Does anyone have some recent pictures of the inside of Sandcastle Suites? Like the rooms or anything? Just curious of what the place looks like. Thanks.

RIDE ON!

Walt posted pictures of the newly McDonald's themed SandCastle Suites at the beginning of the season. I'm not sure how to get to the "beta" photo galleries from the main page without a direct link though.

http://www.pointbuzz.com/photos/Gallery.aspx?tag=sandcastle+suites

Walt Schmidt - Co-Publisher, PointBuzz
Twitter

Is there any recent pictures by chance of the inside?

RIDE ON!

Those are recent. Sandcastle's exterior was completely redone this year. That's the new color. It used to be more orange/red.

-Craig-
2008:Magnum XL-200 | 2007:Corkscrew/Magnum XL-200/Maverick
http://www.pointphotography.net/

Yeah, it used to be understated and attractive. Iron Dragon: The hotel. ha ha!!

I believe CPboy wants recent interior pictures. I'm just assuming here - which isn't normally a good thing. But, the interior probably looks the same as the original pictures in the photo gallery on here.

Here are some from tripadvisor:

http://www.tripadvisor.com/ReviewPhotos-g50940-d124673-r8181711-Sandcastle_Suites-Sandusky_Ohio.html

After reading about 6 pages of reviews in tripadvisor.com about Sandcastle, almost no one had anything positive to say about the hotel. I've never stayed there, but is it really that bad? Tripadvisor reviewers gave the property a lot of 1 and 2 ratings, saying some pretty nasty things about it.

I'd rather be in my boat with a drink on the rocks,
than in the drink with a boat on the rocks.

I am actually a member on that site and everyone there is honestly sooo picky or either straight out lies about places. For example some people said that a cockroach and a mouse were in there room. I mean do you guys honestly believe that? And people said that there was trash underneath the bed. Honestly, when you go to a hotel do you look under the bed? NO! I could go on and on about those reviews, it's just rediculous how people embelish or are just plain picky on that site.

RIDE ON!

We stayed at Sandcastle for the first time this last spring. It is a good deal if you have 6 people. The quality of the rooms is good (not poor & not excellent). An analogy perhaps is that they are better than Breakers Bon Aire wing rooms but not up to Breakers Tower standard. They could update the TVs, we had a vintage 1970 style 20" zenith & had to go to the front desk for remote control batteries! But as I said for 6 people (4 kids) and a room in the park, it was worth it. Would I stay there again? Yes, if the Breakers did not suit our needs.

I would say there's nothing wrong with Sandcastle. I stayed there last summer in August for one night and had no problems at all.

We'll miss you MrScott

My whole family went last June and my sister stayed at the Sandcastle Suites. Would you believe that her room was actually ready by 9am?

Season Pass Holder since 1995.
Travel Agent since 2006
Check out my website http://www.amandapembertravel.com

because no one stayed there... JUST PLAYING

RIP MR.SCOTT The ONLY MAYOR OF LIGHTHOUSE

acrossthelake said:
They could update the TVs, we had a vintage 1970 style 20" zenith & had to go to the front desk for remote control batteries!

1.) Most "70's style" tv's did not have remotes.

2.) What did you expect, a remote battery dispenser in your room?

-Tambo

Add your own clever quote here.

Why do they still have 70's TV's anyway?

tambo......In response to:

1.) In this part of Canada, TV's in the 70's had remote controls. I had at least 2 of them.

2.) This comment/question does not deserve a response.

FYI, the point here was that there are some deficiencies in SS rooms, albeit minor. As a rule, hotels update room infrastructure on a regular basis, I would hate to see CP start thinking that because of the "in the park" captive overnight audience, that they would get complacent and let basic ammenities go. SS has a great location, view, pool, tennis courts, etc., hope it stays that way!

Maybe I'm getting fussy in my old age, but at the price of SS rooms (or any other similarily priced rooms), I expect a high degree of accomodation ammenities
*** Edited 9/24/2007 11:55:04 PM UTC by acrossthelake***

If you ask most of the people on this board, the hotels at Cedar Point don't need upgraded because they maintain a high occupancy. So, the theory here is that if it aint broke, do nothing to make it better. I don't particularly agree with that theory, but that's the kind of responses you'll get when you ask why resorts aren't upgraded more often or in a more pleasant manner.

halltd.....could not have said it better myself!

Tim, that was in regards to the design and look of the hotels on the outside. Do we really need to explain this yet again? Really, give things up once in a while.

On the topic of upgrading infrastructure, it really wouldn't be a bad idea to invest in new TVs on the on-Point resort properties. The room that I've stayed in the past two seasons in Towers has a TV that looks like its from the early 90s, maybe even earlier. Wireless in the rooms is something that I'm not completely sure where that stands, but last I knew, there was basically just wireless in the lobbies.

Blue Streak crew 2007
ATL Matterhorn Tri. 2008
Three things you need to fix anything in the universe: duct tape, WD-40, and a hammer. Duct tape if it moves and it shouldn't, WD-40 if it doesn't move and should, and the hammer as the last resort.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. The overwhelming response from my desire to have a nicely designed hotel was that it didn't matter what the hotel looked like because occupancy was so high. Most people said no one looks at the aesthetics of the hotel.

So, why would it be any different with TVs or wireless internet? The argument was...CP has a captive audience and the hotels are booked 100% of the time. So really, why does Cedar Point have to do ANYTHING with the hotels?

What return on investment are they going to see by investing in new TVs or wireless internet that they wouldn't see with a new roof or a prettier exterior?

I don't really see how the argument is any different other than the fact that YOU would like to see new TVs and/or wireless internet but could care less what the exterior of the hotel looks like.