California Great America (CGA) Discussion Thread

[robman]

I'm just looking forward to see what this season brings and see what little changes that might come the park. If they mayor and Cedar Fair CEO have a strong "bond" with each other and they are both excited for the future the park. Then I have a strong feeling that we will finally see something new for the 2013 season. I don't expect to much to happen this season except expanding Halloween Haunt even more with new mazes, since with this event the park is able to reach capacity.

[QueerRudie]

^They aren't road blocks. They removed the road completely.

 

That might be the best quote I've seen about the SCCC...

 

I hate to be a wet blanket on everybody who's gung-ho that this park is going to become the centerpiece with new coasters all over etc. It's not. Don't get your hopes up, and please be sure to come down here to reality.

 

1.) The park is SEVERELY landlocked. Adding a stadium and related infrastructure will eliminate any future beyond borders expansion. Kiss that hyper/Giga goodbye. Say Adios to the megacoaster. And wave bye-bye to that fan-boy powered ideal ride. They went out of the window YEARS ago.

 

2.) The SCCC (AKA: The Gestapo, Mussolini's henchmen, the KGB.) has repeatedly stated in the past their TOTAL compliance with the neighbours wishes (Look in the SCCC records in Santa Clara if you don't belive me) about the park being too noisy, too bright and being an eyesore. They have about as much feeling for GA as does a supermodel for an ounce of fat. The mayor might be on board with it, but he has NO SAY WHATSOEVER over the park itself. It's the SCCC that's got the ruling power here, not him. He is a figurehead, and very little more than that.

 

3.) The Neigbours (AKA: that 7 decibel scream was TOO loud for our computers): You're looking at the TOUCHIEST people outside of Bezerkely here, and they will WHINE, SCREAM AND COMPLAIN to the people they paid to have elected into office about it: The SCCC. One -hint- of a new coaster/attraction, and grab your kleenex, folks. They will complain at the drop of a hat about the park noise as being disruptive to everyone around there.

 

Sorry to be a spoilsport, but let's face the reality of Bay Area Politics: It SUCKS to be a park there. Keep your emotions in line with that, and you won't be disappointed in the years to come with the plans you're fantasizing about not coming true.

[ScottBrown]

Yes what you say is very true I believe all 4 parks in the Bay Area deal with whiny bitchy neighbors

[11slataus]

I know a lot of people dislike Vortex and want it removed, but really, despite it's roughness it's still an asset to an increasingly coaster-scarce park. If they remove any coaster (and I hope they don't), I think it should be Grizzly. If they can get the GCI on the land where Whizzer used to be then that's awesome. I also think if the GCI falls through the area would be perfect for a small Intamin Blitz like Maverick. Oh, and put either a Windseeker or a Screamin' Swing in Invertigo's old spot.

[cfc]

I know a lot of people dislike Vortex and want it removed, but really, despite it's roughness it's still an asset to an increasingly coaster-scarce park.

 

I would say "asset (for lack of a better term)," but I understand what you're saying.

[robman]

I know a lot of people dislike Vortex and want it removed, but really, despite it's roughness it's still an asset to an increasingly coaster-scarce park. If they remove any coaster (and I hope they don't), I think it should be Grizzly. If they can get the GCI on the land where Whizzer used to be then that's awesome. I also think if the GCI falls through the area would be perfect for a small Intamin Blitz like Maverick. Oh, and put either a Windseeker or a Screamin' Swing in Invertigo's old spot.

 

Grizzly isn't going any where! Even though it is ranked one of the worst wooden coasters in the world it is actually one of the more popular rides at the park and usually has a decent wait time. I doubt we will see anymore coaster removals without any coasters being built. About the GCI coaster location, it was planned to go in that area where Whizzer used to be. The first drop was to go around the Star Tower and most of the layout would be where the near the Pictorium and former Whizzer location.

[11slataus]

^ Yeah, I was merely saying if ANY coaster was to be removed, I personally would choose Grizzly. But I don't want anything to be ripped out anyway. And I hadn't seen the GCI prints with the sky tower, that looks great!

[11slataus]

I know a lot of people dislike Vortex and want it removed, but really, despite it's roughness it's still an asset to an increasingly coaster-scarce park.

 

I would say "asset (for lack of a better term)," but I understand what you're saying.

 

Yeah, I have a thing for stand-ups. But if the park ever does decide to remove it, Michigan's Adventure could use it!

[ScottBrown]

I think the newer B&M stand up trains might help out Vortex It is a great layout for the tiny piece of land it is on and it would be a shame to see it go - If I had to pick a coaster at the park that was on the endangered list I would say The Demon

[-Edge of Beast-]

Like RD said, this place is landlocked. If you want a GCI, it will most likely be behind Flight Deck's lift hill next to that little lake. But I wouldn't even expect it there, GCIs are pretty loud and that's right next to a neighborhood. There's basically no other space in the park unless they want to trash some rides...

[ScottBrown]

In theory couldn't they get a B&M and fill it with sand and add some sound shielding like California Screamin' has on it and use the Whizzer area

[XYZ]

I know a lot of people dislike Vortex and want it removed, but really, despite it's roughness it's still an asset to an increasingly coaster-scarce park. If they remove any coaster (and I hope they don't), I think it should be Grizzly. If they can get the GCI on the land where Whizzer used to be then that's awesome. I also think if the GCI falls through the area would be perfect for a small Intamin Blitz like Maverick. Oh, and put either a Windseeker or a Screamin' Swing in Invertigo's old spot.

 

Grizzly isn't going anywhere. I think that there will be no more coaster removals since the reason why the presvious three coasters were removed was either by lack of riders, the coaster in the way of an expansion, and a great asset to be moved to another park. I don't see any of the coasters having any of those problems as in all of them, there isn't anything behind them that is valued land except for Flight Deck, though if something were to be built behind Flight Deck in that area, they could tear down the Pavillion, which is worthless and expand over there.

 

As for those who say a hyper can't be built, it could, also a giga cannot be built because of close proximity to San Jose Airport, though a hyper could have a station east of the Pavillion, the lift going over the Pavillion location, the drop in the Redwood Amphitheater location then a hill with a 90 degree turn near the enterance and then an air-time hill, hammerhead turn, and another air-time hill in the parking lot, then another 90 degree turn and some air-time hills and a helix returning to the station in an L-shape layout. This may be difficult to visualize so, here's some diagrams:

 

In Real Life

[SoCalCoasters]

For all those speculating about where this mystery GCI may go, they mentioned at Bay Area Bash that the noise studies they did would still allow them to place the coaster where it was originally slated to go in '08-'09.

[QueerRudie]

Interesting theory: But look at the scale and size of the ride to the picture- and compare it to Leviathan.

 

Secondly- remember those lovely neighbours? They just showed up to the SCCC meeting and started to throw things at you. There's NO chance of them using the parking lot like that- or taking out the ampitheater at the same time. Also, remember that lot will shrink by 70% in the not too distant future, meaning every single space in the lot will become gold for the park, and to lose some due to the ride would be a non-issue.

 

Good fanboy thought- and interesting concept- but not happening this century.

[Tmcdllr]

People forget, often, that though it seems like there is nowhere for parks to build coasters, there always is. If they want it bad enough, they will make it work. Simply saying they will never build it because the park is landlocked or appears to have no room is misleading, things can go over, under, through, and around other things- it does work and could help bring in more coasters to this park. Height restrictions are one thing but this has nothing to do with that. Have low expectations if you want but neither you, or I, or anybody else on here really knows what's going on. Maybe they won't put something in, maybe they will....

[XYZ]

I just though of this: If the neighbors complain about a new roller coaster being built, why don't they compain about a new stadium being built with loud construction noises and screaming fans and loud games when the stadium opens.

 

Also, isn't the stadium being built on the overflow lot? Plus, because of the new parking garage being built, Great America would have the same number of parking spots as before if they built the stadium on the overflow. Though, a hyper can be built in a layout with the lift in the same location, then a hammerhead turn, and air-time hills going east parallel with the lift hill, and the rest of the layout behind Flight Deck in the empty field and Flight Deck's lake. Then, only the Pavillion and amphitheater would be torn-down, but NO parking spaces.

[QueerRudie]

I just though of this: If the neighbors complain about a new roller coaster being built, why don't they compain about a new stadium being built with loud construction noises and screaming fans and loud games when the stadium opens.

 

Also, isn't the stadium being built on the overflow lot? Plus, because of the new parking garage being built, Great America would have the same number of parking spots as before if they built the stadium on the overflow. Though, a hyper can be built in a layout with the lift in the same location, then a hammerhead turn, and air-time hills going east parallel with the lift hill, and the rest of the layout behind Flight Deck in the empty field and Flight Deck's lake. Then, only the Pavillion and amphitheater would be torn-down, but NO parking spaces.

 

You speak some logic: But remember, Bay area politics COMPLETELY lack logic.

 

Second, look at your picture- see all those lovely office plazas? Put one hill up next to them, and you'd be able to hear the screaming from them... in Sibieria or Bothswana. You have -no- idea how cranky these people get. I live half my year in San Mateo, next to SFO, and there are -daily- bitchfests from the locals in Burlingame and San Bruno over the noise.

 

IN the end, the best solutions are to do some hefty re-thought here as to the park and future rides. The noise issue is what will put a nail in the coffin of any attempt to put a large ride in. And remember, a stadium's games are not typically during working hours of Monday-Friday, and events would be in the evening/weekend primarily- opposite those of the offices.

[MrSum1_55]

In the FD area, there MIGHT be possibility of another coaster going there, if, and only if, that other ride is a B&M filled with sand AND Flight Deck also fills its supports with sand. Then, the noise level might be the same as before, allowing complaining levels to drop.

 

I am somewhat surprised no one even brought this up, but what about the Boomerang Bay area? They were able to build one large coaster there before with little to no noise complaints. If they were to build another over there, it would requre some creativity, but it could be done. If it did, they could probably get away with that one with minimal complaints as well.

[XYZ]

A hyper can easily go into most parks, just look at Phantom's Revenge & Goliath (SFOG) for example which was fit beautifully in without that much removal.

[robman]

Interesting theory: But look at the scale and size of the ride to the picture- and compare it to Leviathan.

 

Secondly- remember those lovely neighbours? They just showed up to the SCCC meeting and started to throw things at you. There's NO chance of them using the parking lot like that- or taking out the ampitheater at the same time. Also, remember that lot will shrink by 70% in the not too distant future, meaning every single space in the lot will become gold for the park, and to lose some due to the ride would be a non-issue.

 

Good fanboy thought- and interesting concept- but not happening this century.

 

The stadium wont be using any of the parks parking. It is being built in the overflow lot which I have never seen used so I doubt it would even be the slightest issue with parking. There is also a parking garage being built across the street next to the Convention Center I believe.

Here is a picture of the proposed stadium layout.

[A.J.]

And remember, a stadium's games are not typically during working hours of Monday-Friday, and events would be in the evening/weekend primarily- opposite those of the offices.

 

DING DING DING! And the gentleman wins the Rock of Gibraltar!

 

A hyper can easily go into most parks, just look at Phantom's Revenge & Goliath (SFOG) for example which was fit beautifully in without that much removal.

 

Aren't pipe dreams wonderful? I used to pipe dream all the time about imaginary layouts for rides for my favorite parks.

 

No, a hyper can't easily go into most parks. In fact, no permanent roller coaster can "easily" go into most parks. Concept, design, approval, revision, construction, completion, opening, complaining, re-profiling, sickness, death, constipation - all those things (well, maybe not those last few) go into the development of a new roller coaster. You can't just call B&M up and have them magically plop a new hypercoaster in place.

 

Oh, I know! Let's build a roller coaster that runs constantly every day right next to an office building! I'm sure they won't mind the constant screaming and roar of the trains as they go by every two minutes when they're having an important business meeting! They're probably talking about what color ties to wear to work or what shades of black their BMWs are! They obviously have nothing important to do. Maybe all they do is sit around all day and see who can fart the loudest!

 

Seriously, parks make "yes" and "no" decisions for a reason. They obviously started development on the latest ride years ago. They know 10^23 times better how to run their park than most of us ever will.

[ScottBrown]

People forget, often, that though it seems like there is nowhere for parks to build coasters, there always is. If they want it bad enough, they will make it work. Simply saying they will never build it because the park is landlocked or appears to have no room is misleading, things can go over, under, through, and around other things- it does work and could help bring in more coasters to this park. Height restrictions are one thing but this has nothing to do with that. Have low expectations if you want but neither you, or I, or anybody else on here really knows what's going on. Maybe they won't put something in, maybe they will....

 

Yes look at a park like Gröna Lund

[QueerRudie]

In the FD area, there MIGHT be possibility of another coaster going there, if, and only if, that other ride is a B&M filled with sand AND Flight Deck also fills its supports with sand. Then, the noise level might be the same as before, allowing complaining levels to drop.

 

I am somewhat surprised no one even brought this up, but what about the Boomerang Bay area? They were able to build one large coaster there before with little to no noise complaints. If they were to build another over there, it would requre some creativity, but it could be done. If it did, they could probably get away with that one with minimal complaints as well.

 

Those are very rational answers- and given that the water park there took over a site of a coaster (Stealth) it would be a valid place for a new coaster of size.

 

A hyper can easily go into most parks, just look at Phantom's Revenge & Goliath (SFOG) for example which was fit beautifully in without that much removal.

 

Sort of: Kennywood and SFMM don't have the same noise issues that GA does. To give you an idea of how strict the noise issue is in Santa Clara/San Jose:

 

SJC (San Jose Mineta field) has strict operational guidelines as for arrivals and departures due to noise restrictions- almost as bad as SNA (John Wayne/Orange County airport). Planes leaving SJC on the northbound departure track (Over GA, the northern edge of San Jose and Santa Clara for that matter) must reduce thurst at 500 feet until clear of the coastline of the south bay, to minimize the noise from the outbound departures. If the air traffic is moving southbound into SJC, aircraft must stay at an altitude over 1500 feet until 2 miles from the end of the runway (about the point where the northern edge of GA is) and then cut the throttles to flight idle to descend rapidly into land. Same noise reason. And same locations. It's so sensitive noise wise that the city has monitors set up along both ends of the SJC approach and departure tracks, and if an airline leaving/arriving SJC makes too much noise, they can be fined large amounts of money for violating the noise abatement patch- and those can approach over 25,000 per violation.

 

How does this tie into GA: A coaster full of happy, screaming riders creates just about the same amount of noise as a 737 on departure- and at just about the same frequency of operations (About every 90 seconds or so). And, if you consider that a coaster is FAR lower to the ground than a 737, the noise will be magnified there.

 

Most of our members would find that sound to be alluring or welcome- but I can imagine the offices there would not like the noise at all. Your meeting has just started, and 35 seconds in, you hear screaming people flying past your windows. Not something I'd want to deal with if I was a business.

 

Any new coaster for GA will have to be built to very strict noise levels- in any area of the park. A hypercoaster IS feasable- but not using the space you're mentioning. As for burying it in the park (Using tunnels, etc.) the soil at that part of the world is -very- sandy, and near a fault line (less than six miles away) making tunneling almost impossible for a ride due to earthquake risk.

 

What I could see going in (coaster wise): A MegaLite, placed towards the far eastern side of the park, possibly in the area of Boomerang Bay. (Or even a Blitz coaster- as they're shorter, and tend to take up less space), a SMALL scale floorless coaster from B&M (Same arrangement for height).

 

In a -perfect world- scenario, I'd do this: Build the parking decks up to the front gate of Great America, leaving the top part open, and then move the entry plaza/front end of the park ON TOP of the decks. Place smaller attractions, etc. on top of the parking deck, and open up the front end of the park for more expansion room, allowing for rides in other places to be moved forward, opening up space at the back end (southern end) of the park- and then use that space for larger rides/coasters. Buy out the nearby offices, and remove them, allowing for further expansion alongside the western end of the park.

 

(Of course, that's not entirely feaseable due to costs, but it would make for a better situation all around, I think.)

[robman]

People forget, often, that though it seems like there is nowhere for parks to build coasters, there always is. If they want it bad enough, they will make it work. Simply saying they will never build it because the park is landlocked or appears to have no room is misleading, things can go over, under, through, and around other things- it does work and could help bring in more coasters to this park. Height restrictions are one thing but this has nothing to do with that. Have low expectations if you want but neither you, or I, or anybody else on here really knows what's going on. Maybe they won't put something in, maybe they will....

 

 

I agree 100% with this,the only they can't do is build underground because they will hit the water table(I believe that's the correct term) If they want it,they can build it!

[XYZ]

You do know that "above ground" tunnels can be built like the Demon which poses no threat to anything as the Demon's tunnel survived many earthquakes.