roasted_marshmallow Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Just out of curiousity, wondering how big is too big for a park? For example, Knotts Berry Farm is listed as being approx 160 acres while Cedar Point is 364. Is Knotts too small? Does it need more room? Is CP to big? Too much going on, not enough time to get it all in?
Shavethewhales Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Meh, IMO, no park is ever too big, but they can definately be too crowded. CP is great, I absolutely love it and I would go there all the time if I could, you just can't beat having 14 different rollercoasters to ride all in one park, not to mention everything else. But the crowds can be a problem. And conversly, small isn't bad either, the small park charm is great, the original rides and attractions and the great atmospheres that they have can mean more than getting 6 rides on TTD.
Three Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Isn't Alton Towers a bit too big? Never been there, but from what I hear the whole park is way spread out. Not that it doesn't have good reasons. A castle on grounds, for one.
SharkTums Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 I've never found Alton Towers too big...I can't really think of any park that's 'too big'. It's all about how they use the space. And if they offer transportation options. Epcot is one of the bigger parks, but at least there are places to rest, stop, check stuff out, and even boats for transport! I haven't met a park I couldn't tackle! (although I have had my share of blisters and advil!)
coaster05 Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 ^I agree. Epcot is very large, yet I usually make at least 2 full laps per visit. Alton seemed to be perfect size and CP is a long walk, but again I went through Frontiertown 3 times on my last visit. I definately enjoy small parks, but I have to say I have never been to a park that is too big.
ParkTrips Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Fortunately the Tornado - Thunderhead walk will be shorter in the coming years, cause otherwise its a long (but managable) haul. Indiana Beach is too big too. It just isn't cramped enough.
map2 Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 IMO, there is rarely a park that is too big for the public. However, there are parks that are too big for the staff and park managment. Instead of having all of the rides and shops opened, a park would have half of the rides opened and a handful of shops opened. If the park seems to have more oversized lawn ornaments than operating rides, then the park may be too big for park managment.
Carnage Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Maybe not big overall, though there are some areas of certain parks that might be too high or steep. Like at SFMM with the walk up to Ninja. Actually the only park I can think of so far is Marineland for being too big. Just because it's huge, but doesn't have anything.
rcoasters Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Maybe not big overall, though there are some areas of certain parks that might be too high or steep. Like at SFMM with the walk up to Ninja. Actually the only park I can think of so far is Marineland for being too big. Just because it's huge, but doesn't have anything. I was about to post Marineland too. I have never been there, but it looks too much spaced out with not many rides. That can make a difference wheter or not the park looks big.
307 Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Forget that, the steep hills at Mt Olympus are INSANE to try and walk up and down repeatedly. UGHHH For such a small park, those kills... make you feel like you've been walking all damn day.
roasted_marshmallow Posted October 2, 2006 Author Posted October 2, 2006 So is there a good size for a park? How about set-up? Do you prefer your coasters together in a coaster alley, or spread out? I enjoyed Holiday World and Silverwood... I didn't like the layout of PKI with coasters being at exact opposite ends of the park. Thoughts?
SharkTums Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 I think IOA has a good layout...even better when they used to run the boats across the lagoon. I would always laugh as I passed people who were lost...IT'S A BIG CIRCLE!!! How hard is that??? Also, parks that use the hub system (ala Magic Kingdom's) are always nice also. Parks that seem to build onto themselves too much, or have to deal with terrain seem to have issues. I don't like deadends.
DATman Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 ^Like Critter Country. It's such a tiny land, it seems like it should've been an extention of Frontierland or NO Square. It would've made more sense. Or, if it at least had more than 2 rides to draw visitors over there, and give Pooh some kind of line
eddie200330 Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Kennywood is a nice "small" park, not a lot of walking and there is a ride queue around every turn. Six Flags America is layed out petty stupid, long walk back to Superman/ Batwing and then oops, dead end!!!! BGE is a lot of walking with BIG hills and lotsa steps. Thank God for the sky ride and train system!!
Three Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Forget that, the steep hills at Mt Olympus are INSANE to try and walk up and down repeatedly. UGHHH For such a small park, those kills... make you feel like you've been walking all damn day. Especially in the rain.
DarkMeasures Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 The only park I went to that is too small is Enchanted Village. The smallness factor was made even worse by the really horrible rollercoasters.
PkiJake Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 How many acres is Carowinds, Canadas Wonderland, and Dreamworld in Austrailia. -Jake
Carnage Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 ^ I couldn't find the size of Canadas Wonderland on it's website, though it did list Splashworks as 20 acres. I want to say the park is somewhere around 200+ acres. But I'm not sure on the specifics.
socalMAN123 Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 The only park that I ever thought that was so spread out was Magic Kingdom. It is nice to have the park centered around a centeral hub but, Splash Mountain and Big Thunder are freakin far away. I really like Magic Kingdom, but sometimes it was a pain to walk all the way over there. That's why Disney has the trains. ---Brent
coaster05 Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 I find it funny that so many people have complaints about the walks inside an amusement park. You spend half the day at least in line so the time walking for me is refreshing. Heck my wife an I walked 7.5 miles one day in London according to our odometer.
Carnage Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 ^ For some reason walking up and down hills though tires me out much faster. Like I have no problem walking around Cedar Point all day. But a tiny park like Mt. Olympus really killed my feet and legs.
timetrial3141592 Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 While we are on the subject of bad layouts... what park has the worst layout?
rcoasters Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 How many acres is Carowinds, Canadas Wonderland, and Dreamworld in Austrailia. -Jake I don't know if it is a reliable source, but I found those on wikipedia : -Carowinds = 105 acre -Canada's Wonderland = 370 acres I couldn't find Dreamworld though ... But, Cedar Point is 364 acres, so that makes it a little bit smaller than PCW. On the other hand, WDW is about 30 000 acres ...
Thrillrider15 Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Ya. No park is too big to walk around. Just don't run around the park. You will get tired, and your feet will hurt after awhile.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now