Given BGW's propensity to not repaint, I wouldn't feel good on that point of it's time to repaint. That's assuming good exterior paint too. It's not an argument that it was a right thing to do, rather there's shock to the fresh paint that's going IMO quite over the top.About 1 to 3% fade per year assuming BGW used reasonably good exterior paint? 3 to 9% fade after 3 years? 5 to 15% in five years?
To reach what may appear to be an accurate looking reflection of the colors present in the modern German towns that are being used as an example, it will take, what, 6 to 7 years minimum? Surely by that point it is time to repaint?
This fade argument simply doesn't seem to align with the reality of the fade speed of modern exterior paint.
Woah woah woah.....I'm not saying that it't that kinda situation.Applying a "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" argument to a business for which people pay for goods and services doesn't work for me at all. The park has a responsibility to maintain the condition of their buildings. They deserve no brownie points or other leeway as a reward for doing so. They only deserve ridicule when they don't fulfill their responsibilities.
Dissuading criticism of a change because, well, at least the park is doing the exact thing they have a responsibility to do anyway, is a dangerous path to head down if you ask me. That line of reasoning can justify all manner of disasterous decisions.
Rather quite a few members of this community quite commonly put BGW in a no win situation. They don't do anything and it's bad. They do something and it's bad. And honestly it's getting tiring. Now I know the percent of members that argue both sides is a small number, but as someone who enjoys the park and isn't going to make rash decisions based on something that isn't complete yet and hasn't been done for more than 3 weeks yet, I think the backlash on here right now is quite dramatic.
I couldn't disagree more here on this. Is the step in the right direction not doing anything?First off, do we have any evidence to say that either the original Rhinefeld paint or the new Rhinefeld paint are historically accurate? Both general paint schemes have precedent in modern versions of historic German towns, but I'm not sure which is actually more historically accurate—just that both have modern representation in Germany.
Secondly, I'm really frustrated by the assertion that this is somehow a step in the right direction. They had an accurate representation of a German village. People keep cherry picking examples of the brightest color buildings in historic German towns when the internet is littered with countless examples that are a far closer approximation to what Rhinefeld looked like previously.
View attachment 26021View attachment 26022View attachment 26023View attachment 26024View attachment 26025View attachment 26026View attachment 26027View attachment 26028View attachment 26029View attachment 26030
Oktoberfest has always represented the bright, exciting, vibrant side of Germany with Rhinefeld reflecting the quiet, tranquil, refined side of the country's architecture. This contrast is essential to aesthetically distinguishing these two areas of the park from one another.
There is nothing more authentic about this new look than what we had previously—hence, not a step in the right direction.
Sorry and this isn't directed at you @Zachary because I usually agree with most of your takes on BGW. But all the groveling on BGW's seeming lack of investment there seems to be a lot of wanting to put the park in a time capsule and not do something to encourage people to come back and visit.
Do I think they were wrong to paint this part of the park? No.
Do I think they went too bright with everything? Yes.