| |
In lugnet.legoland, Ted Godwin wrote:
> I live in Canada so your assumptions and comments are off the mark.
Well, not really. I suspect he was pointing out that you seemed to be completely
writing off developing a major attraction anyplace cold in the winter, where
closures would be necessary. I've been to amusement parks in Cleveland &
Cincinnati, OH, (seasonal closures), and seen them in lots of other "cold"
places (Denver, CO has one to as I've seen).
By your quick dismissal, I'd have to assume that these were misplaced,
still-born, rapidly dying establishments. They're not. So... I suspect something
might be slightly off with your analysis.
> The reason it is ridiculous is the same reason there is a Disney park in
> California and Florida and none in New England or the Midwestern US: to
> maximize revenue.
One way to maximize revenue is not to open a theme park in a market that may
already be saturated. Like Orlando, FL. The best locations are often ones where
there's a demand, and costs are low. That may have been Orlando when Walt
started buying up swampland. It might not be the case now.
> I'd be happy if you got one near you but it still seems a pretty
> dubious business proposition and I would hate to see TLC lose
> any more money to questionable expansion.
I'd tentatively agree with that - but not for the location reasons you
specified.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A 'possible' LEGOLAND Park in Illinois
|
| (...) I live in Canada so your assumptions and comments are off the mark. We don't even get LEGO Brand stores in Canada and we pay a 25-30% premium on LEGO products (BEFORE taxes) just for the privilege of living north of the border. I understand (...) (15 years ago, 28-Oct-09, to lugnet.legoland, FTX)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
