Some things they're gonna HAVE to achieve in order to survive: (1) Make the park enjoyable to all ages of family members: toddlers, pre-teens, teens young adults, adults, and seniors. This is very difficult to do. Disney has mastered it. (2) Make it a value. I'm not saying it should be cheap, but if you're gonna charge $100 to get in, people better feel like they got at least $100 of enjoyment out of it. When parks fail to do this, parks close. (3) Keep out the riff-raff. It's tough to make a park appealing to groups of teens without letting it turn into gang/thug central. If you're successful, this contributes to (1) above. (4) Keep the seasons in mind. In the summer, provide lots of shade, cool-down areas, misters, and anything else you can do to keep masses of people cool. One of my biggest complaints about Disney's California Adventure is that there aren't any trees anywhere, result in no shade - lots of heat. BTW - good luck having lots of water to keep people cool, but no mosquitoes. Cedar Point is a great example of a park that has succeeded in a non-Disney model. I would think it would be a good idea for the builders of Earth Quest to model their business off of them. I hate to say it, but I kinda agree. I would love for it to be successful... but I don't think it will be. I agree with this, too. The title is way cheesy. Jurassic Park would be great, but that name is owned by Universal Studios, who already has their own theme parks. That ain't gonna happen. Hell, DINOLAND would be better than "Earth Quest".
what they should do is put dinosaur costumes on horses and allow people to ride T-rexes around the place.
From the 2nd article I posted on the previous page : As we move east you will come to the center point of the theme park; a massive mountain structure which will feature three very distinctive environments. One side of the mountain will focus on the artic / ice element, the second will focus on volcanic / heat element and the third will feature a rainforest aspect. Each side of this mountain will contain a roller coaster type ride thematically appropriate for the element. Whether that means real roller coasters or not, I don't know.
Wow, I didn't read that myself but roller coaster type rides does sound rather fail-ish. So what is the consensus of the people of Houston anyway? Do you all want a major theme park closer to home or do you not miss Astroworld at all and could care less?
I would rather go to Disney park in Katy if it was true than go to this one. Water + summer heat + mosquitoes = COMPLETE FAIL
Sadly, this ride was closed not because it wasn't popular, but because the glacier melted and flooded the rest of the park.
One of the coolest things about working at Astroworld in the 80's was being able to see the ruins inside the mountain when they discontinued this ride. I recalled riding it as a child, but most of the inards of this rides tracks, etc. were still intact. At least they were in '88. I was, quite possibly, the worst employee there ever.
They do pretty well in Orlando: http://www.cityrating.com/cityweather.asp?city=Orlando average temperature: 82.5 average % humidity (morning/evening): 93%/60% Houston by comparison: http://www.cityrating.com/cityweather.asp?city=Houston average temp: 82.3 average % humidity (morning/evening): 93%/61% There are ways to control mosquitos. Orlando is swamp land every bit as much as Houston is, if not more so. I've spent quite a bit of time at different seasons of the year in Orlando. Their climate is virtually identical to Houston's. Having said that, no one does the full theme park destination thing better than Disney. If Disney were moving a real park here, I think it would flourish. If EarthQuest fails it won't be because of Houston's weather.
D'oh! My Dad bought some property when Roman Forest first went in... mid-70's I think. The only time he took me there it was literally just a few asphalt streets and nothing else around for miles, except for the fake Doric columns at the front. I remember thinking, "this is a waste of money... far from anywhere and a stupid name to boot." I think in the recession during the mid-80's he let it go. Man, he could of sold it to these guys or a hotel or something if he'd held on to it. Oh well, the grandkids will still get through college.
Growing up, I liked Astroworld a lot. But towards the end of its run, Astroworld was awful. Customer service was worse than a slum-area Taco Bell. Everything was too overpriced for really poor quality. It was overrun with thug teen gangs and was just scary. So... my answer to your question is... If they make the right kind of park, under the right conditions, yeah - I'd like it a lot and would probably go there with family, friends, and out-of-town visitors. But if they built the wrong kind of park with unacceptable prices, I'd never go.
I agree with this. When most of us talk about missing AstroWorld, it was the AstroWorld we grew up with that we missed....not the one they ultimately closed down. The one we grew up with had been dead for quite a while, it seemed.
