-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.
Flamingo Land: General Discussion
- Thread starter soundwave96
- Start date
CGM
TS Member
I agree, this makes no sense. Why would you choose to build on an incredibly cramped plot surrounded by residences and other businesses when there's so much space available at North Bay? There's the old Marvel's site which is in a great location overlooking the sea (although it's a bit difficult to access). I don't think much has happened at the Kinderland site either. Then there's Atlantis which looks a right state at the moment with that tacky laser tag thing. I doubt that operation is in it for the long haul and I reckon it wouldn't be too difficult to obtain the lease for the site.
The newly restored open air theatre shows that the council is keen to revitalise that area of the town and that if done properly, it can be a success. It just makes more sense to continue developing North Bay as a hub for attractions. Already there's the theatre, the Watersplash, Peasholm Park, the miniature railway and the Sea Life Centre. Unlike South Bay, there's also plenty of parking spaces at Scalby Mills and if that's not sufficient, there's space for more.
Why not work towards making North Bay a destination resort where a family can realistically spend a day or two? Why have two attraction hubs competing at opposite ends of the town?
I would love for a proper theme park development to happen in Scarborough and I think it's a town with so much unrealised potential. It's one of the few seaside resorts that hasn't been completely stripped of its Victorian charm by tacky amusement arcades and gift shops (although they are still there). However, this development doesn't really excite me and I don't have much confidence that Flamingoland is the organisation to be running it. As others have said, they need to sort out their existing park before they start spreading their wings.
Looking at the concept image on the article, it seems like it will encroach onto the adjacent gardens which would be a shame. Also, by the looks of it, they might be planning on moving Cliffhanger.
Last edited:
Ian
TS Team
- Favourite Ride
- Dizz, Bobby’s Yarn Land
I'm glad you mentioned the gardens to the left CGM. I sincerely hope the plans don't include building on here. It's a recipe for disaster!
Personally I quite like the garden since they smartened it all up a while back. I'm quite fond of it, as it provides a much needed green break from the continual row of shops and arcades which reside the length of the South Bay.
More importantly though, would anyone in their right mind consider trying to build a park in there?! It's practically a cliff face! From an accessibility view it has worse hills than Alton! Not something which is going to bring young families flooding in I imagine. There's a reason South Bay has the funicular railways. But also, how much would it cost to try and create a site for an attraction? It couldn't be cheap, I'm sure of that, and it's just asking for ground movement if you ask me.
Now North Bay on the other hand as you say, has bags of potential flat land! Marvels and Kinderland would seem like ideal sites for such an attraction as after all, it's what they were made for. I wouldn't imagine it being out of this world to even connect the two sites somehow is space became an issue with one. Cable car between the two, and a lower entrance to the Kinderland half by the waterchute for those wanting to walk.
Admittedly, as you mentioned, access for both sites isn't amazing, but in terms of parking for example it's certainly a more favourable solution that South Bay. The only real connection going for it I suppose is the park and ride from out of town (I assume that still drops around the corner?). There's plenty of connections between the two bays though, so getting pedestrians over shouldn't be an issue. At worse, I imagine the park would have to zone parking out towards Scalby and run some form of shuttle service into the park for those not wanting to walk (Marvels half tried this I suppose with the chairlift halfway down the bay).
To me, South Bay is fine. It always seems busy, and its close proximity to the town centre provides enough to keep visitors occupied. North Bay is in dire need of development. Peasholm Park had so much money put into it, as did the outdoor theatre, but ultimately there's still no real pull to the area, aside from SEALIFE, which visitors can get to without even seeing the other two.
The area is an untapped reserve if you ask me, which holds the key to many of Scarborough's current failings in my opinion. If this development was destined for there I'd feel more positive towards the plans (Though I still don't believe Flamingo Land is the right developer for the job).
Personally I quite like the garden since they smartened it all up a while back. I'm quite fond of it, as it provides a much needed green break from the continual row of shops and arcades which reside the length of the South Bay.
More importantly though, would anyone in their right mind consider trying to build a park in there?! It's practically a cliff face! From an accessibility view it has worse hills than Alton! Not something which is going to bring young families flooding in I imagine. There's a reason South Bay has the funicular railways. But also, how much would it cost to try and create a site for an attraction? It couldn't be cheap, I'm sure of that, and it's just asking for ground movement if you ask me.
Now North Bay on the other hand as you say, has bags of potential flat land! Marvels and Kinderland would seem like ideal sites for such an attraction as after all, it's what they were made for. I wouldn't imagine it being out of this world to even connect the two sites somehow is space became an issue with one. Cable car between the two, and a lower entrance to the Kinderland half by the waterchute for those wanting to walk.
Admittedly, as you mentioned, access for both sites isn't amazing, but in terms of parking for example it's certainly a more favourable solution that South Bay. The only real connection going for it I suppose is the park and ride from out of town (I assume that still drops around the corner?). There's plenty of connections between the two bays though, so getting pedestrians over shouldn't be an issue. At worse, I imagine the park would have to zone parking out towards Scalby and run some form of shuttle service into the park for those not wanting to walk (Marvels half tried this I suppose with the chairlift halfway down the bay).
To me, South Bay is fine. It always seems busy, and its close proximity to the town centre provides enough to keep visitors occupied. North Bay is in dire need of development. Peasholm Park had so much money put into it, as did the outdoor theatre, but ultimately there's still no real pull to the area, aside from SEALIFE, which visitors can get to without even seeing the other two.
The area is an untapped reserve if you ask me, which holds the key to many of Scarborough's current failings in my opinion. If this development was destined for there I'd feel more positive towards the plans (Though I still don't believe Flamingo Land is the right developer for the job).
CGM
TS Member
If they wanted to do that, the Marvel's site is surrounded by perfectly good 'nightmare terrain' that is equally steep. Plus it comes without having to ruin what is quite a pleasant public space with a lot of history.You say nightmare terrain. I say potential for amazing coaster.
If it is the case that Cliffhanger is being relocated, I can't help thinking it would look very out of place. It would be the tallest structure in the town by far and it would be practically on Foreshore Road looming over the promenade. I have nothing against tall iconic structures but a second hand 180 ft S&S tower in the middle of Scarborough just seems a little odd.
Sam
TS Member
Daily Torygraph said:Barclays-backed business applies to frack near Flamingo Land in North Yorkshire
Third Energy, which is 97pc owned by a subsidiary of Barclays, says it will seek planning permission to frack at Kirby Misperton
Fracking could take place as soon as next year if approval is granted Photo: Getty Images
A company backed by Barclays bank is seeking planning permission to frack for shale gas near the Flamingo Land theme park in North Yorkshire, under plans that have already drawn criticism from local MP Anne McIntosh.
Fracking could take place as soon as next year if approval is granted to Third Energy, which is 97pc owned by Barclays Natural Resource Investments, the bank's private equity division.
Third Energy took shale rock samples while drilling at the site just outside Kirby Misperton, in Ryedale, last summer.
It has now announced that it will seek permission to hydraulically fracture - or frack - the same well to test how easily the shale gas can be made to flow out of the ground.
Rasik Valand, Third Energy chief executive, said: "Our analysis indicates that there could be a significant new gas reservoir in our North Yorkshire licence area."
The site is less than a mile from Kirby Misperton, a village of about 400 inhabitants that is probably best known as the site of the Flamingo Land zoo and theme park.
The company said it would now conduct an Environmental Risk Assessment and wider public consultation before actually submitting its planning application.
No fracking has taken place in the UK since a ban on the practice was lifted in 2012, but Cuadrilla has applied for permission to frack at two sites in Lancashire.
The British Geological Survey estimates that 1,300 trillion cubic feet of gas lies within the Bowland shale, which stretches from Cheshire to Yorkshire. If 10pc could be extracted it could meet UK needs for 40 years.
Third Energy said its analysis showed the rocks deep below Kirby Misperton were "mainly inter-bedded sandstone and shale" and while gas-bearing they were "not pure shale as found in other parts of the country".
Anne McIntosh, Conservative MP for the Thirsk and Malton constituency which covers the site, raised concerns that tourism to the area could be affected.
"People really will not look kindly on companies coming into Ryedale with their shaft sinkers and traffic movements to hydraulically frack at depth; potentially impacting upon tourism, leaving a legacy of spoilt landscape and ruining the countryside forever," she said.
"Will visitors really want to sit behind hundred of lorries pre construction and taking the contaminated water away after construction?"
Third Energy's proposed fracking site (white area, centre-right) near Kirby Misperton, North Yorkshire. (Pic: Third Energy)
Miss McIntosh, who serves as chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs select committee, said residents would want assurances about how the "huge amounts of water required will come from and how the contaminated water will be disposed of".
A spokesman for Third Energy said it would use a maximum of 4,000 cubic metres of water, the equivalent of two Olympic sized swimming pools, which would be piped in from its existing facility at Knapton. Most of the water would "seep into the ground or be used up in the fracking process" while about 10pc of the water that is returned to the surface - including a "very small" proportion of chemicals - would be trucked away to a treatment centre for processing.
He said there could be about 100 lorries going to and from the site for a one week period while fracking was being set up, five weeks with very few lorry movements, and then about 65 lorries over the course of another week at the end of the process.
The company will pay £100,000 in community benefits if it fracks the well, and 1pc of revenues if it proceeds to producing shale gas.
It said that if the gas field - stretching across most of its 154 square mile exploration block - proved commercially viable, it was "not unreasonable" to assume this could result in production of 1 trillion cubic feet of gas, generating £70 million payments to local communities over 20 years.
Let's hope this goes ahead and the park is accidentally destroyed!
TheMan
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- NemiLerVion
It's ironic that there's all the hullabaloo in California about severe droughts... yet last year the governor decided to allow fracking to continue.
In a word of warning to anyone here who thinks it's a joke subject on a tiny island like ours, you might want to check out how many states are turning down potentially BILLIONS of barrels of oil in favour of banning the practice.
Cameron needs his head read for allowing this.
Ground source heat pumps, air source heat pumps, solar panels etc could counter much of the need for fossil fuels without ruining the landscape of such a beautiful park.... OK.... not the strongest argument
It's a serious issue though. Wont take this off topic any further but this isn't just a case of sticking a drill in the ground, if you live near it, research it, seriously.
In a word of warning to anyone here who thinks it's a joke subject on a tiny island like ours, you might want to check out how many states are turning down potentially BILLIONS of barrels of oil in favour of banning the practice.
Cameron needs his head read for allowing this.
Ground source heat pumps, air source heat pumps, solar panels etc could counter much of the need for fossil fuels without ruining the landscape of such a beautiful park.... OK.... not the strongest argument
It's a serious issue though. Wont take this off topic any further but this isn't just a case of sticking a drill in the ground, if you live near it, research it, seriously.
i know the wooden coaster rumours for Flamingoland comes up every closed season but the lattest rumour going around is they have ordered a Gravity Group family/kids wooden coaster, which will be be a clone or very similar version of Roar-O-Saurus which opened at story land this year. While a small ride, reviews have been good saying the ride packs a punch and has plenty of airtime.
Video on youtube below-
however we been here before with wooden coaster plans so i wouldnt hold out much hope of it actually happening!
Video on youtube below-
however we been here before with wooden coaster plans so i wouldnt hold out much hope of it actually happening!
CGM
TS Member
If there's any truth to this, as a coaster enthusiast it is quite an exciting prospect. However, as a business decision I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense. Flamingoland already have a huge number of kiddie / small family coasters. Currently they have Twistosaurus, Zoooooom!!!!, Dinoroller, Runaway Mine Train and Go Gator. I'm not sure what the point in adding another would be.
I'm not being disparaging towards the layout. Roar-O-Saurus is meant to be a great, fun little coaster that can deliver the thrills of rides many times its size. The thing is, alongside the likes of Kumali and Velocity, this coaster would look like a fairly minor attraction in most people's eyes. It would also have an atrocious throughput completely unsuitable for a park of Flamingoland's size (not that Flamingoland would care).
Of course, it could well turn out to be just a rumour but if not, I'm really not sure what Flamingoland are trying to do here. They're either attempting to pull a Thirteen and fob a small family coaster off as something it isn't or they're adding yet another coaster aimed at kids.
What Flamingoland really needs to do is stop faffing about with aimless, frequent and seemingly random purchases of whatever cheap coaster clone they can get their hands on. They need to save their money and get a decent sized, properly planned custom coaster with a good marketing drive behind it. Kumali will be 10 years old soon and there's not been anything since that's looked like replacing it as the park's signature coaster. The park really needs a new iconic ride.
I'm not being disparaging towards the layout. Roar-O-Saurus is meant to be a great, fun little coaster that can deliver the thrills of rides many times its size. The thing is, alongside the likes of Kumali and Velocity, this coaster would look like a fairly minor attraction in most people's eyes. It would also have an atrocious throughput completely unsuitable for a park of Flamingoland's size (not that Flamingoland would care).
Of course, it could well turn out to be just a rumour but if not, I'm really not sure what Flamingoland are trying to do here. They're either attempting to pull a Thirteen and fob a small family coaster off as something it isn't or they're adding yet another coaster aimed at kids.
What Flamingoland really needs to do is stop faffing about with aimless, frequent and seemingly random purchases of whatever cheap coaster clone they can get their hands on. They need to save their money and get a decent sized, properly planned custom coaster with a good marketing drive behind it. Kumali will be 10 years old soon and there's not been anything since that's looked like replacing it as the park's signature coaster. The park really needs a new iconic ride.
Last edited:
Benzin
TS Member
Based on how much fun Twister at Grona Lund is (and the good reception Roar-O-Saurus has gotten), Flamingoland having a coaster that's actually GOOD is a start for them...
Also such a scale ride is pretty much a family coaster so would be above the multitude of kid based ones they have, but below Kumali, Velocity and Hero most likely in terms of ride stature...
Twister gets 720pph according to RCDB, slightly better than say, Mumbo Jumbo...
Also such a scale ride is pretty much a family coaster so would be above the multitude of kid based ones they have, but below Kumali, Velocity and Hero most likely in terms of ride stature...
Twister gets 720pph according to RCDB, slightly better than say, Mumbo Jumbo...
CGM
TS Member
Like I said, I would be pleased if this coaster were to be built. It would be the first new wooden coaster in the UK since Megafobia and it looks to be a fun layout. From all other perspectives though, it's a bit of a head-scratcher.
For a park like Story Land, a compact, inexpensive family wooden coaster that's small but thrilling makes perfect sense. The same goes for Grona Lund with Gravity Group managing to cram a fantastic coaster into a space where a coaster simply shouldn't fit.
Flamingoland on the other hand has no shortage of space, they already have plenty of family rides and they could definitely afford a larger layout if they managed their investments properly. In some ways, I think it would be a bit of a wasted opportunity. A larger wooden coaster with a custom layout could have much greater long-term benefits for the park.
Throughput wise, I was going on the assumption of a Roar-O-Saurus clone. Whilst I can't quote any throughput figures, Roar-O-Saurus has one train with just 12 seats which doesn't sound like a recipe for fantastic throughput.
Last edited: