Waterslides replacing coasters?

Is it just me or does it seem that parks are going the way of the water slide and not building coasters as often as they used to be built.

It kind of makes me wonder because the weather has not been very good the last few summers, yet these slides keep popping up like crazy.

It's more of a switch from thrill rides to family entertainment. Theme parks are realizing that they can get more money attracting families with the parents and young children than by attracting thrill seekers who are more likely to come alone and spend less. I mean, the typical thrill seeker is in their teens or 20s and usually doesn't spent that much at a park. The typical family will spend a lot more in the park while riding much less costly attractions (in general).

It just makes more sense to add attractions that will bring in the families.

If you could spend a few million for a slide and get as great an attendence increase [or better] than you'd get with a coaster that costs 10x as much what would you do?

Building a waterpark is *still* free money today the same as it was when we started having this discussion over 5 years ago, LOL...

Even with the *ridiculously low priced waterpark* in Gurnee, they'll pay it off inside of two seasons...

Capacity-wise, only the wave pools and the lazy rivers can hold their own...but financially, you can build an entire waterpark complex for the price of one steel coaster...which one do YOU think will boost attendance more? That's what I think too...;)

Yeah, that steel coaster will have the crowds raving to get in ;)

Also, could global warming have an effect on this? It's slowly getting warmer and warmer, so maybe installing more slides and pools now(as opposed to in several years, because it would be warmer and there would be more demand, which means you could charge more for them, right? I'm just trying to come up with something.) could pay off in the long run(five to ten years? or am I just blubbering about nothing?)

Edited to correct some confusing statements. As if the whole thing isn't confusing. *** Edited 4/20/2005 10:35:06 PM UTC by AdrenalineJunkie***

I dont think so Adrenaline junkie. The last few summers have been quite cool.

It has nothing to do with the weather or global warming. It is purely a FINANCIAL decidion, based on the ROI.

Yes, it also depends on the area, history of the park, whether they need more attendance, or a coaster to gather attention. It all depends on the park, each situation is differant. It also depends on what they wisht to accomplish *goals* wise, like Geauga Lake for example need more family associated attractions so they added a waterpark, even though a coaster was in consideration. Plus the history of Geauga Lake has always been a family oriented park, so therefore, they want to keep withing history to improve attendance and bring back families. ;)

DCB - those factors might come into play but the main factor in the decision is going to be financial.

I would do the worlds first 200 foot drop water slide. Hell I hope they make a water rocket coaster. Have a hydraulic launch system launching a raft! THat would be exciting!

They already is in existence water slides where rafts are launched up an incline.

I think cedar fair reported that attendance was down at worlds of fun waterpark, and also six flags has blamed the weather on attendance at waterparks as well.

So if this is the case, how could this be a wise buisness decision?

I am confused. Waterparks are a warm weather only entertainment, as to where coasters can be run in almost any weather. So why not build a attraction that can be used 8 months out of the year, oposed to 3 months out of the year?

just look at GL, they are building one of the largest waterparks in North America for less than 30 million.

And a few million of that is going to new rides and attractions. That was a much better move instead of a hyper coaster, since only coasterheads would be interensted, and the park has to reintroduce itself once again.

The entire GL complex will be the size of CP when it's all fininshed in 06'( not including Soak City), the only difference is that GL is half waterpark half dry park, instead of all dry rides taking up the space. Stretch out the land that circles the lake the park sets on, it's bigger than one would think.

Plus, now that they are clearing lake side all around the lake, and removing alot of visual obstructions that Sea World had placed due to them trying to make sure everyone new they were seperate from GL (which is why to me, SFWOA still felt like two different parks because SF did nothing to bring the sides together as one visually), has brought the park together as a whole, as you can now see the entire park from every aspect around the lake.

But for me, it's adream come true because i personally love waterpark attractions. I love the slogan for GL this year too, "Rinse & Spin!"

i mean like 3-400 feet launched water coasters

crazy horse - just because a coaster can run in cold weather doesn't mean people are at the park to ride when the weather sucks. You can't pay for your toys if you don't get butts through the door; and if butts aren't coming thru the door isn't it better to find yourself having to pay off a less expensive toy?

Look at cedar point. They built millennium force, dragster and other high cost coasters. They have plenty of butts passing through the doors.

I am not saying that waterparks are a bad investment, but it just seems that parks are building more slides and fewer coasters.

There are a lot of people that like waterparks, but on the same hand there are a lot of peeps that do not like waterparks.

Most of, if not all the people I know, go to cedarpoint for the coasters. Very few go to the waterpark.

Again, I am just using cedar point as one example.

Cedar Point has also built itself into a place where everyone comes to ride roller coasters, therefore you can't use it for the analogy's.

Why build a ride that is has a 54 inch height requirement and isn't something that will bring little children into the park when you can build a family waterslide that has alot more people able to ride and therefore a larger target audience?

Coasters are not replacing waterslides, Waterslides are just becoming as just as powerful component as coasters within the amusement park world.

As a kid I was more into waterparks (Myrtle Beach mostly) before I really got into coasters. I think they complement each other. Actually, some are more fun that a lot of coasters (including the funnel like Zinga).

I just know I have to get to Schitterbahn to see what all the fuss is about. ;-)

-Tina

---

crazy horse said:
Look at cedar point. They built millennium force, dragster and other high cost coasters. They have plenty of butts passing through the doors.

---

But the bigger and taller you build them, the smaller and smaller the audience wanting to ride them gets.

Look at SFGAM - they built a waterpark for not much more than the cost of one lousy coaster.

Frankly, slides can produce an experience comparable or even more intense than a coaster. My local hyper, Impulse and S&S shot can't do what their best slide can for me. I wasn't as impressed with Legend and Raven's air as I was with Jungle Racer's final hop.

They appeal to (non-cowardly) thrillseekers, to kids, to grannies, to folks who want nothing more than to sit and get tanned. They're just a smart investment, plain and simple.

-'Playa

---

Beast Tamer said:
I would do the worlds first 200 foot drop water slide.

---

Coming in 2006 to PKI.. Son Of Beast's second cousins ex-wife's former room mates, cousin twice removed sister. *** Edited 4/21/2005 1:19:11 AM UTC by Red Garter Rob***