PKI- Why all the land?

Friday, May 27, 2005 10:01 AM
When Kings Island was originally built, did Taft Brodcasting have any sort of master plan that would account for the 1600+ (now 700) acres of land that they purchased for the park?
+0
Friday, May 27, 2005 10:33 AM
I don't know if Taft had a "master plan", but the land was probably purchased for safety. So they would not become land locked.
+0
Friday, May 27, 2005 10:54 AM
Or have enough of a buffer so they won't run into problems with a new development of "McMansions" nearby with a bunch of people who decide they don't like living close to a boisterous entertainment center and push for zoning and noise restrictions.
+0
Friday, May 27, 2005 11:18 AM
Coney Island was very locked in size wise. They wanted the extra room to expand if needed. Presently there is about probably 5000 ft behind the park (Rivertown) and about the same amount of land thats currently used (For the park) Behind racer to expand.

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.

+0
Friday, May 27, 2005 11:22 AM
Millrace, I can't agree with you more. The Park, Racetrack, Whatever exist, Has been there for decades prior ect and a housing project goes in. The people buying these houses know prior to purchase the park, Racetrack, Whatever is there.

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

+0
Friday, May 27, 2005 12:20 PM

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***

+0
Friday, May 27, 2005 1:09 PM
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."

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.

+0
Friday, May 27, 2005 1:21 PM
I have Jacues Coney book (A great read BTW)

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.

+0
Friday, May 27, 2005 5:44 PM
I had heard that Disney had been at least slightly involved with Kings Island, but I wasn't sure if it was true.
+0
Tuesday, May 31, 2005 1:57 PM
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=16&X=919&Y=5447&W=1

Here is the map with PKI and the surrounding land. I thought this may be a nice thing to look at with the post.

+0
Tuesday, May 31, 2005 11:24 PM
Its obvious that Kings Island had somewhat modeled their park after Disneyland. They both have a main street and a central hub that connects to seperate secions of the park. They both have cartoon characters. I'm sure they learned much from Disney and therefore bought as much land as they could without any plans to build on it.
+0
Sunday, June 5, 2005 6:00 PM
If anybody has ever seen any of the Disney specials on Travel Channel before they talked about the mistake they learned from with Disneyland. When Disneyland opened they were landlocked to a district of California that was very rundown, (basically a red light district complete with tons of bars and nightclubs with very seedy hotels). People would not bring they're families to the park because of that, and from what I remember it was a very tough sell for several years.

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!

+0
Monday, June 20, 2005 12:38 PM
I doubt that type of business practice would be considered ethical, let alone legal these days.
+0
Monday, June 20, 2005 9:18 PM
Of course, raising the price of land because the company purchasing the area can afford it isn't exactly ethical either.
+0
Monday, June 20, 2005 9:52 PM
Kudos to Walt & the whole gang back then though. They did what they had to do! The tv show I mentioned earlier did a great job of representing the case for Disney. Now look how it's worked out for them too. The most succesful theme park ever, and probably will always remain that way. It's not nearly my favorite place to go for trips, but, if you wanna feel like a kid it is the greatest place in the world. You gotta admire how they thought ahead, (EPCOT was a plan of Walt's from the beginning!) and knew what they wanted...and then went and got it.
+0
Monday, June 20, 2005 11:13 PM

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).

+0
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 12:28 PM
I've also heard that Disney also had a problem with tall signs outside the park being visible from inside the park reducing the illusion of the themed areas.

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.

+0
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 3:56 PM

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.

+0
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 5:11 PM
WWD is built on Swampland. When Disney Purchased it was in the Middle of Nowhere. All you see now around there came from Disney being the first to build. Can you imagine what would have happened if Disney could only buy a small piece of land before the rest (competitors, others) bought up all the surrounding land?

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.

+0
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 7:13 PM

CPgenius said: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.

Who said anything about families being forced to give up their land?

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...