Your right Ken, that photo does show Caro as having some growth, especially compared to the opening year of course. However, the trees that are there lie in the perimeter areas in most cases and don't provide as much shade where it's really needed (lines, paths etc.). Pictures of the park from the mid years of the late 80s and 90s are certainly just as telling as the park lost enormous amounts of growth with the removal of the island and log flume. That additional loss of growth was unnecessary in my opinion. Sure, it made things easier for construction but that speaks to my issue with it. Recently, on a trip to Knoebels amusement park, I snapped a picture:
This image shows a tree that was growing in a location where the Carosel building is constructed. They actually built the covering AROUND the tree. This is a clear example of a park (company) that takes the effort to include the natural surroundings in its design. I don't see why the vast removal of trees for construction is necessary in every case and at the least, some effort should be made to return them when construction is complete.
Look at this arial photo:
http://www.virtualbirdseye.com/2008/05/01/cedar-fairs-carowinds-theme-park-aerial-and-birds-eye-views/From this overhead perspective, the trees in Caro look very sparse indeed. Of course, different views are going to vary with angle, time of year, etc. and I think this is an excellent example of that.
My issue with most "large corporate" parks is not that they have zero trees and other foliage in their design, my issue is with the mindset of those making decisions. The idea that trees and other features (water for example and we know what Caro has lost in that department) are a secondary or even remote afterthought to overall design is what bothers me. Comfortable guests make happy guests. Happy guests come to your park more often and spend more money. it's a win-win to use a cliche.
