives spouting out "I've lived here all my life, and no Hurricanes has ever destroyed my house". It's true, but it's also insanely disingenuous. Their kids lived to see those houses be reduced to a concrete slab, and there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it.

The American coastline continues to be developed because you pay taxes that then fund the flood insurance pool and FEMA to bail out those morons every year. Most Americans don't put that 2 and 2 together and realize that the millionaires building homes on the seashore do so on the backs of the vast majority of Americans smart enough to not live in a dangerous area.

People are slowly coming to grips with that reality since insurance companies are raising rates. A friend of mine was changing companies, but the new one wouldn't buy his house as part of the moving package because it was in a flood zone South of Houston.

I work with many people that live in Clear Lake, or right around Galveston bay. They know that any year the Gulf could bowl a strike and absolutely wipe Clear Lake off the map and destroy everything they own (and weather statisticians will tell you it is VERY overdue to happen). Yet, they still live there, not believing it would ever happen to them. And these are people that know the same people I know that had their houses destroyed by Katrina because they were dumb enough to live 3 miles in from the Gulf in Louisiana.

Rastus O'Ginga

+0
Monday, July 30, 2007 5:10 PM
And there's an example of the ever-optimistic American public!

Trust me, I'm not going to argue anything you just said. The sad reality is that people are stupid for building houses along the shore, whether it be Florida, the Gulf of Mexico or New Jersey. History suggests that natural disasters will hit your part of the coastline eventually, and if history doesn't suggest that, it means that historical records were probably washed away by the last natural disaster.

All I'm saying is that since the threat of natural disaster never kept development from occuring in Wildwood before, I don't see why it would suddenly become an issue.

Rastus, have you heard of the 25-story towers they want to build in Wildwood? Now that's crazy.

+0
Monday, July 30, 2007 6:35 PM
were you there? I heard myself at the Saturday picnic with my own two ears, Will Morey state that they may, at some undefined point in the future, look into downsizing their amusement operations because it could be more than demand warrants maintaining. He did state that Adventure Pier would be the one to go, and that they might, in such a case, look into moving the Great White, if not selling it with the pier, if the pier is even sold to another operator as an amusement pier - as if to say, if we, they Morey's, can't keep up three piers in this town, why does anyone need one that we might sell? He did make the statement of moving it in such a way that said it might be the last thing they do, not a scenario anyone would prefer, but one that may become necessary. This has nothing to do with the new coaster at Surfside & Hunt's (unless they're building that one to ultimately replace the older woodie), or any other ideas they presented.
+0
Monday, July 30, 2007 6:46 PM
and PS, there hasn't been a major hurricane to hit the NJ coast with the force of a Hugo, Andrew, Katrina, or even a Charley in more than a hundred years. That's not to say it's not possible, but the shape of the entire Atlantic coastline and the patterns taken by the vast majority of storms make the chances slim. It's usually ones that send the worst here in the form of heavy rain that do the most damage, like Isabel or Floyd or Agnes. In order for NJ to get smacked bad, the storm would have to do almost a due-north of out the tropics onto open sea to build up strength, then somehow turn hard west against the Gulf Stream to hit the coast without having pittered out from traveling over land, as most of them do for some time before they get up that far.

The bigger weather threat to NJ is the off-season storms, the Nor'Easters. The worst in my lifetime was March 1962 - Sea Isle City and Cape May both lost their boardwalks, Long Beach Island was cut through in two places, and Longport lost ten blocks which are still underwater. If you think 25-story buildings in Wildwood are risky, what about the 50-story ones in Atlantic City? And AC is even more vulnerable than WW because of the shape of the coast. *** Edited 7/30/2007 10:49:07 PM UTC by Seahawk & the Wave*** *** Edited 7/30/2007 10:50:32 PM UTC by Seahawk & the Wave***

+0
Monday, July 30, 2007 7:09 PM
matt.'s avatar

Rob Ascough said:
But we've been through this before on RRC?

Folks like me haven't heard it yet. :)

In related news I hope Rastus sticks around for a little bit...he's obviously articulate and is good at expressing himself. Lots of interesting stuff to read.

+0
Monday, July 30, 2007 8:06 PM
Here you go, matt. Here's where this conversation began on RRC. Hope you have a lot of free time.

I'm not going to question whether someone from the Morey Organization said those things but I'm wondering if any of it was taken out of context. It seems to me that Will was simply thinking about the ultimate "what if" and not something that's close to being part of the plans for the future. As I've said elsewhere, the Great White represents a sizeable investment and I doubt they're going to walk away from that.

+0
Monday, July 30, 2007 9:32 PM
Jeff's avatar Hell, I just want to see if he can behave. His arguments are a lot more effective when he's not being, well, his RRC self.

Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog - Silly Nonsense

+0
Monday, July 30, 2007 11:56 PM
I was also there, and Will Morey stated that having 3 piers were enough, and the focus was on Morey's Pier and Mariner's Landing. 3 full scale piers is pushing, which is why there was never a third waterpark on Wild Wheels/Adventure Pier.

The Morey's field more rides now than when there were 7 independent piers in operation. That was the discussion. The discussion was led to the fact that in order for the business to grow, Wildwood needs more resturants, modern hotels, and parking.

While the Morey's are the the top seasonal attended park, they are not growing rapidly, like other smaller parks. Quite frankly, neither is SFGAdv, or Cedar Point. Certain markets hit the point where they can float up or down 2-3% per year, and that is it.

Will and Jack Morey are putting the coaster up a few notches on their wish list, which led to the open discussion. The wooden coaster, they feel, will swing the Philadelphia market back their way, as when the Great NorEaster and the Great White were added.

You have a choice now: Visit the other seaside gigs, who don't have space or resources to build a major woodie, or still visit them, and also be a new visitor to Wildwood, and embrace their 85+ ride arsenal, the beaches, the boardwalk and all it offers, and have Atlantic City to the north, and the Cape May Lewes Ferry to the south, or plod along and stand in a Six Flags 'q' all summer. I have my choice. *** Edited 7/31/2007 6:31:56 AM UTC by Agent Johnson***

+0
Tuesday, July 31, 2007 12:14 AM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

Certain markets hit the point where they can float up or down 2-3% per year, and that is it.

Hmmm. Where have I heard that before?

(sorry, just taking advantage of an "I told you so" moment :) )


+0
Tuesday, July 31, 2007 4:57 AM
Yeah and certain markets gain 20 percent a year :)

Duh

+0
Tuesday, July 31, 2007 9:50 AM

Agent Johnson said:


While the Morey's are the the top seasonal attended park, they are not growing rapidly, like other smaller parks. Quite frankly, neither is SFGAdv


Hasn't Morey's fluctuated that 2-3% in recent years while Great Adventure has declined significantly? I remember GA once pulling about a half million more people annually but recent figures I've seen show the two to be about even, along with Hersheypark (which kinda surprised me). *** Edited 7/31/2007 1:51:06 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***

+0
Tuesday, July 31, 2007 1:11 PM

Jeff said:
Hell, I just want to see if he can behave. His arguments are a lot more effective when he's not being, well, his RRC self.

I'm just making sure Mr. Siefert's pro ACE propaganda is given some balance. It wouldn't surprise me if he's already contacted you, asking to have my posts removed. I post a little less in character on forums than I do on RRC.

Rastus O'Ginga

+0
Tuesday, July 31, 2007 1:34 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

Charles Nungester said:
Yeah and certain markets gain 20 percent a year

Duh


Ahhh, but AJ qualified that in the sentence I didn't quote:


While the Morey's are the the top seasonal attended park, they are not growing rapidly, like other smaller parks. Quite frankly, neither is SFGAdv, or Cedar Point. Certain markets hit the point where they can float up or down 2-3% per year, and that is it.

Here's an industry person pretty much confirming what I tried to tell you on numerous occasions, Chuck.

The small parks grow because they're small and the big parks are stagnant because they're big. When those small parks get big, they'll see the same stagnation.

It doesn't prove people like the small parks better as you often argue. It's no coincedence that the parks that see the largest attendance growth have the most growing to do themselves.


+0
Tuesday, July 31, 2007 1:41 PM

Rastus O'Ginga said:


I post a little less in character on forums than I do on RRC.


Hopefully you'll continue to post here. I, for one, am happy to see you.

+0
Tuesday, July 31, 2007 2:35 PM
rollergator's avatar

Lord Gonchar said:It's no coincedence that the parks that see the largest attendance growth have the most growing to do themselves.

LOL, so you're saying that a park pulling in 500K peeps adds another 100K and does *magnificently* with 20% growth, whereas another park pulling in 3.3M adds another 100K and has "merely adequate" growth of 3%? Blasphemy!

IMO... ;)

+0

You must be logged in to post

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