Sesame Place Williamsburg

[Zachary]

They already showed that expansion space would be in the open spot between the entry plaza and England parking.

Oooh, excellent. This gives me the chance to talk about something I've been pondering...

Why would they ever expand the park in that direction? It makes zero sense to me. They would have to find some way to build a huge pedestrian bridge over top of the main entry area for both parks. It just doesn't make much sense to me.

The "future expansion" arrow is in the Sesame Place site plan, but I'm not convinced that it means it is future expansion for Sesame Place.

I look at that plot of land, right outside of both parks, right near tons of existing parking, right next to route 60 and think one thing: resort hotel.

 

[tursiops]

I think a resort makes more sense for that location, if there is enough room. I actually like the idea of expanding sesame to the other lot IF there is enough demand and more importantly IF they can solve the parking issues. What would be really nice is if the expansion zone could incorporate more for the 6-11 range somehow.

 

[Peej1212]

They already showed that expansion space would be in the open spot between the entry plaza and England parking.

Oooh, excellent. This gives me the chance to talk about something I've been pondering...

Why would they ever expand the park in that direction? It makes zero sense to me. They would have to find some way to build a huge pedestrian bridge over top of the main entry area for both parks. It just doesn't make much sense to me.

The "future expansion" arrow is in the Sesame Place site plan, but I'm not convinced that it means it is future expansion for Sesame Place.

I look at that plot of land, right outside of both parks, right near tons of existing parking, right next to route 60 and think one thing: resort hotel.

Honestly i would love if they built a hotel. Mostly because for people like myself who only stay for a weekend it cuts out me having to try to find a hotel with a shuttle. Rather than pay for parking.

 

[warfelg]

They already showed that expansion space would be in the open spot between the entry plaza and England parking.

Oooh, excellent. This gives me the chance to talk about something I've been pondering...

Why would they ever expand the park in that direction? It makes zero sense to me. They would have to find some way to build a huge pedestrian bridge over top of the main entry area for both parks. It just doesn't make much sense to me.

The "future expansion" arrow is in the Sesame Place site plan, but I'm not convinced that it means it is future expansion for Sesame Place.

I look at that plot of land, right outside of both parks, right near tons of existing parking, right next to route 60 and think one thing: resort hotel.

Hmmm. That arrow does leave a ton up for interpretation. Could it be for Sesame Place? Would they really expand it all that much? The proposal is already almost the same size as the one in Philly. So it's a decent size park. The arrow on the page could be showing they would move tram access.

That area is a little over 112,000 sqr ft. Not 100% sure that's a big enough spot for resort hotel without being a huge tower. A good resort + parking is going to take about 500,000 sqr ft of property. I've long contended the best place is going to be the piece of land between the Rhine and the Woods course. BGW owns all of that land. The hard part is finding a way to easily connect it to the entrance to the park. But then you can have a tram to the gate, or a second entry for resort guests and use a boat to land them in the middle of the park. The highest level membership perk can be to park at the resort and ride the boat into the park. Even without crossing the pipeline you got 1.5 million sqr feet to work with. You can put in a garage there and overflow parking!

I personally would hope they do something like that, bring in someone like Marriott to build and manage. Let them build, manage, and pay a fee for using the land. Put an option in that after 10, 20, 30 years BGW owns the right to buy out the resort. Put a minimum number of rooms, with room to expand, a certain size garage (bigger than needed), a pool, and dining. A mix of 50% affordable rooms, 30% small family suites, 15% large suites, 5% "small apartments" (or penthouses). Large suites and penthouses include a usable kitchen, the small suite has a kitchenette, regular rooms get a fridge and microwave.

Ok, ok. Way off topic there. Anyways. I hope BGW and SEAS has a way of getting this done at Williamsburg. Like the articles say...I think the pro's car out weight the con's when you look at the general list. I think worries about things like teens on their own in the park, doing it all in one day, dividing people up, etc, are all blown way out of proportion. I feel like this happens a lot with parks. Heck before Invadr opened, people were making comments about not high, not fast, small capacity, and it ended up being a great ride that churns out riders really quickly.

I think a SPW could have a similar effect. If it opened a lot of the comments would go away quickly as people would realize there aren't as many young families in BGW, BGW is able to somewhat return to it's roots, SPW will be a hit, and the parking situation will actually be a bit better than most think.

 

[warfelg]

Ok, something I was thinking about, and wondering, and think this is the best thread to bring it up and ask it in:

How does the park handle and construction in and around the entry? Because I'm assuming building something like this wouldn't be quick and done in a single offseason. So that would mean major disruption to the main entry plaza.

Would trams take you to the England parking lot? Work they be able to finish a turn around for the tramps that quickly?

Not to mention all the construction vehicles in that area. Would the entry plaza change at all from off the highway? Would they encourage people to use the auxiliary parking lots to free up space?

I've never really seen a place have a prolonged construction project of major magnitude right near the main entrance. So I'm not sure how it would really look.

I guess the closest would be if anyone was at CW or CP when Fury or GK were built.

 

[Zachary]

I imagine that the tram rerouting and related projects could easily take place during the off-season.

After that is complete, I think the rest of the project can take place behind the construction walls with only minor interferece with day to day park operations. Over the following off-season the changes to Forest of Fun could be made and then... Voilà! You have a new Sesame Place!

And thus ends another episode of "Zachary Massively Oversimplifies Construction!" Tune in next week to hear this completely unqualified fool plan out Project Madrid!

 

[warfelg]

Haha, that makes sense though! I guess it would be a new experience to all of us since new expansions/gates tend to work away from an entrance rather than towards.

 

[wombat96]

Carowinds didn’t begin construction that affected the main entrance plaza until Scarowinds. The park re-routed guests through the South Gate during this period of time. Since BGW doesn’t have another entrance and also has to work around Christmas Town I imagine the park would just refrain from construction that affected the main entrance until January or February.

 

[thopping]

Did anyone post the actual survey questions? I may have missed them.

thank you

 

[Zachary]

They have not been posted publicly, no.

That said, Nicole and I are in possession of a full set of questions now so if you have any questions that we can shed some light on, let us know.

I have not spoken specifically about the questions much publicly because of the chance that the park may have sent out different sets of questions to different people. I don't want to risk giving the park any data to narrow down the list of people to exclude from future surveys.

PS: The survey is incredibly long.

 

[warfelg]

They have not been posted publicly, no.

That said, Nicole and I are in possession of a full set of questions now so if you have any questions that we can shed some light on, let us know.

I have not spoken specifically about the questions much publicly because of the chance that the park may have sent out different sets of questions to different people. I don't want to risk giving the park any data to narrow down the list of people to exclude from future surveys.

PS: The survey is incredibly long.

All I wonder is was the focus more centered on "would you go"; "whats the feelings on this proposal"; or "which would you rather see".

 

[thopping]

Thanks Zachary. I'm interested in the "would you go" type questions, and in particular, how much of an emphasis they seem to place on multi-park/multi-day questions? Reading between the lines, does it seem that consumer interest in a BGW/WC/SP (or BGW/WC/SP + Colonial Triangle) "destination" model may be factor in their decision, or is it "mostly" focusing on interest in SP itself? (I believe someone posted a notional 1/2/3 park pricing model, which would certainly be offered, but how many multi-park/multi-day questions are there)?

 

[Zachary]

Oddly, very little time was spent on ticketing or multi-day/multi-park questions.

The vast majority of the inquiry centered around asking if people would visit, how likely they would be to visit in light of other competitors in the region, and how this park's existence would impact the likelihood that they would also visit BGW, WCUSA, SPP, etc.

The big takeaways from the questions for me is that SEAS is really concerned about canabalizing their existing market with this addition and that they see Legoland New York as a scary new player on the field.

 

[warfelg]

My $0.02 from writing a few of these as a planner:

1- Zachary is certainly right that one of the goals is to make sure that they wouldn't cannibalize their own product.

2- Depending on the reach they want, is it worth it? Can you expand the range from Alexandria-Raleigh to Baltimore-Myrtle Beach without hurting any of your other properties. Will you bring in enough people to make this addition worth it.

3- At least for BGW they are floating the idea of a 3 gate more "resort" feel to see if the desire for that is there.

If they don't get the answers they like, they move on; if they do, I would bet on another round getting the actual park nailed down some more. I think we've got some 'conflicting' information in that packet because I think they've designed a few different Sesame Place's and made it generic to send a similar questionnaire out there.

And just thinking through the logic here:
SWOrlando - Using them to link a SPO to wouldn't work. You might pull some from Universal, but with Fun Spot all around as a family friendly option, Disney, and everything else; as well as Discovery Cove; I think that the Orlando market is too saturated.

BGT - Is it too close to Orlando? Would the draw really be there? Where would they put it?

SWSA - This to me would be logical spot #3. The massive pro's are there is a lot of unused space in and around the park. Your reach is huge. Aquatica is right there so your three gates could share one lot. Downside is the park is sparse for SWSA right now. It's not one of your major gates. San Antonio isn't really a destination (not the Williamsburg is).

SWSD - This would be my number 2 option. On the plus side - Sad Diego is already a tourist destination. There's no competition. Sesame Place now would have two coasts covered. Downside is Aquatica is pretty far away. Their Sesame Street Bay of Play is in the middle of the park, so either you would lose the market place, or have to build from scratch. Of course you could always put the Sesame Place San Diego at Aquatica. SWSD isn't a huge attraction as is.

If I were SEAS I would want the survey to work in my favor for BGW/WCUSA because that's likely the best/most important park in your portfolio; but I wouldn't be unhappy to switch to plan B and move this idea to SD as it could give you a great bi-coastal presence.

 

[GrandpaD]

As this article states, a Sesame "themed" area is now planned for Orlando. The article mentions there is already Sesame areas in San Antonio, San Diego and Tampa. Interesting FoF is not mentioned.
https://m.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2018/02/13/new-details-emerge-on-seaworld-orlandos-big-sesame-street-land

 

[Ghost of Pretzel Kaiser]

I think that's referring to the retheme of the current kids area at SWO. This would be a whole new park.

 

[warfelg]

I think that's referring to the retheme of the current kids area at SWO.  This would be a whole new park.

It's a retheme of an area. Not BGW related but smart to take the Shamoo area and related rides and get that name out and replace with a family friendly image. This is the type of moving on from Blackfish they need.

 

[GrandpaD]

I was aware it was an area retheming and not and independent park. I was just indicating that all the parks mentioned already had (will have) a high profile Sesame presence. I agree with others that BGW seems to be the most logical location.

 

[Nicole]

Just for clarity, the original May 18, 2017 press release specified that SWO would get a new SS themed area, in addition to the chain getting a new SP:

”The agreement also makes it possible for Sesame Street characters to continue to appear at the existing distinct Sesame Street lands inside the company’s two Busch Gardens theme parks and SeaWorld theme parks in San Diego and San Antonio, as well as a new Sesame Street land to be built in SeaWorld Orlando by fall 2022.”

 

[thopping]

Oddly, very little time was spent on ticketing or multi-day/multi-park questions.
...
The big takeaways from the questions for me is that SEAS is really concerned about canabalizing their existing market with this addition and that they see Legoland New York as a scary new player on the field.

Thanks much; good to hear. I don't see the addition as much of a multi-day/park/resort driver (that's an interesting age/interest demographic that could span that), so I'm glad if they aren't giving the impression that's their motivation.

The pros/cons of SP should largely stand on their own (and Nicole/Zachary's work here was excellent, btw). And Zachary's point about a fall back plan of a rethemed "land" (hamlet?) should SP fail or the contractual relationship end is spot on. This is a relatively safe way to hopefully add a new market and fulfill a contractual obligation.

As for cannibalization of their existing market and competition from LLNY--I don't see much of that either.

SP seems to draw from a very young (0-5 maybe) demographic. FoF/LoD/a few flats excepted, BGW doesn't really cater to that now--so SP should increase draw. As someone pointed out earlier though, CF's Camp Snoopy seems to draw higher in age, and I'd argue LL is in that middle spot between a SP and an adult park. BGW practically ignores that middle ground, so LLNY I think is a much bigger threat to other parks (e.g. HP) that cover that age better and are closer.

So if you have really young kids and are south of PA (SP, Dutch, etc.), you have another option. If you have older kids, they're probably too young for most of BGW and too old for SP, so you're looking at a LL or another park with more middle aged rides anyway. BGW's lack of attention to that middle age is a bigger problem, IMHO. SP will neither fix that nor cannibalize the older BGW market, and the biggest risk is that you lose the customer when they transition to middle age rides elsewhere.

My own kids' interests aligns with this. They went from kiddie parks (e.g. Dutch), then to parks that covered the middle better like HP, CF/Camp Snoopy, etc., then liked LLFL that caters to that middle, and are now old (tall) enough for some adult rides.

Interesting thing is? Never once have we been to SP. They honestly couldn't care less for the characters, and viewed SP as like Dutch--a "baby" park, quickly outgrown, and way before they viewed Camp Snoopy or kiddie flats as too little for them... The whole time we went to BGW too and they like it, but honestly it's a bit more for the experience (and Daddy's influence) than having a ton to ride.

So if SEAS can add a younger local market and one that indirectly benefits BGW due to synergies/health of the business, great. I just hope it doesn't sink any (albeit unconfirmed) chance of Madrid being a hamlet versus just an attraction, or any (unannounced but more likely with a hamlet) chance of actually adding some more middle aged or dark/year-round rides.