Shift in Thread Trend?

---

Gemini said:

Maybe parks should start marketing their tree counts instead of their ride counts.

:)

---

Already been done. For years, Hersheypark advertised themselves as the "cleanest, greenest park in America." And Knoebels' still throw in references to all their shade and trees in their radio commercials.

I remember seeing that pic from Coasterimage that Rob linked to that shows Meteor and the splashdown ride. I remember it because I thought it looked so sterile and uninviting.

There is a certain irony when I hear about the new urbanism and reference to green growth and heat sinks, then I see and hear about "parks" where vegetation is either an afterthought or a hindrance to their "planning." The original idea of many parks were places for city dwellers to go to escape all the concrete and asphalt.

Maybe it's just the business minds at work thinking if they keep all that concrete heated to 100 degrees or above, they'll sell more sodas and slushies?

As for a shift in thread trends? The first commandment still seems to be in effect. Thou shalt not speak in a negative manner about anything having to do with Cedar Fair and especially Cedar Point.

I'm in the middle on this one.

I go to amusement parks for the rides and I go to city, county, state and federal parks for the natural beauty.

That said, the more trees the better. Count me as one who would much rather have a shade tree than a unobstructed view of a ride.

On a related note I often find myself amused at what some coaster enthusiasts find to be picturesque. I'll see a picture of a tepid pond full of algae with the caption of "park x has wonderful scenery". I often wonder if some of these people ever go outside to something other than an amusement park.

---

Brian Noble said:

And, on a related note: you want an utter lack of shade? Try most any Disney park.

---

Uh oh. Kiss all them trees goodbye if Shapiro gets his way... ;)

*** Edited 8/16/2007 6:22:18 AM UTC by BullGuy***

---

RatherGoodBear said:

The first commandment still seems to be in effect. Thou shalt not speak in a negative manner about anything having to do with Cedar Fair and especially Cedar Point.

---

I like that just because it always baffles me why CP/CF seems to be above criticism. Why those? IMHO, that company and that park are very average... I would think that Disney parks or Knoebels would inspire that kind of love/hate thing.

You see what you want to see. We criticize those parks continuously.

I see what I see.

But do you see what I see? A star, a star, dancing in the night...

Personally, I have been to CP once. And that was about 4 years ago already (I should get back).

At the time my thoughts were not about the asthetics/cleanliness of the place, the cost of the food, the tree count, who was running the place, the ability to line jump without wearing a shirt while draging on a smoke...

I was there for the rides! And the dissapointments I had were minimal:

Mean Streak was boring. It rained for 2 hours and then drizzled the rest of the day. The topper was TTD was not operating that day at all.

Otherwise I had a blast.

I wonder what I will see the next time I'm there now that I've been educated a little more on this "hobby".

I use that word lightly. *** Edited 8/16/2007 6:04:08 PM UTC by WildThingNative***

To be fair, Jeff has often criticized the food and drink pricing in the CF parks.

People might not think trees are that big of a deal, but look at it this way. You pay to remove the ones you want to get rid of; you pay to plant new ones where you do want them; you pay to water, feed and fertilize them (maybe); you pay to replace the ones that die. And all the while, the tree that was there all the time cost you nothing.

(cue "Big Yellow Taxi," the Joni Mitchell version, not that horrid Counting Crows version thank you.)

In PA at least, when it comes to stormwater permits and such, developers are getting "credits" for leaving existing trees in place, or for re-planting. But obviously, the replanting costs a lot more. Someone mentioned that the scope of projects at CF is much greater than at a place like Knoebels. True, but I'd say they're putting in a coaster, not a railyard where they have 40 or 50 tracks 10 feet apart. There's no need to rip out every piece of vegetation taller than 6 inches within the entire building footprint.

These parks market and survey everything. I wonder if any have tried figuring out how many people leave the parks by mid afternoon because they're tired and cranky from standing on hot concrete for hours on end without a lick of shade.

The only thing I can really fault Cedar Fair for, and fault might be a strong word, is that they replant with infant trees. Maverick will look fantastic in five or six years, sure, but right now it's a bit on the sparse side.

Were there trees on the site before Maverick got built?

Yeah, the White Water Landing site was pretty thick for the most part. My friend Tim, who worked there when it opened, and worked the previous flume ride, said you could stand on the midway and see the entire thing when it opened. Iron Dragon I remember was the same way. They just don't see value in the expense of older trees for new construction.

And incidentally, the midways at Cedar Point have been basically the same for 30 years, the only exception I can think of being Camp Snoopy (which has also formed a great deal of shade in, well, eight years), and the maxAir midway, which was games before. They did a nice job of keeping most of the trees on the Dragster midway, except for a handful around the station (the rest was lagoon and Troika, Chaos and Dodge'Em).

---

RatherGoodBear said:
You pay to remove the ones you want to get rid of; you pay to plant new ones where you do want them; you pay to water, feed and fertilize them (maybe); you pay to replace the ones that die. And all the while, the tree that was there all the time cost you nothing.

---

Honest question, because I don't know the answer and you seem to be more in tune with this sort of thing.

Could it be that the added costs (in time, effort and whatever else) of pussyfooting around the existing trees is actually higher than leveling everything, getting the job done and working back up from there?

Therein lies my problem. I'm sure the White Water Landing site was beautiful with all those shade trees, so why couldn't some be saved? It's nice that the park plants new trees but it seems that Maverick will be gone and the site redeveloped with a new attraction by the time those trees have a chance to mature, meaning that the whole process will start all over!

They preserved the queue and station, which has a great many older trees, but frankly the rest of the site has coaster track where the trees were. Another interesting feature was that there were still remnants of Shoot the Rapids on that site, even after nearly 30 years. I spent some time on the construction site, and it wouldn't have been practical to retain any of the trees given the size of the footers and the equipment that had to get them there. It's a surprisingly small site.

I assume that the site was pretty much leveled so there are no remains of Shoot the Rapids or White Water Landing? At least they saved the old station and queue- I will admit that is a nice touch. Like I said, it's just too bad that by the time the trees have a chance to mature and provide actual shade, the site gets a new attraction which necessitates removing everything. Not only do trees look nice but I really think they add to a ride. Boulder Dash, Conneaut's Blue Streak, Dorney's Thunderhawk and the Holiday World wood coasters are all great rides that are made even better by the fact that most of the track is obscured by trees.

Well, I'm not sure I see why the ride has to be in shade. Anywhere that people stand or walk around the site, the trees are in tact and have not been removed. The two midway "touch points" for the ride are near the entrance, where the turn around at the end of WWL was and the turn over the old Swan boat pond. Maverick had the least midway impact of any project I can think of in the last 20 years.

I don't think it's necessary for an entire ride to be in the shade but it's nice when a ride weaves in and out of trees, and I think Maverick's curve-heavy design would lend itself nicely to an area with a lot of trees. I think that some coasters are made more exciting when you can't see what's around the corner. It's also about aesthetics. I really believe that coasters are works of art and it's certainly nice to see them, but there's something to be said for them appearing to be part of the landscape rather than just sitting on top of the landscape.

---

Jeff said:
Another interesting feature was that there were still remnants of Shoot the Rapids on that site, even after nearly 30 years.

---

http://www.pointbuzz.com/photos/Photo.aspx?id=2780

Looks like it was a really cool ride.