They definitely don't WANT to remove more than they have to because every removal has a price tag, so I am sure they did the minimum. Some big equipment needs to function safely down there so they probably don't want to take any risks. We also haven;t been able to visually approximate how far this ride is going to extend into the ravine, so who knows how far back into the opposite hillside some of this equipment needs to span.
Project 2019: Finnegan's Flyer (S&S Screamin' Swing)
- Thread starter Adam
- Start date
- Status
One things for sure, Ireland's entrance won't ever be the same again.
This is a lot more than I expected. Like I knew it was gonna be a lot, but seeing it really hurts. This is a huge loss as far as ambiance goes in Ireland. I don't like the gradual loss of green. Planters can't compete with trees.
This is the stump of the Willow right by the corner of the water.
I know this tends to be sensitive in these parts:
Some of you are letting preservation get in the way of the progress. In the end there's still going to be a ton of foliage in the area. Overall BGW is going to still be a beautiful park. But in the process of making a better park, something has to be sacrificed. Overall I feel as though this is going to be an awesome addition, and the view is going to be killer. If you take the seats facing southeast, you will have an amazing money shot of Griffs Immleman, Alpies Cobra roll, Nessies 2nd drop, Bolts main drop. That view is going to be amazing.
Not to mention the ride itself is something that BGW really needs. BGW, IMO, sorely lacks thrilling flats. It's got Mach Tower. That's it. Every other flat (the few that there are) has a family friendly element to it. They REALLY need to be investing in rides like this. It's cheap, offers thrills, and if you keep ordering the right ones, you get one of a kind (for now) for the area.
Is there a limit of how far you can go? Definitely. But this is no where close to the line for me.
Some of you are letting preservation get in the way of the progress. In the end there's still going to be a ton of foliage in the area. Overall BGW is going to still be a beautiful park. But in the process of making a better park, something has to be sacrificed. Overall I feel as though this is going to be an awesome addition, and the view is going to be killer. If you take the seats facing southeast, you will have an amazing money shot of Griffs Immleman, Alpies Cobra roll, Nessies 2nd drop, Bolts main drop. That view is going to be amazing.
Not to mention the ride itself is something that BGW really needs. BGW, IMO, sorely lacks thrilling flats. It's got Mach Tower. That's it. Every other flat (the few that there are) has a family friendly element to it. They REALLY need to be investing in rides like this. It's cheap, offers thrills, and if you keep ordering the right ones, you get one of a kind (for now) for the area.
Is there a limit of how far you can go? Definitely. But this is no where close to the line for me.
The Willow tree was cool, and this wouldn't be my first pick for location. However, I'm still very happy with this addition.
Given that BfE is a 'dud' (a fun 'dud' at that), and this is the one part of the park with a lack of anything thrilling, I would say it should have been the first pick for an attraction.
They need room to work safely within the area, especially without negatively impacting the existing structures within Killarney. There will be some large excavators, cranes, concrete trucks and I suspect pile/pier driving machines. Trees tend to interfere with crane movements.
To be honest, it is a fairy small impact and footprint. I was expecting something much larger.
Agreed with all of this. Add in you can't just take down up to what the limits of the wall is going to be because you need to make sure that the root system wont interfere with with wall/base of the ride. I would be highly willing to bet that they will replant a lot of shrubbery in the area, or some miniature trees; as anything too big would require consistent trimming to not interfere with the ride.
I don't think I disagree enough to really argue it. But I do think the sensitivity stems from the area of the park where this is occurring. The center region of the park around the "Rhine" and upstream has been getting slowly denuded over the years. The first big stand of trees left to make Alpengeist possible, and it's hard to protest that. Griffon took away another healthy chunk of foliage and landscape, which again was the price of progress. Trees have disappeared from within the area's hamlets, again slowly. As the visual buffers between and within hamlets have become more sparse, which for me has detracted from the visual appearance of that part of BGW, this latest improvement feels like another data point in the decades-long trend. Nobody can hang it all on Finnegan's Flyer, obviously, but it is natural to wonder how the area will fare in the future.
Still looking forward to the ride.
But again, I put that under preservation is more important than progress. The Rhine is one of the most photogenic area of ANY park IMO, and refusing to put anything near it to 'preserve the area' isn't a good enough reason to not do it.
Granted I don't want it to become Spring Creek at HP, but the Rhine is so far away from that level of over development, that I see this as just moaning. I don't see many other areas of the park where you could take this much advantage of the natural land form to make a 'short' thrill ride seem taller and more thrilling.
There is going to be a significant retaining wall to be built, I believe some block is onside behind Drachenfire already. With that there needs to be a solid base and tree roots need to be controlled near that base as to not disturb it in the future. Just think though....that will be a great place to view fireworks from Ireland now.
I think there is an argument to be made that at a park with a conservation mission, preservation must be taken into account more than other places.
BGW has a duty to its own stated goals to weigh the impact on the environment -- including flora and fauna -- when they make additions and changes. I know there were a wide variety of issues to take into account with this addition. There are concerns about the electrical grid, the pipeline, and distribution of attractions. I am not saying they made the wrong choice. I am saying, however, that a blanket statement about preservation vs progress has a very uncomfortable feel to it.
I'm not sure I agree that every part of the park requires a huge attraction. Part of BGW's theme (it is NOT an amusement park, unlike places like Hershey) are the plants and animals. People do go to Busch simply to enjoy the environment. The bridge is already an attraction, as was the Wild Reserve. I think it is entirely contrary to the theme and mission to bulldoze the charming parts of the park in the name of "progress."
I assume (hope) the park made this decision based on unavoidable constraints like the availability of electricity to power the ride, and not some (in my opinion) misguided notion that BGW should be nothing more than tree-lined paths between attractions.
Last edited:
Your last paragraph hits more at why I said what I did. I agree that it shouldn’t become a parking lot with plants and attractions.
But sometimes in order for progress to be made (S&S swing) there needs to be some sacrifice. In the long run I think this is going to be a good sacrifice that’s made as it’s going to open up a whole new view and look at the Rhine.
Totally agree. It is possible for a capital improvement to represent a necessary augmentation of existing attractions and also an unfortunate loss of natural beauty in an inopportune place. I feel this is the most reasonable take on it; both POVs are accurate and rhetorically three-dimensional.
Let me reword what I meant because it’s being taken the way I didn’t intend it to:
Preservation vs Progress. When I’m talking about that I talking about the fact that I think it’s near impossible to keep the park as is from a preservation aspect while at the same time growing the attraction list.
Like @Nicole, I get the point on the wild preserve, and the reason I feel the need to clarify some. I think it was incredibly short sighted to do away with the wild glen area. There was no progress made there and they didn’t preserve something.
But what I’m talking about preservation vs progress, I think preserving those trees in that area is not enough to say there can’t be progress made there.
To me, putting it in Italy or Oktoberfest means either you lose what little foliage theme elements there are left for a ride pad, or you lose a ride in that area.
I definitely think there’s a balance between the two that needs to be struck. Confining the park to its current structure and saying nothing else foliage wise can come out for new attractions is going to stunt progress to handeling bigger crowds and increasing guest enjoyment.
And I know if you gathered 100 different people; you would get 100 reasons why they love BGW and no consensus. I just think that the continual talk about what’s being removed isn’t looking at every factor (like the power that was brought up); but I do think that the sightlines that it opens up is a factor too. As @WDWRLD brought up, it can make the Ireland bridge a great fireworks a viewing spot. I think that it’s also going to give an element to the actual ride that might have been replicated at one, maybe two other spots on property. I think that’s a huge part of the appeal to this location.
Preservation vs Progress. When I’m talking about that I talking about the fact that I think it’s near impossible to keep the park as is from a preservation aspect while at the same time growing the attraction list.
Like @Nicole, I get the point on the wild preserve, and the reason I feel the need to clarify some. I think it was incredibly short sighted to do away with the wild glen area. There was no progress made there and they didn’t preserve something.
But what I’m talking about preservation vs progress, I think preserving those trees in that area is not enough to say there can’t be progress made there.
To me, putting it in Italy or Oktoberfest means either you lose what little foliage theme elements there are left for a ride pad, or you lose a ride in that area.
I definitely think there’s a balance between the two that needs to be struck. Confining the park to its current structure and saying nothing else foliage wise can come out for new attractions is going to stunt progress to handeling bigger crowds and increasing guest enjoyment.
And I know if you gathered 100 different people; you would get 100 reasons why they love BGW and no consensus. I just think that the continual talk about what’s being removed isn’t looking at every factor (like the power that was brought up); but I do think that the sightlines that it opens up is a factor too. As @WDWRLD brought up, it can make the Ireland bridge a great fireworks a viewing spot. I think that it’s also going to give an element to the actual ride that might have been replicated at one, maybe two other spots on property. I think that’s a huge part of the appeal to this location.
I also think another reason for the location of Finnegan's Flyer was simply the left side of the park Italy. Festa, Oktoberfest, and Germany all contain more attractions then Scotland, Ireland, Wild Reserve, France, and New France. In more recent years several attractions have opened on this other side of the park in smaller, less predictable spots that require intense clearing of trees. It almost seems like there's a chance this it taking place to attract more guests to this side of the park to help with crowd flow.
2017 - InvadR
2018- Battle for Eire
2019 - Finnegan's Flyer
2017 - InvadR
2018- Battle for Eire
2019 - Finnegan's Flyer
- Status