Why Not Multistorey?

[Blizzard]

Bit of an odd topic, but having been looking at some satellite imagery of some theme parks on google earth, you can't help but notice the quite frankly insane amount of space give to car parking. Just endless ground covered in asphalt. It both restricts space for attractions, and is just generally an inefficient way of providing space for cars. Visitors often have to walk long distances to get to & from the park, and traffic management becomes difficult having to patrol a large area.

Disney, Universal and possibly a few other parks have solved this with a simple multi-storey. Disneyland Anaheim removed its old parking lot to make way for California Adventure, and installed a multi-storey parking structure instead.

Wouldn't it be a good idea if more parks adopted this system? Alton especially could do with it. Often its quicker to walk to the park entrance that walk to the monorail & queue. Big parking structure attached to the monorail station. Job Done.

 

[Dar]

I think it comes down to a big flat tarmac slab being cheaper than having to build and kit out a building. I guess it makes sense if a park's got a bit of land that they know they're never going to get permission to build any on rides on, to slap the biggest car park they can on it

 

[DiogoJ42]

I'd guess that planning permission would be refused, at Alton at least.

 

[MakoMania]

It's something that SeaWorld are looking into, especially with the desire to build accommodation on existing parking land. It's just a question of financing the significant money needed for a project like this.

 

[Brad97]

I'd suspect cost would be the main factor. Multi-storey car parks are more expensive to built than a lot of asphalt - I would assume many parks just don't see it to be a worthwhile investment. Planning regulations in Alton's case probably don't help things either. Disney and Universal have a virtually unlimited budget and massive attendances so it makes sense for them to spend the extra money to build them.

 

[Plastic Person]

Owing to space restrictions, they were totally necessary builds at Disney on the West Coast and Universal on the East, but I never really liked them. They always feel like a little bit of an oppressive way to start a day. On the other hand, if the Pleasure Beach need the space for something new, or increased capacity, I wouldn't object.

 

[DiogoJ42]

I suppose if budget was not an issue, the planners probably couldn't object to Alton building an underground multi story...?

 

[Blizzard]

I suppose if budget was not an issue, the planners probably couldn't object to Alton building an underground multi story...?

You could actually just put it on sunken land to lower the height, and use the excavated soil to create banks surrounding it, on which vegetation could be planted. At least that way you don’t feel like your parking in a dungeon. You’d get a good 6 storeys easy without going over tree height. Heck they’ve already used the technique with the hotels, namely splash landings.

Something like this could look nice

I suppose cost is always an issue with these things, but given the millions spent on attractions, it’d be a fraction of that cost to install these.

As for pleasure beach, I agree that would be a higher priority. The capacity is already limited as it is!

 

[DiogoJ42]

Good idea there.

I wasn't even aware BPB had parking of their own?

 

[JackFitzy]

I wasn't even aware BPB had parking of their own?

Under the Big One near the amusement arcades, Ripley's and Pizza Hut. Apparently not too many people know about it, which could be a good thing as it's the size of a thumb tack.

 

[Katy]

Under the Big One near the amusement arcades, Ripley's and Pizza Hut. Apparently not too many people know about it, which could be a good thing as it's the size of a thumb tack.

Plus North car park (by the ticket centre and other side of Bond Street, next to the railway line), also there's a South car park which is next to the BPB train station. Small car park by the Arena too. Plus the parking next to Big Blue (although think this is dedicated to Big Blue these days, on the original planning application it was split between park and hotel). New parking will go in the "junk yard" under Big One's first drop for the new hotel too.

Everything else is council or privately owned e.g. South Beach across the tram tracks and there's a small car park next to the travelodge.

 

[Error]

I'd guess that planning permission would be refused, at Alton at least.

Yeah because they can't build anything higher than shrubbery.

 

[JB1985]

AT could build a big or nemesis style

On a serious note I have always wondered why not? They could surely build one by the monorail building and factor in some sort of shopping / ents complex into one.

 

[rob666]

Cost, pure and simple.
Multi storey usually comes in at double or treble the cost of landscaping and tarmac.

 

[venny]

It’s not just initial capex cost which is higher. Factor in maintenance costs and running costs and it becomes even more unattractive. Surface car parks don’t have lifts to run, stairwells to clean, permanent lighting costs... the list goes on.

 

[IanSR]

Towers can't cope with the number of punters it gets now, and you want to build a multi-storey to increase car parking space? Best add a multi-storey guest services at the same time, it'll need it.

 

[TheBolt]

I'd make a guess you'd need to charge people somewhere between £5.90 and £6.10 per vehicle to cover that sort of maintenance
It currently boils down to the fact they have enough land to meet their plans. Merlin's strategy is based around increasing the revenue per guest, rather than increasing the volume of guests.

 

[Rick]

I think it comes down to a big flat tarmac slab being cheaper than having to build and kit out a building. I guess it makes sense if a park's got a bit of land that they know they're never going to get permission to build any on rides on, to slap the biggest car park they can on it

It's in part down to it being cheaper, but also that a key driver for building a multi-storey is a lack of available space, to build a multi-storey when you don't need to (having oodles of space) would be an odd choice.

Most parks (but not all) have significant space available to them as they were built on relatively inexpensive land, or were established when the value of land was not what it is today.

Parks don't have a need to grow their attraction space exponentially, you typically get to a size where it makes sense to stop growing, because expanding over a wide area eventually becomes problematic - plus, there's no need to keep 'spreading out' because eventually, you will need to replace something old to build something new in your core area.