Kolmarden and TusenFryd are "nice" parks though, M&Ds wasn't.
Yeah, after looking more into it, I can definitely see that M&D's problems weren't caused by a lack of potential visitors, but a lack of execution. From pictures, at least, it looks like it never really had the cash to pull off more than being a permanent stop for a travelling fair. Literally every ride is plonked on the bare pavement, every building apart from the entrance is a booth, and the park entrance gives off a strong vibe of "retail park with a few rides out the back". If there is any landscaping at all apart from some trees being behind fences, it's not visible in the pictures. There is no appearance of effort, at least not visibly. It's almost so one can't help but think what a million pounds' worth of polish and shine could have done to the place. One flat ride on a concrete foundation, with a queue line and operator's booth under a solid roof, a little kiosk on the side in a themed building, and bushes sprinkled around to give it some greenery. Not asking for Disney-level theming, but something like Storm in a Teacup or Vortex at Thorpe would probably have been attainable.
Just look at
Big Apple compared to
Stampbanan at Liseberg. They are approximately the same size coaster, both are travelling coaster models, and probably cost about the same to operate for a year. RCDB doesn't have very good pictures of either, but it's clear that somebody put effort into Stampbanan while the amount of care for Big Apple probably amounted to "assemble the kit over there". Stampbanan has a roof over its station, sits on gravel, and has a few plants among the supports, even some rockwork. Sure, the difference in the budgets of the parks as a whole are light years apart, but it's not like Liseberg is putting any more money into the upkeep of Stampbanan than M&D's could have afforded. We're talking one trip to the garden centre (as far as I can tell there are a half-dozen to choose between within a five-kilometer radius), a wee bit of design work, and a week, tops, of carpentry and paint. It wouldn't have made Big Apple very
good, but it would have made it look a lot nicer.
I think
@Howie summed up the feel of the place pretty well in one word, and I doubt he's the only person to hold that opinion of M&D's appearance. Even given the same location and ride selection, M&D's probably could have been a much better park, more attractive to revisit, if it just looked nicer. I wonder whether it was its business policy, local building regulations, or simply a lack of money that led to the park looking like that, and now I'm genuinely curious as to how expensive or difficult it would have been to drag it out of that state.
