PDA

View Full Version : Six Flags-Resort Potential?



sirloin
12-10-2007, 12:16 PM
With the recent mention of a resort for Six Flags, and the declaration that, at least at one point, a hotel was planned for the Great Adventure property, I thought it would be interesting to discuss the possibility of actually making a resort out of the Great Adventure property. Personally, I believe that the Great Adventure or Great America properties would be fantastic places to build a resort, and I believe there are several reasons for each.

First off, I'll discuss Great Adventure. Six Flags Great Adventure is currently the highest-attended park in the chain. Much of this is provided by the park's choice location, the park lying in the New York City and Philadelphia market areas, and even to a degree, the Baltimore market. Then take into account that the park has a large waterpark right next door, as well as a drive-through safari. Assuming you wanted to do all three, it's inevitable that you would need more than a day to do both. By throwing in a resort hotel, and figuring that package deals could easily be developed, you could give guests incentive to stay overnight and on top of that, make money off of it. Whether or not an indoor waterpark would be needed is open to debate. While I don't think it would be a bad idea, even with an outdoor one right on the property (Soak City still survives at Cedar Point, even with Castaway Bay, Kalahari, and Great Wolf Lodge nearby), it may not be totally necessary. Also, I think it would possibly cause a spike in out-of-state tourism, and the park could easily become a national (or even international) draw. Great Adventure is pretty much equidistant from the major hubs of Philadelphia International and Newark International (both offering a great deal of international service as well), and only slightly farther from JFK (again, a MAJOR international hub). You could draw people in from all over the country, or even the world, if you market the place properly and over a large enough area.

I would now like to dicuss the cons of having a resort at Great Adventure. The first reason? Crowds. The place gets packed in ways never before imaginable on a pretty frequent basis. By throwing in a resort hotel (and possibly other amenities), you're looking at sell-out crowds. The park is indeed big, and it has alot of capacity (and possibly growth potential, though I'm not sure how much additional land they own adjacent to the park), but if it can already pull 2 hour waits for every major ride on a weekend in the early spring, the summer crowds could become unmanageable, leading to a need for severe expansion of the park, possibly even to the point where it would take more than a day to do everything even if the place wasn't crowded (picture a very large mega park, possibly the 1.5x or 2x the size of the current Great Adventure, because that's what I'm getting at). Second off, an hour drive from any nearby major airport might be a bit much for some. Getting to Walt Disney World from Orlando International can possibly take a half hour or more to get to, and adding a half hour or much more, depending on traffic, might be a bit much for some.

As for Great America, plenty of potential remains there. To start, a resort hotel with an indoor waterpark would do wonders to keep people in the Chicago area from running northwest to Wisconsin Dells for their waterpark fix, and that alone could have a drastic effect on the attendance of the park. Great America is also a mere 45 minute drive from O'Hare International, the world's second-busiest airport with an abundance of both domestic and international service, and Midway is only 20 minutes farther of a drive away. In addition, Chicago is a very nice city and, for at least the out-of-the-area tourists, an additional activity. Again, package deals could be worked out to give guests alot to see and do, and seeing as Great America is not particularly far from the city (roughly 52 minutes from the heart of the city), guests could go check out the place (the same could work for New York City or Philly with Great Adventure, though they are slightly farther from the park).

As for cons, again, a 45 minute drive with no traffic and the possibility of a much longer drive if you hit it at the right time could prove too far for some. Also, Great America doesn't have anywhere near the room of the Great Adventure property, and if crowds (which are already pretty high, the park being #2 in attendance in the chain, though this includes the waterpark) got too high, it would be difficult to find ways to thin out the lines. This would almost necessitate an indoor waterpark at the resort hotel as Six Flags, ironic as this may sound, would almost need to keep people out of the park in order to have manageable crowds. Another disadvantage is the length of the season, which I believe can be up to 2 months shorter (though those are really weekends only) than that of the New Jersey park. I would keep the indoor waterpark open year-round, but Chicago is not always the nicest place to visit in the winter from what I've heard, and that could drastically limit the number of out-of-state tourists (a problem Great Adventure could face as well, but to a slightly lesser degree).

In the end, I firmly believe that if a park in Sandusky, Ohio (a ways away from any nearby major airport or city, and those cities, namely Cleveland and Toledo, not being anywhere near the size and scope of New York City, Philadelphia, or Chicago) can survive as a full-blown resort, even in a relatively weak economy, a similar resort in Jackson, New Jersey, or Gurnee, Illinois could do the same, and possibly to a better degree. Six Flags would seriously need to up the ante service-wise, though, and those rides would HAVE to be running.

sheikra182
12-10-2007, 12:19 PM
I'm just going to say this because I am from Toledo and lived there for 12 years and go back alot. It aint getting a resort.....That town is going down hill and fast! It's losing money and jobs and yea it's not doing anything. Cleveland maybe but Toledo will never get a resort let alone a theme park.

Mike T
12-10-2007, 01:52 PM
I don't understand what you are talking about. I thought this was about Six Flags pursuing a resort similar to that of Cedar Point?

I think Great Adventure is the most likely candidate and I think you will be throughly pleased in 2009-10 when they decide to add their resort/hotel...

Maxamillious
12-10-2007, 02:14 PM
I think Great Adventure is the most likely candidate and I think you will be throughly pleased in 2009-10 when they decide to add their resort/hotel...To my understanding, that information was rumored. Are you confirming this?

Jake
12-10-2007, 02:16 PM
It took Ethan and I an hour to get from the airport in Cleveland (the name escapes me) to Castaway Bay in Sandusky. And that was with no traffic, so I figure if Cedar Point can pull in a large amount of people, even though they don't have an airport in close proximity to the park.. Great Adventure should be able to as well.

Great Adventure is definitely the most likely candidate for a resort hotel, as was announced back when Kingda Ka, or El Toro was announced, I believe. While I do not believe that this can be confirmed, I really look forward to seeing what kind of resort Six Flags can pull off. Who knows, if this is a success maybe we could see more Six Flags parks become resorts.

Comet
12-10-2007, 03:58 PM
^They actually had a great hotel concept planned a few years back.
It was going to be in the parking lot in front of the Golden Kingdom, having the same sort of jungle theme. I think there was even going to be a small outdoor themed "water park" behind it ala Disney's Yacht and Beach Club. They also had a hotel guest only entrance planned that would bring you right into the Golden Kingdom.

This however fell through with Shapiro's takeover of the chain, and probably would've been happening around the time that Mike said, so I don't know if that's what he was talking about.

Another great thing about Great Adventure is that they only have about half of their land developed, so there is PLENTY of room for expansion.

Thrill Reconnoiter
12-10-2007, 08:12 PM
I actually laughed out loud when I read this thread's title. Kudos for making my day.

While I don't have much to say, I think a resort style park is the direction they need to go. I can't directly comment on Great Adventure, but the park needs to have more than a days worth of stuff to keep guests at their hotel... I.E. - Knott's Hotel isn't the most successful thing in the world. Why? It's in a large metropolitan area where other "nicer" hotels are cheaper, and there isn't necessarily enough in the park that would want to make people come back for a second day-no incentive.


To my understanding, that information was rumored. Are you confirming this?
Just an old rumor.

apsterling
12-10-2007, 11:32 PM
I think that it might work alright for Magic Mountain too, if they have the land. The nearest hotel (correct me if I'm wrong) is a few miles away, and there's enough to do for two days there.

But yes, SFGAdv is the most likely candidate.

Zonga
12-10-2007, 11:51 PM
There are plenty of nice hotels around Magic. Namely the Hilton Garden Inn at the base of the hill.

Airtime&Gravity
12-11-2007, 09:16 AM
Great America-definitely not as there is just the park and water park, and there is no room to expand. The park is also surrounded by hotels and an indoor water park is being built just down the road for 2008.

Great Adventure-This could easily be a resort, and with a huge park, a large water park, and the safari, there is plenty to do. There is also plenty of room to expand and add more attractions. Plus, if your done with the park and want more thrills, you can go to the seaside parks or take the drive to Dorney.

p0tat0
12-11-2007, 10:30 PM
Of course Sixflags has resort potential... just needs the right minds

p0tat0
12-28-2007, 05:50 AM
It would be a great idea for SF to get into. It keeps the money flowing since the guests live right next to the park. I just don't think it would have an affect at a park like SFMM. If they do try, they need to pull out every trick in the book.
I would now like to dicuss the cons of having a resort at Great Adventure. The first reason? Crowds. The place gets packed in ways never before imaginable on a pretty frequent basis.

Crowds really have no affect IMO. DLR is almost never dead, even on the off season. Summers are crazy on any day. Yet, they have 3 resort hotels and those hotels aren't small.

Dan
12-28-2007, 11:02 AM
Crowds really have no affect IMO. DLR is almost never dead, even on the off season. Summers are crazy on any day. Yet, they have 3 resort hotels and those hotels aren't small.Reading this, it seems you are considering the two to be a contradiction, while they are directly proportional. Crowds are the most important thing when making almost any park decision, since crowds are one of your very, very few sources of income. Disneyland keeps those hotels running because they make money and people stay in them. If not as many people went to the park, they would have built fewer hotels.

Six Flags Great Adventure seems like the ideal place to create a resort, however, since it's only open in the summer, the time it would take for Six Flags to regain the money they spent in the initial investment would be (I suspect) very long. I'm not a financial planner though, so I can't really make any claims further than that.

p0tat0
12-28-2007, 04:24 PM
^You took it out of context. Sirloin called crowds a con for a resort.. what I meant as no effect was that it won't stop people in going to a park i.e DLR

Airtime&Gravity
12-30-2007, 06:19 PM
Great America almost became a "resort" a few years ago(around 2000). There was going to be a water park, hotel, and other attractions(almost like a downtown disney area) However, the park was unable to get the permits to build it.

However, most SF parks are seasonal, so it would be hard to make one a resort. The only one that could become one is SFMM, but the park would have to become fully year-round, and many improvement would have to be made to make it become a destination instead of just an attraction.

Thrill Reconnoiter
12-30-2007, 11:10 PM
^In all fairness, Ski Resorts are seasonal too (low and behold, most of their income is actually from the occupancy they fill). There's no reason why a seasonal park can't have a really successful resort.

Dan
12-30-2007, 11:16 PM
^In all fairness, Ski Resorts are seasonal too (low and behold, most of their income is actually from the occupancy they fill). There's no reason why a seasonal park can't have a really successful resort.Some have activities in the summer as well. But, Cedar Point is a seasonal resort, and that turned out pretty well - and it's an amusement park also.

Michael
12-30-2007, 11:16 PM
^^ Sure, just look at KI's Great Wolf Lodge, it's thriving :cool:

Thrill Reconnoiter
12-30-2007, 11:54 PM
Some have activities in the summer as well. But, Cedar Point is a seasonal resort, and that turned out pretty well - and it's an amusement park also.
When I raced Nationals, our races would be held at Ski Resorts in the summer (Mount Snow, Snow Shoe, Seven Springs, Big Bear, etc). They were practically ghost towns in the summer.

A large figure (maybe majority, I can't say) of the Ski Resorts' winter money comes from their hotels/condos. This would be the "on season" I guess you will, for parks, plus they'd have all the park entrance fees adding on top of that.