The pros and cons of new parks.

Sunday, January 4, 2004 5:34 AM
I would like to get everyone's feedback on this subject.

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?

+0
Sunday, January 4, 2004 8:56 AM
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?

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. :)

+0
Sunday, January 4, 2004 10:08 AM
Wow, Chitown...starting this thread at 5:30 AM on a Sunday morning. Impressive.
+0
Sunday, January 4, 2004 10:30 AM
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).
+0
Sunday, January 4, 2004 10:41 AM
Well RI only has one tiny family amusment park for people under 12, so RI could really use a nice theme park that isnt for children.
+0
Sunday, January 4, 2004 11:32 AM
Whether or not a state has a park isn't really the issue though, it's whether or not there is enough of a population within a certain number of miles to support it, or if there's something bigger within a certain distance. Much (if not all) of RI could get to Six Flags New England in less than two hours.
+0
Sunday, January 4, 2004 1:21 PM
If I'm not mistaken, Nashville and Little Rock are the two largest metro areas without parks. Nashville needs it bad! There's not much else for tourists to do here if you aren't into country music.
+0
Sunday, January 4, 2004 4:01 PM
LOL LOL well isnt that what the tourist come there for anyway..........Now as far as the locals, there isnt much to do if there not into country music.

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.

+0
Sunday, January 4, 2004 4:12 PM
Boy, if you could find a piece of land like Paramount's King's Dominion, you'd be set. It has its own exit off of 95, and if you go up into the Eiffel Tower, you can clearly tell you're in the middle of nowhere (even though Richmond isn't far away).
+0
Sunday, January 4, 2004 5:59 PM

Jeff said:
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***

+0
Sunday, January 4, 2004 10:17 PM

RCT_MASTER said:
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!

+0
Monday, January 5, 2004 3:33 PM
I can tell you one place that could support a park, Hagerstown, MD. Right outside of the city, there are immense farmlands that could be developed and there is a major highway near it. They could pull people from the Harrisburg, PA area, West Virginia, Hagerstown, and as far away as Baltimore and D.C. area.
+0
Monday, January 5, 2004 3:48 PM
Well the cons would be something like what HFE experienced this past season with the opening of their second park in Branson....cannibalism.

Silver Dollar City had a record season in 2002, but with the opening of Celebration City, the numbers at the original park dropped. The problem that HFE is facing with CC is the fact that they still don't know what the exact "Theme" of the place is. That and the fact that the park is way too small to handle the crowds that it was getting last season during peak time. Come on, an hour wait for the ferris wheel! Oh and a 45 minute wait for tilt-a-whirl!

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***

+0
Monday, January 5, 2004 3:52 PM
I still think that Phoenix AZ could use a major theme park. Its not like people are moving AWAY from there.

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!

+0
Tuesday, January 6, 2004 7:11 AM
Phoenix has a small amusement park already. But Tucson does not. I did a search online and did not even find a waterpark there. What a boon that would be in that town. Granted one just might not have a website however. *** Edited 1/6/2004 12:12:00 PM UTC by beast7369***
+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...