SeaWorld Orlando's Future Plans
- Thread starter Brian G.
- Start date
-
Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
- Apr 18, 2013
- 3,451
- 3,384
It's certainly not the largest park but I would guess it's acres to attraction ratio is likely significantly higher than other parks. The large stadiums take up a lot of space and the lake in the middle makes the park seem more spread out.
According to Wikipedia it's 200 acres.
So it's MK size (since NFL). ....Wikipedia is probably counting the parking lot. Seems they usually do that......Interesting to look at that. When they had their park in Geauga Lake, Ohio, it was probably the size of the lake and the land south of it.
They used to own a LOT of land around the park as well and still own sizable tracts that are around the park that could be redeveloped in better ways. They theoretically could use the land across the street that they own and build a parking structure and use the current lot to build a second park (well, fourth if you count Aquatica and Discovery Cove). That's why the site is so valuable to anyone. The park itself is still viable and valuable, but the land would be more valuable to Comcast/Universal for its redevelopment potential and selling it would put SWP&E in a much better financial position. Not that that is happening, but it always could...
- Dec 5, 2013
- 1
- 0
I don't get it. Why redo the dolphin nursery?
If it was expanded or something I'd understand but they're literally just slapping on some fake coral and making some of the walls into glass for viewing.
Nothing about the animal habitat is being enhanced. It's like the sad addition of trees and totem poles around Shamu Stadium's tank.
If it was expanded or something I'd understand but they're literally just slapping on some fake coral and making some of the walls into glass for viewing.
Nothing about the animal habitat is being enhanced. It's like the sad addition of trees and totem poles around Shamu Stadium's tank.
It's ugly right now. They are making it look better. Smart companies look to their success far down the line, and in theme parks, quality/appearance is always a priority, especially in the Orlando market.
Any dollar they spend that isn't benefiting the animals is going to look like treason to the consumer.
And people keep insisting they're doing the right thing (to save the business) and it just keeps going under.
I don't know, they just spent a chunk to put in a good airtime machine and there was no backlash. If they had a successful park's budget then they could do lots of things but they have Blackstone money and we know how well that worked for Universal parks. The best thing that could happen is they get out from under when the hedge fund finds a buyer. Maybe they can move forward then.
But attendance has been in the crapper for a long time. They spent 40 million on Antarctica and saw less people than the year before? That rebuilt the penguin habitat but didn't add squat to the park. It reeks of Blackstone pulling strings same as what happened with UOR and until they get out from under it will have the same poor management driven by the need to return money to the investors at any cost to the parks.
I don't know what the answer is, even if they went all animals all the time with the stated purpose of closing all the animal centric exhibits in time they would not tilt the critics nor increase the income enough to survive. Blackstone wants a return on their money and is willing to get it short time, they are not in this for the animals nor the long haul.
I am not sure what I am saying but I just don't see them putting enough money into the parks to silence any critics nor change to another type of park and get all the animals out. It would take a boatload of cash to change to another format and the critics won't be happy with anything less than a complete divestment of the animals.
If they tried to become something without animals what would it be? The same as other amusement/theme parks? That will not satisfy their investors as it won't provide a return on the investment
I understand what you are saying but I don't think the critics would be satisfied with better conditions, they want them out of the animal business.
Animal Kingdom was in trouble at first, they had deaths and the critics went after them. It took a lot of money to get the critics to move on. They did - to sea world. I would not want to be in management at SW, it has no future.
Animal Kingdom was in trouble at first, they had deaths and the critics went after them. It took a lot of money to get the critics to move on. They did - to sea world. I would not want to be in management at SW, it has no future.
