The park heard the fans, and Best of the West will not change its name!
State of the Park
- Thread starter GASM
- Start date
Somehow it’s the one actual restaurant in the park I’ve never eaten at, and I’m grateful that it’s sticking around with improvements so I can change that next time I find a reason to be in NJ.
Direct Link to Embedded Media Source
Several of the drone shots in the Phantom Spire thread show it too, but I was so focused on the coaster parts, I didn't even notice the blacktop removal right near the 2026 Boardwalk project zone.
"More announcements are on the way — including the full events lineup before Opening Day on March 28.
This is only the first wave of what’s coming.
And if this is the start, you can imagine where we’re headed."
Great Adventure – Everything Coming in 2026 | Big Things Are Coming to Six Flags Great Adventure in 2026
This is only the first wave of what’s coming.
And if this is the start, you can imagine where we’re headed."
Great Adventure – Everything Coming in 2026 | Big Things Are Coming to Six Flags Great Adventure in 2026
Now that they are removing the blacktop from the boardwalk area it would be cool if they made it an actual boardwalk.
https://www.jacksontwpnj.net/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02232026-1234
H. Engineering/Planning Matters
Block: 3101, Lot: 11.01 – Six Flags Great Adventure, LLC
2026 Capital Improvements for New Retail Building at Safari Base Camp
Engineer: Colliers Engineering & Design
Attorney: Adam Pfeffer, Esq.
Block: 3101, Lot: 11.01 – Six Flags Great Adventure, LLC
2026 Capital Improvements for Addition to Existing Pizza Paradise and Grill at Hurricane Harbor
Engineer: Colliers Engineering & Design
Attorney: Adam Pfeffer, Esq.
H. Engineering/Planning Matters
Block: 3101, Lot: 11.01 – Six Flags Great Adventure, LLC
2026 Capital Improvements for New Retail Building at Safari Base Camp
Engineer: Colliers Engineering & Design
Attorney: Adam Pfeffer, Esq.
Block: 3101, Lot: 11.01 – Six Flags Great Adventure, LLC
2026 Capital Improvements for Addition to Existing Pizza Paradise and Grill at Hurricane Harbor
Engineer: Colliers Engineering & Design
Attorney: Adam Pfeffer, Esq.
By what legal means are parks able to forgo public meetings on projects like the new coaster and keep the construction projects out of permit databases and therefore the public eye? I'm sure Jackson's zoning board is used to working with Great Adventure in relative secrecy but OPRA in NJ is very strong and I find it shocking that despite the efforts of many the documents remain under wraps
Could be copyright, intellectual property, or trade secret rights are being used to keep documents from being public.
Honestly a huge part is the relationships between the park and the township. A HUGE part is how much the local community can be impacted (see BGW and KM) by the ride. I wouldn’t say it’s quid pro quo but it is for sure a “work with us” in that not every project will be secret but we can help keep big things under wraps if you open up other things.
Also given that parks tend to be biggest employers, tax bases, and expansion for townships; generally they don’t want to say no to a park too much. Now on the flip side sometimes parks overstep (see Aire Force One and FSA) and we hit back and make it hard to do. So it’s not a black check to do anything so to speak.
Long story short - planning departments understand the positive power of parks and mostly want to be a checks and balances than a dominating authority.
Also given that parks tend to be biggest employers, tax bases, and expansion for townships; generally they don’t want to say no to a park too much. Now on the flip side sometimes parks overstep (see Aire Force One and FSA) and we hit back and make it hard to do. So it’s not a black check to do anything so to speak.
Long story short - planning departments understand the positive power of parks and mostly want to be a checks and balances than a dominating authority.
That relationship makes sense, but I struggle to see how the impact on the community can be accurately assessed in secrecy. I've just seen so many NIMBYs successfully pull documents to scream and cry about new condos, but if I were one of them I'd consider roller coasters and the associated development to be a bigger "threat" to the "character" of my neighborhood. I'm just surprised at the opacity of the process of constructing something so large when routine construction for housing and the like is so thoroughly publicized and problematized with the help of OPRA, FOIA etc
It would probably different if GAdv were in the middle of a city with homes all around like the California parks, versus being in the middle of the forest in a sparsely populated area on a huge plot of land.
Practically sure, but sparse New Jersey is still New Jersey with the same laws and there's no shortage of people who consider themselves "stakeholders" trying to access these documents.
I can't speak directly to Great Adventure but having experience trying to pry information out about BGW's projects I can give some insight in general. One thing to remember is that these ride represent trade craft information that could directly impact the company's competitiveness. The company has dome rights to secure that information. Those rights are then balanced by the effects that the project has on the community and the publics right to know that impact and mitigate it. You can't FIOA something that is a trade secret just because you want to know. You have to be able to demonstrate that you are impacted in such away that you NEED that information. I the case of Great Adventure there really are no properties that are going to be in danger of this project negatively impacting them so there rights to review stuff are much more limited where as with BGW for example the possible negative impact to property values in KM gives people much more leverage to demand information.
We need to get some Pine Drive residents on the forum. I have a lot to discuss with them
Even there you are talking about 2 plus miles to the closes house and a project that likely reusing Ka's footprint and was most likely approved as a replacement while it was still standing. Arguing that this project woud significantly impact their daily lives or the degrade their property value is going to be a stretch.
I know u claim to block me on multiple platforms but this suggests intimate familiarity with northdetective culture
Moving this over from the Phantom Spire thread.
I think this is worthy of highlighting. I hate to bring a Busch Gardens Williamsburg-centric point of view to this thread, but I feel like I have experience here that's a very apt comparison. Writing about Busch Gardens Williamsburg for years—sharing my opinions on the park online for well over a decade now—I've often been criticized by non-locals for complaining about "small" things when other parks are desperate to get something half as good as the thing I'm critiquing. Theming and entertainment are where this pushback appears most often—and it is typically coming from folks outside the immediate BGW market or with relatively little history with the park.
I think it's important that we keep in mind that different parks have different bars of reasonable expectations and there's nothing wrong with that. If a park has maintained a strong expectation amongst its local market for innovative thrill rides (like Great Adventure), the expectations for a new coaster at that park will be notably higher than they would be at other parks—just as it's reasonable for people to have far higher expectations for theming and entertainment at a park like BGW. These parks have formed the market expectations around them and it's reasonable (and I'd argue good) for the market to hold these parks to those expectations.
I'm in favor of the current direction of SFGAdv as we currently understand it, but the justification can't be that an addition would be great at any other park so SFGAdv fans should sitdown, shut up, and enjoy it. The bar at SFGAdv is very high—and reasonably so. It's a huge, very popular park in a massive market with an incredible legacy. Fans are right to be angry about how the park has been treated—even if it has been treated better than many of its siblings—and fans are right to be skeptical of new attractions after a pattern of mistreatment like that—even if that new attraction would be unquestionably amazing elsewhere.
SFGAdv locals are right to feel disenfranchised and skeptical and they're right to maintain high standards for the park. Don't let anyone tell you all otherwise.
I think this is worthy of highlighting. I hate to bring a Busch Gardens Williamsburg-centric point of view to this thread, but I feel like I have experience here that's a very apt comparison. Writing about Busch Gardens Williamsburg for years—sharing my opinions on the park online for well over a decade now—I've often been criticized by non-locals for complaining about "small" things when other parks are desperate to get something half as good as the thing I'm critiquing. Theming and entertainment are where this pushback appears most often—and it is typically coming from folks outside the immediate BGW market or with relatively little history with the park.
I think it's important that we keep in mind that different parks have different bars of reasonable expectations and there's nothing wrong with that. If a park has maintained a strong expectation amongst its local market for innovative thrill rides (like Great Adventure), the expectations for a new coaster at that park will be notably higher than they would be at other parks—just as it's reasonable for people to have far higher expectations for theming and entertainment at a park like BGW. These parks have formed the market expectations around them and it's reasonable (and I'd argue good) for the market to hold these parks to those expectations.
I'm in favor of the current direction of SFGAdv as we currently understand it, but the justification can't be that an addition would be great at any other park so SFGAdv fans should sitdown, shut up, and enjoy it. The bar at SFGAdv is very high—and reasonably so. It's a huge, very popular park in a massive market with an incredible legacy. Fans are right to be angry about how the park has been treated—even if it has been treated better than many of its siblings—and fans are right to be skeptical of new attractions after a pattern of mistreatment like that—even if that new attraction would be unquestionably amazing elsewhere.
SFGAdv locals are right to feel disenfranchised and skeptical and they're right to maintain high standards for the park. Don't let anyone tell you all otherwise.
Last edited:
When you live in the country's biggest metropolitan area and see the comparable parks in the second- and third-largest metros (Magic Mountain and SF Great America, respectively) getting treated markedly better as they did under legacy SF, the resentment starts to build up over the years. It's not like the market is any less penetrable in NYC (not to mention Philly as well), but it certainly has felt that our money is less valuable to them, and that the heritage of our park meant less over the years. Say what you want about the reaction to this new coaster, but the "entitlement" is more than historically justified.
View attachment 40893
Edit: This is redundant due to Zachary having put it better than I. Didn't see his message before moving over to this thread.
Last edited:
Going off that I think it's fair to say that Great Adventure has completely missed this standard ever since El Toro opened. When talking to locals who aren't enthusiasts the storyline isn't that the park's fall from grace came because Ka came down, it's moreso Ka's closure was the icing on the cake. It's going to take a lot to bring back trust with locals, hopefully this ride is the first step in doing that.