rct2wizard360 wrote:Get it through your head, THEY ARE EXPENSIVE. Its un-needed when they have more room to make parking spaces than waste the little spaces and make a big garage thats not needed. Jeez, this is gunna die.
Once again. They are expensive in relation to what? They are expensive in relation to purchasing and zoning an additional 25 acres somewhere else? If they are so expensive why are cities like Naperville and Glenview installing them for FREE parking?
Instead of acting like a (EDIT: baby) and saying "Get it through your head" why don't you back up your statements with facts and numbers. Tell me what a 1500 car garage costs?
Stop, Breathe, Slow Down and read what I said. I said minimum 10 years from now. If you don't think it is worth it, tell me where the park can expand into to increase capacity, and how they can handle the parking for the added capacity.
I will say this for the 30th time. They don't need additional capacity now. They have done A+ actions to get the capacity where it is now. I think they have done wonderful things. They have done those wonderful things like many other parks because of low interest rates. It has been very cheap to borrow funds the last few years. It will become MORE expensive in the future to do so. A number of parks have now placed themselves into positions so they don't have to keep adding to current revenue sources. They have hedged and hedged successfully.
However, they will need to expand and when they do the cheapest way to find land is to keep building in the parking lot. The cost of building a cement parking structure, pales in comparison to the savings of building and building and building again in the parking lot.
BinksDrake wrote:Jeez! Chimike! You yelled at me for disecting your post?! wow. Calm down. This is a disscussion board! You don't always have to be right! Get over it!
I'm not yelling and I am calm. I don't think I phrased anything (as you did above) that would reflect some wild-eyed rant. I didn't use expressions like - Jeez! - Get over it! - and the other immature ways to express displeasure.
And,
I have never yelled at you for dissecting my posts. I have continually asked that you actually have a point in your responses to my thought-out contributions to discussions. Obviously, you have yet to take me up on my advice.
===
ADDED: New post appeared
diggerg56 wrote:I doubt Six Flags would ever consider an actual parking structure. Current costs for a post-tension poured-in-place 4 level ramp would run $25,000+ per space. A 500 car ramp would cost a minimum of $12.5 million at that price per space.
I work for a university parking system and that was how the price averaged out for a contract we just awarded for a new structure.
Thank you for interjecting some points based on facts. While I really respect the fact that you discuss items while taking facts into consideration, I would respectfully disagree to the idea that those figures are too expensive.
12.5 million is another rollercoaster. 12.5 million is nothing when it comes to commercial land acquisition. At 1500 spaces, 37.5 million still seems extremely reasonable for land that will allow 25 more years of expansion. I would propose that they would be able to get the price down from $25,000.00 a space. Disneyland's was not that expensive.
Disneyland's was 10,000+ spaces at 87 million dollars. That's $8,700.00 a space. California is the 4th most expensive state for labor and materials construction.
So, my point would be that with the increase in size, the less each sq. ft. will cost.
Now looking at the other example, the $37.5 figure seems over-inflated. I would agree that it is; schools, especially Universities have a horrible track-record when it comes to contractual bidding. Same with the City of Chicago's numerous problems with the underground parking structure at Millennium/Grant Park.
I would assume Six Flags would find contractors who would be very competitive in price for a project such as this "what-if" idea.
Last edited by chimike on August 28th, 2004, 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-Waterpark will be around 14 acres
-Back parking lot is being extended
Here's the story. While I was in line I asked a ride op what is going on in the back parking lot. He says that it is being expanded to allow more spaces. I ask why. He says that something new will be placed in the parking lot by SSA and he asks if we know what it is. I say, "I think I heard that they were going to get a water park". He says that is correct. I ask if it will be a big one and he says that it will be around 14 acres.
That could be right, and it could be wrong. I don't know how much I can trust ride ops.
chimike wrote: Instead of acting like a 15 yr. old and saying "Get it through your head" why don't you back up your statements with facts and numbers.
The problem with that post is that a lot of the members on this message board are 15 years old. Many of them are also younger than that. All statements don't have to be backed up with facts and numbers. We are a message board. We say what we think and that should be accepted. Some people just never win.(Even though you have some very educated thoughts.)
Six flags will probably never expand the park into the parking lot area, they have all that space in back were shockwave layes on the hill. they have plenty of unused space just used to store stuff they dont use anymore
chimike wrote: Instead of acting like a 15 yr. old and saying "Get it through your head" why don't you back up your statements with facts and numbers.
The problem with that post is that a lot of the members on this message board are 15 years old. Many of them are also younger than that. All statements don't have to be backed up with facts and numbers. We are a message board. We say what we think and that should be accepted. Some people just never win.(Even though you have some very educated thoughts.)
Agreed. And thank you for pointing out the age issue. I didn't realize that was the majority age, I assumed it was at least college aged. This explains a lot.
Anyways, Agreed. Not all posts need to be fact base. Of course many can and are based on speculation or brainstorming. That is what makes discussion boards related to hobbies so interesting and enjoyable. All of that said, I would hope one would not jump in and issue a "drive-by" statement of criticism without having some sort of logic/fact to back-up their "drive-by" attack on the poster. Especially when the attack is pointed at the poster and not the message.
chimike wrote:Agreed. And thank you for pointing out the age issue. I didn't realize that was the majority age, I assumed it was at least college aged. This explains a lot.
You seriously need to stop talking, your are making alot of enemys...eve faster than Tyster was. Some of the 15 year olds are some of the smartest people you will ever meet in the coaster world.
chimike wrote:Agreed. And thank you for pointing out the age issue. I didn't realize that was the majority age, I assumed it was at least college aged. This explains a lot.
You seriously need to stop talking, your are making alot of enemys...eve faster than Tyster was. Some of the 15 year olds are some of the smartest people you will ever meet in the coaster world.
How about you worry about yourself, and I'll worry about me. What's great about the Internet is that if one doesn't enjoy where they are at, they go somewhere else.
Your post is another example, in a line of examples, of people jumping in on a discussion to judge/attack the poster rather then the message. I'll let the PMs that I have received guide me on whether I am making friendships or not. Obviously I am doing something right if posters such as yourself can't address the issues or message, and are only left to talk about popularity. Very similiar to politics, both in work and at school.
You mean to tell me that I have been arguing with a bunch of 8th graders. I was ridding coasters when they were infants.
Planea -
This is a discussion board - Enemys? - You have got to be kidding me. Are you going to meet someone by the flagpole to beat them up? I disagree with a lot of people on these boards and I am sure they disagree with me, but that doesn't mean that we are enemys. If you think that you need to get a life. I do not know people personally from these boards. It is just coaster talk and if I disagree with someone a debate sparks and it is good fun. Just because you do not agree with someone doesn't make you right. I guess I better watch out for you if I am your enemy or anyone else's
planea380 wrote:As a matter of a fact I have the right to be offended, but am I. No. I'm 15, and most of you probably didnt even know that.
Can we please get back on topic.
I have edited my post, because I had NO intention of insulting any 15 year old. Now I hope I am not insulting any infants.
When I direct my comments to someone I don't even consider how old they are. I debate the post not the poster. It is amusing that I classified a behavior as something a 15 yr. old would do, and then seconds later, you - a 15 yr. old - repeated the behavior.
Nonetheless, I edited it to baby because I still get my point across without offending the membership on here. At least until my next post, I guess.
Has any press releases come out about the water park yet? Didnt they say that like in 2-3 weeks they well have a press release on more information on the water park?
No matter how hard it is...Never EVER give up. The real failure is those who dont try.
LaTiNoObSeSeDSFGAm wrote:Has any press releases come out about the water park yet? Didnt they say that like in 2-3 weeks they well have a press release on more information on the water park?
No and I don't recall them specifically stating they would have a press release in a couple of weeks. A shareholder's conference call is geared towards providing the company's direction, it isn't meant for PR purposes. There are a whole other set of circumstances that need to be extremely to the point and clear on. Other issues that would normally need to be specific (like a proposed waterpark) can be much more vague compared to Press Releases.
It's great that they guided investors and other stakeholders (such as ourselves) on the waterpark and I think the press release will help.
They did mention that they would be more specific regarding 2005 investments on the next quarterly call. Make sure not to miss it!
I wouldnt be suprised if Gam waited until January, or possibly up until march.
Lets look at a pattern.
(I know a waterpark is different than a coaster, but its still an announcment)
Raging bull- January 1st
V² + Deja Vu- March
Superman- Febuary 4th
Ragin Cajun- January 17th
As you can see SFGam has a pattern of not announcing upcoming "improvments" until late.
And for you old timers--
Tidal Wave- January 24th, 1978
So therefore I BELIEVE that it wont be announced outside of a conferance call until early next year. (Its my belief, dont reply arguing that the past doesn't mean anything)
Timmy179 wrote:I wouldnt be suprised if Gam waited until January, or possibly up until march.
Lets look at a pattern. (I know a waterpark is different than a coaster, but its still an announcment)
Raging bull- January 1st V² + Deja Vu- March Superman- Febuary 4th Ragin Cajun- January 17th
As you can see SFGam has a pattern of not announcing upcoming "improvments" until late.
And for you old timers-- Tidal Wave- January 24th, 1978
So therefore I BELIEVE that it wont be announced outside of a conferance call until early next year. (Its my belief, dont reply arguing that the past doesn't mean anything)
I don't know who you were addressing, but I think everything you wrote makes a lot of sense.
There is a pattern and it only helps to keep the PR annoucment closer to spring rather then pre-holidays.
SFGAM usually makes announcements in January. So I Suspect that’s when the announcement will be. Also, I suspect that they might make it an Annual Tradition to make announcements during the No Coaster Con.
Although I don't feel like searching though 15 pages of posts to find it, I know there was a comment from Ron/Wolf, who undoubtedly has park connections owing to the facts in his posts over the last year, which said to look for an announcement from the park within a few weeks. He is usually pretty reliable for real information, so I would expect to see an official announcement in the upcoming month. Plus this is not a minor addition... its going to be pretty obvious that a huge construction site is being worked on, so I think that this will be announced sooner rather than later.
InsaneNewman wrote: Plus this is not a minor addition... its going to be pretty obvious that a huge construction site is being worked on, so I think that this will be announced sooner rather than later.
It was pretty obvious when bull was being constructed.
Yes.... in January (after they announced it). But if they start construction now, there will be a hunge construction site with no explanation... my guess is that they'll provide one.
