Project 2022: Pantheon
- Thread starter Shane
- Start date
- Status
I thought we were supposed to be building a full-sized recreation of the Roman Senate, not the Colosseum.
Thomas said:
They're bringing back the original boats, with a splash radius equivalent to half the Italian Hamlet.
b.mac said:
They need that now to splash the idiots shooting the water cannons!!!
Unagi said:
Unrelated to the thread - but I would ride Pompeii again if they shut off the water cannons each day between 3:00 and 5:00 - or something along those lines. Let's not kill ridership (and remove a ride) because of collecting $100 a day in quarters...
I dont ride just because of those water cannons.
Caveat: No facts on the crane, so following is pure speculation based somewhat on information I haven't checked into lately...basseyfish said:
The Park has apparently installed a DAS to improve radio coverage. Pompeii has/had antennas mounted to it due to its height and location. If I recall, these were for business radio use (versus cellular bands), but quite possible that a DAS installation would prompt a rethink of their older antenna placements. The Park could possibly use the DAS for improving their in-park radio coverage along with the cellular most apparent to guests.
Another possibility for the crane is Food & Wine install. I'm told that cranes are often onsite this time of year for that purpose.
So... uh... the Killarney Expansion site plan seems to show a giant new theater where the 315 foot attraction was supposed to go...? Wut?
[tweet=https://twitter.com/BGWFans/status/992506183360577538]
For anyone who can't see the Tweet because of work filters or whatever, here is a link to the full post on BGWFans' Project Madrid tracker: Link.
[tweet=https://twitter.com/BGWFans/status/992506183360577538]
For anyone who can't see the Tweet because of work filters or whatever, here is a link to the full post on BGWFans' Project Madrid tracker: Link.
Have y’all seen a comment anywhere on the plans referencing this stating something along the lines of “This site amendment is not per existing site survey and shall be permitted under a separate head/cover”? It’s really bad form to create a permit submittal with revisions to an existing survey. If I did that on a permit submittal down here I’d get immediately flagged by Environmental Services or a Public Works department reviewer.
What I’m getting at is this is odd, and poor form.
What I’m getting at is this is odd, and poor form.
I’ve seen things like this a few times in my days as a township planner. Most common reasons to see something like this:
-This Ireland proposal is something they have been sitting on for a long time, and it’s from a time when the master plan looked much different. Documents relating to the project they are dusting off had some of the plans on the same page as other projects. So this project could possibly come from a time when Royal Palace Theater didn’t exist and Fiesta Field was its original location.
-Some spire or attraction is attached to that, and the two projects are linked together. So one effects the other. Putting on the tin foil hat, the building behind RPT that was scrapped for now is also part of it and access would be opened up with the removal of the theater. Hence the questions in the one questionnaire about bigger musical acts, and this seemingly larger entertainment venue.
-Just a flat out goof that when someone was pulling the pages a wrong page got thrown into the packet being sent to the county.
-Tin Hat #2; this was a mistake, and that they are doing in the other waiver is setting up the “turn around” for project Madrid. The sizing certainly fits, as the distance is about right. And because the peak of that is so far from the field then having another permit filed would make sense. (IIRC JCC only has a certain distance from the peak that the waiver applies to, and this would be outside of it).
Most likely I’m gonna bet on the first bullitt point. It happened to be on a page that the new project was on and someone didn’t properly crop the page and this is an honest mistake.
-This Ireland proposal is something they have been sitting on for a long time, and it’s from a time when the master plan looked much different. Documents relating to the project they are dusting off had some of the plans on the same page as other projects. So this project could possibly come from a time when Royal Palace Theater didn’t exist and Fiesta Field was its original location.
-Some spire or attraction is attached to that, and the two projects are linked together. So one effects the other. Putting on the tin foil hat, the building behind RPT that was scrapped for now is also part of it and access would be opened up with the removal of the theater. Hence the questions in the one questionnaire about bigger musical acts, and this seemingly larger entertainment venue.
-Just a flat out goof that when someone was pulling the pages a wrong page got thrown into the packet being sent to the county.
-Tin Hat #2; this was a mistake, and that they are doing in the other waiver is setting up the “turn around” for project Madrid. The sizing certainly fits, as the distance is about right. And because the peak of that is so far from the field then having another permit filed would make sense. (IIRC JCC only has a certain distance from the peak that the waiver applies to, and this would be outside of it).
Most likely I’m gonna bet on the first bullitt point. It happened to be on a page that the new project was on and someone didn’t properly crop the page and this is an honest mistake.
Shamu Stadium Williamsburg confirmed!
- Status