WWK @ GL...What will CF do with the rest of the land?

Tuesday, February 8, 2005 12:59 AM
Camp Snoopy? Hyper? How much land is left? What should be done with it?
Tuesday, February 8, 2005 1:23 AM
Isn't there a height limit for the park? I think it was lower than 200ft too. But I'm not sure. I think they will add a bunch of flats and expand the water park.
Tuesday, February 8, 2005 11:19 AM
how much additional acrage is there?
Tuesday, February 8, 2005 11:31 AM
There will most likely be no rides on the SeaWorld side apart from the essential Happy Harbor area. Cedar Fair understand the neighbors needs and will respect them by not building rides over there.

I'd expect a Hotel and Miniature Golf as well as other quiet attractions

Tuesday, February 8, 2005 12:17 PM
Glad to see that Geauga Lake gets the same ridiculous scrutiny about what to do years from now before even finishing their current project.
Tuesday, February 8, 2005 2:24 PM
I think that means it is finally in the CCP (Club of Cool Parks).
Tuesday, February 8, 2005 2:26 PM
just curious. Besides, you have CP that needs evert inch of land; and you have GL that has too much. Jeff GL's current project is a two season project. So we can't speculate as to what will happen until off season 06? Would that be appropiate?
Tuesday, February 8, 2005 2:31 PM
Obviously there is no set date when speculation can begin, but Cedar Fair has flat out told us what they plan to do for the next two seasons. You could start now, but you'd have about as much of a clue as to what will happen three years from now as the people making the decisions.
Tuesday, February 8, 2005 2:53 PM
Hmmm, GL has extra land. And CP needs all the land they can get. Why not turn it into an episode of the Simple Life and let Paris and Nicole shovel all the extra dirt onto a barge, haul it across Lake Erie to Sandusky, and shovel it out again at CP? That's as simple as it gets.
Tuesday, February 8, 2005 3:02 PM
Take a look at the rendering here.

Using the old aquarium building and bird show stadium for reference, it's pretty easy to see that the water park is going to take up almost all of the real estate formerly occupied by Sea World. Even if the park wanted to build a *cough* hyper past Phase 2, they'd get the riot act from the property owners who are stuck in between WWK and the old water park.

Second, unless the park plans on adding an entire new section of new rides over there (which they can't, see reasons mentioned above), it wouldn't be worth their time just to stick a single coaster over there. Seeing as how the floating bridge has been moved, people are not going to walk the entire length of the park and water park just to ride a single coaster...

Tuesday, February 8, 2005 3:17 PM
I think consoladating most of the kiddie rides next to the water park would be logical.
Tuesday, February 8, 2005 3:36 PM
I think they would want to save some room on the water park side for future water park expansion. You never know what kind of great ride is just around the bend. Just look at the Proslide Tornados. They've only existed for a few years and now a bunch of parks are adding them. So I think it would be prudent to keep some space set aside for the bigger better water rides of the future.

My question is what will they do with the space that is used by the current water park? Certainly plenty of space for a new coaster. A Gerstlauer spinning coaster would certainly be a nice addition. Or a Maure Sohne custom spinner.

Tuesday, February 8, 2005 4:02 PM
...and now for the ridiculous...
How deep is the lake? i thought i heard somewhere that it was 100 feet deep. (not really sure). If it is that deep, drain the lake and build a giga-coaster. Sure, it would make the environmentalists angry, but they'd live w/it. Look at Walmart complex across the road. They demo'd several acres of wetlands and took out god knows how many trees past the limit they were allowed to remove. As i recall, they statement was : Sorry.
Honestly, everything but the sky is the limit for what they could do w/all that land. And yes, I think the height restrict is 200 feet.
Tuesday, February 8, 2005 4:03 PM
The name of the park is Geauga LAKE.

I don't think I agree with you on that one Flyingscooter. It wouldn't be the same park without the lake.

Tuesday, February 8, 2005 4:04 PM
News flash: GL already has ten coasters.
They'll lose coasters before they get more.


Tuesday, February 8, 2005 4:29 PM
Just a quick question.....SF got a variance to build slightly over the 200', right....does that variance stay WITH the park, or would CF have to apply for a variance from scratch?

I was *pretty sure* variances had a time limitation, but have no idea if they're transferrable...

Tuesday, February 8, 2005 4:44 PM
C'mon, Sarah. They can make a smaller, more efficient lake. Better yet, they could do a Moses, part the water in two and create: The Red Sea Run!
okay, bad taste, sorry...
Tuesday, February 8, 2005 4:47 PM

Cedar "Counter" Point said:
So we can't speculate as to what will happen until off season 06? Would that be appropiate?
Why can't Geauga Lake be what it is and leave it at that? Just because Cedar Fair owns it doesn't mean that it has to be something all new and mind blowing. I'm with 'Playa on this one... I don't expect they'll do anything with it.
Tuesday, February 8, 2005 6:06 PM
They have a great line-up of coasters already. GL has become a fave of mine because of that reason alone. They have a classic woodie, a floorless, an inverted, a boomerang, and an impulse among others.

I also think they'll leave the old Sea World side alone, as far as rides are concerned. They need want/need a good relationship with Aurora, (that city has tried more than once to get rid of that park in place of their country club atmosphere), CP will respect the cities wishes yet still provide a great experience for guests.

It'll work both ways, the city will obviously benefit from the tourism traffic that people will bring.

Tuesday, February 8, 2005 6:37 PM
Gator, in general variances go on a case by case basis. You get a variance one time for one of whatever you're constructing. Then you have to apply again the next time you want to "vary" from the requirements of the ordinance.

Most planning agencies don't like to give multiple variances to the same developer, or even repeated variances from the same regulation for everyone. Because if they do, then the exception becomes the rule, and there goes control over the building and planning process. They'd really get, um miffed, if the same company came back time after time seeking variances from the same regulation, in this case, building height.

You also need to show a real hardship to get a variance. Hardship as in "my business couldn't remain open if I can't get relief from this regulation." Not hardship as in "I won't make as much money if you don't give me this variance."


You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2019, POP World Media, LLC