186 replies to this topic

[brick]

mental757, on Sep 7 2006, 11:36 AM, said:

the president of Dial said that this is the only site in the U.S. that has a dead-end 4 lane highway with interstate access so close.  They LOVE the location.  It won't need it's own highway ramp.  It's a resort, not an 'open to the public' type set-up.  You have to stat there to use the facility (or have an event like a child's birthday party, etc.).

It's not a (physically) huge building.  90 feet max height where the water park part is in the middle and 5 stories of hotel rooms that ring around it.

that makes some sense but then again makes none at all.

Why would a family want to book a vacation just to go to this indoor water park?  I guess this is something of a tourist area except in W. Warwick you aren't near anything else that's really tourist-y.  I could see an exclusive thing like this in Newport or maybe near Matunuck or Misquamicut.  A place where you have the beach nearby and other tourist things to do.

Strange idea if it isn't open to the public.  I don't see how it will make enough money.

[runawayjim]

Recchia, on Sep 7 2006, 12:32 PM, said:

Other than traffic, which I'm doubting from a traffic engineering standpoint would be significant, I can't see why this would be opposed.  It's quite isolated from residential neighborhoods except for that cul-de-sac neighborhood to the east, and it's not like its going to attract what people may deem as unsavory folk.  I swear people will oppose anything.  

If I were to oppose anything with this project it'd be that it's only accessible by car and therefore limited in its potential to attract those without access to one from our urban areas.  

it's meant as an all-in-one destination apparently and you can't go there to use it without staying there, which i think sucks, but if that's the way it is, i don't see a problem that it requires the car.

honestly... the car is not a bad thing.  i don't understand why so many people on this site are so anti-car.

[Recchia]

runawayjim, on Sep 7 2006, 01:20 PM, said:

it's meant as an all-in-one destination apparently and you can't go there to use it without staying there, which i think sucks, but if that's the way it is, i don't see a problem that it requires the car.

honestly... the car is not a bad thing.  i don't understand why so many people on this site are so anti-car.

I know, I'm just trying to show how people would never oppose a project for my reason, but they'll always oppose it for reasons like "increased traffic."

I do however see problems with things that are solely accessible by cars.  Thats another topic though and goes way beyond this project.

[runawayjim]

Recchia, on Sep 7 2006, 01:48 PM, said:

I know, I'm just trying to show how people would never oppose a project for my reason, but they'll always oppose it for reasons like "increased traffic."

I do however see problems with things that are solely accessible by cars.  Thats another topic though and goes way beyond this project.

if this place becomes not solely for people staying at the hotel there, i think we'll see bus service to it.

public transit in this state needs to be better considering there are so many attractions and they aren't really all that far apart.

[yossarian]

brick, on Sep 7 2006, 12:54 PM, said:

that makes some sense but then again makes none at all.

Why would a family want to book a vacation just to go to this indoor water park?  I guess this is something of a tourist area except in W. Warwick you aren't near anything else that's really tourist-y.  I could see an exclusive thing like this in Newport or maybe near Matunuck or Misquamicut.  A place where you have the beach nearby and other tourist things to do.

Strange idea if it isn't open to the public.  I don't see how it will make enough money.

Maybe because they are banking on a casino being right next door.  

In my mind the revelation that the water park will be a closed resort, as opposed to an amusement park type destination, adds more credence to the point Jen was making yesterday.  I an extremely skeptical that this project would go forward if the casino goes down the tubes in November.

On a related note, it also causes me to give more consideration to the arguments by opponents who suggest the casino will be a drain on existing businesses that depend discretionary/leisure spending, rather than a boost as proponents contend.  If the Casino is surrounded by a panoply of self contained, symbiotic resorts, how many of the Casino-goers will be heading to Providence or Newport for a night out?   If you think the answer is few, then the next logical question is how many new entertainment dollars will the casino bring to the state versus simply rerouting entertainment dollars that will already be spent here?

[runawayjim]

yossarian, on Sep 7 2006, 02:06 PM, said:

Maybe because they are banking on a casino being right next door.  

In my mind the revelation that the water park will be a closed resort, as opposed to an amusement park type destination, adds more credence to the point Jen was making yesterday.  I an extremely skeptical that this project would go forward if the casino goes down the tubes in November.

On a related note, it also causes me to give more consideration to the arguments by opponents who suggest the casino will be a drain on existing businesses that depend discretionary/leisure spending, rather than a boost as proponents contend.  If the Casino is surrounded by a panoply of self contained, symbiotic resorts, how many of the Casino-goers will be heading to Providence or Newport for a night out?   If you think the answer is few, then the next logical question is how many new entertainment dollars will the casino bring to the state versus simply rerouting entertainment dollars that will already be spent here?

no idea on the new entertainment dollars from the casino, but it would definitely keep pepole from going out in providence or newport or anywhere but the casino or the places nearby (which aren't many).  i know people who would rather go spend $5-6 on a pint at a bar in mohegan sun than find a local bar in the town they live in. while the bar there is nice, it's really freaking expensive.  $5 for a regular pint of guinness, $6 for one of those rounded guinness glasses (20oz?).

[Recchia]

Maybe if the casino falls through they'll open this thing as more of a public amusement park.  That'd be nice.

[runawayjim]

Recchia, on Sep 7 2006, 03:12 PM, said:

Maybe if the casino falls through they'll open this thing as more of a public amusement park.  That'd be nice.

i have a feeling that might happen if the casino falls through and they actually follow through with their plans.

[Liamlunchtray]

runawayjim, on Sep 7 2006, 01:20 PM, said:

it's meant as an all-in-one destination apparently and you can't go there to use it without staying there, which i think sucks, but if that's the way it is, i don't see a problem that it requires the car.

What a lousy idea. I like having things locally that I could take my kids to for a nice afternoon. I'm certainly not going to pay for a hotel in west warwick just to ride some waterslides. I guess I had thought it would be like a normal water park, just enclosed and with a Hotel attached. Bah! We'll just end up at Misquamicut instead.

[jencoleslaw]

mental757, on Sep 7 2006, 11:36 AM, said:

the president of Dial said that this is the only site in the U.S. that has a dead-end 4 lane highway with interstate access so close.  They LOVE the location.  It won't need it's own highway ramp.  It's a resort, not an 'open to the public' type set-up.  You have to stat there to use the facility (or have an event like a child's birthday party, etc.).

It's not a (physically) huge building.  90 feet max height where the water park part is in the middle and 5 stories of hotel rooms that ring around it.

i don't understand how its going to make money if it isn't open to the public. Is the business model really that five floors of hotel rooms will be bought out by folks and their kids who will use the water park? I'm really confused. How could he possibly not care if the casino is built? who the heck is going to go there, and stay overnight, in west warwick? please explain. thanks.

oops. guess i should have read the whole thread. Guess i'm not the only one who thinks this is a dumb business model.  

Edited by jencoleslaw, 07 September 2006 - 01:49 PM.

[brick]

jencoleslaw, on Sep 7 2006, 03:48 PM, said:

i don't understand how its going to make money if it isn't open to the public. Is the business model really that five floors of hotel rooms will be bought out by folks and their kids who will use the water park? I'm really confused. How could he possibly not care if the casino is built? who the heck is going to go there, and stay overnight, in west warwick? please explain. thanks.

I'm thinking that they will also advertise live "Frogger" across I-95 for families with too many kids.

(this post is reflective of the afternoon I'm having, sorry)

[mental757]

it's the type of venue that targets residents from bordering States.  They clearly said that the concept works in many other parts of the country and there is zero competition (of it's type) in New England.  Think about what you are saying here people - this is a 100% FAMILY (specifically young families with kids!) - why would they be banking on the casino???  They made that very clear last night as well.  They are targeting CT/MA resident young families for a 2 or 3 night weekend get-a-way type vacation.  The summer and vacation weeks/holiday weeks are peak, whereas 'normal' winter weeks are dead (30-40% occupancy).  The company mentioned that this is where they typically offer huge discounts to local residents to use the facility.   Traffic to the site will genberate 500 cars per day peak (including employees) but those are scattered throughout the day as people arrive at the hotel.  It's a $100 million dollar project that could have easily gone somewhere else in New England, and if don't you think they would build in N. Stonington if they were interested in the casino scene - there are 2 already in that area and they are already built!

[mental757]

jencoleslaw, on Sep 7 2006, 03:48 PM, said:

i don't understand how its going to make money if it isn't open to the public. Is the business model really that five floors of hotel rooms will be bought out by folks and their kids who will use the water park? I'm really confused. How could he possibly not care if the casino is built? who the heck is going to go there, and stay overnight, in west warwick? please explain. thanks.

oops. guess i should have read the whole thread. Guess i'm not the only one who thinks this is a dumb business model.  

It's no differant than taking the family down to the CT casinos for a couple days (which I've done seceral times and had a blast).  The kids swim in the pool, we eat at the wide choice of restaurants, trek down to Mystic (to get Mystic pizza of course), etc.  People from MA/CT will come here to stay at this place, drive down to Newport for the day, etc.  I can also see this becomming a very popular 'value added' peice of a longer vacation - people visit RI from all over, they might choose to have part of thier stay bre here.

I guess I understand this concept more intimately since I'm in the travel/tourism biz...

[brick]

mental757, on Sep 7 2006, 04:20 PM, said:

It's no differant than taking the family down to the CT casinos for a couple days (which I've done seceral times and had a blast).  The kids swim in the pool, we eat at the wide choice of restaurants, trek down to Mystic (to get Mystic pizza of course), etc.  People from MA/CT will come here to stay at this place, drive down to Newport for the day, etc.  I can also see this becomming a very popular 'value added' peice of a longer vacation - people visit RI from all over, they might choose to have part of thier stay bre here.

I guess I understand this concept more intimately since I'm in the travel/tourism biz...

I really hope it's successful, but what I'm saying is that there is no real need for a closed-off resort in this area.  I understand why they like the spot, but it's not because people are going to go out and support other areas of the state.  It's because it is easy to get to and I suspect because people can quickly get to Rt. 2 crap-o-rama.  I don't think people are really going to go to this place, then pack their kids in the car to come up and flavor Providence's restaurants.  

That's all well and good, but I don't think it's as good news for the area as something like just a regular amusement or water park, which is what we originally thought we were getting.  Hence the disappointment, I think.

[mental757]

brick, on Sep 7 2006, 04:42 PM, said:

That's all well and good, but I don't think it's as good news for the area as something like just a regular amusement or water park, which is what we originally thought we were getting.  Hence the disappointment, I think.

I agree with this statement completely, but I'm still happy they might be coming to RI/WW.  It adds to the portfolio of things for visitors to do in RI and more importantly fills a gaping hole in things to do for families with small children.  I think its great for the big picture, not so much for the individual project as it relates to RI residents...

[runawayjim]

mental757, on Sep 7 2006, 04:53 PM, said:

I agree with this statement completely, but I'm still happy they might be coming to RI/WW.  It adds to the portfolio of things for visitors to do in RI and more importantly fills a gaping hole in things to do for families with small children.  I think its great for the big picture, not so much for the individual project as it relates to RI residents...

it's only another thing for visitors to do in RI if they specifically come to RI and stay there.  otherwise, with their current plan, you can't visit the place without staying there as well.  that totally defeats the purpose of it if you ask me... come enjoy our water park, but you have to stay here in order to do that... but then go to the mediocre chain restaurants on rt 2 for dinner... sounds like a blast.

[Cotuit]

runawayjim, on Sep 7 2006, 05:22 PM, said:

it's only another thing for visitors to do in RI if they specifically come to RI and stay there.  otherwise, with their current plan, you can't visit the place without staying there as well.  that totally defeats the purpose of it if you ask me... come enjoy our water park, but you have to stay here in order to do that... but then go to the mediocre chain restaurants on rt 2 for dinner... sounds like a blast.

Indeed, I'd rather go to the New Hampshire Lakes Region than WW, and I live what, 15 minutes from WW? There's plenty of family activities in the Lakes Region, and you aren't forced to stay in stripmallistan. I really don't see the attraction for a family from say the Cape, or SE CT to travel to WW, even in the winter which is the only time it will actually be unique, to stay here. Don't most families go to Florida, or go skiing?

[runawayjim]

Cotuit, on Sep 7 2006, 05:31 PM, said:

Indeed, I'd rather go to the New Hampshire Lakes Region than WW, and I live what, 15 minutes from WW? There's plenty of family activities in the Lakes Region, and you aren't forced to stay in stripmallistan. I really don't see the attraction for a family from say the Cape, or SE CT to travel to WW, even in the winter which is the only time it will actually be unique, to stay here. Don't most families go to Florida, or go skiing?

some families don't go skiing or go to florida (i really hate florida).  i think as a standalone place where you wouldn't haev to stay, it'd be great.

so what is this family stuff in the lakes region other than the lake?  i'm actually headed back up there again in about a week to go camping in wolfeboro.

[mental757]

it'll be an absolute failure - the investors coming up with the $100 million must be clueless.

This park isn't meant to draw locals - the people in VT/NH feel the same way you feel about this - they don't want to visit something in their backyards either.  Having 2 kids and visited NH at least 10 times (North Conway/storyland/mt. wash./wales tales water park, etc.) with them, let me tell you that stripmallville is exactly what that whole are is (besides a few local resteaurants - which this area of WW/EG has as well).

I'm not trying to convince you to like the project or even think its going to be a success, but believe me when I tell you, this concept is a growing trend in regional vacations/get-a-ways and we should at least be glad they chose RI to invest their money in.

[Cotuit]

runawayjim, on Sep 7 2006, 05:56 PM, said:

some families don't go skiing or go to florida

My family didn't go skiing or go to Florida either when I was a kid, we were too po'. Which, not to cast aspersions about this company but... Having it open only to people staying in the hotel ensures that families from South Providence and Central Falls won't be using this ammenity. I'm just putting that out there.

mental757, on Sep 7 2006, 05:58 PM, said:

the investors coming up with the $100 million must be clueless.

There are plenty of people who have $100million to throw around who are clueless, just because someone's willing to spend a lot of money, doesn't make it fail-proof. Though, I haven't said I think it will fail, just that I wouldn't want to be locked into that, and many of the people I know wouldn't either. And frankly, it makes me sad that there are some people who would be attracted to this type of resort. There's a big wide world out there, and New England has a myriad of experiences to offer residents and visitors. I'm sad to see the all-inclusive resort trend come here.