Plans for EarthQuest dwarf the former Six Flags Astroworld

Posted Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:17 PM | Contributed by Jeff

A small group has since been studying and drawing plans for an upscale Disney-styled entertainment complex that would be seven times larger than Houston's original park. They want to build it on 500 wooded acres — which they own — adjacent to U.S. 59 in Montgomery County, just a short drive from the airport and downtown Houston. But the plan is now two years behind schedule. Organizers say this is because their vision has slowly evolved from a 50-acre dinosaur park to EarthQuest — an elaborate ecofriendly entertainment zone that teaches environmental stewardship.

Read more from The Houston Chronicle.

Related parks

Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:42 PM

The true reason behind the delay is that they have to redesign the logo and update all of their marketing material with a new name change: BoonDoggleQuest.

+0
Wednesday, July 14, 2010 1:28 PM

If I wanted to be edumacated I'd go back to school, not visit a theme park! ;)

+0
Wednesday, July 14, 2010 1:32 PM

7 times the size of a Six Flags park? I'm assuming they mean after many, many phases, because I can't imagine the amount of startup capital necessary to build something that huge and be able to run it for the first couple years. Plus the educational hook seems really dubious. Epcot, who's educational merits are somewhat suspect anyway, works well because it covers lots of different concepts. "Environmental Stewardship" seems like it would be stretched pretty thin as a theme pretty quickly.

+0
Wednesday, July 14, 2010 3:10 PM

The article said:

Plans call for:

A waterpark made from a retreating glacier

...because global warming is real AND fun! Lesson learned kids!


I'll believe this when I see it. They talk about telling a story 'like Disney' ...about preserving the environment. So they’re putting green-education up against 80ish years of storytelling deeply ingrained in the culture of not just the US, but the world? Um, right. The concept they have sounds like it would make a good science center/museum style attraction, not a 500 acre entertainment complex. I’m all for a green amusement park, but you simply cannot bill an entertainment complex as an educational experience and expect to be successful.

In my opinion, a better way to approach it would be to lead by example: be a big, green entertainment complex. Green-roof all your buildings, use solar panels to run all the lights, recycle, work with the city to have a high capacity rail/bus line so no one ever has to drive to the park, collect rainwater for toilet flushing and gardening purposes, that'd be great!

...But for god’s sake don’t try to build 500 acres of guilt-induction and eco-lecture opportunities. A complex of the magnitude they're dreaming of can't exist on revenue generated from middle school science class field trips.

Last edited by BBSpeed26, Wednesday, July 14, 2010 3:30 PM
+0
Wednesday, July 14, 2010 3:38 PM

"They want to build it on 500 wooded acres"

and

"an elaborate ecofriendly entertainment zone that teaches environmental stewardship."

I found that amusing. :)

+0
Wednesday, July 14, 2010 6:36 PM

An Inconvenient Truth - The Ride!

+0
Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:17 PM

Manbearpig best mascot ever.

+0
Thursday, July 15, 2010 11:44 AM

^^Think they'll offer massages too? ;)

+0
Thursday, July 15, 2010 12:07 PM

I could see the "green" thing work, as long as it wasn't the only theme. Like BBSpeed26 said, lead by example. Put the green thing in parenthesis. Maybe have one themed land themed to the Green stuff. Make people feel god about spending money there, but don't make it an attempt to brainwash them, because that will cause resistance to the idea.

...And I don't even believe in global warming.

+0
Thursday, July 15, 2010 7:02 PM

I bet I could warm your globe :)

+0
Thursday, July 15, 2010 7:12 PM

:)

If we worked together, you'd be fired for sexual harassment.

+0
Friday, July 16, 2010 4:42 PM

This park will never exist just like man made global warming. Maybe if they do ever get it buuilt glbal cooling will be back in fashion. How can you build such a large park based on something that's trendy. Seriously the green thing won't last forever.

+0
Friday, July 16, 2010 4:52 PM

Perhaps they should theme it to arrogant denial and ignorance. Those things will always be around.

-Nate

+0
Friday, July 16, 2010 5:32 PM

You really think climate change is a fashion? We have decades of measured surface and ocean temperatures that sure strike me as more than fashion.

+0
Friday, July 16, 2010 7:39 PM

The founder of The Weather Channel can teach us a lot about what it really going on.

+0
Friday, July 16, 2010 7:45 PM

When is the last time a weather man was actually right? Weather.com tells me it's storming right now. It's actually sunny and 92.

Islands have already disappeared. Temperatures are increasing. The vast majority of reputable scientists (you know, the ones not being paid by oil companies) warn that global warming is happening. Turn a blind eye all you want; you won't be alive by the time the changing climate has a signaficant effect on mankind anyway. But I'd rather leave the planet in better shape, not worse.

-Nate

+0
Friday, July 16, 2010 10:04 PM

The weather man is right 50% of the time. ;)

I'd keep the last video in mind when watching this video. My belief is that both have a lot of truth to them, even though a few ideas are conflicting.

(I'd recommend watching all of the Story of Stuff videos. They are pretty interesting.)

I already suspected that something wasn't right with all this climate change talk, even before those e-mails were released.

+0
Friday, July 16, 2010 10:33 PM

You must have missed it last week when, after the investigation concluded, it was reported that the e-mail "controversy" was a big fat nothing.

From what I saw in the Youtube videos, the science presented was amateurish , misleading, and ignorant of the larger picture. I fully admit, however, that I did not watch them all (I don't have that kind of patience...)

-Nate

+0
Friday, July 16, 2010 10:45 PM

"We" ;) don't really care for the term "global warming" since it can be misleading. The terminology of choice for the foreseeable future is climate change - it includes atmospheric moisture changes and accounts for the fact that altered weather patterns may lead to cooling in certain times and places (this past Winter in FL, for instance).

Considering that carbon-based fuels have been altering the composition of the Earth's atmospheric gases drastically over the past couple hundred years, wouldn't it be more surprising if there weren't an impact? I mean, there may have been *some* fraudulent science by a few misguided individuals, but that doesn't negate the overwhelming supporting evidence...

+0

You must be logged in to post

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