What's new
By:
FORUMS - COASTERFORCE

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Define "small" and "large" parks

Ian

Ian

From CoasterForce
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Social Media Team
I'm not asking you to list parks that you consider to be large or small, I'm asking for you to define it.

I noticed a lot of the comments in my recent Paultons report are along the lines of "not bad for small park". IMO, Paultons is not a 'small' park. Since Pig World opened it's pulling in around 1,000,000 visitors every year, many of them from outside of the local area. It invests in new rides and infrastructure every year. It has 5 coasters! Is it classed as a small park because it's independent, not backed by a billion pound corporation and it doesn't strike BOGOF deals with global food brands or national newspapers? Maybe it's small because its target group is niche? I'd place them in the 'medium' category along with the Crealy and Gullivers parks.

So what defines big or small parks for you! Number of creds? Who owns it? Perhaps the area it occupies or resides in is a factor! How many punters it pulls in...the quality of theme/rides...define it!
 
Dammit, good question!

I've tried three times now to type out a reply to this question, and every time I've just tied myself in knots.

I'm going to wait for someone more adept with words to post something more coherent, and then agreew with them. :lol:
 
I look at four main areas when defining the "size" of a park.

Small
*Creds - Generally not very many, 1 - 3 on average.
*Space - Small space, next to no room for expansion.
*Quality - Attractions are generally fairground types, maybe a dark ride, but not high quality.
*Aspirations - Low investment, specific target market, no real drive to better themselves.

Medium
*Creds - Worth the trip alone, 4 - 6 on average
*Space - Not cramped, with some expansion potential, or if cramped, potential to remove outdated rides for new ones.
*Quality - A few high quality attractions, with one cred from a high end manufacturer, not all one-and-done's, Good food options.
*Aspirations - Medium Investment every 5 years or so, well spent, caters well to target audience and pulls in non locals.

Large
*Creds - Every Enthusiast knows the park and the creds they have, 6+
*Space - Large space to contain multiple attractions, generally has a couple of potential sites for new attractions
*Quality - High End Attractions from the top tier manufacturers, good supporting lineup of Water, Flat and Dark rides, Good Food Options, Different Ticket options, usually have Fast Pass option. Should have at least 1 World Class ride.
*Aspirations - Major Investment on a regular basis, constant refurbishment of existing attractions, pulls in visitors from multiple countries. Usually the top park in the Country/State.

These are my general guidelines, and parks won't always satisfy each criteria, like Prater, Awful quality, but high creds and space, so despite the attractions being rubbish, I would still classify it as a large park.
 
^Yep, you pretty much got it. Small parks are really only known locally and by hardcore enthusiasts. Medium are more independent parks with a decent amount of creds. Large parks are known worldwide for something big and noticeable.
 
I think there has to be yet another category beyond large using DelPiero's reasoning, which I generally like. Consider Dorney Park. They have multiple B&Ms and a very long hyper. It's owned by Cedar Fair. I can't, however, put it in the same category as Great Adventure and Hershey, each of which is about an hour away by car.

Maybe instead of thinking of it as bronze, silver, and gold, we should think bronze, silver, gold, and platinum.

Platinum
Goes beyond the criteria for a large park.
Aims to break records or have world's firsts.
Strong emphasis on coasters.

If anyone disagrees, please give examples of what you would consider small, medium, and large, so that I can have an idea of what you're thinking. Going with the Pennsylvania theme, I'd go with the following.

Small: Idlewild
Medium: Kennywood
Large: Dorney
Platinum: Hershey
 
For me,the difference between small and large parks isn't so much about size or scale. I think it's more to do with the company, i.e, Alton Towers is a large park because it's ran by a multi-billion pound company and is also cited as Britain's most popular theme park. So it's sort of a combination of who runs it, how popular it is and how much investment it makes. That's my version, anyway.

Just a side note - if i'm ever referring to a park by it's geographical scale, I'll be fairly specific about it.
 
Yeah, I have no interest in the scale of the park, just the definition that we often use. GWAS summed it up well but obviously there are exceptions to the rules.
 
Re: Define "small" and "large" parks

BigBad said:
I think there has to be yet another category beyond large using DelPiero's reasoning, which I generally like. Consider Dorney Park. They have multiple B&Ms and a very long hyper. It's owned by Cedar Fair. I can't, however, put it in the same category as Great Adventure and Hershey, each of which is about an hour away by car.

Maybe instead of thinking of it as bronze, silver, and gold, we should think bronze, silver, gold, and platinum.

Platinum
Goes beyond the criteria for a large park.
Aims to break records or have world's firsts.
Strong emphasis on coasters.

If anyone disagrees, please give examples of what you would consider small, medium, and large, so that I can have an idea of what you're thinking. Going with the Pennsylvania theme, I'd go with the following.

Small: Idlewild
Medium: Kennywood
Large: Dorney
Platinum: Hershey
Click to expand...
Good point, but I wouldn't say Dorney is larger than Kennywood, as both have roughly the same number of coasters, including a hyper and steel multi-looper for each. The silver level would be better suited to Waldameer, I think.

Maybe also a Diamond ranking for parks that are international draws and are able to afford attractions with $100 million budgets? Like Disney, Universal, or Ferrari World?
 
I'd put Disney and Universal at an equal level to Platinum, but it's not quite the same.

My favorite park is listed as Cedar Point, and I don't expect to cause any controversy by calling it a top-tier park. Their world-class coasters are MF, Magnum, Maverick, Dragster, GateKeeper, Raptor, Rougarou, and Valravn (yes, I'm including it since most people will like it even if most of us here would have preferred an RMC) and perhaps others. Here, I mean "world-class" to be something notable or at least a major ride by a premier manufacturer.

Universal in Orlando doesn't even have that many coasters. However, as far as theming is concerned, they rock, while Cedar Point has a sign that says, "The old west was never this wild," and not much else.

Both are throwing a lot of money at the entertainment, but they're in totally different ways. Ultimately, both are big league parks, and I don't see the difference in style as a difference in level.

Regarding Kennywood vs. Dorney, I put Dorney ahead because they have two B&Ms, and Kennywood probably wouldn't ever go for something by a premier manufacturer like that. (I get the irony of Kennywood having a ride made by Premier.) Even when they did Phantom's Revenge, B&M had entered the world of hypers, yet they went with Morgan. I've been on Phantom's Revenge and Steel Force. Both are fun rides, but I have a hard time comparing them with the B&M and Intamin hypers. By 2001 when Phantom's Revenge opened, other companies were building or had put out rides like Apollo's Chariot, Nitro, Expedition GeForce, Millennium Force, and whatever SFNE calls their hyper, so it's not an issue of needing technology that didn't yet exist.

When Kennywood went with a looping coaster in 2010, Intamin had recently done some great launched rides like Maverick and Storm Runner, and B&M had done dozens of good looping coasters, including one with a launch. They went with Premier, a nice company, sure, but not Intamin or B&M. When Dorney wanted a looping coaster in 2005, they went with B&M and got a pretty cool ride. (I know there are haters, but the layout is unique.) Even Sky Rocket fans (I've never ridden it) would have to concede that Hydra is the more major coaster: taller, faster, longer, and more inversions.

I find it amusing, however, that neither park is soon to be getting a huge ride or even something fairly large by a premier manufacturer (which I'd say now includes RMC with Mack joining the list if they put out more rides like Helix). I think Cedar Fair realizes that Dorney can't compete with Hershey and SFGA as a coaster mecca, so they're not going to get a giga like KI probably will or even a big wing or flyer.
 
Level of investment is a main one.

Just looking at the UK. Merlin owned parks are all "large parks" in my view as they have the potential to invest in a multi million pound attraction every few years. This is why it's so exciting when something like SW8 gets announced as its one of the few chances we have to get something world class into the UK (although usually ends up in disappointment :lol: )

Then you have medium parks like Drayton, Flamingoland, Paultons, PBB etc. (CWoA should maybe belong in here but it still has the financial backing). If these parks announce a new attraction there is still excitement, but usually not to the high level of expectation a Merin owned park has when they announce something new, as we know the funds avaliable probably won't be as high. This also lowers expectations though and something mediocre can be well received than in a Merlin park where it would get slated. Hopefully PBB can turn the tables a bit with their new coaster though.

Then there are smaller parks Lightwater Valley, Dreamland Margate, Pleasurewood Hills etc (Did have Southends AI in here but they invest highly for such a physically small park).- In these parks investment levels are low and won't announce a new attraction for years.

That's just my take on it, feel free to disagree.
 
Small parks would be parks with six or less credits in my book. Or the alternative definition would be a park that is easy to manage. (ei: getting all the major attractions done in the first hour of operation.)
 
Size of park, number of rides, level of investment (not necessarily continued investment but overall), I'd say the only big parks in this country are BPB, Drayton, Alton, Thorpe, Chessington and Flamingo Land. The likes of Oakwood, LWV, Paultons, AI, FI, PWH, Gullivers' can all pass as being larger than the likes of Wicksteed, Twinlakes, WMSP, but to me they're still small parks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top