Why does SF do this??

So, I was just taking a look through RCDB and noticed SF did this with a couple of their coasters:

http://rcdb.com/ig617.htm?picture=9

http://rcdb.com/ig2169.htm?picture=27

(Talking about the parking lot under the rides)

Macadam doesn't require mowing?

To park the coaster cars in when they aren't in use, of course!

There's no ROI on landscaping. ;)

It's anyones guess. It was obviously a cost saving maneuver, but I really do wonder how hard it would be to just tear out the concrete completely and just plant grass or even let weeds take over.

It's pretty expensive to tear that much asphalt up and obviously on a budget like Six Flags is and only worrying about building rides the money isn't there. You see how well that kind of thinking has worked for them.

I like the Garden theme that the CF inverts have. You feel like you are going through a tropical jungle waiting for Talon.

http://tinyurl.com/2pq2vy

---

Parker17 said:
So, I was just taking a look through RCDB and noticed SF did this with a couple of their coasters:

http://rcdb.com/ig617.htm?picture=9

http://rcdb.com/ig2169.htm?picture=27

(Talking about the parking lot under the rides)

---

You'll notice that the two coasters you are referencing are both in California. California has a huge issue with water conservation and majority of the huge state has been going through drought from environmental changes. It also doesn't help that Magic Mountain is built in a desert environment as well.

The former parking lots beneath the coasters were left as is before construction due mainly to avoid huge continuing expenses involving having to:

1) Spend thousands to just remove asphalt.

2) Spend thousands to plant turf beneath the ride.

3) Spend thousands to set up a new irrigation system below the ride that wasn't there before, just to water the new landscaping.

4) Spend thousands each month to manicure and water just that section of green below just ONE ride -- especially where water (even reclaimed) is practically a premium in this state.

It's certainly understandable why they went this route, no matter how unsightly it may be.

It's worth noting that the new upper management setup at Magic Mountain (Thomas and Burkhardt) were asked about what they were going to do about the parking lot beneath Scream! and they responded by saying "it's definitely on our radar," but mentioned to not expect anything to happen with it within the next 3 years.

I believe in SFMM case, Scream! was just a last minute decision to take the record of most coasters from Cedar Point, so they didn't take the time to landscape or anything...

Just throwing some gravel on top of it would be a huge improvement, or make it a reflecting pool with a couple inches of water. ;)

^^Yes, because lots of people living in Southern California wake up wondering if they'll fly to Toledo or drive to Valencia that day---that extra coaster might just make the difference in their decision!

(:) for the sarcasm-impaired)

To be fair, the Medusa site does have two palm trees in the picture. So technically, it does have landscaping. Right?

^As long as you don't look down, you'd think you were in a tropical garden. ;)

I noticed from RCDB that Scream at SFMM and Superman at SFGAm were opened in the same year.

Scream was put on a lot without removing the lot and Superman was also put on a lot but the lot was either removed or covered with landscaping.

Superman.

Shockwave was on this same site before with the lot intact.

Shockwave.

Does it really matter about Scream? Is that why you ride a roller coaster to look at the ground below it? It doesn't make didly squat to me if I want to ride the thing or not. Of course, it would be nice if they tore out the lot, and put something else under it, but it's not a reason why I ride that ride.

^That's the difference between coaster enthusiast and people who like to enjoy the parks.

Why couldn't they just scrap the top layer off of the area, or like others said to fill it in with rocks. Money couldn't be that tight when tearing it up cost thousands when the ride cost millions.

It's ugly and takes away from the ride and more importantly, the park.

---

Chitown said:
I noticed from RCDB that Scream at SFMM and Superman at SFGAm were opened in the same year.

Scream was put on a lot without removing the lot and Superman was also put on a lot but the lot was either removed or covered with landscaping.

---

I think the fact that most of the time on Superman, the riders' field of vision is mostly what's directly below them. While a ride like Scream!, the field of vision is the sky and the track coming ahead -- rather than what's directly below.

Great America figured a bunch of "flying" riders facing the ground would definitely take much more notice of a bare asphalt lot underneath the ride -- as opposed to Scream! the only real time you're extremely aware of its parking lot surroundings comes at around two moments on the ride (first drop and helix).

I realize that it doesn't reallt affect the ride experience at all, but there's no denying that zooming over a bunch of parking spaces doesn't improve the guest's impression of the park. It's an obvious cost-cutting measure and definitely looks like one. It's the kind of detail that separates the Six Flags parks from the Busch and Disney parks.

Heck, even covering the parking lot with gravel or mulch would have made things look a lot better. That wouldn't have cost too much, right?

---

Acoustic Viscosity said:
There's no ROI on landscaping. ;)

---

This is especially poignant for me having literally just gotten back from Disneyland.

They just need to throw some cars and buses in some of the parking spaces and they can retheme the coaster to that Evil Knievel thing they've got going on. ;)

Those rides were installed during the crazy build build build years of Six Flags right? I think they know better now. At the very least they could have rippled up the asphalt and mulched it, added some desert plants etc.