A thought that popped into my head the other day, while reading about speculation of a Giga coaster for Kings Island. Among the arguments for the plausibility of a Giga, one was "They basically have everything else already". And I realized then that this is true for a whole lot of parks out there. When discussing the next possible purchase of some large park, we can almost go through a checklist: Multi-looper (launched/non-launched), Invert, Flyer, Hyper, Wing Coaster, Kiddie/Family, Wooden, Spinner, something with a vertical/beyond vertical drop, and possibly indoor coasters. And Gigas, if build ceilings allow it. It's strangely common out there for large parks to only miss a few of those. "The park has everything but X, therefore they should build X". It feels like the park is one or two coasters away from having built everything it can build, or it has one of everything already (Cedar Point being a go-to example) - or at least one of everything they can afford, both with regards to money and with room. Meanwhile, many parks have long since filled their available land, or at least all land where coasters can practically be built because of noise regulations. Parks like Liseberg and Europa Park have to cram their largest coasters into a corner, because neighbouring residential areas prevent the construction of noisy attractions elsewhere. Blackpool Pleasure Beach has to weave its latest coaster in between its classic woodies. California's Disneyland was famously locked in by other developments within a decade of its opening. Even mighty Cedar Point is filled almost to the brim with coasters. Space is at a premium, and for many, the land available for coasters has already been filled. Possibly even with rides that have plenty of years left in their service life, ensuring that no replacement is really needed in the foreseeable future. And finally, even if a park has plenty of land to expand and doesn't mind repeating itself with rides, there's a limit to growth. A guest can only ride so many coasters in a day, or there are only so many guests that will visit the park in the first place, and adding another coaster won't always increase revenue to the point of profitability. For instance, Geauga Lake learned the hard way how a park can grow too big in a competitive market. There is a practical upper limit to how big a park can be, and while that exact value probably is a business secret, I suspect there are plenty of parks out there feeling comfortable with not growing any more. This thread is about discussing these limitations, and others. Are there parks out there that are, for all intents and purposes, "complete"? Parks that have grown to their practical size limit, with a lineup of rides they won't need to replace for many years? Will all parks eventually reach such a state? And what happens to development when you have "one of everything"? Guests will happily ride coasters that are decades old, if they are maintained well. Do parks have to replace rides with many years left in them, just for the sake of building something new, or can they get away (that is, make profits in the long run) with maintaining an old lineup for years and just float on a stable visitor base? In short: is stagnation inevitable, and is it inherently bad? How do you feel about parks that don't grow anymore?