Sadncastle Suites is looking great!

http://www.cedarpoint.com/public/fun/blog/index.cfm?year=2008&month=2&day=29

It may look better than before, and I wouldn't know, but I think it still looks like a cheap hotel. Not only is this bad form because it's so expensive, but because it's on probably the best plot of land on the peninsula. Truthfully, they probably would have been better off applying the millions they've spent toward improving it on building a nicer resort in its place.

Existentialist said:
It may look better than before, and I wouldn't know, but I think it still looks like a cheap hotel.

How can you know that it still looks like a cheap hotel if you don't even know if it looks any better?

^I think he meant it's cheap that it is standing where it is, instead of somewhere else on the property.

But, from their viewpoint, why should they care what it looks like, when they can charge a high rate and still have it booked consistently throughout the season? Do I agree with this? No, you should look to provide quality for your guests. Either way, the renovation is long overdue. It's pretty much an industry standard to renovate your guest rooms every 7-11 years, and I don't believe Sandcastle has been renovated since it opened in 1990, putting it at least 7 years overdue.

^I think they might care when expansion room is cutting down quickly.

DBCP said:

How can you know that it still looks like a cheap hotel if you don't even know if it looks any better?

Based on what I've read, the fact that it's never been redone in its history, and the fact that the upgrades look dirt cheap, I have inferred that it used to look like a cheap hotel. And I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

I understand that they don't perceive the need to do any better, and maybe they're right. However, I would assume that a family willing to drop the cash necessary to get a room there would also be willing to pay a much higher rate to get a very nice experience, and for that reason I think they should have looked into either building a new hotel on the property or made the renovations significantly nicer and more extensive, and then increased the room rate accordingly.

Existentialist said:

I understand that they don't perceive the need to do any better, and maybe they're right. However, I would assume that a family willing to drop the cash necessary to get a room there would also be willing to pay a much higher rate to get a very nice experience...

I will completely agree with that. The problem is, they're very short term about the entire thing. A little money now, and it'll be fine for a while, or a lot of money now, and it'll be okay for even longer. Sort of "we'll worry about that when we come to it," approach.

I will reserve judgement until the revovation is actually done.

I take exception that Sandcastle was ever a "cheap" hotel. Does it merit the prices charged? Of course not. Then again, most hotels (including the Disney hotels) don't merit the room rates they charge.

I've done this little recap in the past, but I'll recap it here. Sandcastle was built in 89 (the first phase) prior to any significant changes at Breakers. Cedar Fair officials had no real idea how well it would be received. As a result, they smartly decided to do Sandcastle in phases.

Unfortunately, they chose (largely for economical reasons) to use lesser building materials for the first phase. After that first year it was apparent that there were issues they did not want to repeat with the second phase. So, they used better materials. As a result, you have less of a problem with sound in the two outside wings than you do with the two wings near the pool.

My guess is that, if they knew what kind of response they would get from Sandcastle they would have built a completely different (and larger) structure on what I think is the premier spot on the peninsula.

As for it never being redone - wrong. Sandcastle has had several renovations over the years including wall coverings, carpeting, bedding, etc. This is the most significant, and throrough, renovation...to be sure, but it is by no means the first.

There is also a case to be made for not pricing out certain demographics. Could the entire peninsula be made up of high cost accommodations? Sure. But, even Disney realizes that you need to be able to accommodate varying demographics and has done so in serious form with Disney's All Star and Pop Century Resorts.

So Sandcastle was never really worth the money for me to begin with. And it still won't be :)

Breakers any day over Sandcastle.

I think SS they try and get just the adults there with no kids, and yeah they price it that way so us 20 something year olds find it hard to rationalize spending the $ when we can save somethine like $100 a night and stay at Breakers like the rest of the 10,000 maniacs.

You couldn't be more wrong. Sandcastle was not designed for adults with no kids. On the contrary, it is the families they are hoping to draw. That is why it is a "suite". Two beds plus the sofa bed in the living room. You think they put that many beds in there because they wanted to draw adults with no children?

Sandcastle and Breakers are not worth the money if those two hotels happen to be in downtown Akron. But, given they are on the peninsula within walking distance to one of the most popular amusement parks in the world then yes...they are worth the money. If they weren't worth the money then they wouldn't have some of the highest occupancy rates in the state of Ohio.

Frankly, I prefer the quiet setting and the relative simpleness of Sandcastle. It is certainly a more quaint setting than Breakers. It is probably the prettiest setting for a hotel on Lake Erie.