How other vacation spots have coped over the years

speck76

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Walt Disney opened the original Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif., 50 years ago this summer. The Magic Kingdom, in Orlando, will celebrate its 35th anniversary in 2006.

Will the magic last another 50 years?

If history is any guide, the answer will depend in big part on Disney's ability to keep up with the times.

Here's a look at three famous destinations and how they have fared over the years.


Coney Island, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Claim to fame: "The Poor Man's Paradise"
Bottom line: Coney Island couldn't keep up with changing tastes


Coney Island's old roller coasters cast a long shadow across the American summer. Long before Walt Disney made the amusement park business respectable, this strip of Brooklyn beach was drawing New Yorkers with cycloramas of great disasters and displays of premature babies. Unable to convince hospitals that incubators could save lives, a real doctor demonstrated the devices at a popular sideshow beginning around the turn of the last century.

Coney Island's name is still synonymous with amusement parks -- it's the inspiration for Walt Disney World's BoardWalk Inn -- and families and free spirits still pack its beaches, but times and tastes change, and Coney Island isn't the draw it once was.

In the 1800s, carousels and horse tracks, hotels and disorderly houses sprang up along the 5-mile peninsula, earning Coney Island the nickname "Sodom by the Sea."

But it wasn't until 1897 and the opening of Steeplechase Park that Coney Island entered its golden age. One of Steeplechase's big draws was "A Trip to the Moon," an illusion staged in a theater that looked like a big winged rocket ship. "The whole thing was mysterious and spooky and made your gal hold onto you," one visitor said in a 1941 history of the place.

When the park's owner tried to renegotiate with the show's creators, they responded by starting their own amusement park. Luna Park's then-novel 250,000 electric lights awed visitors including the Russian writer Maxim Gorki, who described the park as "fabulous beyond conceiving."

Dreamland, the last of Coney Island's three classic amusement parks, came in 1904. It boasted a dazzling 1 million electric lights, but it was faulty wiring for these lights that would spark the fire a few years later that would destroy the park, marking the beginning of Coney Island's slow decline.

In a separate incident, Luna Park burned down in 1946. Steeplechase survived until the 1960s, when it was sold to real-estate developer Fred Trump, Donald Trump's father.

And as the parks disappeared, so did Coney Island's pull on people's imaginations.

Today, "Coney Island is grimy and authentic, honest and straightforward," photographer Harvey Stein says in a 1998 collection of photographs, Coney Island.

"It's the poor man's Riviera, the real Disneyland … a fantasyland of the past with a seedy present and an irrepressible optimism about its future."

"If only the rest of the world could be a little more like Coney Island."

Cedar Point, Sandusky, Ohio
Claim to fame: World's largest roller coaster park -- and one of the oldest
Bottom line: Century-old park endures by reinventing itself


Cedar Point's white sand beaches made it a popular "bathing" spot in the years following the Civil War, but it took a roller coaster called Blue Streak to bring the park into the space age.

Compared with some modern marvels, Blue Streak is practically poky, reaching speeds of only 40 miles an hour, but it launched a building boom that has made Cedar Point the 30th most-visited amusement park in the world with 3.2 million guests a year.

It's a fairy-tale ending few could have imagined a half-century ago.

Open since 1870, Cedar Point had developed into a full-scale resort by the 1920s.

Its owners understood the secret to persuading guests to spend more money was persuading them to stay on property longer, so they added hotels, restaurants and even a convention center -- the same strategy the Walt Disney Co. has used at its resort in Orlando.

But business at Cedar Point fell sharply with the Great Depression and World War II, and by the 1950s there was talk of new owners razing the park and building luxury homes on the land overlooking Lake Erie.

Cedar Point's owners backed down after the state threatened to take the park by eminent domain to save it.

Unable to develop the site, the owners decided to try improving the park's performance, and in 1960, they announced plans to spend $16 million -- equal to $100 million today -- saying they wanted to turn it into Ohio's answer to Disneyland.

They spruced up the aging property and add expensive new attractions, including the wooden Blue Streak.

It's a strategy the park's current owner, Cedar Fair LP, still lives by.

In 2003, the park opened its 16th coaster, Top Thrill Dragster. Standing 420 feet and reaching speeds of 120 miles an hour, it will be the world's tallest and fastest roller coaster until Kingda Ka opens this spring at Six Flags Great Adventure in New Jersey.

In December, the park announced plans for maXair, a spinning pendulum that will swing guests 140 feet above the ground. MaXair is described as the centerpiece of a $10 million capital improvement project for the park's 2005 season.

"It's vital we give our guests a reason to come back," spokesman Robin Innes said. "It's a competitive industry. If you don't strive to constantly improve your package, you could lose visits."

Greater Miami
Claim to fame: Sun, sizzle and celebrities
Bottom line: City changes image to attract a new generation of tourists


Once a sanctuary for middle-class snowbirds, Miami was a paradise lost by the 1980s. It was overwhelmed with Cuban and Haitian refugees, high unemployment and hopelessness. A 1980 riot in Liberty City, sparked by the acquittal of five police officers in the beating death of a black insurance man, left 18 people dead and hundreds injured.

Miami also became a front in the government's war on drugs. In 1981, drug gangs armed with machine guns funneled a reported 70 percent of the nation's cocaine, 80 percent of its marijuana and 90 percent of the counterfeit quaaludes through the city.

But a strange thing happened on Miami's road to ruin.

Its intrigue and foreign accents made it appealing again. In 1984, a story in The New York Times declared it "the new Casablanca."

That same year, a network TV show about Miami's "cocaine cowboys" helped the city shed its stodgy image and attract a younger generation of tourists.

Miami Vice, about sweaty drug dealers and cops who dressed like pop stars, played like a prime-time commercial for Miami's beaches, nightclubs and jai alai frontons.

Greater Miami's rebirth continued in the 1990s, with fashion designer Gianni Versace and pop-music star Madonna buying mansions and helping turn Miami, once dismissed by the comedian Lenny Bruce as the place where neon goes to die, into one of the country's most fashionable destinations.

In 1984, greater Miami drew just 5.4 million visitors. Last year, it attracted about 11 million.
 

SpectroMan

New Member
I doubt these historical places had professional engineers and creators always thinking up new things like Disney does. Disney is coping very well in today's world especially with understanding that today's kids are going to want more interactive attractions since they have grown up with computers. Disney has always been revolutionary in technology and storytelling, and I think this will last for a very long time. The only way it will not is if people stop believing in technology and the imagination to go along with it.
 

Woody13

New Member
SpectroMan said:
Disney has always been revolutionary in technology and storytelling, and I think this will last for a very long time. The only way it will not is if people stop believing in technology and the imagination to go along with it.
Yep, the only thing that will kill Disney is if they keep attractions like CoP and CBJ too much longer.
 

speck76

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
The point is.....places need to reinvent themselves to keep fresh for the new generation of travelers, and the new tastes of the visitors.

Disneyland remains fresh because it has reinvented itself over and over......no longer are Adventures through Innerspace and the Monsanto Home of the Future.

The MK remains fresh because it too has reinvented itself....gone are Take Flight and Mission to Mars.

Epcot is trying to reinvent itself, but some people just can not see that it is needed...which it is....at Epcot, a forward looking park, more than anyplace else.
 

SpectroMan

New Member
I think now it is much harder to do things too. Disney has to create the right balance of creating new and imaginative attractions, but they also have to deal with the great traditions that Walt and the Imagineers have left.

I for one love the "new" Future World. Mission: Space speaks more to people in their teens and twenties than Horizons ever could if they had done it right. It is already a great attraction, but they could have added just a little more and could have made it connect with the promise of the future just like Horizons did.

In other words, Disney needs to create and reinvent itself without wiping out its past. It is a difficult task, and while I disagree with some "reinventions," it still looks good.
 

speck76

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
But they have not been wiping out the past........saying that they are is a MAJOR overstatement.
 

dxwwf3

Well-Known Member
speck76 said:
But they have not been wiping out the past........saying that they are is a MAJOR overstatement.

I'm definately not saying they are. But alot of people around here would definately want them to wipe out the past. Newer doesn't ALWAYS equal better. But it certainly does sometimes.......just not EVERY time.
 

speck76

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
dxwwf3 said:
But alot of people around here would definately want them to wipe out the past. Newer doesn't ALWAYS equal better. But it certainly does sometimes.......just not EVERY time.

I have not seen that to be true.....most of the time, I see the opposite. More members (probably not more members, but more VOCAL members) seem to want the parks to never change, and complain when even the smallest details are altered.
 

dxwwf3

Well-Known Member
speck76 said:
I have not seen that to be true.....most of the time, I see the opposite. More members (probably not more members, but more VOCAL members) seem to want the parks to never change, and complain when even the smallest details are altered.

I think that there are just as many people that are just as radical to the other side. And alot of these people are just as vocal. But nobody wants to talk about that.

And also for the record, nobody wants to talk about when certain members actually praise something Disney does. And it does happen quite often.
 

dxwwf3

Well-Known Member
speck76 said:
Many people don't understand the difference between old and classic.

I think that's right in some cases. But it's also easy to get into the "What may be old to one person, might be classic to someone else" debate. And vice versa.
 

Woody13

New Member
speck76 said:
Many people don't understand the difference between old and classic.
I don't think it makes one bit of difference. The factor that defines reinvention is what sells! The old Magic Shop on Main Street was classic. However, it didn't sell enough to stay in business. They now sell a bunch of worthless junk at that location. Good or bad, that's reinvention and staying alive in the market place.
 

speck76

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
dxwwf3 said:
I think that's right in some cases. But it's also easy to get into the "What may be old to one person, might be classic to someone else" debate.

I would say that a good rule of thumb is that if the attraction still, after being open for at least 10-15 years, gets BOTH good attendance, and good guest feedback, the attraction has stood the test of time, and can be considered a classic.

Many older attractions do still get good attendance, but the guest feedback may not be fantastic. On the other hand, many older attractions may get excellent feedback, but very little attendance. Either way, these attractions would not be considered classic.


Body Wars is not a classic....even when it is open, it is nearly always empty.

Cranium Command could be considered a classic. It gets good crowds, and most people seem to enjoy it. The problem is that most people that I have talked to think it is VERY dated.

So, my next question/point....what do you do with a dated classic?

Really, there are 3 options, and each has pro's and con's.

1. Close it down, replace with nothing
-pro: potential addition by subtraction
-pro: cost savings
-con: loss of an attraction
-con: potential angering of some populations

2. Refurb it, keeping it nearly the same
-pro: an older attraction could become popular again
-pro: could please certain populations
-con: may not have great ROI, does not come with marketable benifits
-con: changes may be rejected by certain populations

3. Replace with something completely different
-pro: very marketable, could have great ROI
-pro: could reach audiance that old attraction did not reach
-con: loss of old attraction may anger certain populations
-con: new attraction may be rejected by certain populations
 

speck76

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Woody13 said:
I don't think it makes one bit of difference. The factor that defines reinvention is what sells! The old Magic Shop on Main Street was classic. However, it didn't sell enough to stay in business. They now sell a bunch of worthless junk at that location. Good or bad, that's reinvention and staying alive in the market place.

If it was truely a classic, it would have been able to stay in business.

Not everything we personally enjoy is a classic.
 

dxwwf3

Well-Known Member
speck76 said:
If it was truely a classic, it would have been able to stay in business.

Not everything we personally enjoy is a classic.

But the shop (or attraction) may be both popular and well attended by Disney fans. So it may be a classic to US, but not to the general public. And I know that puts Disney in a bad spot.

Does that make any sense?
 

speck76

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
dxwwf3 said:
But the shop (or attraction) may be both popular and well attended by Disney fans. So it may be a classic to US, but not to the general public. And I know that puts Disney in a bad spot.

Does that make any sense?

In your opinion it puts them in a bad spot. Remember, the park serves 14million visitors a year, and "fans" are a very small (yet vocal) percentage of that number.....probably less that 1%.

If WDC starts making decisions to please 1% of the guests, they will not be in business for much longer. Unfortunately, they need to appeal to the masses, which sometimes can mean that they will anger the "fans".

It would be nice if it could work both ways, but it truely can't. We all have our own individual tastes, and ideas, and things that we find to be fun and entertaining. Just last night I was watching Fantasmic, and people were buying up "The Amazing String Thing" by the hundreds for $20 or so each...
eparty_1840_1815071


....my opinion.....HOW DUMB ARE THESE PEOPLE!!!? A gift from WDW would have to be more than a handle with a moving string and blacklight on it to cause me to spend money, but if this is all it takes, if WDW can so easily sell this CRAP to the guests, and they eat it up like a hooker needing money for smack....well.....I see that I am not the average guest.


Finally, always remember, you are unique, just like everybody else.
 

DisneyFan 2000

Well-Known Member
Woody13 said:
Yep, the only thing that will kill Disney is if they keep attractions like CoP and CBJ too much longer.

Because Disney World really lacks any other place for expansion, right?
Not all the park has to become an E-Ticket celebration. It's ok to keep a few slow paced rides.
 

dxwwf3

Well-Known Member
speck76 said:
In your opinion it puts them in a bad spot. Remember, the park serves 14million visitors a year, and "fans" are a very small (yet vocal) percentage of that number.....probably less that 1%.

If WDC starts making decisions to please 1% of the guests, they will not be in business for much longer. Unfortunately, they need to appeal to the masses, which sometimes can mean that they will anger the "fans".

It would be nice if it could work both ways, but it truely can't. We all have our own individual tastes, and ideas, and things that we find to be fun and entertaining. Just last night I was watching Fantasmic, and people were buying up "The Amazing String Thing" by the hundreds for $20 or so each...
eparty_1840_1815071


....my opinion.....HOW DUMB ARE THESE PEOPLE!!!? A gift from WDW would have to be more than a handle with a moving string and blacklight on it to cause me to spend money, but if this is all it takes, if WDW can so easily sell this CRAP to the guests, and they eat it up like a hooker needing money for smack....well.....I see that I am not the average guest.


Finally, always remember, you are unique, just like everybody else.

Great post.

But wouldn't you also say that the small 1% could be the reason that a decent number of guests go to WDW, from word of mouth? I don't know figures at all, so don't think I'm trying to make some super smart statement, I'm just asking.

And if Disney doesn't consider that 1% (Just a little bit) when making some decisions, then it could potentially hurt them in the long run? Again I'm just posing the question.
 

Woody13

New Member
speck76 said:
If it was truely a classic, it would have been able to stay in business.
Lots and lots of classics go out of business. Classisity does ensure business tenure.
speck76 said:
Not everything we personally enjoy is a classic.
I never spent a dime in that shop! However, it was a classic. All the CM's that worked that shop were magicians and they performed their feats of legerdemain every day. It was far too costly for WDW to keep this venue in business.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom