Mt. Olympus buys up and improves hotels on Dells strip
Posted
Over the last three months, Mt. Olympus owner Nick Laskaris and his wife have purchased six motels and hotels, primarily along the west side of Wisconsin Dells Parkway, commonly referred to as "the strip." Most of the properties are outdated, so a crew of about 30 workers is busy this winter tearing out carpeting, replacing furniture, light and plumbing fixtures and painting. Laskaris said he is spending about $20 million to purchase and remodel the properties. The resort will have about 1,000 rooms.
Read more from The Wisconsin State Journal.
Related parks
Yes they do. Because it's in Jackson.
enthusiasts trying to play the role of an average family.
What the hell does that even mean?
I'm still laughing about the 1 hour "road trip" that was so exhausting it necessitated a stayover.
Around here it's not abnormal to drive an hour to work every day.
Indeed. My commute is over an hour, but I typically don't spend 12 hours at work walking long distances and subjecting myself to intense G forces. The last thing I want to do when leaving a theme park after a full day is drive for an hour or more, especially when there's a good chance I'd get sleepy behind the wheel, and endanger my average family.
Lord Gonchar said:
billb7581 said:
It's not some great mystery why there is no hotel there.It's not?
Seems no one posting in this thread knows why.
...and now I'm beginning to question my judgment in asking... :)
"I'd have gotten away with it, too, if not for you meddling kids..." ;)
You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)
Vater said:
I really feel I'm in the home stretch...those 99,980 sigs are right around the corner!
Just think how many bran muffins you could buy with $50,000 in Pepsi grants!
Vater said:
enthusiasts trying to play the role of an average family.
What the hell does that even mean?
I'm still laughing about the 1 hour "road trip" that was so exhausting it necessitated a stayover.
Around here it's not abnormal to drive an hour to work every day.
Indeed. My commute is over an hour, but I typically don't spend 12 hours at work walking long distances and subjecting myself to intense G forces. The last thing I want to do when leaving a theme park after a full day is drive for an hour or more, especially when there's a good chance I'd get sleepy behind the wheel, and endanger my average family.
It means that an average family isn't going to travel to Great Adventure because their roller coaster is a foot higher. They're just going to take their kids to their local theme park.
As to your second point, are we talking about an amusement park, or astronaut training? Good Lord. Non enthusiast parents are only subjecting themselves to repeated rides on the park benches.
That's swell if you've never been exhausted after a day at a park. Not everyone is like you (as this thread would indicate). And growing up, my 'average' (i.e. non-enthusiast) family would actually travel to parks other than the local one. And really? Do non-enthusiasts only sit on the benches all day long?
I don't understand why you can't grasp that some people might book a room near the park to avoid a drive home.
One last blow to the horse carcass...
But like I said, how did Great Adventure possibly stay in business for 40 years without a hotel on site? The simple answer is the park is plenty profitable without one. The cost/benefit ratio isn't there apparently
Where in this thread has anyone suggested that Great Adventure's success was dependent on having a hotel next to it?
Average folks may hit a few rides, but they aren't marathon riding hypercoasters. Going to an amusement park isn't going to drain the average parent to the point where they cant drive an hour... jeez.
You keep changing the pro-hotel argument so that you can argue against it with your illogical premises, which says an awful lot about your argument.
No one suggested that people can't drive an hour after a day at an amusement park. It has simply been stated (probably 40 times by now) that even if a small percentage of park guests don't want to drive an hour after a day at the park, the hotel could easily be profitable.
Brandon | Facebook
<< curious how many in this thread posing as "average families" actually have kids.
FTR I am 40 years old with 2 kids.
I'm not changing it. The short answer is they dont need a hotel, there is sufficient lodging nearby for the small percentage of people who dont feel like driving an hour.
Who the hell is posing? If it helps, I'm 38 with two kids, and I don't marathon rides either. Never have, except maybe a couple times when I was in my teens. Criminy.
billb7581 said:
I'm not changing it. The short answer is they dont need a hotel, there is sufficient lodging nearby for the small percentage of people who dont feel like driving an hour.
Simply stating your conclusion isn't the same thing as backing up that conclusion with a logical argument. You have yet to do that. The pro-hotel argument has, numerous times.
Brandon | Facebook
I have applied logic to the situation... noone else has.
The lack of a hotel is easily explained by the lack of a demand for one.
You guys are trying to argue one into existence, and inexplicably they're not building one, nor have they ever seen the need to build one over a 40 year span.
You cant blame it on the bad economy or their recent bankruptcy, those situations are recent.
Nor can you say having the zoning available is proof of anything. It'd be like saying since my house is zoned to be a Dr. office, I must be going to medical school.
billb7581 said:
I have applied logic to the situation... noone else has.The lack of a hotel is easily explained by the lack of a demand for one.
It's almost like an unintentional joke that the above sentences are right next to one another.
You really should read about circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, which means it's not logical at all. Thus, your argument is not logical (and no, simply stating that it is doesn't change that simple fact).
Brandon | Facebook
djDaemon said:
billb7581 said:
I have applied logic to the situation... noone else has.The lack of a hotel is easily explained by the lack of a demand for one.
It's almost like an unintentional joke that the above sentences are right next to one another.
You really should read about circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, which means it's not logical at all. Thus, your argument is not logical (and no, simply stating that it is doesn't change that simple fact).
LOL... it's much more logical to make numerous assumptions with respect to the demographics of the folks who visit GA and their interest in an on sight hotel?
If there is no logical reason why a hotel doesnt exist, then why doesn't one exist?
You must be logged in to post
