Shift in Thread Trend?

My feelings on this issue were cemented a few years ago (no pun intended) when I discovered the reason why Dorney (a CF park) removed all the trees around Hydra. It wasn't for ease of construction, it was because the park felt the trees got in the way of the views of the coaster! That was just about the dumbest reason I ever heard of for removing beautiful, full-grown shade trees, because I don't know anyone who would prefer an unobstructed view of a coaster's cobra roll to the ability to sit in the shade for a few minutes on a hot summer day. The way I see it, if this was Dorney's mentality, it must have been swiped from the mother park that has the same huge expanses of concrete.

---

because I don't know anyone who would prefer an unobstructed view of a coaster's cobra roll to the ability to sit in the shade for a few minutes on a hot summer day.

---

I'd rather have the shade, true. But, have you actually ever *read* CBuzz forums? There are all kinds of people here who'd rather have the unobstructed views of the coaster.

Frankly, one of the things I liked most about WoF--besides actual shade, for once--was that I couldn't see everything from everywhere. I was actually going to (gasp!) DISCOVER a ride now and then.

And they can plant fast-growing, tall shade trees when they wanna (example: trees between VF's log flume and WT). Unfortunately, it seems most of the time they don't wanna.

-'Playa

Right on both counts. I love parks like BGE, Kennywood and Lake Compounce because some of their rides are hidden from view, making those first- and subsequent- rides all the more exciting. And there are such things as fast-growing shade trees (the foliage versions of Barry Bonds), it's just that parks would rather fill in empty areas with gravel instead.

Good point, Brian- but doesn't this site preach the fact that us coaster enthusiasts are in the minority? ;)

Like I said, I'm with you, 100%. But, you *do* know people who'd rather have the view.

They are, of course, wrong, but you know them. ;)

Yeah, I know them. I'm still pretty hardcore when it comes to certain aspects of this hobby, but I'll take trees over unobstructed coaster views any day of the week.

Where's I-take-pictures-of-everything-in-the-Universe Gonch when you need him?

You guys can debate this one, too. ;)

You mean Mr. I'm Not An Enthusiast But I Have A Website With A Bunch Of Great Amusement Park Pictures? He should be around here somewhere... ;)

When you're drowning on the bottom, even moving 2 feet closer to the surface looks good (despite being in 100 feet of water). But when you're resting on the top of the lake, the splash of water in your face, and your subsequent choking, is noticed by everyone.

Gonch was staying out of this one for a reason.

My take?

If I want to look at trees, I walk through the woods. ;)

Seriously, I can only think of one single instance where the presence or lack of trees had any impact on my enjoyment or liking of a park.

I'm of the opinion that CF parks have plenty of trees.

(enough to keep the conversation moving?)

---

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

---

First, there are trees everywhere and more than enough photos to demonstrate that. Second, there are differences in location, ecosystems, audience, existing infrastructure, rides, buildings, and so forth, between a lake front amusement park in Ohio, a park located in a wooded valley in Pennsylvania, or a park carved out of a heavily wooded area in New Jersey. Explaining those differences is only an excuse if the reasoning bothers you.

Despite it apparently being only a "current building practice," Cedar Point's wide midways were installed nearly 50 years ago. And despite popular assumption, construction projects at Cedar Point don't always start with destruction of every living thing in its path.

Great Adventure has lots of trees. Yeah, see what they started with? Taking everything into consideration, I'd say they're doing pretty good.

Cedar Point cleared 5 acres of growth that was only as old as the last ride that was installed at that location. Five acres on a 365-acre peninsula and you'd think they were cutting down virgin forest in the Amazon, or removing the last piece of vegetation in Sandusky. They could have kept the forest, I guess, since it fits in well with the old-west theme.

---

I like Cedar Point but I don' t have to like everything about it or agree with everything they've done.

---

Did I say you had to agree with everything they do? Did I say that I did?

---

Claiming it is impractical is just a cop-out.

---

Claiming that all amusement parks are the same is an oversimplification.

And we're talking about a small percentage of the overall vegetation. I think some of you guys look the removal of tress as the equivalent of building an amusement park on a 10,000' x 10,000' concrete pad.

How many classic amusement parks successfully made the transition to the modern-style amusement park? Cedar Point has a very unique history and that makes it really hard to say, "but so-and-so does it."

---

And that seems to be how Cedar Point operates.

---

Ah, yes. I remember when Cedar Point removed every tree on Frontier Trail and the lagoon island when they built Millennium Force.

Edit: Ha! Gonch said it better in a few words than I did in a novel. :)

*** Edited 8/13/2007 4:35:30 PM UTC by Gemini***

---

Gonch was staying out of this one for a reason.

---

Thanks, dude. Your participation is much appreciated. Except for one thing. You went all third person on us. Not a good sign.

And, on a related note: you want an utter lack of shade? Try most any Disney park. I think trees are literally outlawed in Epcot. Even Animal Kingdom is guilty---there are just oodles of trees all over that place, but they are all helpfully placed where they rarely, if ever, cast a cooling shadow on a guest. *** Edited 8/13/2007 4:38:16 PM UTC by Brian Noble***

---

Thanks, dude. Your participation is much appreciated. Except for one thing. You went all third person on us. Not a good sign.

---

A subconscious attempt to distance myself?

I was going to bring up Epcot and Disney World, but I didn't want to spoil the generalizations. :)

Brian, when was the last time you went to AK? Because up until my trip this year I would have agreed with you, but trust me those trees have grown up, now the problem isnt lack of shade its oppressive its Rain Forrestesque humidity those trees keep on the paths.

As for CP, its really the tale of two parks, the front (ie the stick of the triangle on a stick) is lacking in trees, but thats to be expected when almost every piece of real estate is in use. Besides most parks have this problem somewhere in the park, and usually its by the main entrance area, even BGE (England is oppressively hot but is a joy compared to Italy,) MK (Main Street/Hub Fantasyland, Tomorrowland,) IOA (Port of Adventure, Seuss Landing, Toon Lagoon and Marvel Superhero Island,) Kennywood (Lost Kennywood,) etc. However, everything starting with the Frontier Trail over until just before Top Thrill Dragster has an abundance of trees.

I won't argue about most Disney parks, but Animal Kingdom? Are you serious? Did you forget about the tunnel of trees that you spend five minutes walking through before getting to the rest of the park that is also covered with trees? The only part of AK that isn't covered with trees is the entrance to Everest... and the Kilimanjaro Safari, for obvious reasons.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend that CF parks don't have any trees, but I'm also not going to pretend that huge, open expanses of concrete and gravel don't exist either. Cedar Point, Dorney Park, Knott's- all have trees off the beaten path, but few of them are in areas that impact the guest. I know that trees being a thing of beauty is not a fact and it's a purely subjective opinion, but the truth is CF parks do seem to have more bland, wide-open areas than most other parks.

Wow,

So the real answer to my question is due to horticulture?

Let's all go to our favorite CF park (or at least closest) and plant a tree for arbor day.

I don't recall alot of shade at SFGAm, SFStL, SFKK either. So I think this is a thin reason to go by.

I'm not saying I dissagree with the perceivied CF pavement policy. It is evident they do alot of it as shown by our friends with the pics.

And if I may contradict myself. The installation of Firehawk at KI realy does lack something compared to the rest of the park. Not a pleasant wait when it is hot. I get the feeling there will be not so much as stripping the original theming there, but over time it will dissapear as new installations arrive and maintenance issues occur.

Cedar Fair isn't building these parks "Cedar Fair style" from nothing. Since every park purchased was an existing park, weren't there already existing midways, landscaping, and rides? Does Cedar Fair systematically dismantle that? Or do they purchase parks that are already bland and wide-open?

Not to take anything away from the other resident non-enthusiast, but I haven't been to many Cedar Fair parks, either before or after they were bought. So, this is an honest question. Has Cedar Fair been able to do enough over the last several years to significantly alter the large-scale appearance of these parks over what they were before they were purchased? I don't mean small, specific areas around new attractions, but, rather, looking at a park in its entirety.

I guess everyone has a different definition, but "bland" isn't the word that comes to mind when I'm at Cedar Point. The design of Cedar Point's wide-open Main Midway was intentional. The planners back then didn't make a wide midway because it was easy to knock down a bunch of trees. They saw the advantages to having the open space. I think the landscaping and overall appearance on that midway is nicely done.

A narrow midway carved through the woods is not the only possible option for an appealing atmosphere. Trees are great and can play an important role, but I don't see how they are the be-all and end-all in amusement park planning.

*** Edited 8/13/2007 6:06:24 PM UTC by Gemini***

---

Brian, when was the last time you went to AK?

---

Feb/Mar 2007. The Oasis is great. There's some nice shade in Camp Minnnie-Mickey, too. But, once you get out into Discovery Island, most of Africa, and chunks of Asia, those midways are HOT. Very pretty with all the trees nearby, but HOT.

Perhaps it is just that the trees kill what breeze is there and hold in the sweltering heat and humidity of the guests. But, it's HOT. For some reason, that park always seems to fry me faster than the others. Perhaps it's the lack of air-conditioned attractions, but with the newly-enclosed Theater in the Wild, the day can be broken up a bit better. Plus, the Nemo musical is Not To Be Missed. It's a good 40 minutes worth of blessed, cool, crisp air, and the show is pretty good too!

But, Epcot is still a moonscape. ;)

---

Gemini said:
Does Cedar Fair systematically dismantle that? Or do they purchase parks that are already bland and wide-open?

---

I can't speak for all CF parks, but with Dorney, the answer is yes. Its many pre-CF faults aside, Dorney was a beautiful park covered with huge shade trees. As each part of the park was redone (the back area with Steel Force, the center with Dominator, the front with Talon and Hydra), most of the trees were removed and were replaced with wide concrete midways and plazas. Aside from a few flower beds, nothing was done to replace the trees- some of which had to be removed but others did not. Dorney went from being a fairly large park with nice, friendly atmosphere to an even larger park completely devoid of character and charm. Parts of it really do feel like rides were just placed in an empty field and paved around.

I will agree that there are some other parts of AK that lack trees, Brian. But it seems to me the parts of the park that lack trees are supposed to lack trees.