Jump to content
Matt Kaiser

Six Flags Great Adventure to Become World’s First Solar-Powered Theme Park

Recommended Posts

One of my more minor issues is that when people pull into the parking lot, they see the beautiful skyline that we've seen for so many years, and if we put solar panels in the parking lot, that will cease to exist.

 

On a more important note, why are people so angry about this? Do they realize how many trees have been cut down and replanted in the 42 years that have made the park what it is today?

 

I'm interested to know how many trees have been cut down to make way for the park, because I feel like this solar farm has been blown out of proportion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my more minor issues is that when people pull into the parking lot, they see the beautiful skyline that we've seen for so many years, and if we put solar panels in the parking lot, that will cease to exist.

 

On a more important note, why are people so angry about this? Do they realize how many trees have been cut down and replanted in the 42 years that have made the park what it is today?

 

I'm interested to know how many trees have been cut down to make way for the park, because I feel like this solar farm has been blown out of proportion.

comparing how many trees have been cut down over 42 years doesn't make any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my more minor issues is that when people pull into the parking lot, they see the beautiful skyline that we've seen for so many years, and if we put solar panels in the parking lot, that will cease to exist.

 

On a more important note, why are people so angry about this? Do they realize how many trees have been cut down and replanted in the 42 years that have made the park what it is today?

 

I'm interested to know how many trees have been cut down to make way for the park, because I feel like this solar farm has been blown out of proportion.

Yeah like what YoungPup said, I don't believe that that comparison really makes much sense. Like you said, the skyline going away is just a minor issue. Driving into the park you will still see all the rides along the skyline and even walking into the park. The skyline may not be as nice as it is now, but having a park completely run on renewable energy is a pretty good trade off I would say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah like what YoungPup said, I don't believe that that comparison really makes much sense. Like you said, the skyline going away is just a minor issue. Driving into the park you will still see all the rides along the skyline and even walking into the park. The skyline may not be as nice as it is now, but having a park completely run on renewable energy is a pretty good trade off I would say.

For Those interested, this article regarding the park's construction details how important the trees were relative to the entire project.

1974 Construction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah like what YoungPup said, I don't believe that that comparison really makes much sense. Like you said, the skyline going away is just a minor issue. Driving into the park you will still see all the rides along the skyline and even walking into the park. The skyline may not be as nice as it is now, but having a park completely run on renewable energy is a pretty good trade off I would say.

The park would also look way higher tech with an entire parking lot of solar panels. I don't think most people care about not seeing the skyline when they're parking their car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just what we need, for the park to look "higher tech". It already has been transformed from an enchanted forest to an industrial wasteland.

Where does it look like an industrial wasteland?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where doesn't it? From the moment you pull into the parking lot, instead of seeing the forest you used to see, all the trees have been cut down and all you see is towers of steel and gray warehouses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Unless you are Tarzan and swinging on vines from tree to tree is your means of enjoyment, most humans need those towers of steel to experience such thrills. It is an amusement park not a National Park.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where doesn't it? From the moment you pull into the parking lot, instead of seeing the forest you used to see, all the trees have been cut down and all you see is towers of steel and gray warehouses.

You're holding Great Adventure to some gold standard that no park outside of Disney or Universal could even imagine approaching. Six Flags is a business, and the sole purpose of a business is to make money. They're doing what they need to do and unfortunately it's not 1974 anymore. The park hasn't been as you're expecting for decades.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all irrelavent anyway. Six Flags will eventually win, if the Twp was going to totally rule against it, they already would have. They are prolonging it knowing that the longer the fight goes on, it's more likely that Six Flags will win. It all comes down to who has more money for Lawyer's, and the coalition against it will be running out of donated money soon. In the end, that's all it will come down to, just like most stung-out Court cases do.

Edited by Railer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're holding Great Adventure to some gold standard that no park outside of Disney or Universal could even imagine approaching. Six Flags is a business, and the sole purpose of a business is to make money. They're doing what they need to do and unfortunately it's not 1974 anymore. The park hasn't been as you're expecting for decades.

 

The idea that no park can have trees is ridiculous. That's one thing Great Adventure had over Disney and Universal, it was a park in a forest. It was an exciting atmosphere you could not find in many other parks. Now there are several other parks with wooded atmospheres and Great Adventure has destroyed theirs.

 

It was not something that had to be done. They did not have to cut down every tree within a one hundred foot radius of each ride. Rides built in a forest are much more exciting to ride than rides thrown on cement slabs, or fields of grass. The forest created an amazing atmosphere that was much more enjoyable than the parking lot-with-rides atmosphere the park has now. That's why they built it in a forest, instead of just buying an empty field to build it in.

 

You can have exciting thrill rides in a great atmosphere. You do not have to choose between the two. You do not have to destroy the forest to have exciting rides, in fact they would be much more exciting in a forest.

 

The decisions Six Flags has made that have destroyed the park were not necessary, from destroying the forest to destroying any semblance of theming. They have all just been stupid mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^The park isn't even cutting down the trees where it is visible to everyone in the park. So it will still have all the trees at a guest's point of view, but the plot may be visible from rides. Still I'm not sure if it will affect the overall experience of being in a forest much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This particular destruction may not be visible from the park, but that doesn't make it right. All the trees that have been cut down in the park itself is noticable to guests, and has destroyed the atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This particular destruction may not be visible from the park, but that doesn't make it right. All the trees that have been cut down in the park itself is noticable to guests, and has destroyed the atmosphere.

Of course, it is not right. There are other options that are better (parking lots), but I was just saying that the loss is not visible from someone standing at ground level in the park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get both sides of the argument. Won't be disappointed if it goes either way. Perhaps one day technology will bridge this divide to make everyone happy by integrating some kind of panels into the trees. Think they started the movement with cell phone towers made to look like trees so they blend in with the environment around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really want the park to give a legit reason for why they cannot do this in the parking lot. All they have said is for safety concerns I believe, which makes no sense really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. if they put them in the parking lots they can install cameras under them just like parking garages at malls. people make it seem like covering the parking lot will make security "blind" to any issues that might come up in the lot.

 

Hey if they cover the parking lot that means your car gets to sit in the shade all day and not bake in the sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I like the idea of putting them in the parking lot. It would really be a nasty atmosphere as the first impression of the park.

 

Isn't there any nearby farmland being sold for housing developements that could be used for a solar farm instead? Or perhaps a combination of areas that the public would not see, like employee parking, Admin building, warehouse rooftops, etc..

 

I would hate to see more forest cut down, but I would also hate to see the atmosphere of the park ruined. Maybe they could just wait until they figure out a better plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really want the park to give a legit reason for why they cannot do this in the parking lot. All they have said is for safety concerns I believe, which makes no sense really.

 

They have stated other reasons including using the lot for events and losing parking spaces. I know you were around in this thread for my huge post, but check it out if you haven't. (link below)

 

 

 

Or perhaps a combination of areas that the public would not see, like employee parking, Admin building, warehouse rooftops, etc..

 

Read my post about this here: http://www.greatadventurehistory.com/Forums/index.php?showtopic=4383&p=67789

A few roofs does nothing at this scale.

Edited by Matt Kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they don't want to use the parking lot for part of the farm because it would mean repaving it. :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They have stated other reasons including using the lot for events and losing parking spaces. I know you were around in this thread for my huge post, but check it out if you haven't. (link below)

Can you provide me a link to them saying such things? I don't recall the park ever stating that, just people on this forum.

 

Also, did they ever look into using the unused Safari areas? And if so what were the reasons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^There isn't any un-used safari areas. All old areas that the ride doesn't go through any more are still used daily all year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you provide me a link to them saying such things? I don't recall the park ever stating that, just people on this forum.

 

Also, did they ever look into using the unused Safari areas? And if so what were the reasons?

 

I don't have time to look for it, but it was either in one of the many APP articles or in the many, long planning board meeting notes, which I've read all of.

 

 

EDIT: You're lucky, the latest article APP just posted a few hours ago includes this statement. Also watch the video, as John Fitzgerald also talks about the safety aspect of the parking lot panels.

 

http://www.app.com/story/news/local/redevelopment/2016/03/21/jackson-six-flags-solar-pinelands/82080728/?hootPostID=873c0b16952a64a541f0c83e303159cb

 

The above article included a link to a previous article, which stated:

 

 

 

But on Tuesday Fitzgerald reiterated the reasons he says that idea isn't viable.

"The problem with our parking lot is, it's not as large as people think it is," he said. "It's not even enough, or barely enough, to meet our peak demands."

Additionally, the parking area is used for outdoor concerts and charity events. A major fundraiser for the Susan B. Komen breast cancer charity takes up one third of the parking area, he said.

"We really can't afford to lose any spaces at all because it would impinge on our ability to operate," he said.

"If we were talking about only generating 25 percent of our energy needs, it's a go. But we're trying to do something better for the environment," Fitzgerald said.

"You can't power a park of this size just by working off the roof, or even the parking lot. It's insufficient. So there's a trade-off. We plan on cutting down some trees. And I can understand why that can irk some (who feel) it could be damaging to the habitat and the animals," he said.

"But at the end of the day, we did do our homework. We ensured that we're not damaging the habitats of any of the endangered or threatened species in the area, and we're sure of that."

A bald eagle nest that environmentalists said was in the area is actually 4,000 feet, or about three-quarters of a mile, from the solar site, Fitzgerald said.

In addition, state-mandated buffers and berms will protect streams from runoff, most of which will flow back toward the adjacent safari park, he said.

Edited by Matt Kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...