Shift in Thread Trend?

Perhaps not, but it is certainly a strong indicator. Everything I read over the past few years suggested the Paramount Parks were performing well, while the Cedar Fair parks were beginning to languish.

---

matt. said:

I have El Toro 3 hours away from me, and it still hasn't been enticing enough to get me back into SFGAdv yet.

---

Well, it should!! The more I ride it, the better it gets to the point of almost being my overall #1!!

To recap the bottom line here from what most people are saying....SF has improved their marketing and their guest experiences in most of their parks and it has shown!!

CF, on the other hand, has drastically increased their food prices, suffered integration deficiencies from their acquisition (i.e. it taking an hour for a KI Maxx Pass holder to get into Knott's!!), and has had to contend with Paramount people whining about CF changes (like new, pointless seatbelts on 20 year-old rides, season pass/parking chaos, and knee-jerk ride operation rain policies!!)

All this in addition to very high expectations from the acquisition (the Maxx Passes are awesome), and the fact that Paramount parks had a fairly high level of operation to begin with so it's easy to go down from there. Plus, SF's rep the past few years has stunk and so any changes for the positive were probably exaggerated (by evidence that I have LOVED my experiences at SFMM and SFGAdv this year! Almost heresy compared to past visits/years)

CF's good news is that if they're going down some, they have room to now go back up!

Awesome posts. Every post here had me saying to myself, "Why didn't I post that?"

---

highlo said:

CF...I can't really put my finger on the reason they're being bashed, but I think that the generic themes, lack of trees and shade and the charm that many of the CF parks once had is being lost.

---

This was a concern with a lot of CF parks way before they were even thinking of buying the Paramount Parks. I just pray to God that they don't start their sterilization with the newly acquired parks like they did with Dorney. I would hate to see all of those remaining trees paved over at KI and KD, for example.

Has anyone noticed it happening at the Paramount parks yet?

Trees? Who needs trees? They just detract from the steel and the concrete. ;)

Kings Island has trees?

I remember seeing a tree at Geauga Lake once, but it soon deflated as the park was closing for the night.
;)

I've never understood where that notion comes from.

Maybe it comes from here, here, and here.

Yes, there are trees at Cedar Point but a lot less than there used to be, and many of those that remain are not in places where they offer much shade.

Keep in mind it's an amusement park, not a state park. I think some people expect this, but it's not realistic. Never mind the fact that it takes years for an area to mature after construction. Of course, in the RCT3 world, you can throw a full-grown tree in anywhere.

Other images: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

*** Edited 8/10/2007 8:29:17 PM UTC by Gemini***

I think the "point" of the "no trees at Cedar Point" thing is that they don't seem to make any special effort to preserve trees when doing a construction project. So you are left with large barren areas or freshly landscaped areas with immature trees.

Contrast that with a place like Knoebels that has trees growing through the roofs of buildings.

But they're different parks. One example is, how do projects at Knoebels compare to projects at Cedar Point? It seems to me the goal of tree preservation is much more easily accomplished by Knoebels.

lol, Millrace!
"here, here, and here..."
Priceless.

Gemini, The overhead pics you posted really show off just how much foliage there is at CP. On the other hand, the 50 foot wide sidewalks really do detract from the trees.

Sometimes I forget just how pretty CP really is. Working there 10 or more hours a day 6 days a week for 6 months really de-fantasizes (is that a word?) the place.

*** Edited 8/11/2007 12:03:54 AM UTC by dexter***

^^You still think that with the building of Flying Turns,

Just kidding. *** Edited 8/11/2007 12:09:01 AM UTC by Audioslaved***

---

dexter said:
On the other hand, the 50 foot wide sidewalks really do detract from the trees.

---

Those midways have been that wide since the park transformed back in the 50's. Visit during peak season and they sometimes don't feel wide enough.

I agree.

---

Audioslaved said:
^^You still think that with the building of Flying Turns,

---

Near as I can tell, the Turns was built without removing any trees. And there were trees on the site. They built the coaster around them. I really cannot see Cedar Point doing anything like that.

---

Gemini said:
It seems to me the goal of tree preservation is much more easily accomplished by Knoebels.

---

I doubt that "tree preservation" is a Knoebels goal, it just comes with the desire to maintain the overall natural beauty of the park. What they do goes to show that construction projects don't have to warrant the removal of a few hundred trees.

That's what I would expect from Knoebles, given their natural setting. But Cedar Point's atmosphere has never come from being forested, at least not over the last several decades. The natural beauty has always centered around the lake and beach. There is an effort by the park to preserve mature trees where practical, but it's never going to look like a state park. To be fair, it's not a 364 acre slab of concrete either.

Further, do Knoebels and other amusement parks have the same kinds of construction projects? There are differences in the types of projects, the cost of projects, the atmosphere surrounding the projects, etc. Just because Knoebels can build a coaster through trees doesn't mean it's practical (financially or logistically) or even necessary for another park to do it.

Giving excuses for the lack of trees doesn't change the fact that there IS a lack of trees!

It seems that when Six Flags is criticized, nobody cares. but when Cedar Fair is criticized, people take it personally.

I like Cedar Point but I don' t have to like everything about it or agree with everything they've done. And I think a little creative planning or even a little more care could have gone a long ways to preserving more trees than they have. Claiming it is impractical is just a cop-out.

Look at Great Adventure. There's a park on the same scale as Cedar Point but the midways (at least last time I visited) were covered in trees in many areas.

My parent's house was built over 30 years ago on a forested lot. Only the bare minimum number of trees were removed for the house. Current building practices do the opposite. The clear the entire lot only leaving trees on the edges of the property. And that seems to be how Cedar Point operates.

I don't think the question really is whether there are trees at CP or trees at CF parks after CF gets a-paving like they do.

Are there trees? Sure.

Are there trees where they NEED to be? Overhead giving me shade on a hot day? Unless it's a park with pre-CF development, probably not.

With that specification firmly in mind...let's continue. Shall we?

-CO