From the past park proposals to the present, where is the perfect place to buy property and start up shop for an amusement park?
We hear of people wanting to start a park and get opposition from local neighbors, politicians, etc. on the subject of traffic, noise, and possible crime.
Have most parks in the past that were approved built in areas out in the middle of nowhere? Were they proposed in areas that were hurting for tax dollars? Were they proposed in areas that catered to more than one major metropolitan area?
How is one to be successfull in getting approval to start a park?
My thinking is getting as close to a major highway as possible but also finding a plot of land that is out in the country where no-one if few people are affected by the possible disruptions of such a place.
How would you start a place with little friction?
The perfect place in my opinion has to be somewhere where the terrrain varies, not just flat land.
I would guess that most parks build in areas that are cheap, land and tax wise. It would be extremely wise to cater to more than one metro area; more guests.
To get a park approved, you should bring up to the town board how much business starts up along the road between the park and the major highway.(ie: SFGadv)
These are just my opinions. :)
The only con i can think of a new park would be the same of any new business venue......overcoming the first couple years. Unless you are backed by a major company or something that has the money to pump into it then the first couple years are gonna be scary.
I doubt there are many places left in the US where it makes sense to open a new park, except perhaps the Pacific Northwest (the non-rainy inland portions).
Exactly. The industry was tapped back in the modern park boom of the 70s. Every place in the USA that could possibly support a park was mined. That's why Jazzland, Visionland, and Bonfante Gardens were so weak when they opened. *** Edited 1/4/2004 11:02:05 PM UTC by Dukeis#1***
I would build it next to a major highway that connects to a major city less than 2 hours away, but I wouldn't put it in the middle of nowhere, where would all the employess come from?
I disagree with this totally. If you have what the people want, they will come. People drive hours away to get to parks, why not drive to the middle of nowhere? A very good example of this is Holiday World. True, it may be surrounded by some large cities, but it is still in the middle of nowhere. However, they still find more then enough employees for their park, and they have what people want, so they come!
The park suffers from lack of entertainment (what SDC is known for), lack of sit-down restaurants (again what SDC is known for), and for the most part unique thrills -- rides (again what SDC is known for. I guess the main fault with CC is the fact that it being compared to SDC, which is pretty much the Disneyland of the Midwest.
Until HFE can decide what they are actually doing here, the problem of cannibalization, as well as the overcrowding will continue to be a problem.
(edited to read easier) *** Edited 1/5/2004 8:49:40 PM UTC by Swoosh***
Vegas could also support a true theme park (none of this "handful of rides" thing that has proven so popular there), although there seems to have been a shift from family entertainment to more adult-type stuff lately. Then again, that leaves the door open for a Playboy or Maxim-themed park!
You must be logged in to post