While the capacity is needed, I definitely agree with you, especially with Universal’s branding of “water THEME park”. Hopefully we get an attraction that delivers both.I think they need another big AAA water attraction, with some real theme work, and maybe some more generic rides.
You don't just build a "basic" slide anymore. Even if it's needed for capacity.
While the capacity is needed, I definitely agree with you, especially with Universal’s branding of “water THEME park”. Hopefully we get an attraction that delivers both.
I’ve yet to go, but it does seem to be a situation of overpromising and underdelivering. If they had simply marketed this as a great water park instead of some kind of big game-changer, they would’ve been in good shape.I know I'm in the minority here, but I still think this project was a big let down for what it "could" have been. Maybe I bought into the marketing a bit too much, but I expected a lot more.
How do you already know the expansion is going to be a let down? lolAgreed that is expansion is going to be a letdown, I don’t really like VB at all.
Are folks really jumping to conclusions already based on literally nothing here?
I am sounding like a scratched record, but the original expansion plans had the option of yet another water coaster. Do you think they might have canned that idea for something with greater capacity?
(i don’t know if the current coaster is considered good capacity or not)
Was it only a water coaster or did it have more?
Yes. VB's capacity issues has had a negative effect on the entire resort's attendance/revenue projections. It really needs addressed....soon.Was it only a water coaster or did it have more?
I would say that capacity is clearly the most important thing for them right now.
Keep in mind that when those original expansion plans were made, VB hadn’t even opened yet. Since it opened, we know that thorough put was significantly less than proslides projections.
So I would bet anything the expansion plans changed simply because they were working with bad information. Capacity has to be increased in their eyes just to get VB to the numbers they originally wanted.
Yes. VB's capacity issues has had a negative effect on the entire resort's attendance/revenue projections. It really needs addressed....soon.
Yes, and the theoretical throughput for many of the slides were off, which meant longer "lines" and less for people to do.How so? Did they think the park would "hold" more people, and Tapu Tapu failed, so they had to restrict capacity?
How so? Did they think the park would "hold" more people, and Tapu Tapu failed, so they had to restrict capacity?
Multiple sources have told me that not hitting their projected numbers has hurt the resort as a whole, and even led to some of the cost-cutting measures we've seen. Yea, it sees decent crowds, and even hits capacity during season, but that "capacity" is apparently not what they were hoping it would be, so they're seeing that as losses of potential earnings based on (inaccurate) projections made before it opened.Yes the Tapu Tapu did hurt the park but I’m not sure enough to warrant full removal. I think people are being a little dramatic on how “unsuccessful” VB was considering regardless of the issues it does see decent crowds still. This expansion is very much needed but some of you are acting like the park is in dire straits.
Multiple sources have told me that not hitting their projected numbers has hurt the resort as a whole, and even led to some of the cost-cutting measures we've seen. Yea, it sees decent crowds, and even hits capacity during season, but that "capacity" is apparently not what they were hoping it would be, so they're seeing that as losses of potential earnings based on (inaccurate) projections made before it opened.