Cedar Point Jr.?

I have seen lots of talk on this forum about the park running out of space and family rides vs. thrill rides. It also has a closed discussion board about the former Geauga Lake. Ouimet made a very strong statement on CNBC's Mad Money that we will never see a new amusement park. All of that got the PointGuru's warped mind turning. What if Cedar Fair refurbished the remains of the old Geauga Lake into a juniors version of Cedar Point?

Crazy thought given Ouimet's statement? Maybe; but, I would view it as more as an expansion and revival of an old park to a new or different market. Last I checked, Cedar Fair still owned most or all of the property. While deteriorating rapidly, most of the infrastructure is already in place. I could see the park being geared to a pre-teen or early teen crowd and families much like Idlewild in PA. Children's rides could be moved to Geauga Lake from CP and other Cedar Fair parks at much less cost than building new ones. CP Jr. would only have family and children's rides. CP does not need 3 different children's areas. I'm not saying abandon children's rides at the park, just consolidate them into one area. The new Cedar Point Jr. park would attract a new market that wouldn't necessarily compete against the existing park like Geauga Lake did. It would generate money rather than sucking property tax out of profits while the land sits waiting to be sold. The main park would have more room for thrill rides but would still have room for family attractions and less of an emphasis on children's attractions.

I think it could work well if done correctly. Cedar Point Jr. Could be revived at a fraction of the cost of a new amusement park and I would think the market could support such a park.

When parents want to visit Cedar Point, what will the kids do? And vice versa? They are trying to create a park for everyone in the family to enjoy. Not some having a great time, and others are sitting there bored.

So parents will drop off their kids at GL and drive to Sandusky to ride the rides they want to drive?

Why have the extra overhead? Why not concentrate kids rides with "adult" rides at 1 site, with one overhead?

You "think it could work well if done correctly?" Except you've just added overhead, without extra revenue--the definition of incorrect. Why drive your kid to GL when you can take them to CP? (Remember, under your plan, GL has no new rides, only rides taken from CP.) You plan cannibalises revenue and increases costs.

Believe me, you want something to go back into Geauga Lake as mush as the rest of us, but it's not gonna happen. If anything does, I'll be shocked if it's from CF. Plus, Ouimet has even said he wants to bring new family rides to the point, and these are just what it is lacking. Why only build new ones at GL and even send ones there from CP? Then you only make CP's problem worse, and would turn away many people.

There are many reasons why this would never happen. And you think it would be cheaper to revamp a park that's been closed for a while now, completely clean it, add rides, hire staff, etc. than to add an occasional ride at an already full functioning park? I don't see the logic.

I'm not trying to be mean, and I appreciate your attempt to think of ideas, but no way would this ever happen, especially from CF.

Captain Hawkeye said:
So parents will drop off their kids at GL and drive to Sandusky to ride the rides they want to drive?

Why have the extra overhead? Why not concentrate kids rides with "adult" rides at 1 site, with one overhead?

You "think it could work well if done correctly?" Except you've just added overhead, without extra revenue--the definition of incorrect. Why drive your kid to GL when you can take them to CP? (Remember, under your plan, GL has no new rides, only rides taken from CP.) You plan cannibalises revenue and increases costs.

OK, this is the problem. Either people are trolling and trying to start a flame war or you really didn't even read my post and have zero imagination.

First it would be a park with separate admission. It would be marketed to parents with younger kids, not older teens and adults. It would be purely a family park. Parents would not be (or allowed) to drop off 6 year old children and drive to Sandusky. The market for children's entertainment is huge and there is nothing in northeast Ohio that would compare. There is a significant number of parents with young kids who won't take their kids to Cedar Point because they don't think there is enough for them to do.

Second, I said Cedar Point should not abandon all children's rides just centralize them. As an example I would close Camp Snoopy and the Jr. Gemini area and either move them to the new park or Planet Snoopy. I could see Kiddie Kingdom and Planet Snoopy being connected with some sort of dark family ride in the old ball room and moving park operations.

The park should do something with the old Geauga Lake property rather than just letting it rot away.

I'm not a parent, but I have spent the day at the park with kids. My sister, her husband, and my twin nieces spent the day at the park with me last month.

While my brother-in-law and I waited in line for Gatekeeper... my sister took the twins to Kiddy Kingdom/Giant Wheel.

While my brother-in-law and the braver of the two twins rode Gemini, I took the more timid twin on Jr. Gemini and rode a few things in Camp Snoopy.

If there was only one centralized location for kids rides, it would make experiencing the park as a family much more difficult. I enjoy the three kids areas... and I don't even have kids of my own.

Please.. make it stop.

And this is from someone who was forced to have his screen name changed back in 2000.

Although Jeff, if I remember, is a fan of Kevin Smith films.

I think most of the people who frequent this site were pulling for the crickets, but they lost out after about 2hrs.

And yet another topic I can "mark as read".

I can see why coaster enthusiast would not be excited about a Jr. amusement park. The point is, it would be a compliment to the main park and could serve as a training ground for generations to come. Other than an army of landscaping crews, maintenance and the transfer of a few rides, start up cost would be minimal compared to a new park. Don't get me wrong, it still would require a major investment but it would make gobs of money and would be a better use of the money Cedar Fair already invested in the property.

"Other than an army of landscaping crews, maintenance and the transfer of a few rides, start up cost would be minimal compared to a new park."

And ride ops, and people to work food stands, and people to work security, and people to work in the shops, and people to work in the parking lot, and people to staff the ticket booths, and people to staff the back office operations, and people to work in the commissary preparing food, and people to empty the trash, and people to staff the accounting and finance operations, and people to staff human resources at the park...not to mention bringing the existing facilities up to grade after they've been unattended for so many years, and advertising the "new" park, and the costs of printing tickets, and buying packaging for purchases, and buying stock for the shops....

In the space of two sentences, you go from saying the 'start up cost would be minimal" to saying "it would still require a major investment." Only one of these can be true.

Cedar Point has already operated an amusement park at Geauga Lake, which did not make sufficient "gobs" of money to remain in operation. To consider opening another park there requires much more than made-up facts like "significant number of parents with young kids who won't take their kids to Cedar Point because they don't think there is enough for them to do."

As for "Either people are trolling ... you really didn't even read my post[s] and have zero imagination." You leave out the possibility that people just simply disagree with you.

http://picardfacepalm.com/

Stay in school, kids! Crack is whack!