Sesame Place Williamsburg

Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
musicman3204 said:
@Jonesta6 One thing I disagree with you on is the hotel not being busy outside of the summer season. With my opinion that SPW being more of a destination park, they'd have an easy time selling Sesame vacation/weekend packages. Also, I would venture to guess that the hotel would be packed for HOS, and people would flock to the hotel for Christmastown because it would be decked out in decorations. The vision and plans for filling the hotel are for a different thread.
Click to expand...

Assuming they can pack the hotel during all days the park is open (I don't believe even Cedar Point can make that happen in just the regular operating season when looking at Hotel Breakers alone), that still means about 4ish months of nothing to draw guests - either really lean operations at potential loss or a closed hotel that still costs money in taxes, upkeep, etc.

Add to the fact that there are many regular hotel operators in the area, and the only two ways I see that it could be financially feasible is for a regular operator to be in charge and thus bring any efficiencies they inherently have in order to see black on the ledgers in exchange for control, or that the base room price is extremely high over local competition to pay off debt for the project and make the profit they expect on top.

BGW may get a decent amount of non-locals, but I don't see it likely that SPW would be such a draw that would increase the current ratio much to where they could justify building a hotel on property.
 
My $0.02 take on this:

Aquatica SD was a good quick easy change over for them. I think the feasibility to build an entire park within a year was very low, especially when there needed to be extra parking built out, extra grid power added.

But I had a unique take on this if they were to do something at Williamsburg in the future (seriously BGW hire me as a planner) -
Use the Barvaria lot for SPW. It's 120,000 sq feet larger than the proposed park, and that's giving space for backstage areas as well. Then the Scotland lot becomes the SPW parking lot. This next bit is something that always gets pushback, but I don't care, I would do a 3 level deck in the Germany lot or France lot. On the top level I would line it with solar panels to power a row of electric power spots.General parking is $18, preferred parking is $30, VIP $40. I would slide this in to the preferred parking price slot, and I would start calling it 'covered parking'. The benefit of this is; #1 there's more open spots; #2 the charge for the spots will help pay for the garage; #3 it cuts back on the need for remote parking. As for the remote parking....repurpose some of the space by WCUA and run a shuttle, or build some parking across from Apollo's turn around with an extra entrance for it there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thopping, tursiops and Jonesta6
The major positive of San Diego over Williamsburg is it'll be a year-round park. Like PA, Williamsburg would close for a few months (also note PA is open pretty much weekends only in Dec.). Two, maybe three months of revenue potential keeps the bean counters happy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eric, Alf33, wombat96 and 4 others
GrandpaD said:
The major positive of San Diego over Williamsburg is it'll be a year-round park. Like PA, Williamsburg would close for a few months (also note PA is open pretty much weekends only in Dec.). Two, maybe three months of revenue potential keeps the bean counters happy.
Click to expand...

This is doubly true since it's taking a previously seasonal park year round.

I, like many others here, have huge problems with the design of the new park. That said, I also think this is a brilliant business decision that will pay off very nicely—and maybe that's the push SEAS will need to make SPW a reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thopping, Eric, Alf33 and 6 others
warfelg said:
My $0.02 take on this:

But I had a unique take on this if they were to do something at Williamsburg in the future (seriously BGW hire me as a planner) -
Use the Barvaria lot for SPW.
Click to expand...
I really like this idea. How much are Bavaria & Scotland used anyway? They're largely wasted. This is green field & more expensive than converting FoF, but it's close enough you could still have a shuttle and a park hopper pass if you happen to straddle both demographics. (You'd likely need to include a few small flats in BGW to make sure there's enough range for those that don't want a SPW package though, after removing FoF).

Most importantly, this idea evicts Elmo from BGW! ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jonesta6
Really? I really want to look up the GIS map now to find out who is on the deed now.
 
Findley said:
The Scotland /Bavaria parking lots are owned by Anheuser-Busch and leased to the park.
Click to expand...
I don't think that you are correct in that statement. They may have been at one point but they were purchased by the park.
 
Jahrules said:
Really? I really want to look up the GIS map now to find out who is on the deed now.
Click to expand...
I went and checked. According to the GIS data it is owned by BEC. Everything owned by BEC is now owned by SEAS.

Here is the property that is being discussed:
IMG_20191102_214531_01.png

This plot is for the warehouse next to the parking lots:
IMG_20191102_214523_01.png

Basically it looks like York County never updated the records. If you look at the details for both properties you will find that the address they are registered to is the same.

IMG_20191102_214529_01.png IMG_20191102_214525_01.png

And then finally this is the listing for the park proper:
IMG_20191102_214527_01.png

TL;DR The Scotland and Bavaria Lots are owned by SEAS and not by AB. If you want some more information I would encourage you all to look at the property info thread created by the wonderful @Gavin.

parkfans.net

Property Info

I have spent the past few weeks compiling data on the property BGW and WCUSA sit on. It's a rather massive amount of data, so much so that I actually stumbled accross it 2 years ago but forgot. :blush: Anyway the data was compiled by James City County and York County, from public records; and...
parkfans.net parkfans.net
 
  • Like
Reactions: ----------------------
Don't mean to be devil's advocate but who really wants Sesame Place anyways? A small age group and not a huge money maker. The real money is in a broader age range of people and interests.
 
krazy4killarney said:
Don't mean to be devil's advocate but who really wants Sesame Place anyways? A small age group and not a huge money maker. The real money is in a broader age range of people and interests.
Click to expand...
I think the general idea is that it might help keep some younger kids out of the park. Allowing the park to potentially be more adult centered for certain events. I think the biggest reason is that it helps turns the Williamsburg parks into a much better tourist draw. SPW might entice more families to consider Williamsburg for their vacation. It also extends the stay for many people. You factor in a day at WCUSA and a day at SPW with another 2-3 days at BGW and you are keeping them occupied their entire trip. As opposed to currently tourists might come to Williamsburg but they are spending days doing other activities. With SPW it makes it more likely that families would come and only visit the parks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nicole, Pat, keo91 and 2 others
One of the reasons to attach it to the main park is that it would save on infrastructure. Essentially existing service roads could be used, utilities already in place extended, and the ticket sales booths could sell tickets for both parks. Water Country also has a significant area of undeveloped space that could be another option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tursiops
This seems to imply that the idea is still out there.

“The just-opened San Diego park feeds into a larger strategy to bring new experiences annually to guests frequenting the company's attractions, which also include Busch Gardens Williamsburg, Adventure Island Tampa Bay and Aquatica San Antonio.”

I am reading that in they are looking to bringing Sesame Places as new gates to existing parks. I could be reading too much into it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mwe BGW, DrunkenCronuts, Mushroom and 1 other person
That article is incredible. Seeing a park president straight-up say to the media that their $9 million coaster was a mistake is wild (in a good way).

After reading the article, I actually agree with you that the trio of parks Marc Swanson brought up in the interview is very interesting. Not exactly three parks you'd ever expect to see listed together. That said, in this context, they certainly seem like three solid frontrunners for Sesame Place additions, annexations, or overhauls....
 
  • Like
Reactions: CastleOSullivan, BGWnut, kmccarthy27 and 3 others
Sheesh I really liked Aquatica San Antonio when I went last year would hate to see that nice water park just have sesame place stuff all over it instead of what it currently is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad