Why has the UK not embraced indoor theme parks/indoor attractions more?

[Matt N]

Warning in advance: This post ended up far longer than I’d anticipated when I started writing, so I apologise in advance for the sheer length of it, as I know that it’s a lot to take in.

Hi guys. One of the many things that the United Kingdom is arguably infamous for is its weather; here in Britain, it’s quite often either cold, wet or both. So naturally, that would be the sort of climate that would really lend itself to indoor attractions, right? Well, interestingly, I’d argue that Britain has never really embraced indoor theme parks, or even indoor attractions within its outdoor theme parks, to the extent that you might expect, and I’ll admit that that does surprise me a little.

Now, I’m not saying that indoor attractions have never been embraced in Britain by any means. At one time, outdoor theme parks were installing indoor rides in big numbers; enclosed coasters were all the rage in the 80s and 90s, to offer that “British answer to Space Mountain”, and dark rides were also very popular, with numerous parks, even including some smaller names, choosing to install some pretty large-scale ones.

However, this popularity seems to have wavered in more recent years, and many indoor attractions have faced the chopping block as of late; enclosed coasters in particular seem to have suffered a massive fall in prevalence within the UK, with the only ones currently remaining being The Walking Dead at Thorpe Park, Crazy Mouse at Gulliver’s Milton Keynes and Astro Storm at Brean Theme Park. Once popular names such as Raptor Attack, The Black Hole and Space Invader 2 have since been removed (although SI2 did stay within the UK and become the aforementioned Astro Storm), as well as Thunder Mountain at Flamingo Land (a ride I’ll admit I’d never heard of until just now). In terms of dark rides, major attractions like Pirate Adventure at Drayton Manor have also faced the chop in recent years, and one of the more recent dark rides built in the UK, Nemesis Sub-Terra at Alton Towers, only lasted for 3 years. New indoor rides also aren’t being installed at anywhere near the frequency they once were, and not as much as you might expect; the newest major one I can think of is Derren Brown’s Ghost Train at Thorpe Park, which is now 5 years old, and that only came after quite a substantial drought.

An area in which this country has had far less action, however, is in fully indoor theme parks. I’ll admit that this surprises me, for numerous reasons. We have had some, but they either seem to have not been very successful, or been removed in favour of alternative things. I can think of two notable examples of indoor theme parks (well, indoor places with rides) in Britain, both of which are now unfortunately defunct or have been repurposed for alternative uses.

The most notable example I can think of is MetroLand, located within the MetroCentre in Gateshead. If you don’t know much about it and how it was conceived, here’s a really informative documentary courtesy of Expedition Theme Park:

MetroLand is an interesting one, because I arguably think that it shows that indoor theme parks most definitely can work in the UK; despite arguably not having the most groundbreaking attraction lineup, the park still managed to get 1.2 million paying riders each year on its attractions. This made it one of the country’s most visited theme parks, and it maintained this success right through to its closure in 2008. The park was very popular, although it sadly eventually closed in favour of a new cinema as the new owners of the MetroCentre thought that expanding retail would be more viable, and the park had for some reason gained quite a poor reputation by the end of its run. As I say, this park was successful in spite of not having the most ground-breaking of attraction lineups.

The second attraction I’m talking about is the Trocadero Centre in London. In the late 90s, this park added numerous amusement rides and attractions, the most notable of which was the Pepsi Max Drop, an Intamin drop tower which operated from 1997 through to around 2000. In spite of having some rather impressive attractions, the Trocadero Centre never really took off visitor numbers-wise, and as such the rides were removed only a few years after they opened.

In spite of some of the previous indoor successes (MetroLand and the various dark rides and enclosed coasters built in the 80s and 90s), and the factor of climate that indoor attractions in Britain really have going for them, the potential of indoor attractions never seems to have been fully explored in Britain, and I’m not really sure why. Through the lens of indoor theme parks in particular, the only ones that have explored the prospect seem to have met their untimely demise for various different reasons; either because the public did not respond well to them or because the owners of the wider space simply didn’t want a theme park. Nobody really capitalised on MetroLand’s huge success, or at least capitalised on it successfully or fully, which I think is quite sad, as I think an indoor theme park like the Nick Universe parks or Galaxyland that they have stateside could be a tremendous success in Britain, for various reasons. Rather perplexingly, indoor theme parks do not seem to have caught on here in Britain in the way that they did over in the States.

In terms of what the future holds for indoor attractions in Britain; I’m not really 100% sure, although numerous developments are making me cautiously optimistic. Firstly, the Blackpool Central development opening in 2023 looks like one to watch; rides-wise, it only looks to contain the flying theatre, but I think it could potentially represent an exciting foundation for a brilliant indoor theme park if all goes well. The London Resort is also saying that 70% of their attractions will be undercover, which is an incredibly substantial percentage compared with the UK’s other existing theme parks.

So my question to you is; why do you think that the potential of indoor attractions in Britain arguably hasn’t been fully explored, especially in recent years? Why do you think that the ones that have been built have failed, sometimes in spite of their huge success? Why have the big outdoor parks in the country not been expanding their indoor lineup, or why has nobody built Britain’s answer to Nickelodeon Universe? I’d be really keen to hear your thoughts; do you agree with me?

 

[cocoa]

in general I suppose there are not that many (good) indoor themeparks. I mean there's heaps of those barely-bigger-than-arcade kiddy parks around, moreso in hot places like the UAE, but I can probably count notable indoor parks on one hand (ok, maybe two if I had a better memory for the UAE). I'd wager a guess that building a gigantic housing structure is a massive infrastructure cost that is prohibitively difficult for a starting theme park, so many have to sign deals with mall projects in some capacity. And there's only so many of those kind of malls, especially since it seems like the popularity of malls peaked in the 80s/90s and has steadily gone downhill. Outside of gulf arabs and the ocassional russian oligarch, who is throwing around that kind of cash?

I'm with you in theory though- I love indoor theme parks. I have such a soft spot for the weird smells of theme park water and thrills of coasters in cramped spaces. It has a cozy charm that is hard to beat. I would probably froth if someone made an entire indoor park that was explicitly themed to 'being indoors'- ie, the 'canon' of the park is that you are entering a giant cave or something and the themeing follows suit. Think- the interior queue for tokyo's splash mountain, but an entire park. I don't know who could do this, other than disney or universal, but I wish they would... (although I have to say, disney's main enclosed 'park' I can think of is probably the atlantis area at disneysea and while I do love it, it certainly is not themed enough to cover up the fact that you are in a big box).

as always, if someone gave me a billion dollars, I would love to do this. well actually I would probably be too guilty to not spend it charitably... but I can dream...

 

[Howie]

Gotta say, indoor parks don't really float my boat. Not sure why, I just don't dig 'em very much. How many have I been to? Not that many to be fair, I think the only fully indoor park I've been to is the Adventuredome in Vegas and yeah, I pretty much hated it. Very hot & humid, very noisy and echo-y, bit smelly, bit grimy, naff ride selection, just... nah.
The only other notable ones I've been to are the indoor sections at Toverland and Plopsaland which, while significantly better than the Adventuredome, are still only worthy of little more than a cursory inspection when visiting, or to gain access to a particularly good attraction (looking at you, Blitz Bahn ).
I guess it's because, basically, being indoors automatically implies smaller, scaled down, compact.
While it might make good business sense to have an all weather park, or an all weather section of your park that can stay open year round, I can't say that I'd be in a rush to visit any UK based attempt at such a thing. It might sound shallow, but carousels, roller skaters and climbing frames are not what I'm in this hobby for.
Put Shambhala, X2, SteVe or Helix in a building - then we'll talk!

 

[Pokemaniac]

Hmm ... it's a good question! Let's throw around some wild guesses for why indoor parks didn't take off.

1. Cost. All things considered, it's fairly cheap to buy some land off a farmer and a few rides to plonk on it. Building a structure big enough to encompass it all requires a much, much higher upfront investment. This puts it outside the means of most theme park startup investors. Especially if the "some land off a farmer" alternative is an option.
2. Building permissions. The thing with structures large enough to encompass a whole amusement park is that you won't be allowed to build them anywhere. If I've understood the UK bureaucracy correctly, you need several council meetings and public hearings to build any structure larger than a shoe box. Realistically, you will only get permission to build those in areas already zoned for large structures ... which means cities. And at that point, land costs become a big deal as well. Especially if you want a place near public transport, or heavens forbid, a parking lot.
3. Flexibility. Most indoor parks feature a tangle of rides tailored to fit inside the limited space, and often, inside each other. That means a lot of customization, which again, is expensive. You can't just buy any coaster model and plonk it in an idle corner. You may also need to consider acoustics, padding walls and ceilings so the rides don't deafen your guests. Expansion of the park is often out of the question. You can't just dig a new cable ditch to power new infrastructure. And of course, you've got a very literal ceiling that limits the height of rides in your park.
4. Running costs. Okay, you won't need to take weather into account for the rides, but ... you need to take weather into account for the park. The building needs maintenance too, after all. Ventilation is also kind of a big deal, even more so if you have water rides (or moisture will wreak havoc on your structure). Keeping the place at a tolerable temperature requires a bit of trickery too. Heating and cooling systems, running more or less constantly.
5. Fire safety. All kinds of funny standards need to be followed when you do anything under a roof. You need a plan to get the building evacuated in case of fire, preferably within a certain amount of time, and that includes people strapped down on rides when the fire alarm goes off. If I recall correctly, the UK has had a few nasty cases of historic fires in indoor seaside parks, so I imagine the rules are quite strict there.
6. Appeal. I guess this varies from country to country and person to person, but my impression is that a day at a park is "a day out", which means doing outdoor activities in the nice weather. When I've got the day off and the sun is shining, I would rather visit someplace outdoors than spend it inside a big enclosed structure. And when the weather is wet, cold, and nasty, well, I don't feel like leaving the house in the first place. An indoor park may paradoxically be at a disadvantage when it comes to weather, because people would rather be someplace else regardless of how nice or nasty it is.

All in all ... it's costs. It's simply less expensive and more convenient to build an amusement park out in the countryside than shelling out for a massive big structure to contain it. An indoor park might make sense at a place that already gets a lot of footfall, but otherwise, I think there are too many risks for it to be worth it.

 

[MouseAT]

I suspect there's a few things to make indoor attractions difficult to pull off. As already pointed out, buildings large enough to enclose an entire park are going to be expensive and difficult to obtain permission for, and parks in existing locations such as shopping centres need to either be major profit centres in their own right, or bring in enough additional visitors to justify their existence. As Metroland showed, just being profitable isn't enough, if replacing the park with something else might be more profitable for the land owners.

I can't imagine creating stand-alone indoor rides is particularly straightforward, either. When you enclose a ride in a building, you've then got to worry about upkeep and maintenance for both the ride and the building. I can also imagine enclosing some rides making maintenance awkward in the long run. If you plan for it, and have a custom ride, with dedicated access routes for heavy machinery, catwalks and similar features built in, it's probably not too bad. Sticking an off the shelf model like a wildcat in a shed? Perhaps not quite so straightforward.