The county's planning and zoning board voted 4-3 against the proposal for the $460 million Skyplex development, which would include a 570-foot polercoaster, called The Skyscraper. The development was planned for the intersection of International Drive and Sand Lake Boulevard, about one mile south of the Universal Orlando Resort.
Universal Orlando was one of the most outspoken opponents of the project, sending representative to argue against it at today's hearing. Universal's representatives said that the project lacked a proper traffic-impact study. They also argued for imposing a height restriction as a condition for allowing the project to go forward, which would prevent the polercoaster from being built as planned. A 570-foot tower located a mile south of Universal Orlando easily could be seen from the Universal property, though it is unclear how much it could be seen from inside the theme parks.
The Skyplex's developers fought back by accusing Universal of bullying.
First slide in @SKYPLEXOrlando rebuttal! pic.twitter.com/jmYEr5sd18
— Richard Bilbao (@RichOBJ) October 15, 2015Ultimately, though, while Skyplex won some support, it was not enough to earn an recommendation for approval. Still, the vote today was advisory, and the proposal goes to the Orange County commission for its vote in December. If the commission votes no, the project, as currently proposed, is dead. But the commission could choose to ignore the planning board's vote and approve the project anyway. One local reporter tweeted that might happen:
.@SKYPLEXOrlando update: Speaking with people after meeting and I hear O.C. staff supports project and that weighs more than the P&Z board.
— Richard Bilbao (@RichOBJ) October 15, 2015Four years ago, the City of Orlando killed a proposed Orlando Thrill Park by denying zoning changes requested by that park's developers. That project would have brought 14 amusement rides to International Drive, including one coaster over 400 feet tall. Orlando Thrill Park's site was even closer to Universal Orlando, near the Wet 'n Wild water park.
Tweet
Anyway I understand Universal. It sucks to be in this part of Orlando but you can't hold back the growth and reshaping of International Drive.
Me: Sand Lake "Road." Boulevard sounds foofie.
Robert: "Four years ago, the City of Orlando killed a proposed Orlando Thrill Park by denying zoning changes requested by that park's developers.
Me: That was due to its proximity to a large residential area.
Robert: "Universal Orlando was one of the most outspoken opponents of the project ..."
Me: Whiners.
A lot of resources are devoted by corporations who can afford it to persuade government officials to have things go their way.
Skyplex didn't have the resources to compete with Universal in this regard but a company like Merlin had the resources on par with Universal to lobby government officials which is why universal left them alone.
Now, add in this thing on top of the others and it gets particularly gruesome.
While the Skyplex is a commercial district in Orange County, the height along with the lighting issues were the primary issues.
The earlier issues for drainage and Sand Lake Road's capacity were addressed.
Another note is this is the only manufacturer for this roller coaster and as the developers have already purchased 7 parcels of land for the construction along with eight Perkins restaurants to quire one of those. So I'm sure they want t start construction ASAP. Note this complex will have a lot of things beyond the coaster in it..Surf Park, Drop Tower, Zip Line and a lot more I'm sure by the time it was done.
Anything higher would require flashing redlights on the top ruining the immersive theme park experience.
As we all know it wasn't till recently years that Universal Studios bought the land that wet and wild sits on.
While that parcel of land (w&w+pkg lot:50 acres) itself is too small for a theme park, if they could add the adjacent skyplex parcel (14 acres) +surrounding land, it would be enough for a smaller 3rd gate (64+acres)along the size of Hong Kong Disneyland (68 acres) or Walt Disney Studios (62 acres) in Paris.
That is of course if they don't make a bid for the 400 acre parcel near the convention centre up for auction in mid Nov
Who is truly impressed each time the next company builds a structure 10 or even 100 feet taller than the last? Maybe it's just my personality, but I think aesthetically speaking, gigantic buildings stacked next to each other like in Las Vegas are kinda appalling. I hate to say it, but at some point it's like guys comparing their cars, private parts, tv's etc. Give me a ride that is fun. Doesn't matter if it's 10 feet off the ground or 1000 feet. I would argue that Space Mountain or Star Tours can arguably be as fun as any ride at Magic Mountain. Plenty of factors change the fun factor, but if you can trick your senses, in the end it's still fun.
In general, this park sounded like a bad idea from the start. Good thing it is not going to exist.
You make some very good points there. I totally agree that Space Mountain and Star Tours are just as fun as the rides at Magic Mountain. (Then again I've never really been to Magic Mountain, but whatever). But I think the reason why so many people strive to build the tallest and biggest roller coaster is because, since they're not backed by a big-name movie studio like Disney or Universal, they don't quite enough funds to build such intricately-themed rides. Sure, every now and then they might be able to build a themed ride, but it'll cost a LOT. And besides, you can't always count on them to be good. Sure you might get a Curse of Darkastle or Voyage To The Iron Reef, but you also might get a Dark Knight Coaster or Empire Of The Penguin. So, instead of relying on heavy theming, these types of parks instead have to rely on a different sort of gimmick, record-breaking coasters. Who has the tallest height, the fastest speed, the craziest inversions, etc. this is mostly just circumspect and theorizing, so I could be wrong, but that's my two cents.
This article has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.
