Wildfire construction delayed?

Sunday, March 1, 2015 4:38 PM
koolcat1101's avatar

Sources on screamscape indicate that kolmarden's construction permit has been canveled by the government and the coaster will probably not open 2016 as planed.


(Insert funny signature here.)

+0
Sunday, March 1, 2015 5:43 PM
Vater's avatar

Rats. Now I have to cancel my 2016 flight to Scandinavia.

+8Loading
Sunday, March 1, 2015 9:21 PM

You're saying you planned to be planed?

+0
Monday, March 2, 2015 11:00 AM

Blasted governmental over reach - messing with our fun :)

+0
Monday, March 2, 2015 11:00 AM
sirloindude's avatar

This never would have happened if it were a B&M.


+2Loading
Tuesday, March 3, 2015 12:49 PM
slithernoggin's avatar

The local government did not "suddenly change their mind." The local government acted in response to local groups who exercised their rights as citizens and filed complaints and appeals.


Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
-- Groucho Marx

+0
Tuesday, March 3, 2015 1:56 PM

I think this looks like a great ride and if it's a fail they should build it over here.

Or maybe I should I say I wish "we'd" get one in "my" park.

+1Loading
Tuesday, March 3, 2015 6:59 PM
rollergator's avatar

slithernoggin said:

The local government did not "suddenly change their mind." The local government acted in response to local groups who exercised their rights as citizens and filed complaints and appeals.

Can't speak directly to the process, but it does seem like those complaints should have been handled prior to the park investing so much time and money (land prep, construction, etc.). Might be costly to back out of the contract. Seems like they got awfully far into the process...


You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)

+0
Tuesday, March 3, 2015 8:24 PM
slithernoggin's avatar

I mostly agree with you. But...

Since I can't read the local language, the information I have at hand is limited; it may be that these groups have been presenting their case(s) all along, and as construction progressed they've found it necessary to become more aggressive.

Here in Chicago, we've got an on-going escalation of suits and complaints between the new owners of the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field, and the nearby rooftop business owners who are facing the loss of their revenue stream.*

My response to that post was based on what I took as the poster's assumption that it was a case of government changing the rules mid-stream.

*For the non-Chicagoans: Wrigley Field has, on two sides of the ballpark, residential building tall enough that the rooftops have had a clear view into the ballpark; the owners of these buildings have built bleachers atop their buildings and businesses based on selling access to those bleachers. The new owners are going forward with major changes to the ballpark which will partially block some of the views from these rooftops.


Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
-- Groucho Marx

+0
Wednesday, March 4, 2015 2:42 AM

I didn't know of that conflict, but at first glance I think I side with Wrigley. They can do what they want with their property, I spose, and it's obviously a move to undercut the business of guys who are trying to undercut them in the first place.
Why would anyone choose to bake on a rooftop to see a ball game when they can walk across the street and enjoy the comfort and amenities at Wrigley? Not to mention a better view of the game even from the bleachers.
Are Cubs tickets that much in demand, anyway? Or that expensive?

I have friends who bought an ocean view condo in Ft. Lauderdale only to find out a building was being built in front of theirs. Now their property is worth squat. I suppose nobody owns an ocean view, but can it be said that the Cubs own the view of their ball games? Interesting.

+0
Wednesday, March 4, 2015 11:07 AM
rollergator's avatar

slithernoggin said:

I mostly agree with you. But...

Since I can't read the local language, the information I have at hand is limited; it may be that these groups have been presenting their case(s) all along, and as construction progressed they've found it necessary to become more aggressive.

Agreed. Wish the translations made it into English, LOL.

I guess my thinking was that the park wouldn't have gone forward with such an expensive project if they thought they might *still* run into NIMBY-type issues. It's not like they're in Vallejo, CA and can just chop 20 metres off the lift-hill.... ;~P


You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)

+0
Wednesday, March 4, 2015 11:19 AM
slithernoggin's avatar

RCMac: The rooftop owners make nice piles of money selling food and drink to their customers, and it's my understanding group outings are a large part of the business.

I've always been a bit dubious regarding the rooftop owners. Their whole business is based on, well, stealing the Cubs "product." Back in the '90s, the R.O.s and the Cubs signed an agreement under which the R.O.s paid a fee to the Cubs, but still.


Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
-- Groucho Marx

+0
Wednesday, March 4, 2015 12:10 PM

And the rooftop food and drinks likely ring in at something less than those you purchase at Wrigley, so there's that. If I owned one of those businesses I'd be thinking of all kinds of ways to make a memorable, fun experience. I have a feeling that these rooftop excursions are less about the game and more about the party. I can certainly understand the owners panicking over their business about to crash.

When Franklin County built Huntington Park for the Triple-A Indians affiliate Columbus Clippers, they built large windows along the street in the wall. So spectators don't have to come in or pay to watch the game, they can do so for free. It's outfield, but still, the Clippers make nothing from those spectators.

As far as this coaster goes, I bet things work out somehow in the end. Not that it will ever affect me one way or the other. And I'd like to thank the O.P. for choosing a title that made me think something terrible was going on at SDC.

+0
Wednesday, March 4, 2015 12:56 PM
slithernoggin's avatar

Exactly, they're selling the experience, not the view, so to speak.

There was a plan afoot a few years back: Rosemont, a Chicago suburb, would build a brand new Wrigley Field in Rosemont if the Cubs would move out there, which would have been an even bigger problem for the R.O.s.


Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
-- Groucho Marx

+0
Sunday, March 22, 2015 7:56 AM
Sawblade5's avatar

Yes but they can't sell the experience without the view. Otherwise the experience will not be right.


Chris Knight

+0
Wednesday, March 25, 2015 3:01 PM
slithernoggin's avatar

Well, yes. No one is going to pay money to sit on the roof of a building and look across the street at another building. But underselling the Cubs to get people to sit on your roof and watch the game has limits on how profitable it might be.

Selling the chance to watch the Cubs and not be in a big crowd of people and having beer and food without having to pay for each beer or hot dog has proven profitable for the rooftop owners.


Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
-- Groucho Marx

+0
Wednesday, March 25, 2015 3:35 PM
sirloindude's avatar

Is there actually such a thing as underselling people the chance to watch the Cubs?


+1Loading
Wednesday, March 25, 2015 3:42 PM
slithernoggin's avatar

Probably not :-)


Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
-- Groucho Marx

+0
Sunday, March 29, 2015 1:50 AM
a_hoffman50's avatar

Am I The only one who has seen Burlesque? The movie with Cher? This is basically the plot of that movie.

+2Loading
Tuesday, August 18, 2015 3:16 AM

In case anyone hadn't heard, this is officially a go again for 2016.

+0

You must be logged in to post

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