Project 2022: Pantheon

[Icer]

A message to those of you with thou head in thy ass,

Stop ruining the night before my 5 day Williamsburg trip. This is supposed to be a time of rejoicing and ceremony. I get to see naked lady statue tomorrow.

Thank you.

 

[madmax]

For this instance, the highest point of elevation for this attraction is 315 ft above grade...above grade typically refers to a portion of a building OR HOME that is above the ground that it sits. Taking that into effect, it's pretty simple. Elevation is is just describing the height at which point others will see from their perspective of where they are on the ground. I.E. 1000 ft building located in Denver is still 1000 feet tall from those that are there seeing it there.....the coaster is going to be over 200 feet tall. Everything Busch Gardens can ever be approved for is by those who live in Kings Mill. (over half of those who approve BGW related projects live in this community). When BGW says 260+/-, they mean that's the height this thing will be visible on the ground, not this sea level jargon...

Don’t think he’s saying it’s 315 ft tall here

 

[Thomas]

 

[halfabee]

1. "Finished Grade is defined as 72 feet above sea level"
2. "Attraction up to 315 feet above finished grade."
3. "(or up to 387 feet above mean sea level)"

What do I think this means... this point of the ride as defined by possible height starts at 72 feet above the sea level, rising up to 315 feet, which if added together, would take us to 3. (72+315 = 387 feet above mean sea level.)

Okay, so what do you imagine the top speed of this ride will be at the bottom of the big drop?

 

[Zimmy]

Clearly mach 2

 

[Sly4Good]

 

[GrandpaD]

I'm amused how much more this discussion deteriorated after I retired last night.

And, frankly, @Zachary , you just need to come clean. Just because the plans to JCC have been revised, as you eloquently wrote in this excellent piece, you need to fess up on a few things you've not chosen to expose -

1. The ride elevation figure was lowered due to rising sea levels because of climate change.
2. The "spike" will be 500ft tall, topped with cellular phone antenna, which will appease Kingmill residents via better cell service.
3. There will be, in fact, a Spain hamlet. The centerpiece will be the stables and pasture areas configured into a "bull ring". Conversations with PETA are underway.
4. The coaster will have at least a dozen launches. How many depends on whether Frank, the ride op with the nervous tick, is manning the launch button.
5. And, most importantly, in unprecedented cooperation between competing parks, KD's Volcano is being quickly dismantled so it can be reconfigured to be part of BGW's new Madrid coaster "El Montaña".

Further clarifications can be found HERE. The modifications of the height waiver can be found HERE.

I'm sorry @Zachary to have to post these ridiculous and made up facts. But with BGWFans always striving to present accurate information as shown HERE I felt it necessary to make up stuff.

 

[warfelg]

What the hell happened last night?!?

First off, BGW using "above the grade" language is a way to continue to be really vague about what the overall height is. If I were a planner working with them I would be asking the following questions:
~Is above the grade the height referencing sesames level, level of the Rhine, or level of where it's being built. Those are really big differences.
~Why the difference between a portion extending to 315feet, but highest point being much lower. (I'm assuming the 315 is temporary for cranes).
~Why were you so unwilling to include the actual height.

For the most part BGW is playing games with language. I would suspect that in some way JCC knows, and wanted in some way a better clarification as to what's going on for the records.

 

[GrandpaD]

@warfelg I think they were purposely vague in the paperwork they knew would be released (leaked) but, for the JCC planning people, they included this language - See plans by manufacturer. Obviously they attached an addendum which is not part of the "public record" as it's deemed confidential. So JCC has exacts that fall into the parameters of the "wide" language used.

 

[belsaas]

~Is above the grade the height referencing sesames level, level of the Rhine, or level of where it's being built. Those are really big differences.

I'm guessing this is a typo, but I love the concept of "the coaster will be 200 feet above the top of Elmo's Castle".

 

[warfelg]

I'm guessing this is a typo, but I love the concept of "the coaster will be 200 feet above the top of Elmo's Castle".

Wow that's a bad typo. I shouldn't type on the phone without my contacts in. (for reference I'm legally blind without my contacts)

 

[GrandpaD]

 

[warfelg]

@warfelg I think they were purposely vague in the paperwork they knew would be released (leaked) but, for the JCC planning people, they included this language - See plans by manufacturer. Obviously they attached an addendum which is not part of the "public record" as it's deemed confidential. So JCC has exacts that fall into the parameters of the "wide" language used.

So here's the issue I have from a planners POV:
The point of public record is so that anyone can see what's going on with a project. Like if you lived where you could see this being built, the purpose is so if you wanted to put in a comment on the project about the height (which these plants do have to go through a public feedback period, but you don't have to show the blueprints), you can know exactly how high.

Like let's go with the example that your neighbor wants to 'go off the grid' (FWIW this is impossible. Energy cannot be saved, so you have to be hooked in, and if you produce more than you use, Dominon or whoever your energy provider is, is required legally to buy it back from you). They decide they want to build a wind turbine, solar panels, and a water retention system. They have to tell you where they plan to put the turbine, the water retention, and where the solar panels will be pointing. You need to know exactly where it's at so that you can know and decide if the turbine will block a view, the solar panels will reflect the sun right into your house, or if their water retention will cause your yard to flood.

So the vagueness of the document is the type of vagueness that annoys planners. Because if anyone that comes from Kingsmill comes with a complaint about the height, they are going to have to reveal a much better description of the height.

 

[GrandpaD]

I understand. And I think, for the planners, they have the exacts with the manufacturers plan addendum. The general public has the parameters, so they know "about" how high. I'm sure if Mrs. Country Club demanded the exact height they'd have to be forthcoming. I've never worked in your area of expertise, but I wonder (because BGW submitted the actual manufacturer's plans) they accepted the vagueness out of confidentially concerns.

 

[Icer]

Exactly. Why be forthcoming with all of it if you don't need to. Worst case someone whines and Busch is like "Oh okay here ya go".

By that time they may be ready to release the information anyway.

 

[warfelg]

The problem is, it's still not exactly clear because of the questions about where the heights are based on.

To give an example, because of all the work from a township perspective that went into Skyrush, I had the privilege of advising on it. It has since been updated, but when Hersheypark was still doing the game, the application for the height waiver said "195-225 above Spring Creek". I understand in Williamsburg we're closer to sea level (82 feet), but from a planner standpoint, it's a little much to account for when using "above grade".

 

[GrandpaD]

The problem is, it's still not exactly clear because of the questions about where the heights are based on.

I'll bet the manufacturer's plans do indicate the exact height and what they're based upon. The vagueness you're referring is just what's publicly available.

Serious question- In your experience, when plans are initially filed, if a property owner submitted what you deemed did not adequately provide measurements, wouldn't they be rejected upon submission and not go through the filing process?

 

[warfelg]

I'll bet the manufacturer's plans do indicate the exact height and what they're based upon. The vagueness you're referring is just what's publicly available.

Serious question- In your experience, when plans are initially filed, if a property owner submitted what you deemed did not adequately provide measurements, wouldn't they be rejected upon submission and not go through the filing process?

All comes down to the relationship you have with them. So in this application, before the construction plans were submitted, 315 ft is ok. When you apply for the waiver you likely just know how high you are going to go. But as soon as you submit the actual site plans, you need this to be updated to better reflect.

As for as the manufacturers plans, it's still way to vague IMO. Does Intamin consider the lowest point of the attraction the 0 height? So if the bottom of the lowest point of the ride is the 0 point, the drop is VERY big, but the height above the land it's over isn't as high.

BTW to add in: The reason you want a clearer application on height waivers, as a planner you can end up with a large number of inquires into a better description to know what it would look like.

An example: When I worked for a township, and we were developing a town center, and we were going to have a clock tower in it. We wanted to be vague at first of having the height of the structure to be 100 feet. In our first public forum on the area, people were up in arms of where it was going. They didn't want it up on the hill top because it would be 'an eye sore for the entire township'. Of course we wanted it there. So we got sneaky in the next one, and it was the exact same without the exact same language. We wrote that 'The town center was to be placed at the highest elevation, with a clock tower to rise 50 feet over the maximum town core hight allowance". Reference, that height limit was 50 feet on the tallest buildings. So now, residents near there knew that the height limit was 50 feet, and only considered that the clock was 50 feet above that.

 

[Animator]

Again, over HALF of the board and city elected officials live in this community. Large, tremendous amusements don't get approved without the important, gentle, and tactful use of politics.

That is very incorrect. Only 1 person on the Board of Supervisors represents Kingsmill. Each Board member must live in the district they represent and I don't think Kingsmill's Supervisor lives in Kingsmill. The Board of Supervisors are the only board that has the final vote on anything the park applies for.

 

[GrandpaD]

Ok, thanks @warfelg . That clarifies it. I'm pretty sure the BGW/JCC relationship is pretty solid.

So, bottom line is, until we steal, leak see the manufacturer's plans, we'll only be assuming the exact heights. Which is really fine with me personally, because 10ft here or there is not going to diminish my pent up excitement for this new addition.