Jump to content

should kings island expand?


Recommended Posts

I mean I'd hate to think they'll never expand or build a new area at some point. Especially if it means they'll have to start yanking things down in order to put stuff up. Hopefully it doesn't come to that for a while though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, ldhudsonjr said:

I mean I'd hate to think they'll never expand or build a new area at some point. Especially if it means they'll have to start yanking things down in order to put stuff up. Hopefully it doesn't come to that for a while though.

There are many aspects that go into removing a ride.  Parks need to take into account: ride reliability, maintenance costs, popularity, & overall guest experience to name a few off the top of my head.  I believe that ride removal just for the sake of not expending elsewhere would be one of the last deciding factors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Browntggrr said:

There are many aspects that go into removing a ride.  Parks need to take into account: ride reliability, maintenance costs, popularity, & overall guest experience to name a few off the top of my head.  I believe that ride removal just for the sake of not expending elsewhere would be one of the last deciding factors. 

I'm sure it's a factor to a certain degree. Expanding and building a new area adds a significant amount to the cost of a project, and I'd be really surprised if there aren't attractions at the park right now that they would consider taking down and replacing before building a brand new area. But yeah, I agree that they wouldn't take something down JUST to keep from having to expand. In any case, mostly I just wanted to put in my two cents that I'm not crazy about the idea of the park just staying the size it is now. At some point in the future I'd love to see another area added.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I feel like people are under the impression Kings Island is a small park in a small market. Yeah Cincinatti isn't as big as Charlotte but it's also placed in such a way that it draws people from many cities in three states.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think I’ve heard a lot of people consider Kings Island small, if we’re going to see a new area of the park it’s going to just be X-Base fully becoming a new area. I could see Kings Island build a hotel but I kind of doubt it, maybe a campground one  day hopefully but I also doubt that. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, flightoffear1996 said:

Take a look at what happens to Geagua Lake. 

I see your point but I've also heard it theorized that Geagua lake was a casualty of the massive debt CF had to take on to get Kings Island among the other parks. They had to shed some weight after that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't Geagua Lake's problem that it over-expanded too much at once?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joshua said:

Wasn't Geagua Lake's problem that it over-expanded too much at once?

Yes and no. To start with I don't think it would be in any way comparable to Kings Island adding another section. Six Flags purchased the Geagua lake property but then spent another $100+million to buy the Seaworld Ohio property and merge them into one park. CF eventually bought it and made some changes, but they didn't start closing things down until AFTER they borrowed a **** ton of money to buy the Paramount parks. Geagua lake was a huge park, and they simply couldn't afford it any longer after taking on such massive debt, because to your point it was EXTREMELY expensive to run. They had to cut it in order to afford Kings Island, Carrowinds, CW etc... In any case, its one thing to try to merge two large parks into one and THEN add a water park, it's quite another for Kings Island to add a new theme section. I just don't think it's a good comparison.

In short, I think the opportunity to purchase Kings Island and the other Paramount Parks outweighed their commitment to their also (relatively) recently acquired Geagua Lake park.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I understand it is: SIX bought GL.  SEAS then tried to buy GL from SIX, but SIX ended up buying Seaworld.  The had already taken a smaller family park (like Knoebels or Kentucky Kingdom), massively expanded it, and then added an aquatic park to it.  All to compete with Cedar Point.  Massive debt in one park.

With all the other problems facing SIX at the time, cutting their losses was the option they chose.  They had failed to invest wisely into GL, they just plopped major rides down with little infrastructure work.  

FUN bought the park and was in the process of scaling it back to a family park, but then along came Paramount Parks.  They saw an opportunity to seize on a massive scale and did so.  The ongoing expense of fixing GL was deemed to be too much for a smaller park close to the flagship and so they decided to build a waterpark and close the dry park.  We all know how that ended.

I never went to GL, but I wish it was still there.  Both SIX and FUN share the blame, but I think it was moreso the decisions that SIX made that ultimately led to the demise of the park.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The allure of GL was lost when SF over expanded both in size & rides.

The majority of the members here can't imagine how adding rides is a bad thing, but SF added so much so fast as direct competition to CP it turned many off.  GL was a really nice, family park.  SF commercialized it so much (similar to Paramount's takeover of KI) GL lost its charm.  Then adding SW was the nail in the coffin.  SF advertised the park as so big when people came, the disappointment was just as big.  The place was a haul to walk around.

When I mention "charm" I refer to parks like: Waldameer, BGW, and Hershey.

CF gets blame due to being the last owner that pulled the trigger.  Their mistake was taking it over from SF because the damage was already done.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Let’s not forget that to get to GL is/was a nightmare as well.

CP is no easy drive either. But GL was way way worse.

We take for granted that KI is right off a major highway. Just a few miles north from a major interchange as well.

A lot of these parks were local parks that grew and people visited. KI was planned (very well IMO) from the beginning. It was time that eroded KI (loss of its hotel, camp grounds, golf course....)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
On 7/15/2019 at 11:39 PM, shark6495 said:

Let’s not forget that to get to GL is/was a nightmare as well.

CP is no easy drive either. But GL was way way worse.

We take for granted that KI is right off a major highway. Just a few miles north from a major interchange as well.

Location can make or break a park. Cedar Point's proximity to Lake Erie makes the drive worth it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Worlds of Adventure's constant desire to expand as opposed to investing in infrastructure ended up backfiring on them since they kept building up a park that was already hard to get to.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2019 at 9:14 AM, BeeastFarmer said:

The way I understand it is: SIX bought GL.  SEAS then tried to buy GL from SIX, but SIX ended up buying Seaworld.  The had already taken a smaller family park (like Knoebels or Kentucky Kingdom), massively expanded it, and then added an aquatic park to it.  All to compete with Cedar Point.  Massive debt in one park.

With all the other problems facing SIX at the time, cutting their losses was the option they chose.  They had failed to invest wisely into GL, they just plopped major rides down with little infrastructure work.  

FUN bought the park and was in the process of scaling it back to a family park, but then along came Paramount Parks.  They saw an opportunity to seize on a massive scale and did so.  The ongoing expense of fixing GL was deemed to be too much for a smaller park close to the flagship and so they decided to build a waterpark and close the dry park.  We all know how that ended.

I never went to GL, but I wish it was still there.  Both SIX and FUN share the blame, but I think it was moreso the decisions that SIX made that ultimately led to the demise of the park.

We went there when X-Flight (aka Firehawk) opened.  The coasters were a lot of fun and Batman: Knight Flight (now Dominator at KD) was especially enjoyable.  I didn't care much for X-Flight there and my opinion didn't change when it moved to KI.  The park, overall, was not attractive.  The walkways seemed narrow, crowded, and the park seemed dirty.  It definitely felt like a third-rate amusement park but with some nice coasters.  At that time, I would have ranked the main Ohio parks (based on park upkeep and cleanliness) Cedar Point #1 by far, Paramounts Kings Island #2, and GL a very distant #3.  I was hoping that, when Cedar Fair purchased GL, that Knight Flight would have been moved to KI but that didn't happen unfortunately.  Yes, it was a pain to get to and we left long before park closing to make the three and a half hour drive home.  So, we didn't have to fight the traffic in trying to escape on that two-lane road.  I'm glad that I went but it never was a place that I wanted to go back to.  I miss Sea World Aurora, though.  It was so enjoyable and gave us exposure to the whales and dolphins that we couldn't experience without going far away.  Sea World had a true sense of wonder for me.

Back to thread.  I don't see a need for Kings Island to create a new themed area.  If we ignore The Vortex plot or take for granted that it will be addressed sooner than later, I would fix the Action Zone area first and see if there is a way to better connect it to the park instead of having the dead-end back by The Bat.  I don't have any good ideas on how to do that but I think that would be a good start.  Then, address the former Tomb Raider area and update the existing rides with broken effects.  I would also begin adding back trees and some other landscaping to improve the look of the park.  Some areas are really nice (walkway from BLSC to The Beast, walkway from International Street to Action Zone) and some areas are concrete wastelands (Planet Snoopy and Action Zone).  I would love if they brought back the leafy tunnel using the arched arbor that used to connect Planet Snoopy (Hanna Barbara Land at the time) to Rivertown.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought as a crazy idea was to move Congo falls over where Vortex used to be along with Drop zone. Then you have room to add a ferris wheel in coney maul. Also you could probably build a new roller coaster in Action Zone that way. I'm sure Invertigo will be retired soon within a few years so that also opens up land.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think expansion should be a focus right now. There are way too many things on developed land that need to be addressed first. If an "expansion " happens it will probably be just a better utilization of the land they've used.

Ki has been in a tough position as of late with a lot of their rides getting up there in age and cost. 

Potential short term Chopping Block:

Invertigo 

Bat

Congo Falls

Timberwolf

Other areas for improvement include a 17 year-old dark ride, an ugly, empty tan box, empty action theater, empty Vortex plot, eyesore of coaster in Backlot, (Shades of Disaster Transport).

All this is pretty understandable. There's only so much money to invest per year. They've just come up on a changing of the guard so to speak starting in 2018.

For those wanting an expansion the next best thing is a full re-do of everything in Action Zone except Banshee, Drop Tower, and Delirium. How likely that is is hard to say.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2020 at 12:25 AM, KI Guy said:

Other areas for improvement include a 17 year-old dark ride, an ugly, empty tan box, empty action theater, empty Vortex plot, eyesore of coaster in Backlot (Shades of Disaster Transport).

I see why a lot of people don't like Backlot Stunt Coaster, but I actually like that ride. Please don't remove that ride. I'd rather them do something with the old Vortex plot of land than get rid of Backlot Stunt Coaster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Build a hill over BLSC to enclose it to have it blend in. We won't have to see the thing anymore, we get a new dark ride, and you can even build a coaster on top. Its a win-win-win^_^

It would be like our version of Wonder Mountain: "Wonder Hill"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy Junkyard Coaster: The Ride!  But I don't enjoy the way it looks.  Retheme it to deParamount it.  Remove the helicopter and change the gas containers to TNT and you are now escaping from a mine blast.  Get rid of the helix garage and make the upwards helix an escape from  an oncoming tornado.  Get rid of the billboards and add danger signs.  And for goodness sake, plant trees around the exterior to make it blend in instead of stick out.  You could even plant ivy to grow in all over the rip rap and that would tie into Mystic Timbers.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...