Proposals for a better guest experience

Yeah, charging for wifi would not go over well. You can get it for free at alot of places.

I never really considered CP a true beach resort because you can't really do any real swimming at the beach. There's the pools, which are nice, and the beaches' sandy area is big and plentiful.

Funny how this reminds me of Coney island in NY. I have been there and they let you swim all over in the ocean. The beach is packed with 1,000 some people in summer. It's the opposite of CP though as the park is actually run down and the rides are no where near CP's ride quality. CP's beach has maybe 30 people on it in July.

This has been brought up before, yes, the size of the swimming area on the beach is rediculous. It wasn't always like that though. When I was a kid you could go way out in deep water and when there were waves, actually body surf or raft surf back in. The beach was usually packed with swimmers and there were two parts to the beach. A private area for Hotel Breakers guests and the public area for people at CP for the day. Both parts were usually very busy on a nice day and there was acutally a large bathhouse around where Wicked Twister is now to serve the high demand for the beach.

Wow, thats awsome they had 2 parts even. I just looked at old photos of the beach from the 60s/70s and it looked just like coney island's beach :) It was packed. Now t's a shame the beach is so emtpy. When i am in line for wicked twister or windseeker, I see like 2 people walk out there, take pics with their phones, then walk back into the park. That's all you're allowed to do anyway...I wish i could run into the water and cool off.....for free

I really don't think depth is the problem, it's a combination of awareness and competition with 80 attractions inside the park.

I disagree. If the water was enjoyable, as in deeper than 2 feet and the swim area was made larger, the beach would be a much bigger draw, especially for hotel guests. It might even entice people to lengthen their stays. As far as awareness, hotel guests just have to look out their windows or walk along the boardwalk. The park of the 60's and 70's had great attractions for that time period inside the park also, but the beach was a big draw because it had a proper swimming area. It's not fun to sit in the hot sun and then go in the water to "cool off" when the water is not much deeper than a flooded basement.

Agreed, Pete. I think if the beach allowed for actual swimming, it could better compete with the attractions within the park.

I'm sure it's not just my 4-year-old and me who would much rather spend time in Soak City or at the park. I don't know how you can make the argument that people aren't interested because of the depth when they're barely aware that there's a beach in the first place. Let's be honest, in the beach's heyday, there was no Soak City, no Magnum or Millennium Force or Gatekeeper. If you live in Cleveland or Detroit or Toledo, you can get a day at the beach locally.

I worked at Cedar Point when there was two beach areas. I was manager of the Beach Refreshments which straddled the midway and the beach, directly behind Space Spiral. We had service windows on the midway side and the beach side. Avalanche Run eventually came along to replace that building.

The beach was a big draw back then, there was even a beach-only season pass that locals could buy. I remember weekends being especially busy, and back then it was common for guests to take time out of their CP day for an hour or two at the beach. The bath house was right next to the Upsidedown Funhouse and the beach personel ran it too. The hotel, which had no pool at all, had a beach area for guests as well and there was a long fence from the boardwalk to the lake to keep people from crossing into the park from the hotel.

Jeff's comment is correct, Soak City is the place to be. These days swimmin holes are out of favor, people in general much prefer pools and water parks to swimming in lakes and such. Especially Lake Erie which still carries a reputation of being cruddy. Cedar Point's failure to promote the beach as an attraction is intentional. They haven't made it easy for park guests to swim there- there's nowhere to change unless you are a hotel guest and even those folks fare best only if they're at Breakers. (Sandcastle has their own little beach as well)
So, anyway, why would the park suggest guests take time away from the park to go swimming on a "free" beach when there's a sparkling clean water park between here and there where they can collect admission? Makes perfect sense to me.

Yep. The nature of the resort, and of the company, has changed over the years. Back in the day, a free beach was an enticement to both overnight and day guests.

Now, with both a water park and an indoor water park hotel, there's a financial incentive to direct people to them. And I suppose that in today's litigious society, directing people to more controlled environments appeals to the corporate mind.

I see your point, but at least for hotel guests, the beach could still be a big draw. After all, the pools are free at the hotel, so one could argue they also compete with Soak City and give guests a free option. Water slides are fine, but there is also something very nice about being on a sandy beach with a nice swimming area. Kids find it fun to build big sandcastles and moats for the water to come in. At least I did when I was a kid.