However PKI has besides SOB tried to use existing park land because the park layout is so efficent.
Also much of the land that KECO bought was accross the highway which became the golf center and ATP tennis club and even some high price housing.
When Paramount bought it, The campground was not owned by KECO but Jellystone resorts. The Hotel was owned by KECO and sold. All the investors like Coke Cola and others were bought out and then contracts for thier exclusive use made.
Hanna Barberra was never a owner. It started in the 60's that a good relationship between KECO and Coney to use it's charictors and blossomed. Since the Time Warner buyout of HB this has been done under contract in five year periods. I really don't think Paramount will keep running a competitors branded lineup (Except for Scooby) Very much longer.
Chuck, who also thinks they are leaving much of that land unused to keep the neighbors happy noise wise.
The residents then do everything in their power to block the park from growth and lord help you if they want something that will promote a scream.
Dorneys the perfect example but dorneys over 100 years old.
Chuck
Charles Nungester said:
Hanna Barberra was never a owner. It started in the 60's that a good relationship between KECO and Coney to use it's charictors and blossomed. Since the Time Warner buyout of HB this has been done under contract in five year periods. I really don't think Paramount will keep running a competitors branded lineup (Except for Scooby) Very much longer.
Except, before the park was owned by KECO (as part of a management buyout, if I recall correctly), KI was built and owned by Taft Broadcasting, who also owned HB. So, while HB wasn't exactly an "owner" of the park, they did share the same corporate parent.
Joel *** Edited 5/27/2005 4:23:43 PM UTC by JZarley***
One thing the Disneys found was that they lost a lot of potential revenue around Disneyland because they owned the park, but others bought up the land around it to open the hotels, restaurants, etc. That's why they bought up so many thousands of acres when planning for Disneyworld.
Roy's advice went something like, "Buy as much land as you can. Then, buy more land."
So the short answer is no, Taft did not have a master plan for how all that land would be used, but they wanted to make sure it would be available for their use in the future.
Charles Jacque's book on Cincinnati's Coney Island is a treasure trove of information.
The Schott family waa very close with Kennywoods owners as well. Ideas and discussions were many.
Chuck, seeing too much of the all for one and one for all these days.
Here is the map with PKI and the surrounding land. I thought this may be a nice thing to look at with the post.
My band "The Cedar Kings". "Ordinary Day" a trip report in song.
http://www.myspace.com/mmiddleton87
What Charles mentioned earlier was also talked about when they went to build Disneyworld. They went seriously undercover creating peoples profiles and fake companies to grab up all the land they could around Orlando and keep the media from leaking info. to the gen. public. And they did all of that to insure that this Disney venture would NOT be landlocked.
I think they succeeded!
BogeyMon said:
Back in the 1950's, Walt Disney consulted the owners of Cincinnati's Coney Island when planning Disneyland. Disney's brother Roy returned the favor when the decision was made in the 1960's to move from Coney Island to what is now Kings Island.One thing the Disneys found was that they lost a lot of potential revenue around Disneyland because they owned the park, but others bought up the land around it to open the hotels, restaurants, etc. That's why they bought up so many thousands of acres when planning for Disneyworld.
Roy's advice went something like, "Buy as much land as you can. Then, buy more land."
BogeyMon, you said exactly what I was thinking when I first read the thread topic. I don't believe there is much of a plan to use most of the extra land they currently own (except for buffer space). I would believe using it for coasters (similar to what Beast does), but not for paths and/or expanded park size. The park is already huge, and if you look at original maps, it's not too much bigger than it was in 1972 (added waterpark and action zone, expanded most areas except octoberfest, international street and hannah-barbara land, looped a path around the former antique cars).
- DJ
"When the end of the world comes, I want to be in Cincinnati because it's always twenty years behind the times." - Mark Twain
One thing to remember is Disney built his first park on a shoe string budget. Had to mortgage all he had and then borrow from ABC to build it. That made it hard to buy any extra land. Plus of course he was the first to do a modern theme park, so he couldn't learn from other's mistakes.
CoasterKrazy said:
Of course, raising the price of land because the company purchasing the area can afford it isn't exactly ethical either.
Nonsense. There's a huge difference between a business coming in and secretly buying up a bunch of land for development and a family not wanting to give up their land for whatever reason. Outside of eminent domain there's no reason you should be forced out of your land. Many people who hold out in such cases end up being compensated handsomely after they finally cave because the price has most likely increased considerably from the first offer. Buying up property is one of the most stable personal investments so why not make a bunch of money back on your investment if you can?
Nothing is in this world is free, and if a company wants to buy a bunch of land for development, they know going in that they will be shelling out a ridiculous amount of money to do it, not by making a few up a few aliases.
Personally, I would have done the same. Disney did nothing illegal. He just wanted a head start before the competition had a chance to move in on His Genius Idea.
Guess who's back? Back Again? James K's back. Tell a friend.
You must be logged in to post