Thanks Mamoosh for teaching an old dog a new trick to me lol *** Edited 7/14/2006 2:34:41 AM UTC by supermandl***
Email me if you'd like to know how I did that ;)
*** Edited 7/14/2006 1:00:43 AM UTC by Mamoosh***
Not that SF would consider this option, but if the county wouldn't help in that situation, how would they expect to seriously impress the Six Flags people?
The best plan would be for a traditional style, family friendly park with a good variety of rides and a large waterpark. There would be some coasters of various sizes along with a good asssortment of flat rides, water rides, and other rides such as transport or dark rides. I would suggest that such a park be built inland from the Gulf a bit to reduce storm surge risk and to save on land costs. The park would probably do best with a seven month operating season (April-October) that could be extended if demand justifies it.
Another place that could use a new park is Houston. A big megapark is the best plan here given the HUGE size of the market and the lack of other parks within a reasonable distance. The Houston park should be well themed, have a wide variety of rides and shows including plenty of coasters and lots of water attractions. Attractions for both families and thrill-seekers should be included with a proper balance to maximize patronage while ensuring the right kind of crowd. It would be best located 30 to 50 miles from the downtown area at an inland location to the north or west. The park would best operate with a 9 or 10 month season.
The big problem in either of the above cases for now is getting the investments required because of the Cedar Fair takeover of Paramount and the Six Flags financial problems. In a few years, of course, this could change.
So just how much would that cost?
One big heap 'o cash.
Not to mention the cost of fixing and refurbing the rides from the water damage.
If i guessed , i'd say about 100 to 200 million.
You must be logged in to post