SFA 2005 webpage hint...

SFFT doesnt need to redo the Armildillo Beach waterpark. It is in such good shape and has great themeing. Hopefully SFA will get the HH treatment and a Proslide Tornado.

-Cal

I didn't say Armildillo Beach needed to be redone. I agree, it is a great water park already. I was just pointing out to Coaster Lover that SFFT also has a water park inside of the park.

Aren't there currently three slide complexes in PI? they are Tahitti twister(near the front gate)black hole/bonzai pipeline & poland springs plunge(formerly rainbow falls/zoom flume).

In all honesty I think we might be looking at a simple rehab here with a name change to HH in the process,if it's a completely new waterpark with no trace of the original slides then don't you think we'd've seen at least some form of
demolition of the existing attractions by now?

Now another possibility is that they'll expand into the field near the 3rd lot as Coasterlover has suggested keeping most of PI intact & a new attraction or two will be added over there(proslide tornado,setpoint swingthing etc) & the name change to HH but the most interesting prospects are for HH to be moved to the back of the park alltogether.

Think about it...by moving HH to the back of the park they can finally link GC & coyote creek thus forming a complete loop around the park eliminating the need for backtracking between rides & sections,it also free's up all that land at the front where PI currently sits for future expansion in 06/07.

Also depending on how large the new HH would be it would clearly define the westward boundry of GC & create an opportunity for a new themed area behind the new waterpark.

Coasterguts: the parks I was listing were SF parks that didn't already have a seperate admission waterpark, but had the room to build a new seperate admission waterpark, not just convert te current waterpark to a Hurricane Harbor at seperate admission.

BatwingFan: yes there are three slide towers, but if you look at my post, I said there was one body slide tower and two tube slide towers.

And I thought of a fifth option:

5. Hurricane Harbor would be built as a seperate admission waterpark west of the third (west) lot AND Paridise Island would remain with minor improvements such as a new coat of paint on certain things and remodeling where needed. Hurricane Harbor would be advertised like Blizzard Beach is at WDW where the slides would be more "extream" and the park would be more for those looking for the thrilling tube slides like the masterblaster, the Proslide Tornado, that "toilet bowl" slide, a nice tall freefall body slide, possibly one of those surfing simulator wave things and the like. Paradise Island would remain part of the park admission, but would be advertised as the park for the less adventerous or smaller children, like River Country at WDW. The waves in te wave pool would be more gentle...that's about it, none of the rest of the attractions in Paradise Island are too intense anyways. The more extream attractions at Hurricane Harbor would justify the extra cost to get into the park, but there could always be the option of phasing out Paradise Island over the years as the attendance at Hurricane Harbor went up. The name combo of the two water parks would seem to suggest the nature of their attractions as well, and the two names go together nicely "Hurricane Harbor" and "Paradise Island."

Just another thought, trying to figure out any possible options...Personally, I feel the options go like this in order of most to least likely...the most likely option being option 2-Hurricane Harbor will be a remodeled version of Paradise Island and will still be included with park admission, option 1-Hurricane Harbor will be built completly new as a seperate admission waterpark somewhere west of the third (west) parking lot using the west enterance as it's new enterance, option 4-Hurricane Harbor will be a remodeled version of Paradise Island, but the current park area will be expanded behind the wave pool and a new enterance will be built off of the third (west) parking lot, option 5-Hurricane Harbor would be built as a seperate admission waterpark west of the third (west) lot AND Paridise Island would remain with minor improvements, and the least likely being option 3-Hurricane Harbor will remain included with park admission, but will be moved to a location elsewhere in the park.

I just can't see the park completly moving the waterpark and not making it seperate admission.

If they're gonna keep PI then what reason is there to even bother building a HH at all?

They could just re-paint the existing attractions in PI & just put a hurricane harbor sign up at the entrance.

I still think we'll see a relocation elsewhere in the park...I was told about it by a few employees(no not the dip 'n' dots or lemon chill bros.) last season about the waterpark being moved & the current PI site being used for future expansion of the park,we'll find out sooner or later once the official announcement is made or when the park submits it's plans for zoning approval with the county.

Speaking of zoning approval, that sign in front of the park for the planning board meeting...how Coasterguts said it was for Cameron Grove...ya, the updated planning board agenda was posted today and it gives a few more details. Cameron Grove is the name of the development on the right side of the road about 1/4 mile before the park when you're headed east on rt 214 towards SFA from the beltway. It's the one directly across from the "West Enterance" to SFA. It looks like they're just applying to add more homes to their development, but the details really haven't been posted...and if some of you are thinking..."they're expanding?!? ohh no, what if they bought some of the land from SFA across road and that's where they're expanding to"...no, they didn't, I can assure you that. SFA still has the same 515 acres they've had for some time now.

The real question is why is the planning board sign in front of SFA? Is there also one in front of the development? Is the one in front of SFA because SFA is opposing it? (then again, that really wouldn't make sense..to oppose more people moving closer to the park) Was it placed in front of SFA by mistake? Did SFA offer to put the sign there so more people would see it?...Just seems all too confusing.

Also, consider this, the planning board approval for the waterpark could have gone through a LONG time ago, before we were constantly watching the planning board. It could have easily slipped under our radars when the park was being transformed to SFA, hence possibly why the Securities and Exchange commision form explicitly says "...the remaining 384 acres, which are zoned for entertainment and recreational uses, provide us with ample expansion opportunity, as well as the potential to develop complementary operations..." while othe parks with similarly large areas of "leftover" land have no such comments made.

Just adding fuel to the fire...

Coaster Lover,

According the several response I received from the planning board regarding the issue. The party responsible for the submitting the application (in this case, Cameron Grove) is responsible for posting the sign. I questioned whether or not it was properly placed and they said after reviewing it, they said it was properly placed. Being this didn't directly affect me, I didn't challenge it any further, primarily because I didn't want the planning board to think I was affiliated with Six Flags or anything.

I want to say this, the person I was working with at the planning board was extremely helpful and answered all of my questions. This was not the level of service I was expecting from the county government and was pleasantly surprised at how helpful they were.

Perhaps the waterpark expansion will be the mysterious attraction #36?

The conceptual site plan for the park lists attraction #36 as an undetermined attraction & we know that they didn't draw up the concept plan for the park with any immediate plans to include anything waterpark related,the only water ride on the list was PBR.

Naturally SFI probably had complimentry plans for SFA(before their debt situation got out of control) but of course those plans have for the most part been scaled back as a result....the rides remaining on the list were to be built one per year until all 7 attractions were in place but of course since Batwing we've only seen one new addition every other season.

I was thinking. The snow globes for PBR showed up about three or four weeks before the ride announcement in Mid-February. Not long before show auditions. I wonder if we could we be 3 or 4 weeks away from an announcement.

Well, assuming the hint went up the day this thread started (Friday Oct 8th), that means it's been one week already...three weeks would be October 29th...the last weekend the park is open for the year. Consider the park is only open to season passholders on Oct 31st...I still like the idea of the park announcing the attraction at their season passholder only event. The week after (or 4 weeks since the hints) would be Nov 5th, enough time after elections that the announcement wouldn't be overshadowed by all the election "stuff" (unless of course we have a repeat of the 2000 election). It would also be the first weekend since the park closed and a nice way to push post-season season pass sales. Also, SFA usually makes the announcement just after construction has started (look at the last few PRs for new rides, most contain something like "construction has already began on..." and they usually don't start construction untill the post season, and if this project is as big as we predict it will be, construction will need to start early...so ya...an announcement in 3-4 weeks seems almost perfect.

I need to call guest releations today about a problem with my order for a 2005 parking pass online, so I'll ask them if they have an idea of when to expect an announcement if I get the chance.

Also consider this quote from the SFI Interim Performance report that came out yesterday...

"We have put in place a strong plan for new
rides and attractions for 2005, with a focus on our largest markets but including a wide array of attractions in most parks."

And what are the largest markets you ask? Well, the top 5 largest markets when looking at populations within 50 miles of the park are: SFGAd (14.2 mill), SFMM (10.4 mill), SFGAm (8.7 mill), SFA (7.3 mill), and SFMW (5.8 mill). The top 5 largest markets when looking at populations within 100 miles of the park are: SFGAd (27.8 mill), SFMM (17.1 mill), SFNE (15.5 mill), SFGAm (13.4 mill), and SFA (12.2).

SF reports have shown something like 90% of SF guests come from within 100 miles of the park. SFA ranks in the top 5 SF parks for BOTH population within 50 miles and population within 100 miles (the ONLY other SF parks that also rank in the top 5 for both categories are SFGAdv, SFMM, and SFGAm...two of which have already confirmed attractions that cost over $25 million a piece. It's figures like these that give SF high hopes for SFA and makes the investment worthwhile. The ONLY reason we don't get rides as often as SFMM, SFGAdv, and SFGAm is because we're the 12th ranked SF park for attendance and can't seem to move up much from that...then again...we moved from just under 1 million when the park was AW to almost 1.5 million just 5 years later...so you can see the growth possibilities. Also, SFA is reasonably small in comparison to SFGAdv and SFMM, so it would almost seem logical that park attendance would directly relate to the number of attractions and the size of the park...

You can see where all the deliberation and questions are over SFA. Hopefully SFA has convinced SF to finially spend the money on the park and the 2005 addition could be a turning point for the park. If the 2005 addition does substantially increase attendance to SFA, you could start seeing a lot fewer "off years," if it doesen't...well...let's keep positive for now. Just remember, even the big guys have "off years"...

Consider this...if SFA could convince 2 out of every 25 people within 100 miles of the park, who DON'T already go to the park, to go to the park once...they would be one of the top 5 SF parks in the country for attendance... *** Edited 10/15/2004 7:26:57 PM UTC by Coaster Lover***

hmmm... Me Wonders if a off season publicity campaign might be in the works? Something along the lines of a 30 second ad that says:

Six Flags America

in 2005

Better and Wetter

than

Ever

Buy your 2005 Season Pass Now

at the lowest price ever of $49.99

More than likely they'll just say "new in 2005 hurricane harbor" & make some sort of mention of the new attraction/attractions to be included in the new expanded waterpark.

I just hope they don't throw in a marketing campain for SFGRADV in the process(but they always do)because I'm just sick of hearing about their new toy & of course have no plans to go there...in all honesty however I still think we'll be looking at an off year in 06 as a result based mainly on the cost of the overall waterpark expansion,however if they in fact leave space in the front of the park on the current PI site then things could get interesting by the time 06/07 rolls around.

On contrare (sp?), even more reasons to do an off season, season pass campaign. Toss in your 2005 Six Flags America season pass is good at Six Flags Great Adventure, where you can ride the worlds tallest and fastest roller coaster. Why not have people buy the season pass down here rather at Six Flags Great Adventure.

Because it hurts the overall income of SFI. If you order SF season passes online, you have to put in your zipcode now so that they know you live within 300 miles of the park. If you don't, they won't let you get the season pass for that park. If people bought SFA season passes, then only used them at SFGAdv, SFI would lose out because SFGAdv season passes are about $30 more. So to make up for this, SF is trying to do more for season passholders that way the public will want to buy their local parks season pass for the local benifits. SFGAdv's season pass comes with the oppertunity to sign a piece of Kingda Ka's track as well as first rides and ERT on their new coaster. SFA doesn't have so many offers because they don't have other SF parks in the area offering cheeper season passes. SFOG is the closest and I'm not going all the way to SFOG to save $5.

Coasterguts they do that same basic marketing campaign every year.

They always market the SFA passes each season by saying "good at any SF park including SFGRADV" & show clips of that particular park.

---

Coaster Lover Sez:

SFA doesn't have so many offers because they don't have other SF parks in the area offering cheeper season passes. SFOG is the closest and I'm not going all the way to SFOG to save $5.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't SFGAdv, SFKK, and SFDL be closer to SFA than SFOG? SFOG is not *close* to SFA by any means.

SFA to SFOG- 10.75 hours
SFA to SFKK- 9.75 hours
SFA to SFDL- 8 hours
SFA to WL- 6.75 hours
SFA to TGE- 6.75 hours
SFA to SFNE- 6 hours
SFA to SFGAdv- 3 hours

You're very right, Clint.

+Danny

And I wouldn't even consider WL and TGE, but yeah. Now +Danny, how many times am I just totally wrong?;)

---

TeknoScorpion said:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't SFGAdv, SFKK, and SFDL be closer to SFA than SFOG? SFOG is not *close* to SFA by any means.

---

Yes, BUT SFOG is the closest that offers a season pass CHEAPER than SFA does as was the point I was making...

Oh, okay. I didn't know if I was mis-reading, mis-understanding, or what. That makes more sense.:)