Project 2021: Festhaus Park Giga Coaster

Login or Register to Hide This Ad
Mar 16, 2016
2,928
5,662
113
The star is huge and approximate on that overhead view, but it's basically sitting right on top of Verbolten.

Anything you have to walk all the way around into FHP to ride would have to be pretty impressive to justify the stroll.

How about a tower with an entrance between Verbolten and Der Autobahn. Big platform stretching from VB exit to just short of the first launch, and as wide as that area permits. Best I can do without either removing something or making people walk all the way around.
Project Madrid/MMXX overhead view height waiver did the same thing:


Compared to Project 2021:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zachary and BGWnut
Sep 24, 2018
1,474
2,335
113
I dont know, i mean maybe it is. Why would they stick a flat ride back there. But if its a coaster how would that do with the concerts going on. Also I thought they were kinda broke to be building something like a giga. 2020 coats 25mil, then a giga would cost about the same if not more.
They haven't had concerts or anything back there since probably 2012. They've all been in the Royal palace. The park isn't broke. SEAS is building 5 coasters next year and they have committed to spending at least $150 million every year on new attractions across the chain. The money is there for a Giga.
 
Jul 5, 2017
144
147
43
They haven't had concerts or anything back there since probably 2012. They've all been in the Royal palace. The park isn't broke. SEAS is building 5 coasters next year and they have committed to spending at least $150 million every year on new attractions across the chain. The money is there for a Giga.
Oh god since 2012? I havent been in forever. Welp guess ill jump on the coaster hype then
 
  • Like
Reactions: BGWnut
Oct 7, 2011
1,017
3,283
113
Project Madrid/MMXX overhead view height waiver did the same thing
You'll note slight differences in the relative sizes of each star between the two. That was what I was getting at. 😉



Oh, hey -- by the way people, the permit application accompanying the images below (noted here back in Dec '18) included the following note:

"Due to proprietary information that the applicant wishes to remain confidential, full details of the project are purposefully not included..."

And this is also listed as "Project Madrid," for whatever that's worth.

Yet it isn't part of MMXX. Because the date of proposed completion of work for the stuff below is 2021.

Makes you wonder what the scope of that name really covers.

Fuel for the fire.



 
Sep 24, 2018
1,474
2,335
113
You'll note slight differences in the relative sizes of each star between the two. That was what I was getting at. 😉



Oh, hey -- by the way people, the permit application accompanying the images below (noted here back in Dec '18) included the following note:

"Due to proprietary information that the applicant wishes to remain confidential, full details of the project are purposefully not included..."

And this is also listed as "Project Madrid," for whatever that's worth.

Yet it isn't part of MMXX. Because the date of proposed completion of work for the stuff below is 2021.

Makes you wonder what the scope of that name really covers.

Fuel for the fire.
Interesting idea. It does seem possible that Madrid was the larger codename for multiple projects.

I think it's more likely that instead their plan shifted for Madrid from Festa field to festhaus park. Personally I think that this is a Giga/new country and they decided that festhaus park was a better location for it. They then pushed MMXX back a year (remember it was originally meant to open in 2019) to allow them to change the plans and then they moved the original idea behind Madrid to this new project.
 

b.mac

Great Adventure got an RMC...
May 14, 2011
4,018
5,388
113
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
I'm sticking with my original conspiracy theory that MMXX / Madrid was one gigantic project that originally warranted the 315 foot height restriction, and was pushed back a year to make adjustments and plan for two coasters instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BGWnut
Oct 7, 2011
1,017
3,283
113
Also found in that Dec '18 application:

"Because of proprietary and confidential information, the applicant is only detailing in this JPA the proposed work that will occur in wetlands and waters."

So there is some amount of work to be done atop or near the new Rhine piers, which is of a scope and nature that (depending upon how you read it) may require additional permit approval later.

Could imply a little (tiny docks atop the piers), could imply a lot (new giga, hamlet, and footbridge between FF and FHP). I kind of suspect the latter, but that's just me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: b.mac
Login or Register to Hide This Ad