Journey to Atlantis called "sore thumb" by local politican

Oh so she's concerned about the ride having no "educational value"? Well we can fix that. As you enter the queue you are handed a pamphlet and instructed read all about the wonderful world of dolphins. As you approach the station gates you will be prompted to answer a series of questions. Answer all of the questions correctly and you can board the ride. Get an answer wrong and you will be forced to the back of the queue. Get all of the answers wrong and you will be ejected from the park. Now that's how education should work! :)

"It stands out like a sore thumb," Frye said.

As do you lady. As do you.

If the council was so worried about this ride, they could have asked for drawings... Generally, that's standard with any construction of any magnatude. I also like their complaint saying Sea World saying they won't build a roller coaster. SW snuck through with a loophole on that one.

"Frye is also worried the project could be the first step in moving SeaWorld away from an education experience -- and toward an amusement park."

Well DUH, with a park like SeaWorld, that has multiple parks, they should have seriously done some research on this ride. Like to check if any of the other SeaWorld parks have a ride similar to the one proposed, in this case, it was of the SAME name. The council obviously didnt think this one through fully as they had hoped.

It's hard these days to have a park to be fully educational, SeaWorld was and with the addition of thrill rides, they have opened up to a wider market.

Maybe next time the council will look more into the park's proposal's so they actually know what's going on.

But I do love SeaWorld's comeback about the ride not being a coaster.*** This post was edited by sros208 1/20/2004 9:52:32 AM ***

Well, that's the thing; SeaWorld obviously BS'd the council a bit (and continues to). Continuing to claim "it's predominantly a water ride with some track" is obviously BS when there's track all over the place, not to mention the fact that it's not what the industry refers to as a "splash down or spillwater ride."

Still, I agree that there's no reason an attraction shouldn't be passed due to educational value. And I agree the council should have asked for drawings. Afterall, it seems wrong to pass something and then complain because you didn't ask what it was going to look like. (Although, I suspect if SeaWorld did, in fact, show drawings/pictures they showed those of the Orlando ride, and this clearly looks a lot different).

-Nate

Is it just me, or are there an awful lot of news entries for today?

I'll throw my two cents in here....I personally agree with the general consensus that the ride is an eyesore. If you compare it to the Florida couterpart, you will see that it is basically reminiscent of two run-down barn silos with track running around it. It is ugly.

But as far as an educational value, well who cares. I really do not understand town officials that balk at any attraction that gets added to any park. Considering how parks are often the lifeblood of the community that surrounds them, it seems they are biting the hand that feeds them. They need to embrace it and hope that the attraction will draw more people who are looking for something other than an educational experience.

I personally had no interest in attending any marine park until places like Sea World and Marineworld began adding rides. Hopefully the council will wake up and realize that Busch is trying to attract people who may not normally have any interst in attending Sea World. More attendees means more revenue, more revenue means more taxes and income to feed the town.

It's not hard to figure out the benefits of a ride like this, not matter how ridiculously horrid it looks.

Shaggy

*** This post was edited by Shaggy 1/20/2004 11:22:59 AM ***

I understand there are two sides to the story, but...

I think the key aspect here is the all the noise began with a council member. I've had to deal with city councils before, and there's always one or two loose cannons that will do anything they can to complain and raise a stink as their heads swell; regardless of the topic at hand. I guess they think it will help them a seat for another term.

I think that it will look better when the landscaping is done. I think it looks better than all the hotels sticking up all around Mission Bay. But yah, it could have looked better.

As far as Frye, I'm fairly certain she saw the drawings and I'm sure the counsil knew exactly what Sea World was putting in. I think this is just her way of getting attention.

I'll give her one thing, of all the councilfolks here, she somehow manages to get in the news all the time...and that's without getting indited by a federal grand jury for taking bribes (3 of our council members), or having part of your district burn to the ground.

I'm sure she isn't that quick to point out that her district property values are through the roof because San Diego gets a lot of attention. And here she is bashing one of the reasons for the attention.

I have a feeling there's more to it than this. I think someone at Sea World peed in her cheerios (or didn't buy her some milk anyway). Just another excuse for attention.*** This post was edited by janfrederick 1/20/2004 11:43:33 AM ***

It's the location that really bothers San Diegans more than anything. Sea World has been there forever, so people accept that it will be there. However, especially people who live in South Clairemont up on the hill, overlooking Mission Bay and the ocean, don't want their skyline changed.

I can't say that I blame them. Part of the reason people down there like Sea World is that it's like a more entertaining aquarium, and I don't think any of them want it to become a full amusement park. As is, its location, combined with the roads leading in and out, would NOT be able to support an amusement park.

Unlike us, most people would not like to see a 420 foot TTD clone sticking up in one of the most beautiful views San Diego has. I think a lot of people assume that this is another movement on a slippery slope to that reality.

Want an education? Build a SeaWorld park that draws no visitors and makes no money and watch it go out of business. Watch all the employees get pink slips and go on unemployment.

Education? How about a business class for starters...;)

Tunnelvision is a malady of epidemc proportion in SD. You'd be suprised at the number of people who still think of this town as a Navy town at the end of the Santa Fe RY. It's the second largest city in CA and one of the largest in the country. They have a Visitors and Convention Bureau that touts this place all over the world. When some of thoses visitors fall for what the percive to be SD and move here, the "locals" get all bent out of shape. This is especially true in the beach communities, where the attitude is "I've got mine, now get out of here".

Ms. Frye got into office by making a lot of noise, the kind that the people in the Beach communities wanted to hear. As long as she keeps spouting the same rhetoric, she'll get re-elected. These people want it to be 1954 again, when there was no Mission Bay, no freeways ,and no Seaworld.

Unrelated, but yet in a way this is related...

Locally (in PA) there was a township supervisor who was upset because Home Depot was moving into her township. She was insisting that Home Depot abandon its orange color scheme in favor of something else because "orange" was non a color that she thought was appropriate for her local neighborhood.

Gotta love nit picky local politics... especially zoning boards.

Whatever, sure glad we got a water coaster regardless of what Busch may or may not have disclosed. Personally I don't see how in the world any city would approve any tall structure without first seeing proposals, rederings and such. So I seriously doubt her claims she had no idea what it was going to look like, but it sure makes great news for the media that she was "lied to".

Unfortunately with all this flack, even though the City approved raising SWC's height limit to 160ft, I doubt we'll ever see a Jr. Hyper, floorless, or any other coaster for that matter, ever at SWC.

I agree with janfrederick, sure looks alot better than all the other tall ugly hotels in Mission Bay, but you sure don't see her attacking them. It's a done deal lady, give it a rest!

Tom, so what about the folks in Golden Hill when they up and built all those skyscrapers downtown? They used to have a nice view of Point Loma.

Also, I think that traffic is not an issue. Sea World already draws large crowds that are handled by the local roadways.

In terms of the Mission Bay scenery, I'm sure it will never be as nice as it was when it was a pristine wetland...before they dug it up and turned it into a recreation area.

I don't know, I think the ride is a lot more interesting to look at than the boxy hotels (Hilton, Hyatt, etc.) all around Mission Bay.

But aside from all that, the city council approved the plans. The only reason she is making a big deal (because they aren't going to tear it down), is to get re-elected.

The ride is by far more ugly than its Floridian counterpart. The silo comment was pretty spot on. It does stick out, but it's no more or less ugly than the other monstrosities in the area.

I found that Orlando's version was about as much a coaster as Splash Mountain, or pretty well any other log flume for that matter. The ride does the flume thing for most of the ride, with a curved drop down and back up to the station. It's fair that Mack call it a water coaster, especially given the nature of some of the other installations around the world, but in my eyes, I agree with Patrick Owen, in that it's a water ride with some track.

I know the San Diego version has more track (or "coaster section", if you will), but what makes this unmistakeably coaster, yet every other flume on this planet not? Because it's a "Mack Water Coaster", right? It's a "Mack Water Coaster", of course, but how does that make it a roller coaster?*** This post was edited by auscoasterman 1/20/2004 4:31:27 PM ***

This woman has been pissing me off since I moved here in 1994. She doesn't want to accept the fact that her little hippie town of Pacific Beach is part of a major city - San Diego. If God forbid she ever is elected mayor, this town would become the pit of Southern California. The Chargers would most definitely leave town (they have a bit of a chance of staying with Dick Murphy, keyword though: bit), the Padres would have to close Petco Park because it interferes with the homeless' right of congregating in public areas, and she'd close SeaWorld because she would realize that it actually is an amusement park.

There are many people in this town who cannot accept that San Diego has become a thriving metropolis with a lot of potential - and Donna Frye is unfortunately one of them.

Well, the Chargers are a whole different story... ;)

PB a hippie town? I always thought of it as more of a college hangout...

Janfrederick, there are a lot of people in PB that have been in college for at least the last twenty years. It's one of the last bastions of the "professional student" in this town.

Golden Hill is not exactly an upscale neighborhood, although it was at one time. When the first of the high rises started going up over twenty five years ago, the population of that area realy didn't care, and for the most part most of them still don't.

Well yah, but even if they did care, I'm not so sure their representative would take their side over the developers...unless of course they wanted to make headlines. ;)

I wonder if she complains about the powerboat races that can be heard from downtown? She's wacky.