As proposed

The proposal by Larry Osterhoudt would use funds put up by private investors (who view the concept as a money-maker) to rebuild and operate the former iconic attraction, restored to its original untamed specifications that drew crowds for decades to LB's shoreline.

"This isn't about nostalgia," Mr. Osterhoudt said. "It's smart from a business standpoint to restore the historic attraction. It doesn't require tapping taxpayer dollars. It's time-tested in an authentic California seaside location and will attract families and visitors as well as offer multiple synergies and benefits for downtown Long Beach and the entire City."

[Scroll down for further.]

As it was...

Proposed location; Ocean Blvd. is at top, Queen Mary at lower right

As proposed, closer-in

As proposed, viewed from parking structure along Shoreline Dr. looking south

Mr. Osterhoudt says the pier would be 4.5 acres 100% over water (using space not otherwise used.) It would accommodate the original Cyclone Racer plus space for additional attractions, concessions, food, restrooms, etc.

The basic concept gained sufficient public support in 2013 to lead the City Council to request a report "within 30 days with an assessment of the feasibility of Mr. Osterhoudt's proposal to locate a cyclone roller coaster in Long Beach" (7-1; Yes: Garcia, Suja Lowenthal, DeLong, Schipske, Andrews, Austin, Neal; No: Johnson; Absent: O'Donnell)

Sponsor

Sponsor

In January 2014, city management provided the Council with a non-agendized memo outlining the next steps in the planning process and in 2016 directed Keyser Marston Associates to evaluate the project's feasibility. (The same firm, retained by city management, recently found it feasible to "share" (divert) half of LB's hotel room tax on a conceptualized downtown luxury hotel to benefit its developer/operator.)

Keyser Marston's evaluation of the privately funded coaster proposal concluded that the information provided to date by Mr. Osterhoudt didn't show the project's feasibility and listed a number of items it said the City needed to consider in determining project feasibility. It stated that since the project is proposed "on publicly controlled resources (land and water)" and "current plans would utilize a City parking lot to provide the required spaces for the Project" (all public resources), "the City requires economic and financial projections to confirm feasibility." It also stated [that although the project would be privately funded/operated] that at minimum, feasibility would be determined by "Development Team Experience, Market Research, Development Costs and Operating Projections and Evidence of Financing" which hadn't been provided.

It concluded:

To ensure the viability of the Project, the Developer needs to provide evidence of financing for the Project. This would include:

1. Documentation to support the required equity contribution.
2. Documentation (e.g. letter of interest) from a lending institution summarizing their interest in the Project.

As summarized above, the Developer has provided an insufficient level of information for the City to determine the Project is feasible.

Rather than invite Mr. Osterhoudt to provide that information, a May 4, 2018 cover letter from Assistant City Manager Tom Modica included verbiage seemingly designed to close the door on the project. "KMA has found this development opportunity is not feasible," Mr. Modica wrote (although the report actually said some items simply hadn't been provided) and concluded that "the City can no longer pursue this opportunity."

But Mr. Osterhoudt tells LBREPORT.com that he did in fact provide the City with a financial pro forma and has since gathered some of the information enumerated by the consultant and is eager to provide the rest.

Sponsor

On August 28, 2018, Mayor Robert Garcia announced a soon-to-launch "visioning" process for a new Specific Plan for the area south of Ocean Blvd. "[W]e have an opportunity to rethink what and how and where things should go in our waterfront," Mayor Garcia said. In connection with additional visioning regarding possible development of a surface parking lot next to the Arena, Garcia said the process "should be done in a way that is collaborative and that is thoughtful." Mr. Osterhoudt says he and representatives of his investors would very much like to meet with Mayor Garcia and Councilmembers to discuss the project.

Sponsor

Sponsor

California was once home to a number of shoreline roller-coasters (including Santa Monica and Venice) of which only two originals remain in San Diego and Santa Cruz. Both are designated historical landmarks and draw crowds despite the nearby presence of corporate (and costlier) theme parks. Both are considerably smaller than the visually striking Cyclone Racer, which operated within the now-former Pike amusement zone from 1930 to 1968. The City Council voted in 1967 not to renew a 21 year lease for the Cyclone Racer's operator, contending planned development required removing the attraction...although Mr. Osterhourt says modern satellite imaging reveals that the attraction's removal could have been avoided. (Santa Cruz and San Diego both cleaned-up their shoreline areas without destroying their historic centerpiece attractions.)

1930 photo.

The "Pike" amusement area was re-dubbed "Nu-Pike" as it moved east of the coaster onto landfill as waves vanished when the federal breakwater arrived, further dampened by the Port's eastward-sprawling Pier J.

Stripped of its main attraction, the remainder of the Pike (and the surrounding area that fell into disrepair accompanied by less than family-style uses) slowly faded away until its final closure in 1979.

Mr. Osterhoudt has a Cyclone Racer Facebook page at www.facebook.com/cyclone-racer