So I guess what I'm saying is that maybe Arizona doesn't have a large theme park due to a combination of the relatively low population, population demographics, lack of another large city within reasonable driving distance (LA and Vegas are just too far away), unfavorable climate, drought and water shortage, and competition from the large amount of other vacation activities available.
Mybe they should build a park like that. Ha Ha Ha;)
Mamoosh said:Arizona...not a tourist destination? So I suppose no one goes to that really deep canyon at the north end of the state?
I never said there wasn't any tourism to Arizona, just that it isn't a big draw.
Let's use 2004 for comparison.
27.8 Million tourists visited Arizona (Source: http://www.nau.edu/hrm/ahrrc/az_otrl/stats.htm)
21.3 Million tourists visited San Antonio!
(Source: http://www.sanantoniocvb.com/local_partners/Research/DKSResearch%202005.pdf)
That's right: San Antonio alone draws almost as much tourism as the entire state of Arizona.
And considering that 21.3 million is concentrated on just one city, that's a lot of money to flow into a park. *** Edited 5/11/2006 2:29:20 AM UTC by IntrepidationAW***
My argument here is that it's not the number of tourists in arizona that have led to there being no major theme park, rather it's the various things I listed at the top of this page.
Also, San Antonio isn't really a good point of comparison because it's one of the top 10 most visited cities in the US. Why not compare it to Cleveland, or Kansas City, etc... cities that aren't neccesarily known as tourist cities, yet have one or more large amusement parks near by.
By the way, If I were to build a park there, I'd rig up firehoses so that it was always raining. ;)
Lee Grant said:
Six Flags may not be the best people to start an amusement park there either with all the financial problems they're going through after having to close down Astroworld and dealing with New Orleans, among debt problems with other parks.
Good luck getting Six Flags to build anything but a water park, and it sounds like Phoenix has enough of those already. Also, SF didn't HAVE to close Astroworld, they chose to.
I often am surprised with how people whine over how unfair a park closure is, what with the parks that are just total failures, but even I find the closure of Astroworld to have been a pretty lousy idea.
13 Boomerang, 9 SLC, and 8 B-TR clones
sirloindude said:I often am surprised with how people whine over how unfair a park closure is, what with the parks that are just total failures, but even I find the closure of Astroworld to have been a pretty lousy idea.
Yup. Hate to beat a dead horse but if you look at the minimal investment put into Astroworld the last 10 years and the profit turned, you'd scratch your head at how this could have possibily been a good idea.
/end derail
You must be logged in to post