News Six Flags America & Hurricane Harbor to Close Following 2025 Season

[The Master]

I feel like you haven't been to many water parks.

Second highest attended water park in the country, Volcano Bay: bordered by residential. Third highest attended water park in the country, Aquatica Orlando: bordered by residential. Fourth highest attended water park in the country, Schlitterbahn New Braunfels: BISECTED by residential—seriously, look it up. Fifth highest attended water park in the country, Water Country USA: bordered by residential. Sixth highest attended water park in the country, Aquatica San Antonio: bordered by residential. Seventh highest attended water park in the country, Adventure Island: bordered by residential. Eighth highest attended water park in the country, Knott’s Soak City: bordered by residential. And rounding out the top ten, the tenth highest attended water park in the USA, Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Arlington: bordered by residential.



Major citation needed as all of the wildly successful water parks listed above are standalone properties.

Except Volcano Bay isn't a lone Waterpark, its part of a major resort complex with two major dry parks. Sorry but its false equivalence . AQUATICA is also paired to the SeaWorld resort. In fact,, most of the Waterparks you listed are expansions to preexisting and highly successful theme park complexes, proving one of my points. Moreover, we are talking about a underperforming park being shut down for its land to be sold off for a new purpose, unlike Volcano Bay and Aquatica and many of the listed parks which are expansions to preexisting lucrative resorts to gain more market share. SFA started out as just a Waterpark before it was expanded with a dry park in an attempt to increase its draw.

Again the difference is the parks you listed were expansions to preexisting theme parks and built against preexisting residential areas vs SFAHH where you purpose land developers would be favorable to building new developments against an old Waterpark that needed a dry park expansion to be viable and competitive. Moreover, splitting up the land like that will reduce the pool of potential buyers as many would want all of it.

For the record I have been to 16 water parks including the former River County.

 

[Zachary]

Have you looked at historical satellite imagery of these parks to work out when the residential around them was built? I haven't, but I know that in the case of Water Country USA, the park came first (not associated with Busch Gardens Williamsburg I might add!) and they sold off the surrounding land to developers well after the park opened. My guess is that if I did the research on other large waterparks, you'd be proven wrong for others as well.

As for the list of highest attended water parks, you used the word "combined," not "associated." If you meant associated, that's fine, but that's a different point. We have plenty of examples of successful water parks managed by corporations without any other foothold in their respective regions—Schlitterbahn until the recent buyout, Premier Parks waterparks, Palace waterparks, and an array of independent examples too. Standalone waterparks are a very good business.

 

[The Master]

My point still stands that waterparks generally perform better when associated with a theme park as evident by SF building a dry park to partner with the waterpark to become SFA. Yes an association isn't necessary depending on local circumstances. But even many standalone water parks are located in warmer climates or take advantage of resort regions such as the shore and lakes.

Keeping the waterpark intact does add complications to the sale. Its easier to find a single buyer for the whole property vs finding several buyers for subdivided properties which can also take more time. Many areas have restrictions on subdividing land, SF many not even be able to split up the parcel even if they wanted to. Even if they can, its another complication in itself that can be not worthwhile. Subdividing evolves extra costs such as resurveying, permits, zoning and environmental restrictions, fees, access and utilities, etc. This would also forgo scrap value and tax deductions for not scrapping the water attractions.

 

[Coasternerd]

This thread is going off topic, but I do want to add in a couple of things here. All of the water parks that @Zachary has listed off all have some form of a membership option that either have a standalone “waterpark only” pass or are a 2/3 park pass depending on location that is bought by, you guessed it! The very residents the parks in question are surrounded by. Often times the dry parks draw a lot of the out of towners. But water parks pull in a LOT of locals. They often perform really well due to being able to pull the locals in more often.

In addition, these “lowlifes” being referred to aren’t just found at independent water/parks. They are found literally all around the world. Go to even the big names like Universal and Disney—you will find them there too. Maybe not as many, but they’re still there.

Also, like Zachary mentioned, many properties listed were built before most of the residential and the areas thrive because of the water parks. They create great first jobs—often lifeguarding as the main one, bring in revenue for the county/state they’re in—thus justifying the investments for the area around said property to prosper, and the noise complaints? Significantly less of a problem as waterparks really only operate during the day and, in most areas, not year round. Most waterparks I find usually open around 10am at the earliest and close around 8 at the absolute latest, meaning noise really isn’t an issue. And waterparks don’t generate anywhere near as much noise as a full amusement park would with a B&M looper roaring by every minute or two.

If anything, keeping Hurricane Harbor (albeit under a different name) makes a ton of sense. Not to mention, Hurricane Harbor frequently got investments when SFA did not receive much. And that’s because the waterparks perform that well. I’ve been to SFA during the summer when both HH and SFA were open. The parking lot would be fairly well fillled but the moment you passed the waterpark entrance, the dry park would be a ghost town compared to the water park’s full queue lines.

Now, the data I’m pulling is from the 2019 earnings call, so obviously not the most recent information, but is the most recently publicly available information that we can source actual attendance numbers from. SFA as a whole saw approximately 1,312,000 guests that year. In 2019, Hurricane Harbor’s attendance alone was approximately 1/3 of the total attendance at ~475,000 annual visitors. The kicker here is that the waterpark itself is smaller, meaning there is less overall maintenance to do, less staffing requirements, and more chances to make a higher profit. Even though HH may be a smaller property physically, it performs better overall than SFA does.

 

[the_pantsmith]

It is so very interesting how conversation around SFA always circles back to the clientele. I wonder how much of it is actually people being “lowlifes” and how much of it is just thoosies being uncomfortable around a lot of Black people. Not making any accusations, here. Just something I’ve observed. The guests when I went were no different than any other Six Flags park I’ve been to.

Anyway I think a standalone waterpark would do well here and I hope it’s kept in some capacity.

 

[DECoasterGuy]

It is so very interesting how conversation around SFA always circles back to the clientele. I wonder how much of it is actually people being “lowlifes” and how much of it is just thoosies being uncomfortable around a lot of Black people. Not making any accusations, here. Just something I’ve observed. The guests when I went were no different than any other Six Flags park I’ve been to.

Anyway I think a standalone waterpark would do well here and I hope it’s kept in some capacity.

The park has had issues with violence in the past, and it frequently serves as a daycare for teens to run wild. If we’re being honest, yes, those teens often exhibit lowlife behavior (the behavior is what is lowlife, not the demographic like you’re insinuating). You can’t exactly blame people for not wanting to be around a bunch of poorly raised teens all day.

It’s definitely not an SFA-exclusive problem, because like you said it happens across the chain (and beyond it like Zachary said), but SFA has a reputation among locals and enthusiasts alike as a place where that is a problem.

 

[Nicole]

My point still stands that waterparks generally perform better when associated with a theme park as evident by SF building a dry park to partner with the waterpark to become SFA. Yes an association isn't necessary depending on local circumstances. But even many standalone water parks are located in warmer climates or take advantage of resort regions such as the shore and lakes.

Keeping the waterpark intact does add complications to the sale. Its easier to find a single buyer for the whole property vs finding several buyers for subdivided properties which can also take more time. Many areas have restrictions on subdividing land, SF many not even be able to split up the parcel even if they wanted to. Even if they can, its another complication in itself that can be not worthwhile. Subdividing evolves extra costs such as resurveying, permits, zoning and environmental restrictions, fees, access and utilities, etc. This would also forgo scrap value and tax deductions for not scrapping the water attractions.

You are making a lot of claims that require data to back them up. How do you know where water parks perform the best? Show us evidence that success is predicated on association with a dry park. Have you actually researched the local zoning laws?

As it happens, as a resident of Northern Virginia, I can attest to the popularity of the many water parks around the region, which are not limited to spaces far away from population centers (locations which simply do not exist in the SC area).

It appears that you feel the need to extend your sourness about the removal of Ka from your park in New Jersey to other parks in the chain. It honestly grows tiresome.

But what do I know? I, apparently, am just a "lowlife."

 

[Zachary]

Counterintuitively, I agree with both of these posts.

It is so very interesting how conversation around SFA always circles back to the clientele. I wonder how much of it is actually people being “lowlifes” and how much of it is just thoosies being uncomfortable around a lot of Black people. Not making any accusations, here. Just something I’ve observed. The guests when I went were no different than any other Six Flags park I’ve been to.

Anyway I think a standalone waterpark would do well here and I hope it’s kept in some capacity.

The park has had issues with violence in the past, and it frequently serves as a daycare for teens to run wild. If we’re being honest, yes, those teens often exhibit lowlife behavior (the behavior is what is lowlife, not the demographic like you’re insinuating). You can’t exactly blame people for not wanting to be around a bunch of poorly raised teens all day.

It’s definitely not an SFA-exclusive problem, because like you said it happens across the chain (and beyond it like Zachary said), but SFA has a reputation among locals and enthusiasts alike as a place where that is a problem.

SFA has a reputation locally for serving a rough, rowdy crowd—it's impossible to deny that in my opinion. I believe that tends to be true of the vast majority of Six Flags parks that serve large metro areas though. At the very least, I am confident that SFA is not the only Six Flags park with a lot of local skepticism regarding the behavior of its guests. And again, I do think this skepticism is justified and almost certainly not rooted primarily in racism—there have been crazy news stories out of the likes of Six Flags over Georgia and Six Flags Great America just recently. Due to a confluence of factors, Six Flags parks do tend to draw a lot of large, rambunctious—sometimes violent—groups of young people who are more interested in "making their own fun" than engaging with what the park has to offer.

That said, when we zoom out to the larger industry and look at enthusiast discussions of Six Flags parks broadly, that's when I start to agree with @the_pantsmith. I find it inexplicable how, despite many Six Flags properties experiencing nearly identical (and often far worse) audience issues, thoosies seem to frequently insinuate that SFA is one of, if not the absolute worst, in this regard. I cannot understand that impression of the situation and my (probably far more extensive than most) experience at the park has never given me reason to feel that way. Crazy stuff has happened at SFA—we can link the news articles for days—but the same is true at many other Six Flags parks too. Hell, crazy shit has gone down at legacy Cedar Fair properties lately too—CGA anyone?—but if you polled the masses of white, upper-middle-class, 15 year-old Instagram thoosies, I am confident that SFA would be right at the top of the "most violent major parks in the US" list.

For locals, this equivalency doesn't matter. They care about their local Six Flags and, frequently, it's a somewhat rougher place to be than at least some other recreation/entertainment activities they could spend money on. It's completely understandable that DC-area locals think of SFA as a rough place to visit. That said, for thoosies, this equivalency very much matters because there has to be some reason SFA is constantly painted as a particularly dangerous park despite being in a chain where these issues are depressingly commonplace. Maybe there are alternative explanations, but I can say with confidence that, at a minimum, there are some people in the larger thoosie space that probably still do or at least have previously held negative opinions about SFA that are rooted, at least somewhat, in racist stereotypes regarding the park's clientele and staff.

 

[Ghost of Pretzel Kaiser]

 

[warfelg]

Six Flags properties experiencing nearly identical (and often far worse) audience issues, thoosies seem to frequently insinuate that SFA is one of, if not the absolute worst, in this regard. I cannot understand that impression of the situation and my (probably far more extensive than most) experience at the park has never given me reason to feel that way. Crazy stuff has happened at SFA—we can link the news articles for days—but the same is true at many other Six Flags parks too.

So I got some insight! One of the few times I feel.

So I had someone I worked with that was head of finance for SFA for 2 years, and he said an issue with legacy SF is they had nothing setup to collect on unpaid passes, so there was a significant number of people who would sign up, make the one payment, then stop making payments. The worst part was because of the way their system worked for legacy SF, those people could keep creating new accounts to buy passes again, make the one payment, go a bunch in the month, get in a bound of trouble, then not make the next payment.

So that added to the issue of what happened because there was very little way through legacy SF to keep trouble makers away.

 

[paintervision]

So I had someone I worked with that was head of finance for SFA for 2 years, and he said an issue with legacy SF is they had nothing setup to collect on unpaid passes, so there was a significant number of people who would sign up, make the one payment, then stop making payments. The worst part was because of the way their system worked for legacy SF, those people could keep creating new accounts to buy passes again, make the one payment, go a bunch in the month, get in a bound of trouble, then not make the next payment.

This is the exact problem with those old Fun Cards they used to sell at SeaWorld Orlando (maybe they still do? IDK). They never had any kind of collections dept or agency involved with that process. Guests would buy the Fun Cards (same cost as a day ticket up front; usually to see concerts or events) and then use it multiple times, skip out on paying without any kind of hit to their credit report.

 

[kmccarthy27]

Anyways as for SFA and HH - I know @Zachary has tossed the concept of it being just a water park around a bunch, I wonder if there's some sort of company that would come in last minute and work out a deal to buy just the HH part of the park to run it as a community pool/waterpark and allow the rest of the land to be developed.

I would be for that, but would a company that runs modern waterparks want that. Doesn't that water park side, from the Wild World era, have some lawsuit settlement or something that forces them to have "rest breaks" at all the pools or just the wave pool. Its why you have to get out of the Wave Pool every 45m, for a 15m break. But I seem to recall the other pools take some rest break thing too.

I think that settlement is one of the reasons that prevented Six Flags from making that HH a separate gate when they were doing that with other parks years ago.

 

[SweetBabyJames]

I would be for that, but would a company that runs modern waterparks want that. Doesn't that water park side, from the Wild World era, have some lawsuit settlement or something that forces them to have "rest breaks" at all the pools or just the wave pool. Its why you have to get out of the Wave Pool every 45m, for a 15m break. But I seem to recall the other pools take some rest break thing too.

I think that settlement is one of the reasons that prevented Six Flags from making that HH a separate gate when they were doing that with other parks years ago.

No, the 15 minute break has nothing to do with a lawsuit. Wave pools across the nation close approximately every 45 minutes for a water safety break. This break give patrons a time to leave the water if needed and affords the lifeguards a break to scan the water for any abnormalities free from distraction.

 

[The Master]

You are making a lot of claims that require data to back them up. How do you know where water parks perform the best? Show us evidence that success is predicated on association with a dry park. Have you actually researched the local zoning laws?

As it happens, as a resident of Northern Virginia, I can attest to the popularity of the many water parks around the region, which are not limited to spaces far away from population centers (locations which simply do not exist in the SC area).

It appears that you feel the need to extend your sourness about the removal of Ka from your park in New Jersey to other parks in the chain. It honestly grows tiresome.

But what do I know? I, apparently, am just a "lowlife."

Its a observation I posted here as most of the Waterparks in NJ and Eastern PA are either associated with a dry park or located in resort regions such as shore and ski areas or. Several of the shore water parks here are associated with amusement piers with dry rides or physically connected to a hotel. I have been to 4 standalone water parks outside of my state not connected or associated to anything, two of which are now sadly permanently closed. Moreover, your demand for data is clearly being used here as a rhetoric tool to lazily dismiss and distract from my claim rather than as a genuine request for clarification.

I am sorry that my opinions has visibly enraged you as that was not my intention but you seem to be taking things way too personal as I am not angry with your opinions. However, your ad hominem response and other bullying behavior instead of replying to the points in the post you quoted is unbecoming of an admin. Most forums I am on the administration and mods maintain decorum and avoid getting heated or engaging in rhetoric tactics like you feaquently do here.

To quote Wiki,

"Low-life

Low-life is a term for a person who is of low social status due to their low moral character. Examples of people typically referred to as low-life include bullies, criminals, drug dealers, freeloaders, bums, drunkards, gangsters, sex offenders, pimps, aggressive panhandlers, scammers, and thieves."

Getting back a bit towards the topic, sadly SFA's bad reputation probably was a factor in SF's decision to close it and will likely make it less appealing for a park operator to purchase the park. Moreover, SFA isn't the only SF park with bad reputations, GAdv and MM also have poor reputations held by locals. I remember DL performers ridiculing MM for example.

 

[kmccarthy27]

No, the 15 minute break has nothing to do with a lawsuit. Wave pools across the nation close approximately every 45 minutes for a water safety break. This break give patrons a time to leave the water if needed and affords the lifeguards a break to scan the water for any abnormalities free from distraction.

I swear I have never had that happen at KD, Dorney, Hershey or Water Country. They may have turned the waves off but they never kicked us out of the pool like SFA does.

 

[the_pantsmith]

So I got some insight! One of the few times I feel.

So I had someone I worked with that was head of finance for SFA for 2 years, and he said an issue with legacy SF is they had nothing setup to collect on unpaid passes, so there was a significant number of people who would sign up, make the one payment, then stop making payments. The worst part was because of the way their system worked for legacy SF, those people could keep creating new accounts to buy passes again, make the one payment, go a bunch in the month, get in a bound of trouble, then not make the next payment.

So that added to the issue of what happened because there was very little way through legacy SF to keep trouble makers away.

This is super interesting. I'm not one to pretend that Six Flags clientele are always the most calm and respectful, but I still think there's a hint of prejudice when some enthusiasts bring up SFA in particular. I think the practice you highlighted above is a perfect example of why I'm so glad Cedar Fair is essentially in charge now. SO much rampant mismanagement took place under Six Flags, it's insane

 

[jwranson]

On the flip side, if a park has little or nothing to do its a waste of time no matter how nice it may look. SFMM just like GAdv engaged in massive ride removals over the decades along with poor upkeep. That park once had skyride, monorail, and even a quad wheel Ferris wheel, now its mostly coasters and little else. Infrastructure improvements are not a substitute for rides which is a false narrative that CF is pushing. Moreover such improvements mean nothing if they are quickly vandalized by low class partons which both MM and GAdv attract. GAdv has historically had a high vandalism problem. Bored guests waiting in long lines for fewer rides will not help this problem and shiny, fancy new Infrastructure make prime targets.

If the choice is between a ride like a skyride or Infrastructure improvements like new paint on the stupid icee stand, most are going to prefer the skyride. Really only enthusiasts would even notice inconsequential improvements like a slightly fancier railing for a snack stand, most of the GP wouldn't even notice let alone care. But they care a lot more if several iconic rides are gone. This is why these minor improvements are just lipstick on a pig because the parks have more important and glaring issues than the color of icee stand railings. Frankly, these inconsequential improvements being promoted as worthwhile reward for ride sacrifices comes off as patronizing and insulting.

Agreed- parked shouldn’t be lauded for actually doing what should be routine maintenance

 

[warfelg]

This is super interesting. I'm not one to pretend that Six Flags clientele are always the most calm and respectful, but I still think there's a hint of prejudice when some enthusiasts bring up SFA in particular. I think the practice you highlighted above is a perfect example of why I'm so glad Cedar Fair is essentially in charge now. SO much rampant mismanagement took place under Six Flags, it's insane

I don't know about Legacy CF practices with that, but it's a good example as to why certain parks get the reputations they do. The person I knew kept telling his legacy SF bosses that they needed to do a style that included having to put your SSN into the system as part of the requirements for getting the pass, and the response was they made enough money off the one time payments that the potential pool of visitors would shrink too much.

So the way it sounded to me was with certain parks legacy SF didn't care because it artificially boosted attendance numbers despite the potential of issues from people spending far less than a ticket to get in for one day, cause problems, then walk away and never face consequences.

 

[The Master]

Agreed- parked shouldn’t be lauded for actually doing what should be routine maintenance

Thanks. Its good that defered general maintenance is finally being performed don't get me wrong. However, its not good that this is being used as a distraction from more glaring and pressing issues in the parks, some of which are new problems created by the new management.

 

[The Master]

Another point I want to add about Waterparks being associated with another entertainment enterprise is that there are benefits in doing so. Especially for outdoor Waterparks. First a outdoor waterpark being associated with a dry park if handled correctly should subsidize revenues. Ie a water park normally closes at dusk while a dry park can operate after dark and continue revenue generation. Moreover a dry park typically has a longer operating season than a outdoor water park in Northern climates so it can continue earning revenue during seasons the Waterpark cannot. This also extends to ski resorts who can operate an outdoor Waterpark during Summer months or a year round indoor Waterpark. Furthermore a dry park with a associated Waterpark can attract more guests than a park without one in Summer months and vice versa. It's a natural higher value proposition to potential guests.

Secondly, associating a water park with another entertainment venue can diversify risk. Ie during a cold snap people may still visit the dry park or during a heat wave they may still visit the water park when they normally would avoid dry parks in hot weather. These are undeniable potential benefits for Waterparks being associated with another venue and is likely why many are. Its a pretty sound business strategy. I apologize in advance for not having chats and data available to suit the debonkers.

Now this isn't to say standalone Waterparks can't be competitive or profitable, but there are clear advantages for one to be associated with another venue. Even if this is to the dismay of some. Spinning off the Waterpark will lead to the loss of these synergy advantages I described above which may not be a deal breaker for every potential buyer, but it will be a deterant for many. In short there are a lot of negatives to spinning off the Waterpark. It depends if there is a operator willing to outbid a developer for it. There is a possibility of a buyer to subdivide the land themselves for resell or other purposes instead of SF subdivide the land to sell piecemeal.