Project 2022: Pantheon

[Ghost of Pretzel Kaiser]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Thrilling is a completely subjective term when it comes to rides, and based on this person's tastes in rides, I wouldn't rule out a star flyer as "Thrilling".

 

[MAZ]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Time to keep a watchful eye on the B&M track plant for 'Sky Blue' track sitting around.

 

[cdchen83]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Time to keep a watchful eye on the B&M track plant for 'Sky Blue' track sitting around.

Anyone got family in the Batavia Ohio area? Lol

 

[Zimmy]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Well, based on Mr. McGlennon's comments about being excited for this project, but wanting more "indoor, less thrilling, less tall" rides in the future, I think that at least eliminates the possibility of this being an observation tower and maybe even a Star Flyer, depending on how he defines "thrilling".

How do you get less thrilling then the Pasta Flat or a dark V/R ride? A trip on a bed of feathers through a indoor kitten display?

 

[jornor]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

missed the stream - hope its a gig

 

[halfabee]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

How do you get less thrilling then the Pasta Flat or a dark V/R ride?  A trip on a bed of feathers through a indoor kitten display?

Better hope they don't make any more changes to DarKastle.

 

[warfelg]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

How do you get less thrilling then the Pasta Flat or a dark V/R ride?  A trip on a bed of feathers through a indoor kitten display?

Better hope they don't make any more changes to DarKastle.

I really think they need to put a dark shooting ride on the list of rides to put in. Not as boring as Boo Blasters up the road, but more like MIB down at USO. I think a ride like that would give BGW a well rounded set of dark rides.

Same thing goes with the coaster list here. I'm torn. A nice giga, and a nice floorless or sitting twister layout would give the park a very well rounded collection.

Think in this list of what's missing:
~A classic coaster (Nessie)
~Airtime Hyper (Apollo)
~Inverted (Aplie)
~Dive machine, seemingly becoming a need at parks (Grif)
~Launched/Multi-Launch, something almost every park has now (Boltie)
~Woodie (Invadr)

A giga and B&M twister inverting coaster are the 2 things missing. 1 seems to be a staple of parks (twister inverting) and the other is a growing staple of premier parks (giga).

If this is a giga, I would hope that their focus shifts to a nice twister layout. I'm not side how the park would feel about that with what happened with DF. I would hope that they are "over" the backlash from it and are willing to go down that road again, mostly because it was a manufacturer issue than a 'park failure'. If we get those two I think BGW would have one of the better well rounded collections east of the Mississippi, up there with CP, Carowinds, Hersheypark.

 

[Bring Back Questor 87]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

I would chuckle if this whole thing turns out to be a scenario similar to where Canada's Wonderland has both Behemoth and Leviathan, only for BGW its Apollo in 1999 and 20 years later we get our own true B&M Giga.

Two large B&M's of the same train style has never hurt a park's attendance, right?

Watch that Ohio plant...closely.

 

[warfelg]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

I would chuckle if this whole thing turns out to be a scenario similar to where Canada's Wonderland has both Behemoth and Leviathan, only for BGW its Apollo in 1999 and 20 years later we get our own true B&M Giga.

Two large B&M's of the same train style has never hurt a park's attendance, right?

Watch that Ohio plant...closely.

Carowinds, Cedar Point are other parks with a hyper/giga combo too. I'm sure there's another couple that have it that I can't think of. Interesting that it's mostly Cedar Fair parks with that combo.

 

[kmccarthy27]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

I really think they need to put a dark shooting ride on the list of rides to put in.  Not as boring as Boo Blasters up the road, but more like MIB down at USO.  I think a ride like that would give BGW a well rounded set of dark rides.  

It was better when it had the Scooby theming. Or at least the Scooby nostalgia distracted from the boringness.

 

[A_Sad_Squirrel]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

I'd much rather have an Intamin giga than a 2nd B&M "hyper".

 

[Zachary]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Any chance this is not even an attraction, but something utilitarian? A cell tower or something similar?

Almost zero at that height and the waiver request list it as an attraction so there would have to be sn error there.

Any chance this is not even an attraction, but something utilitarian? A cell tower or something similar?

As Zachary pointed out on the first page of this thread, the filing clearly states that it is for an attraction.

While at this point I do firmly believe that Project Madrid is an attraction of some sort, it certainly isn't known fact yet. Post #100 in this thread addresses the "attraction" issue directly and I consider the information contained within to be very important here.

As a refresher, Busch Gardens requested approval for a "structure." James City County went into the application in their database after the fact and changed the word "structure" to "attraction" without input from BGW in an effort to keep the new height waiver similar to previously filed ones.

 

[Thomas]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

It was referred to as an attraction at the meeting.

 

[horsesboy]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

It was referred to as an attraction at the meeting.

By both the park and members of the council and goverment who have had more info provided to them then was shared publicly. As a matter of fact one of tge council members kept refering tonit as a trilling attraction for what that is worth.

 

[thopping]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

While at this point I do firmly believe that Project Madrid is an attraction of some sort, it certainly isn't known fact yet. Post #100 in this thread addresses the "attraction" issue directly and I consider the information contained within to be very important here.

As a refresher, Busch Gardens requested approval for a "structure." James City County went into the application in their database after the fact and changed the word "structure" to "attraction" without input from BGW in an effort to keep the new height waiver similar to previously filed ones.

Isn't known fact yet--maybe from the standpoint of they haven't revealed what it is yet for us to agree/disagree that "we'd" call it an "attraction," but it seems pretty clear that JCC board views it as an "attraction"--at least based on their reaction to what they've been privy to thus far.  And a "thrilling" one, at least how some of the board define "thrilling."

I don't read much into the application language change.   The ordinance section in question clearly defines height of "structures" as the subject.  If I were asking for a waiver as allowed for in the ordinance, I would use the county's language to make it abundantly clear that I'm asking for a height waiver for a structure as they've defined it (i.e. for M-1 zoning, Section 24-418).   And the ordinance provides for no more detail in defining what a structure is, other than the special use case of "communications facilities." (If BGW wanted a giant radio/cell tower, I assume they would probably call it that accordingly).

There's no reason for BGW to use the term "attraction" relative to the ordinance as the ordinance lacks specificity about structure types, therefore no need to clarify for JCC the provision of the ordinance related to attractions (as there isn't one).  If BGW (or JCC) choose to call it an "attraction," it would just be for labeling/naming reasons so we're all on the same page about what this is for, and so they probably changed it as you say to be consistent with prior JCC edits or how prior filers on behalf of BGW had defined it. From the meeting, it was also pretty clear that the board recognizes the economic value of the park and its investments and how this application would support the local economy and community. So I wouldn't be surprised if JCC wants to call it an "attraction" even if BGW doesn't initially to help underscore their rationale in approving (i.e. we didn't approve a giant structure just because they wanted to build it, we approved an "attraction" that not only addresses the requirements of the ordinance but provides a benefit to the community by drawing in local and tourism dollars).

Finally, even it is something mundane like an observation tower, that arguably is still an "attraction" and may be defined by some as "thrilling."  All of this put together, along with the dialog at the board meeting--I can't imagine what it could possibly be other than an attraction.  Question is "what" attraction.   And I keep going back to the contour lines for the balloon test and question why they would put a tower-type attraction at that exact point and make construction more difficult.

https://library.municode.com/va/james_city_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CD_ORD_CH24ZO_ARTVDI_DIV11LIBUINDIM-_S24-418HEST

 

[Adam]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

More food for thought: the height waiver for Mach Tower specified it as a "single tower attraction" and,

The majority of the single tower would be about seven feet in diameter with a maximum of 18 feet in diameter for a portion and any lighting higher than 60 feet would be prohibited through a proposed condition. The slenderness of the tower reduces its visual impact when compared to typical scaffolding towers or roller coaster structures.

Doing some more digging and comparing old height waivers for attractions with this one and will report anything interesting.

 

[Irishman]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Here is the summary from JCC

 

[Jpineda96]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

If this was a coaster I think it will hop the river into festhaus park area. It could even stretch out toward the boneyard storage. The only thing that's not making any sense is the location of the highest point. I guess it's near enough to the water for it to drop and pull up into an airtime hill over the river so that Rhine cruises can go under. Just speculation hopefully the plans will leak.

 

[halfabee]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

More food for thought: the height waiver for Mach Tower specified it as a "single tower attraction" and,

The majority of the single tower would be about seven feet in diameter with a maximum of 18 feet in diameter for a portion and any lighting higher than 60 feet would be prohibited through a proposed condition. The slenderness of the tower reduces its visual impact when compared to typical scaffolding towers or roller coaster structures.

Doing some more digging and comparing old height waivers for attractions with this one and will report anything interesting.

Am I reading that right... what part of Mach Tower is only seven feet in diameter?!? Much less "the majority" of it?

 

[DJTLG]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Did anyone else notice that they referred to it as a "potential attraction" at the meeting? I wonder if that means there is some level of uncertainty over whether it will be built or if that is just politically correct talk.