Mt. Olympus buys up and improves hotels on Dells strip

billb7581 said:
Maybe on your planet.

Since that response is the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I", I'll do what countless more intelligent community members have already done, and bow out of the discussion.

So, none of us know what we're talking about, we're not real families with real children, and there will never be a hotel built at Great Adventure because people live in Philly, Jersey, and NYC. And no family ever would stay in a hotel because everyone that goes to Gadv lives within an hour or less of the park and since the park is the only thing around, there is no need to ever build a hotel on site.

Oh, and the only person capable of logic is Bill.

OH! And the rest of us are trying to demand GADv build a hotel (and not simply argue that one could be built at some point).

I think I have now. I've seen the light. I'm now well informed and smarter/more logical than all of the rest of you in this thread. I will now start chanting Bill's name continuously...

And with that I officially bow out. It's dipped into petty arguing by this point, with accusations being thrown around by someone who obviously knows everyone's familial situation and is qualified to speak only facts. I wasn't going to post this time, but whatever.

billb7581 said:
...there is sufficient lodging nearby for the small percentage of people who dont feel like driving an hour.

So you are saying that because their are other hotels within a 15 or 20 minute drive, the park doesn't NEED to build one? Wouldn't building an on-site hotel make MORE sense then, because they could be getting those hotel customers for themselves? Wouldn't SF rather have that money?

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.

How do you know that there is a lack of a demand for an on-site hotel? Where did you get that information?

I would say, because the company said that they were attempting to build a hotel on the property, they already figured out that their IS a demand for an on-site hotel.

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.

Wrong. They HAVE seen the need to build a hotel, because they were, and maybe are still, trying to build one.

You cant blame it on the bad economy or their recent bankruptcy, those situations are recent.

The park thinking it would be a good idea to build a hotel was recent too. Something came up recently to interrupt their plans. We don't know exactly what that was though. The water access theory sound the most plausible to me, as does the bad economy and recent bankruptcy.

I think a year or so from now, when they announce a new on-site hotel, you will be eating crow, my friend.

This discussion was not worth eleven pages. Congratulations in helping it to reach that far. I am going to follow the trend and move on to more interesting threads now. :)

billb7581 said:
<< curious how many in this thread posing as "average families" actually have kids.

37 with two kids aged 13 and 9.

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.

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.

What I find more telling is that on several occasions over a span of multiple decades there have been public plans to build a hotel on property - most recently just a few years ago.

That seems WAY more telling to me. They've seen the need to put a hotel there a few times...but they haven't.

No one seems to know why. Yourself included.

42 with two kids.

I hate this thread - it is pointing out that I am one of the elders.

billb7581 said:

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.

OK . . . But none of those average families already there would like to stay the night instead of driving, or hit the park one day, and the water park/safari the next. Add in the incentive of discounted/combo/multi day tickets for hotel guests only, and it makes staying on sight that much more appealing. For someone without the money to fly to Disney World every year, that could make for a nice lower cost vacation for their kids.

That's the entire point your missing on here.

billb7581 said:
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 say you have 2 kids - so your telling me they have never worn you out after a day at a park?

I took my niece and nephew to Kings Island 2 summers ago (3 hours away) and was DEAD tired by the time we left. No marathon riding or hypercoasters for us (went on the Beast once with my niece) - but, there was a whole lot of "Lets go back to the log ride", I want to see Sponge Bob again", "Scooby Doo, Scooby Doo", " I want to try the Beast", "Time for water slides", "Can we go up that tall thing". After 8 or so hours of standing and walking from one end of the park to the other and back, and back, and back again - I was exhausted.

Boy, do I wish we had stayed at one of the many busy hotels right by the park. I won't make that mistake again!

Raven-Phile said:
My wife and I don't have kids, and we have no plans to, but that doesn't mean we're not a family.

My freind Raven-Phile for the win! I am in the same boat.

Misreading the demographics indeed, pretty much all the people weighing in on this have been members of this website (some after long self imposed hiatuses ;)) for many, many, many years. A ton of us have formed life long friendships in which Roller Coasters don't even mean a thing anymore.

...And some of us still have yet to meet MagnumForce, but remember when he wanted to have Magnum's baby...

Tekwardo said:
...And some of us still have yet to meet MagnumForce, but remember when he wanted to have Magnum's baby...

Ba.Zing.Ga.

We all had our coaster days, of which we are not proud, but it's part of growing up. :)

31 and only have 1 kid! What do I win?

Here's the summary of Bill's argument:
1) There is no hotel because there isn't demand.
2) How do I know there's no demand? There's no hotel.

^See, Bill's argument makes perfect circular sense if you put it that way!

Honestly I haven't even ridden a roller coaster since CP closing day 2008. Funny how your priorities change!

Not proud of my ridiculous exit from Cbuzz all those years ago either,I believe I rejoined 2 years or so later, haven't really posted much like I used to. Wish I could be MagnumForce again! I have been on here in some form or another since 2001! Pretty unbelievable!

billb7581 said:

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.

I grew up around Pittsburgh with a quite well-liked local park. Many of my friends visited Busch Williamsburg, Cedar Point, Kings Island, etc. They sure as hell weren't all enthusiasts. It has nothing to do with which coaster is a bit taller. Sometimes people (even "average" ones!) just want to go somewhere different.

ApolloAndy said:
31 and only have 1 kid! What do I win?

Here's the summary of Bill's argument:
1) There is no hotel because there isn't demand.
2) How do I know there's no demand? There's no hotel.

That's not quite it. There's no hotel due to lack of demand.

I can demonstrate the lack of demand because every known plan for Six Flags to build a hotel there also included a crapload of other stuff to do, to necessitate building a hotel there.

billb7581 said:

You say you have 2 kids - so your telling me they have never worn you out after a day at a park?

I !

No, not really.. and I'm no picture of fitness either.

Or, it could have had something to do with "hey, we're already going to building the hotel, why not build some stuff to do after-hours as well?", but what do I know? I'm just a guy who enjoys relaxing and doing stuff that doesn't always involve roller coasters.

billb7581 said:
billb7581 said:

You say you have 2 kids - so your telling me they have never worn you out after a day at a park?

I !

No, not really.. and I'm no picture of fitness either.

Well good for you Buddy!

Raven-Phile said:
Or, it could have had something to do with "hey, we're already going to building the hotel, why not build some stuff to do after-hours as well?", but what do I know? I'm just a guy who enjoys relaxing and doing stuff that doesn't always involve roller coasters.

You're reversing cause and effect. The article I linked several pages back said the reverse is the case. I.E.. they needed more stuff there to necessitate a hotel.

(Roll eyes)

Well, I guess it's no wonder all these accomodations to the East of Great Adventure stay in business, what with all the stuff there is to do in the thriving metropolis of Lakewood.