Where would you put one?

[rb1]

How about another one in Lake county theres a lot of empty farmlands around the area or maybe by the Waukegan, Grayslake, Antioch area some of these cities probably dont have strict height restriction and a lousy village board running the city so they can put in a mega giga hyper 1000ft B&M intamin roller coaster in the middle of the park and its just a drive away from Gurnee. Could also boost tourism around lake county

[BP317]

Phoenix/Scottsdale/Glendale, that area has 2 million people and no theme park. My assumption is no company wants to go there because a lot of the residents are old, and the tourism is not built around entertainment like Orlando or the Wisconsin Dells causing fear that the theme park would end up like Hard Rock Park. Seattle is another area that could use a nice park with a population of 700,000 and Portland 600,000 it should be able to sustain a park much bigger than Wild Waves. Building a park on Interstate 5 between Seattle/Portland, around Olympia, would service those markets similar to how SFGAm does on I94 between Chicago/Milwaukee. Seattle is only 1 1/2 hour drive from Olympia and Portland is only 2 drive from Olympia.

Though Chicago has a higher population than Seattle, Portland, and Milwaukee combined so I can see why no one has jumped on that boat yet

[Nik54]

Top markets to put a new SF park:

1. Phoenix, Arizona (no SF in the state)
2. Seattle, Washington (Big city market, Portland's close by, needs a SF park)
3. Minneapolis, Minnesota (Would attract Minnesotans and people from surrounding states)
4. Jacksonville, Florida (One of Florida's key cities and good entry market for Florida)
A. Miami, Florida (Good Spot also)
5. Vancouver, Canada (A nice SF park for Western Canadians)
6. Destin, Florida (1 of Florida's top tourist destinations)
7. Kansas City, Missouri (Maybe to compete with SFStl Idk)
8. Houston, Texas (Used to have Astroworld, 4th largest US city)
9. Las Vegas/Reno, Nevada (nothing remotely close to an amusement park in Nevada to compete against SF other than casinos and New York hotel coaster)
10. Cleveland, Ohio (Used to have Worlds of Adventures)
11. New York/Boston/Connecticut area (much more centralized park for the big cities)
12. Dusseldorf or Munich, Germany (Solid German expansion, top cities in Germany and growing)
13. Ibiza or Barcelona, Spain (Major vacation destinations in Spain, would attract Mediterraneans)
14. London, England (Solid UK partnership)
15. Abu Dhabi, UAE (growing as fast as Dubai)
16. Tokyo, Japan (Competes with rival local parks)
17. Honolulu, Hawaii (Could be a SF Tropical resort-sort of deal)
18. Melbourne, Perth or Sydney, Australia (Top cities in Australia)
19. Shanghai, China (Major Chinese city and market for American companies)
20. Salt Lake City, Utah

[BLADE]

1. Houston/gulf coast area. 11.7 million in the region. Only small competition right now. 2 parks have closed within the last decade. Galveston is a significant tourist area nearby. Could be year round operation.
2. Seattle area. 7.4 million people in the region and no major competition.
I agree with BP that Olympia would be a centrally located community with a sizeable workforce to staff the park.
3. Phoenix area. 4.5 million people in the region. No competition. Could be year round operations. Would start with a stronger water park.
4. Miami area. 6 million+. A profitable water park closed here recently. Would start with a stronger water park. Could be year round operation.

Here is a map of the US population regions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaregion ... tates?vm=r

[woohoodude11]

Is it sad that the only thing holding me from moving to AZ is the fact there's no true theme park? I've had this exact thought in my head since I first took a trip out there. Vegas area would do good too, a lot more families traveling out there.

[BLADE]

So much has failed or been shut down in Vegas over the years, though. I'm not sure a park could survive there.

[Johnny.Ink]

Is it sad that the only thing holding me from moving to AZ is the fact there's no true theme park? I've had this exact thought in my head since I first took a trip out there. Vegas area would do good too, a lot more families traveling out there.

If it's the ONLY reason, then yes...

Isn't LA only 2 hours away from Vegas? or am I thinking of Phoenix. It's not too far though yes?

[CstrFan512]

Phoenix, AZ needs one BAD! Such a great destination spot for vacationing and tourism, yet no park. I've got family down there that love theme parks but have to take an entire weekend to go to SFMM. They could keep it open year-round and not nave to worry about tornadoes, seasons, staffing, or anything else midwest/east parks do. I'd call it Six Flags Desert Adventure.

[Iron Wolf 90-11]

Michigan or Wisconsin. Michigan only has Michigans Adventure and Wisconsin only has Mt. Olympus.So many people go to the Dells so why not build a theme park there, it would probably do great.

[chester016]

I think Wisconsin would be an excellent place for another park but I dont think the dells area is really all that feasible. That market is totally saturated. And there have been a number of attractions shutting their doors for good in that area. Mount Olympus is going to own that entire town in a few years at the rate they keep buying property. They own about a mile of frontage on the Wisconsin Dells parkway. If that place ever went up for sale, boy would I hope that Cedar fair or Six flags purchased it. That park has sooooo much potential but........yeah my complaints about this park could be a separate topic in itself haha.

Realistically if one were to be built in Wisconsin, the most logical area to put it would probably be along the 90/94 corridor, somewhere northeast of Lacrosse. There is not a whole lot out there right now so they would have plenty of room to expand, and grow. Plus that would be a good central location to pull in people from Madison, La Crosse, Eau Claire, Minneapolis, Wausau, the Dubuque Area, and Portage. Its also located right next to what I would consider to be a heavily traveled highway.

[BP317]

I gotta agree with the person who said Canada, the country is really undeveloped regarding parks considering Wonderland is the highest attended seasonal park in the continent, and there are no parks in the west side of the country. But then again Canada isn't really developed in general (compared to the US) so maybe that has something to do with it.

Isn't LA only 2 hours away from Vegas? or am I thinking of Phoenix. It's not too far though yes?

They are about 4 1/2 hours apart. There are a lot of people from Socal that do weekend trips to Vegas, but believe me it's not for theme parks. If they want to go to theme parks they have plenty where they are from.

Beautiful drive though, nothing like driving through the Mojave Desert and crankin up some Judas Priest. I am pretty sure "Point of Entry" was made just for that reason

[BLADE]

Here's a proposed park in Houston that hopefully gets built.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 334594.php

[BLADE]

I think Wisconsin would be an excellent place for another park but I dont think the dells area is really all that feasible. That market is totally saturated. And there have been a number of attractions shutting their doors for good in that area. Mount Olympus is going to own that entire town in a few years at the rate they keep buying property. They own about a mile of frontage on the Wisconsin Dells parkway. If that place ever went up for sale, boy would I hope that Cedar fair or Six flags purchased it. That park has sooooo much potential but........yeah my complaints about this park could be a separate topic in itself haha.

Realistically if one were to be built in Wisconsin, the most logical area to put it would probably be along the 90/94 corridor, somewhere northeast of Lacrosse. There is not a whole lot out there right now so they would have plenty of room to expand, and grow. Plus that would be a good central location to pull in people from Madison, La Crosse, Eau Claire, Minneapolis, Wausau, the Dubuque Area, and Portage. Its also located right next to what I would consider to be a heavily traveled highway.

It could only survive it was some small kids place. Lacrosse is not that far from the Dells or Minneapolis. Plus weather is a hinderance here.
I think between the 2 parks in Minneapolis, The Dells, Bay Beach, Little America, and Great America, Wisconsin is served pretty well. I would love to see a large scale competiter come to the northern Illinois area, that would include the Chicago market, but that looks bleak in the forseeable future. What would be really nice, is to get the Koch family from Holiday World to take over Mt. Olympus. Mt. O has potential if it would ever get competent ownership.

[BLADE]

I gotta agree with the person who said Canada, the country is really undeveloped regarding parks considering Wonderland is the highest attended seasonal park in the continent, and there are no parks in the west side of the country. But then again Canada isn't really developed in general (compared to the US) so maybe that has something to do with it.

This is a good Point. Somewhere around Red Deer, Alberta could work. It's about halfway between Edmonton and Calgary, with around 3 million people in the area. Red Deer is also a booming oil town, so more people will likely be moving here.
The west Edmonton Mall is the only place there right now.

[Ilovthevu']

I would have to say somewhere out west. I'm not saying California because California has Knotts, Disney, Magic Mountain, Great America, Discovery Kingdom, and probably some other smaller parks, but you have so many states in that area that I can't think of a really big amusement park. Colorado is the only one I can think of besides California parks. Sure, you have places like Silverwood, and the Oklahoma park Frontier City, but those are much smaller parks than a Six Flags park. So, I say any state around Colorado, but not California.

However, really I think Six Flags needs to expand more parks than just getting even another park.

[BP317]

How about another one in Lake county theres a lot of empty farmlands around the area or maybe by the Waukegan, Grayslake, Antioch area some of these cities probably dont have strict height restriction and a lousy village board running the city

As much as we'd all love to see another park in Illinois/Wisconsin it's not gonna happen. Maybe in the 70s or 80s if another park were built it would have a chance, but now that SFGAm has a 30+ year head start on expansion, unless somebody was willing to put down an unprecedented amount of money towards a new park it would near impossible to compete with the 13 coasters and large waterpark that SFGAm has, especially with a low SP price.

Fact is with the economy the way it is, and the way Uncle Sam operates now, building a major park would be like a Christmas miracle. No matter how big the demand is good luck finding someone that 1: is willing to take the risk and 2: can actually find financing for it.

[BLADE]

I would have to say somewhere out west. I'm not saying California because California has Knotts, Disney, Magic Mountain, Great America, Discovery Kingdom, and probably some other smaller parks, but you have so many states in that area that I can't think of a really big amusement park. Colorado is the only one I can think of besides California parks. Sure, you have places like Silverwood, and the Oklahoma park Frontier City, but those are much smaller parks than a Six Flags park. So, I say any state around Colorado, but not California.

However, really I think Six Flags needs to expand more parks than just getting even another park.

Six Flags just dumped Elitch Gardens recently. Those Rocky Mountain states are huge too, and people very spread out. That's why BP and me have mentioned Seattle, particulary Olympia.

Portland (2.2mil), Salem (390K) and Eugene(350K), Oregon, which form the Willamette valley, make up more than 70% of Oregons total population. 8 out of Oregons largest 10 cities are all in this valley. All within a 3+ hour drive (225 miles) from the south. Interstate 5 is a direct route.

Vancouver (2.3 mil) and Victoria (350K), British Columbia are within 210 miles from the north. Vancouver is the 3rd largest metro area in Canada! Vancouver is also nicely placed along Interstate 5 for easy transportation.

Lastly, the Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia metro area has more than 3.3 million people.

Climate wise, Seattle gets about the same amount of rainfall that Chicago and Milwaukee do. More in the winter and hardly any in July and August. The temps Average 45 for a high in December, so there would be a possibility of having some kind of Christmas event.

Seattle also has the 12th largest economy and Portland the 21st in the country, so people have money to spend!

There also isn't much in the way of competition.

All these reasons are why I would rank the Northwest as the #1 area in the west that needs a park, and a place I would feel most comfortable spending several hundred million dollars that belonged to someone else!

[BLADE]

How about another one in Lake county theres a lot of empty farmlands around the area or maybe by the Waukegan, Grayslake, Antioch area some of these cities probably dont have strict height restriction and a lousy village board running the city

As much as we'd all love to see another park in Illinois/Wisconsin it's not gonna happen. Maybe in the 70s or 80s if another park were built it would have a chance, but now that SFGAm has a 30+ year head start on expansion, unless somebody was willing to put down an unprecedented amount of money towards a new park it would near impossible to compete with the 13 coasters and large waterpark that SFGAm has, especially with a low SP price.

Fact is with the economy the way it is, and the way Uncle Sam operates now, building a major park would be like a Christmas miracle. No matter how big the demand is good luck finding someone that 1: is willing to take the risk and 2: can actually find financing for it.

It's too bad Old Chicago did not survive, or Universal didn't build in the 90's. These were 2 good chances that passed for a second major park.

[Jerrykoala2112]

I would put a Six Flags in Seattle and call it, simply, Six Flags Washington. I would manage it to be something like Great Escape in New York. One thing to keep in mind, is to have a lot of indoor rides, as it rains a lot. And make sure to operate coasters in the rain, as everyone loves that

[w00dland]

I'd put it in the cornfield about a mile away from my house.

I'd call it Six Flags Cornfield that was built only to please w00dland.

Thanks for digging up old topics so I can see what kind of an idiot I was when I was 16.

[BLADE]

I would put a Six Flags in Seattle and call it, simply, Six Flags Washington. I would manage it to be something like Great Escape in New York. One thing to keep in mind, is to have a lot of indoor rides, as it rains a lot. And make sure to operate coasters in the rain, as everyone loves that

Seattle's average rainfall is actually a little less than Chicago's and a little more than Milwaukee. It's just more unbalanced with hardly any during July and August, and a lot between November and January.
It is also in a bigger market than the Great Escape, so there would be more money to spend on new attractions.

[BLADE]

I would have to say somewhere out west. I'm not saying California because California has Knotts, Disney, Magic Mountain, Great America, Discovery Kingdom, and probably some other smaller parks, but you have so many states in that area that I can't think of a really big amusement park. Colorado is the only one I can think of besides California parks. Sure, you have places like Silverwood, and the Oklahoma park Frontier City, but those are much smaller parks than a Six Flags park. So, I say any state around Colorado, but not California.

However, really I think Six Flags needs to expand more parks than just getting even another park.

I saw your Colorado idea on another site and a lot of people agree with it. Colorado is set up with almost all of it's 4.5 million people located in a north-south band from Fort Collins to Pueblo. Elitch Gardens is conveniently located in a central location near 2 major interstates and not near residences. It's unfortunate that former owners weren't able to acquire more land before the Pepsi Center was built and landlocked the park, or worked out a joint parking situation. They could have chosen a bigger location when the park was moved in the mid 90's too.
So another medium size park would be nice, especially if it had some indoor capabilities that allowed it to run year round and capitalize on winter tourism.
Lakeland is already there too. It would be beneficial to a new park to knock at least one out of business.