Astroland + Cedar Point?

I guess I'm crazy... but I LOVED the Cyclone when I rode it (for the first time) in May. I only rode it twice though, $6 a pop is a little steep for me (never opted for the $4 immediate re-ride option.) Was it rough? Maybe, but I didn't notice it because the seats are so heavily padded.

FTR... Neither the Cyclone or Deno's Wonder Wheel (which belongs to the park next door to Astroland) is on the property that's in danger of being gone before the 2008 season.

I rode Cyclone in 2004 and me and my sister loved it. We even rode the front twice in a row and payed the guy in the station with out leaving the seat. That coaster probably brings back memories for older people who rode when younger and can still ride coasters these days. I don't think it's going anywhere either.

Did somebody actually compare the Cyclone to the Statue of Liberty and the Washington Monument?

As for the Breakers losing the Historic Building status:

That hotel (particularly the wings that were torn down) was in bad shape. There was no elevator access anywhere (a problem with the ADA passed in '92), the structure was aged, weathered and generally unsalvageable. Keep something in mind, those buildings stood from the early 1900's to present day with little preventative maintenance, no temperature controls to speak of to avoid issues with moisture, heat/cold, etc. It wasn't unusual to find snow piled up in the hallways during the winter months.

There was no significant character to speak of in the B, A or C sections of the hotel and certainly none in the dorm wings that were torn down. The "character" of the Breakers remains in the form of the long entry hallway, the unique lobby and the still impressive Rotunda. If those don't count for anything with the historic marker folks then so be it. You don't need a marker to be impressive.

I agree with you there. I brought my girlfriend through the rotunda for the first time last weekend and she had no idea it even existed, but was impressed. It's still a beautiful building and wonderful piece of history.

The hotel didn't have significant character? If you look at historical brochures, the hotel is beautiful sitting on the beach. If nothing else, it is reminiscent of Cedar Point's past as a great beach resort.

If the structure is not salvageable, by all means, build something new and keep the parts that matter (like the entry and rotunda). But, they could have EASILY "rebuilt" the hotel using a similar footprint and exterior style. If they wanted a tower, they could have built a couple of the back wings higher. Adding floors is cheap.

My issue is they built a massive stucco tower with a flat roof and absolutely no character. It's an eye sore. They had such an amazing opportunity to create a true resort destination there and I feel they dropped the ball. The whole "resort" section of the park could use some master planning.

Yeah, if you want to see a "resort" like place that was built in the mid 1800's and restored back to it's original look and feel you can check out The Tara or The Buhl Mansion.

If some local historian freaks can keep up an entire hotel and estate, I'd think that a major corporation would at least want to try. These are both in the craptastic Shenango Valley (armpit of the world).

*** Edited 9/20/2007 4:22:11 PM UTC by Loopy***

"Adding floors is cheap." "The old brochures were beautiful."

Ok, first, that Tower wasn't cheap. I don't think there is anything cheap about construction these days.

Second, yes...those brochures look lovely. Did you know that back then (and as recently as the 60s and 70s) the hotel rooms didn't have their own bathrooms? That is how they had such a high room count back then. There were common bathrroms on floors but not in the rooms themselves. Not exactly conducive to charging $150 plus per night.

I'm telling you, there was little value in what was left of those old sections. A lot of the furniture even got demolished along with the wings.

You can try to compare it to other resorts but in many cases (like Mackinac Island for example) the hotels are the attractions in and of themselves. Not so at Cedar Point. The park, waterpark, beach and water are the attractions.

And, there has to be a certain stopping point on how much time/money/creativity/etc you are going to spend on a facility that is only open 120 nights a year. Particularly when you are making judgment calls as to what capital improvements you are going to do throughout the peninsula and around the company as a whole.

I was there for the birth of Breakers East and left just before the Tower opened. I'm still pretty darn impressed with those facilities. Are they overpriced? Of course they are! Why would they overcharge you for water and not for a hotel room?

I'll tell you what, I suspect Sandcastle Suites saved Breakers. If I was a betting man I would bet that, if Sandcastle wasn't the overwhelming (and unexpected) success that it was I wouldn't have been surprised if the Breakers was destroyed at some point to make way for general park expansion.

As I've said before, the first phase of Sandcastle was built, to some degree, on the cheap. Mostly because I don't think they realized how popular it would become. The second phase was built much more "sturdy" and at greater expense b/c they realized what they stumbled onto. Frankly if they had it to do over I bet you would see a Tower like structure with far more rooms right there where Sandcastle stands today.

And what he was saying is that there is little value left in the existing sections either. Keep the rotunda and the entrance and build new around that.

It's like someone with an old crappy house tearing out the backside and putting up the cheapest addition they could possibly add.

You misinterpreted what I wrote. In construction, the major expense of ANY building (including a single family structure) is for the foundation and/or first floor. Adding floors on top of that is "cheap". So, the higher you go, the cheaper the overall building. For instance, a building with a large footprint a few floors costs more than a building with a small footprint and many floors - if the overall square footage is the same. That's just a construction fact. That's what I meant.

I also said I had no problem tearing down the old wings if there was no value in them. But, that doesn't mean they couldn't have built the new structures with relatively the same footprint and come up with a new floor plan. If they needed capacity, just make those wings a couple stories taller, put on some nice siding and attractive roof. Spiff up the place a bit, but keep the original historic look. Don't just slap on some nasty stucco and commercial standing seam roof. The tower looks just like Sandcastle - but vertical. They didn't take ANY design cues from the existing Breakers when doing the tower. It's quite obvious the only intent of that building was to make as much money as possible with no regard to aesthetics.

You said the resorts are an overwhelming success - starting with Sandcastle. So, they obviously make a lot of money. Sure, if you spend more on the construction of a resort, it's going to take a little longer to get back your investment. But, they could have also charged more and had MANY more repeat guests. Breakers USED to be the attraction at Cedar Point. The only reason why it's not an attraction now is because it's generic, boring and over priced. If they had spent a little more money and made the hotel really nice, it could have been an attraction. Make something desirable and people will pay. Look at what people pay for the place now mainly for the location. Imagine what they could charge if it was actually nice!

There is little value in the exisiting sections? The only thing remaining are the new wings which make a TON of money (ie value), the Bon Aire section (which does make money as well and it is 20 years or so younger than what has already been demolished), and "Main" and the Rotunda which you mention.

The Tower and the East wings may not be pretty from the outside but they were built well and I think they are fine on the inside. Are they the Ritz? No. But, I'll tell, when I was travelling in Italy we stayed in some pricey accommodations and NONE were as nice as the newer sections of Breakers.

If you are making a case to get rid of Bon Aire I'm with you but just expect to pay higher prices once the new thing goes up. I think of Bon Aire as the "All Star Resorts" of Cedar Point. The rooms ain't all that but they are affordable and they are a good alternative to staying at the Comfort Inn on 250.

Tim, I get what you are saying but no matter what they did with Breakers or Sandcastle they would never be THE attraction. Breakers was THE attraction when there was 1 rollercoaster and two midways.

I suspect there was a time when folks said, "man, I want to stay at the Breakers" and it just so happened that they might take in the park as well. Those days are long, long gone...and haven't been around since perhaps the 50s or 60s.

Cedar Point's philosophy of the resorts isn't unlike the rides they build. There is not great theme, mountains, rock work, etc. Those rides are structures that serve a purpose. That is what their resorts are and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Now, if Ohio ever gets off it's duff and allows gambling (and CP gets into the game) the I think you might see more money and attention paid to the resort experience.

Why is Astroland closing anyways? The only problem I see with the place is the tons and tons of garbage everywhere.

The land is likely more valuable for something other than a fleeting amusement park. See: Opryland and a host of other examples.

In fact, maybe we are in store for a "Geauga Mills". One never knows. In fact, I think I remember 5 or 6 years ago the Mills corporation looking at a site in Streetsboro. Whatever happened with that?

I didn't say THE attraction, I said AN attraction. Or, if you will, a draw. I know their resorts are full most of the time now. So, they could easily raise the price if it was worth it. I can imagine a scenario of people going to Cedar Point and staying overnight BECAUSE the hotels are nice. It's a regional park. Lots of people live within driving distance. Do they NEED to stay there? No. If they WANTED to stay there, would that be better? Uh, yes! That's more money for Cedar Point and could offset the cost of higher construction.

I'm not suggesting they build a Ritz Carlton. But, they could have easily done something with the massing of the structures, done some detailing on the exterior and used some nicer materials. They could have also updated the interior of the remaining sections of the original hotel.

If they can spend $21 million on a ride in the park that doesn't really affect attendance all that much, I'd think they could spend an equal amount (or more) on upgrading resorts that pull in a LOT of money. They could then easily raise the nightly cost of that resort and actually see profit.

We're spending $80 million on a 250-room resort that will have nightly rates slightly higher than Breakers. That's the construction cost in the Caribbean. It costs WAY less to build resorts in Ohio, plus they don't need to build a 5-star resort. So, that puts the costs of their resorts into a little more perspective. They're RAKING in the money on the resorts or they're doing something terribly wrong. Invest some money with smart design decisions and they'll make more money in the long run.

How many nights out of the year is your resort going to be open? More than 120? That is something you really do have to take into consideration.

Tim, I think you are a little harsh on the aesthetic criticism of the Breakers additions. I've always thought that East blended in pretty nicely with the original section right next to it, and I think that for a 10 story structure, Towers looks pretty good. I know that on the park side it doesn't seem to blend with the rest of the resort, but I think it blends wonderfully on the lake and boardwalk side. When you have a 3 story structure sitting next to and connected to a 10 story structure, you can't do too much beyond the 3rd floor to blend them together on the outside. As for the flat roof...its 10 stories up. I really don't care what the roof looks like when I can't see any more than the top edge of the building, and I'm sure that's how the majority of guests think as well. If you ask me, a roof similar to the East/original section of the hotel would just look odd 10 stories up. I think the flat roof is a better option than a square, blue roof that extends another half-floor up. Talk about making the thing even more of an eyesore, that would just top the cake.

You would probably balk at the aesthetics of my college, Indiana Wesleyan, even though it is usually viewed as one of the most beautiful campuses in Indiana.

The number of days a resort is open is important, but not crucial. When the resort is closed, your operating costs go way down. Sure, you have basic operating costs, but you don't have a massive staff or daily costs to incur. Yes, you're not making as much as if the place was open year round and busy all year. But, besides Disney, there aren't many resorts that can maintain the occupancy levels that they do.

Even though our resort is open year-round, there is definitely a "season" here - that being Winter. Right now, the island is literally dead. So, resorts are open, with basically a full operating staff, and maybe a handful of rooms booked. That's not very financially efficient either. So, it's a give/take relationship with occupancy of any resort, regardless of location.

Again, I didn't say they should build an $80 million 5-star resort. I said they should have invested SOME more in the resort. Financially, yes. But, more importantly, quality of design and choice of materials.

Check out the resorts at Alton Towers. They're beautiful. They cost less than Breakers in the peak season ($270 a night peak season with water park admission). They're open year round, but according to my friends that live in the area, they're pretty empty in the winter. They even lower rates to about £20 a night which is $40 in the off-season. Not unlike Cedar Point, there's NOTHING to do around Alton Towers - especially in the winter. So, it would be a good apples-to-apples comparison I think.

To be honest, as an average semi-annual park guest, I could care less what the outside of the Breakers looks like. I don't think it looks that bad anyways. Sure, a beautiful, grand hotel would be nice, but as long as the rooms are decent and clean (which they are), it doesn't take anything away from our experience there.

You keep talking about what they should have spent money on Tim, but for what purpose? It doesn't score them more revenue, so why bother? Besides, they did exactly what you said they should do, build something with lots of floors. The tower footprint is a lot bigger than the wing it replaced. Breakers East is probably about the same, though some of it is conference space on the back side.

The conference space was almost pointless. It should have been bigger or they shouldn't have built it at all. I know some small groups use it but it is too small for any significant sized group.