Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Kent, England | The London Resort | Entertainment Complex

Can we please have a separate "London Resort Will Never Happen" thread so that those of us who want to talk about the developments on the project can do so in peace 😅 - it's a light hearted joke but you must all admit there is a lot of negativity here and it's getting kind of old! Sure projects like this often come to nothing, but sometimes they do happen - Disneyland Paris was 25 years in the making but got there in the end. What's the point in having a debate about what the % probability of this thing happening or not!?

Thanks @Matt N for pulling out the key points there, that "foadarche" is quite something - screenshot below for anyone who didn't follow the link - I think it makes sense to build something striking and distinctive so that people will see it from far away, a bit like the Wembley Arch or the Orbit Tower, but as people have pointed out it won't be any small investment, and the name is... questionable!

Screenshot_20210201-152833_Samsung Internet.jpg
 
I had a look at the site on Google maps earlier and there’s a load of huge electricity pylons currently there, including the biggest in the UK at 190m (you can see it in the background of the above image). Could this “ foadarche“ be something to do with these perhaps? Trying to disguise the pylon to something less intrusive? I can’t see why else they would decide to build something that looks like that...
 
Aa a Swede who really hated Thorpe Park (sorry) I feel like this is one of the few big park projects that actually might have a market. London is the biggest tourist destination in Europe, so I feel there is a huge potential in its location.

Really hope this goes of the ground, I miss some of the US size theme parks in europe.
 
https://www.facebook.com/londonresortcompanyholdings/posts/3463330487099387

" ... We know it causes a lot of angst among some of our fans. But fear not. For years we have been "dubbed" the "UK Disneyland" or "UK's answer to Disneyland". It's been a moniker adopted by many ..."

Wasn't it an earlier incarnation of the resort team that coined the phrase (and before they had been to a Disneyland) or is that just my own angst stewing after all this time?
 
emoo said:
For years we have been "dubbed" the "UK Disneyland" or "UK's answer to Disneyland".
Click to expand...

Yeah, 8 years to be exact. And it's obvious that the UK's answer to Disneyland is and always will be... a f*cken swamp.
A swamp with a big pylon and a couple of rare spiders. That's it. That's the UK's answer to everything these days.
A f*cken swamp.
Brexit? Swamp.
Pandemic? Swamp.
London Resort? Here, have a f*cken swamp.

Swamp.
 
Howie said:
Yeah, 8 years to be exact. And it's obvious that the UK's answer to Disneyland is and always will be... a f*cken swamp.
A swamp with a big pylon and a couple of rare spiders. That's it. That's the UK's answer to everything these days.
A f*cken swamp.
Brexit? Swamp.
Pandemic? Swamp.
London Resort? Here, have a f*cken swamp.

Swamp.
Click to expand...
Easy there Shrek

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk
 
emoo said:
" ... We know it causes a lot of angst among some of our fans. But fear not. For years we have been "dubbed" the "UK Disneyland" or "UK's answer to Disneyland". It's been a moniker adopted by many ..."

Wasn't it an earlier incarnation of the resort team that coined the phrase (and before they had been to a Disneyland) or is that just my own angst stewing after all this time?
Click to expand...
Trust me, I doubt anybody will ever confuse this whatchamacallit for Disney.

But that phrase "We are The London Resort and proud of it" really left me thinking. I mean, when you look at it, it's kind of a crummy name, isn't it?

I'm not a native English speaker, obviously, but the word "Resort" brings to my mind synonyms like "a place where people stay", "travel destination", or even "tourist trap". It's a term describing the function of a place, rather than its identity. When people hear the name "Disneyland Resort", they're not thinking "oh, a Resort! That sounds fun!" That's not the part of the name that sticks in the mind. It just describes its mode of operation. Like "station", "terminal", "outlet", "apartments" or "junction". It's not an indicator of desirability in itself. A resort can be crummy or good, the term is strictly neutral. A "Resort" is nothing special by its own.

And that leaves ... "London". I mean, it's a nice city. I love travelling there. But what makes London desirable for travelers is the stuff you find there. The London Eye. Tower Bridge. Elizabeth Tower. Madame Tussaud's. Double-decker buses. Oxford Street. The view along the Thames. Greenwich observatory. All the stuff in between. There's a lot of London outside the touristy bits, but the touristy bits are the iconic bits. Aside from those, London is just the name of a city. A location.

So "The London Resort" is a name that doesn't sell anything. Doesn't evoke any feelings. Doesn't describe what's there. It's the location of the place, followed by its function. That's it. Try swapping out the words in the name with other cities and the other terms I mentioned. "The Paris Apartments". "The Brussels Junction". "The Rome Outlet". See? Doesn't exactly instill any strong confidence, does it? It's a very "empty" name. Feels clean, but also very corporate and completely lifeless. And obviously, the city is not in the park. It you want the Oxford Street flavour of London, you go to Oxford Street, not to a "resort" at the far outskirts. I doubt anybody would ever think they could find the attractive bits of London inside the resort, rather than outside of it. It needs a better selling point than "We are a resort. It's in London."
 
Howie said:
Yeah, 8 years to be exact. And it's obvious that the UK's answer to Disneyland is and always will be... a f*cken swamp.
A swamp with a big pylon and a couple of rare spiders. That's it. That's the UK's answer to everything these days.
A f*cken swamp.
Brexit? Swamp.
Pandemic? Swamp.
London Resort? Here, have a f*cken swamp.

Swamp.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Disney World is also a literal swamp.
 
Nick13 said:
I had a look at the site on Google maps earlier and there’s a load of huge electricity pylons currently there, including the biggest in the UK at 190m (you can see it in the background of the above image). Could this “ foadarche“ be something to do with these perhaps? Trying to disguise the pylon to something less intrusive? I can’t see why else they would decide to build something that looks like that...
Click to expand...
Yeah that thing is ridiculous; 190m = 623 feet - almost 50% taller than Kingda Ka, so it's fair to say whatever scale of rides they are planning, they'll be dwarfed by the nearby pylon. Still, it's practically a tourist attraction in its own right, and you'll get pretty close to it if arriving by the ferry, so maybe it'll draw some engineering nerds in (speaking as an engineering nerd).

dcxs said:
Aa a Swede who really hated Thorpe Park (sorry)
Click to expand...
No need to apologise for that, especially as you are used to the wonderfully characterful parks you have in your home country, Thorpe must have been a bit of a culture shock!

Pokemaniac said:
But that phrase "We are The London Resort and proud of it" really left me thinking. I mean, when you look at it, it's kind of a crummy name, isn't it?

I'm not a native English speaker, obviously, but the word "Resort" brings to my mind synonyms like "a place where people stay", "travel destination", or even "tourist trap". It's a term describing the function of a place, rather than its identity. When people hear the name "Disneyland Resort", they're not thinking "oh, a Resort! That sounds fun!" That's not the part of the name that sticks in the mind. It just describes its mode of operation. Like "station", "terminal", "outlet", "apartments" or "junction". It's not an indicator of desirability in itself. A resort can be crummy or good, the term is strictly neutral. A "Resort" is nothing special by its own.

And that leaves ... "London". I mean, it's a nice city. I love travelling there. But what makes London desirable for travelers is the stuff you find there. The London Eye. Tower Bridge. Elizabeth Tower. Madame Tussaud's. Double-decker buses. Oxford Street. The view along the Thames. Greenwich observatory. All the stuff in between. There's a lot of London outside the touristy bits, but the touristy bits are the iconic bits. Aside from those, London is just the name of a city. A location.

So "The London Resort" is a name that doesn't sell anything. Doesn't evoke any feelings. Doesn't describe what's there. It's the location of the place, followed by its function. That's it. Try swapping out the words in the name with other cities and the other terms I mentioned. "The Paris Apartments". "The Brussels Junction". "The Rome Outlet". See? Doesn't exactly instill any strong confidence, does it? It's a very "empty" name. Feels clean, but also very corporate and completely lifeless. And obviously, the city is not in the park. It you want the Oxford Street flavour of London, you go to Oxford Street, not to a "resort" at the far outskirts. I doubt anybody would ever think they could find the attractive bits of London inside the resort, rather than outside of it. It needs a better selling point than "We are a resort. It's in London."
Click to expand...
I completely agree, but hopefully that's just the project name and they'll christen it with something more catchy if/when it gets closer to opening (I know all the artwork shows "London Resort" but it's better than writing "TBC").
 
It's a crummy name and like many of our airports not even in London.

They should tell the newspapers to avoid the comparison as they keep using the term (which I am still sure the resort planted themselves).

People who don't know what they are talking about will use the term, imagry of a desirable theme park. Like how flat rides get called rollercoasters and we all collectively headbut the table.

Does any one have a spare snickers?
 
I don't really see an issue with the name, as uninspiring as it is. It should do the job to get the numbers of people they're projecting.

The dictionary definition of "Resort" is "a place that is frequented for holidays or recreation or for a particular purpose" and that seems a perfectly reasonable way to sell this place. Loads of UK holidaymakers book 'resorts' in their millions - whether that be a seaside resort in Spain, Walt Disney World Resort, a ski resort in Switizerland or even Alton Towers Resort.

It's a common phrase that should evoke thoughts of getting away, of activities, of plenty to offer. This is saying, 'we're not just a day out south of the river, we're a destination you'll want to visit and stay at' and I don't think that's a problem for the sort of market they're aiming at.
 
Pokemaniac said:
Trust me, I doubt anybody will ever confuse this whatchamacallit for Disney.

But that phrase "We are The London Resort and proud of it" really left me thinking. I mean, when you look at it, it's kind of a crummy name, isn't it?

I'm not a native English speaker, obviously, but the word "Resort" brings to my mind synonyms like "a place where people stay", "travel destination", or even "tourist trap". It's a term describing the function of a place, rather than its identity. When people hear the name "Disneyland Resort", they're not thinking "oh, a Resort! That sounds fun!" That's not the part of the name that sticks in the mind. It just describes its mode of operation. Like "station", "terminal", "outlet", "apartments" or "junction". It's not an indicator of desirability in itself. A resort can be crummy or good, the term is strictly neutral. A "Resort" is nothing special by its own.

And that leaves ... "London". I mean, it's a nice city. I love travelling there. But what makes London desirable for travelers is the stuff you find there. The London Eye. Tower Bridge. Elizabeth Tower. Madame Tussaud's. Double-decker buses. Oxford Street. The view along the Thames. Greenwich observatory. All the stuff in between. There's a lot of London outside the touristy bits, but the touristy bits are the iconic bits. Aside from those, London is just the name of a city. A location.

So "The London Resort" is a name that doesn't sell anything. Doesn't evoke any feelings. Doesn't describe what's there. It's the location of the place, followed by its function. That's it. Try swapping out the words in the name with other cities and the other terms I mentioned. "The Paris Apartments". "The Brussels Junction". "The Rome Outlet". See? Doesn't exactly instill any strong confidence, does it? It's a very "empty" name. Feels clean, but also very corporate and completely lifeless. And obviously, the city is not in the park. It you want the Oxford Street flavour of London, you go to Oxford Street, not to a "resort" at the far outskirts. I doubt anybody would ever think they could find the attractive bits of London inside the resort, rather than outside of it. It needs a better selling point than "We are a resort. It's in London."
Click to expand...
It could function as a uniting name for the project, with the two parks having slightly more unique names and brands. I guess it’s no different to “Dubai Parks & Resorts”, for example; that’s the uniting name for the entire umbrella of parks, but each different park has its own name and brand. I know that Dubai Parks & Resorts operates in a pretty different manner to how this will, but I think the principle naming-wise is kind of the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top