Richard

Just using your diagram as a basis, here's the basic point I'm making here. Like your rough sketch, I'm not trying to demonstrate anything with accuracy but rather as a general idea. This first image is WhiteWater World's basic layout as it stands. The blue area represents what was phase one, an area that does and always will contain the bulk of the core facilities and infrastructure. Things like guest services and car park access aren't likely or are unable to be replicated elsewhere in the park with subsequent expansions. The red area represents future expansions; which not only are unlikely to contain these core services, but through what appears to be lack of foresight, are also quite a significant distance away, especially if we look beyond a year or two down the track; as I've said the current expansion plans are definitely well within the infrastructure capabilities of the park, but my initial point was that it highlights that this could very likely become an issue down the track. Sure they can easily add more lockers at the other end of the park, build more food outlets or changing rooms and so on to cater to the increased audience, but the fact is that visitors will enter through the front gate (or most will, for the sake of the inter-park gate), get a locker there and intersperse themselves throughout the park. When lunchtime hits, they're going to come back to this same locker at the front of the park, from there they'll go to the nearest food outlet and then put their wallets back in the same locker. Now, with subsequent expansions of the park, they'll be banking on increased attendance, increased capacity etc., which will only serve to put more and more strain on the existing facilities; it's not reasonable to expect (again, years down the track) people to walk 250+ metres to the other end of the park to pay for renting a locker because those at the front of the park were already full. Now, still not what I'd call 100% ideal given the park's generous land situation, but if we're to assume that the park's current location was the one and only place the park could have been built, here's my basic suggestion. Basically, it puts the park more centrally on the land that will have been earmarked for the park and all subsequent expansions. This way, what are and always will be the core facilities and infrastructure for the park, as explained above, are more or less in a position to always be central to the park. More lockers, changing facilities, etc. can be dotted around the edge of the initial blue oval such that they too are central to the park. I'm not seeing any reason that this kind of initial design would have been unattainable within the same budget, but to me it just would have required a mindset going into the design process that wasn't caught up on getting only phase one correct, but also always keeping in mind the fact that this park can and will need to expand over the years. WhiteWater World's current setup is and was perfect for the short-term future of the park; it's prominently located next to the highway with a lot of big rides up front, it's right up against Dreamworld, and it used what was already flat cleared land. It seems to me that it was a decision dominated by the promotional/advertising possibilities to build the park in this location, overriding the long-term infrastructural requirements of a water park based on sound crowd management principles. Of course, the caveat in my basic design is that it sacrifices the maximum promotional potential of the Pacific Motorway and possibly Dreamworld. Not a big thing, but this park needed to be a success from day one. Publicly listed companies thrive on growth; the issue with theme parks, and this is demonstrated on a much larger scale abroad by companies like Six Flags and Cedar Fair, is that often theme park growth is too slow and long-run oriented to achieve the short-term results needed to positively influence share prices and appease shareholders. Now, the means to achieving strong long term results are typically - especially in this industry - very different to those needed to achieve short term. Therein lies the basic problem, as typically a long-term outlook will result in short-term shortcomings. Park operators like Disney and Universal can afford to absorb these costs, but few others can (and even these guys are starting to lean more towards short term). Back to our specific example here, the position WhiteWater World was put in was basically that it had to be a success from the start. You can understand then why every effort would be put into making it appeal from the beginning, and why it wasn't in the company's interests to approach it from a long term perspective.

I don't think it's a problem without a solution, but it's really not a situation that lends itself to easy steady expansion. You get where I'm coming from with the lateral versus radial expansion, and how the latter is undeniably preferable yeah? This current expansion doesn't pose any significant problems for the short term; my real concerns are five or ten years down the track as I think we face the prospect of seeing the park move solely towards the east. Relocating the car park etc. are all things that if they happen, will happen in the long run. It's safe to say that subsequent expansions of WhiteWater World will head east as it's unutilised land that'll cost significantly less to develop than building into the car park, necessitating new parking facilities and roads elsewhere. My fear in this situation is that we'll see the park lose its 'centre of mass' so to speak. WhiteWater World is currently a very centralised park, and its facilities and design plays to that particular setup. Down the track important infrastructure will not be easily accessible from all areas of the park, which again comes back to my point that during the initial design phase of WWW, such things don't appear to have been appropriately considered or addressed. WhiteWater World has the sound financial backing of a large company; unlike other older water parks around (such as Wet'n'Wild) it wasn't a family investment that didn't have the benefit of being able to plan up front for things in the long run. I think a lot more could have been done in regards to designing a park that lends itself more easily to long-term expansion considering the resources that were readily available (monetary, expertise and of course land).

What I find so crazy is you've taken what was initially a passing comment I made amongst what was a largely positive post about this expansion, and blown the whole issue out of proportion; by misrepresenting me and drawing false conclusions from what I'm saying you leave little choice but for me to come back and elaborate, snowballing into what we see here. Of course my posts are going to be overwhelmingly negative in nature when you choose to highlight and misinterpret a singular negative out of a handful of positive and neutral statements I made. Do you want me to add out of the blue that I'm very much a fan of the innovation that WhiteWater World brought to this country, and that I'm very excited for the competition it has and will continue to create in what has previously been a fairly uninteresting section of the theme park industry? If you're going to take issue with only negative points I make then of course my response is going to be negative. How does Movie World suddenly come into this? Enlighten me. I can assure you I took no offence to your statement, and brought it up as a side-point as it was totally out of place amongst the rest of your post: I honestly don't mean to be offensive or anything champ, but why is this so? You'd honestly say that it was intended as a compliment? And those charged with these responsibilities are appropriated remunerated for their efforts. I know full well that it's by no means an easy job, but you're totally mistaken; by and large I'm saying "that's not the best way of doing things", you're interpreting that as "I can do better", which is not at all what I'm saying. I have always been the first one to sing praises when any park does something that I see as an intelligent or interesting move. And it's by no means infrequent; feel free to delve into my posting history. Perhaps through your overwhelmingly optimistic outlook you've failed to notice such posts, while those that go against your views stick out more. All I keep hearing from you is that I'm anti-Dreamworld (and anti-Movie World now too) and I have an unjust dislike for them and everything they do, as if it proves your points. Without going into the details of my personal finances, I thought for clarity's sake that it would be worthwhile mentioning that financially I stand to gain from the success of Dreamworld/WhiteWater World, so I can assure you I have no vested interest in anything but seeing these parks become more and more successful.

You're making stuff up plain and simple. If you want to come on here and talk ad nauseum about how great Dreamworld is then that's your prerogative. Don't expect the rest of us to do the same, and I can assure you, at least for me personally, that it has absolutely nothing to do with not liking Dreamworld or those in charge. You're viewing all my posts with a preconceived and totally baseless notion; my posting history here speaks for itself. If you want to go off and keep telling yourself that I'm somehow against Dreamworld because I critically evaluate what they do and find that I disagree with a lot of choices that have been made, then that's up to you. I get my fill of expressing unopinionated and overwhelmingly positive commentary about our parks on the 3-4 articles I write a month that appear on the main site. I choose to view things in a more critical manner in the forums, because it's far more interesting than the average "which is your favourite coaster?" sort of drivel. I'm well aware of the long-term plans for the park and land. Now, while you're using this as an example of Dreamworld's forward-thinking and application of long-term strategies for expansion, I'd say it's the exact opposite. WhiteWater World's infrastructure is in place. Without an outlay that would rival the total expense of building the park, I wouldn't hold my breath for any expansion to the north. Call me crazy, but my overall philosophy with business and life is to do things the right way only once. In this case that would include designing a water park in such a way that it could be expanded in such a manner that its central infrastructure remains central, and with . Everyone know that WWW as it debuted a year ago was only a taste of what was and is to come; it was called phase one for a reason. As such, my point is that they built a park that can't expand in two of four directions, and of those remaining two directions, one -- north -- is simply not compatible with the central infrastructure that currently underpins the entire Dreamworld/WhiteWater World precinct and will not change in the foreseeable future; i.e. the time frame in which WhiteWater World is expected to provide the bulk of ROI. You haven't once given any reason for why where they built it was the best and most ideal location for the park in the long run. You haven't acknowledged that expanding laterally is illogical and goes against sound design principles. At no stage did I suggest or insinuate that the park would need to be in close proximity to Dreamworld such that either inhibits the growth of the other. For two parks to have freedom to expand they should actually be reasonably separated. Note that 'Park Hopper' is a trademark of Disney and shouldn't be used to describe similar systems at other parks. The fact that the official websites for these two parks make extensive use of the word with their World Pass and annual passes I find quite disrespectful to Disney. We're straying from the point, but you pulled that 'fact' out of thin air. Again, you're making stuff up. Where did I say anything to that effect? Find any quote by me where I'm not 100% supportive of expanding the product offering at Dreamworld. We've discussed the CityWalk concept in great detail long before you were a member here; read what's been said in the past before coming here and telling me what I think. The concerns I have with the CityWalk plans is that they are lean more towards the whatever else they can think of end of the spectrum. The CityWalk plans have very little to do with expanding the theme park offerings. Are you going to try and tell me that Disney build mini-malls as part of their theme park resorts, complete with a supermarket, household retail outlets etc.? I'm a marketer, and as such I find your criteria to be fundamentally flawed; they ignore the basic principles of marketing. You'll have to expand on the "seven aspects of appropriateness" as this isn't a term I've come across in my years of studying engineering and business. Right, so when will I get the cheque for my consultancy fee? And I assume I'll have an expense account for the necessary consults with engineers, architects, town planners, attorneys and Council officials? It may come as surprise to you that I work full time and don't quite have the time to put together a detailed and properly researched alternative to WhiteWater World. By this way of thinking, a reviewer must produce a better film themselves before they can be critical of a film. I guess all these complaints about Motocoaster being uncomfortable are baseless? After all, no one has designed a better restraint system themselves. Right, so ripping up a car park, relocating entrances and redirecting roads is all in the realm of good planning, yet some pens and grass thwart any and all possibilities for expansion at WnW. You're continually insinuating that I've got some vendetta against Dreamworld its management or its owners, yet you go and say something like this. And "champ"? This isn't high school debating; smarminess doesn't make you sound clever.

I'm not talking about how the park currently is. I'm talking about how it will be given that they have limited themselves to expanding in only one direction. You can harp on about the other two thirds of land that Dreamworld own, but at the end of the day WhiteWater World boxed off in one corner of the land and cannot ever radially expand in a way that promotes adequate flow and distribution of crowds. WhiteWater World phase one as a standalone wasn't bad and made use of the land on offer in a way that creates pretty good flow. It's not perfect, and I agree with a lot of what Gazza says about how it has been underutilised in many ways. My issue is that the park was built such that it borders on two property boundaries and future expansions therefore can only realistically go in one direction -- east. Let's liken the expansion of a theme park to that of a city. Growth in all directions (i.e. radial growth) will mean that the growth is evenly distributed and as such the load is evenly distributed. Can you imagine a city with a freeway heading in one direction, and all development hinging off it? That is exactly the situation we're looking at with WhiteWater World. This design philosophy completely removes flow by taking choice out of the equation. Under a hub-based design with radial expansion, it creates choice which will in turn remove bottlenecks. The only way to handle growth is with options and alternatives. No two people think alike so providing options will spread things evenly throughout. The bulk of Dreamworld's excess land has been earmarked for the Coomera CityWalk plan that was rejected by the Council for being far too inadequate for the projected growth of the region. It was going to basically be a shopping centre; a way to make quick and good money off the land playing to the fact that Macquarie Leisure's strengths do not actually lie in tourism development. WhiteWater World was built where it is because Macquarie want to preserve this option. Sound design practices would have seen it built the other side of Dreamworld with freedom to expand. But at the end of the day they went with what is ultimately the cheapest option that didn't hurt their lucrative non-theme park plans. Here they had already cleared land, needed no significant changes to the existing infrastructure of Dreamworld other than a redesigned car park, and they jumped at it. I'm sure had they built it elsewhere on the property we'd have seen a pricetag of significantly more, but long-term it'd be much more painless. Wet'n'Wild will obviously expand westward as this is the only way they can. They have the freedom to go as far back as they want for almost the entire width of the park. Not sure what you're looking at but AOS borders along the north of WnW and won't really pose any problems for the park's expansion.

Like WnW_Rocks, I'm not sure if I'd go that far; there are dozens of water parks out there that are much bigger and have greater attraction variety. However, it will put pressure on Wet'n'Wild and provide something that is very much an equivalent product offering, hopefully closing the gap and making Wet'n'Wild get serious about maintaining its stronghold on the market. WhiteWater World in its original incarnation was not worth the $42 at all. They're charging full-day prices for something that's not even a half-day product. This expansion to me will balance that all out and bring the park to where it should be. One thing this plan has highlighted for me is the lack of long-term planning that has gone into the park. WhiteWater World is eventually going to become one big sprawling L-shape which will be absolutely dreadful for crowd management if they hope to achieve the sort of attendance that Wet'n'Wild does. They've more or less repeated all the fundamental design flaws that continue to plague Movie World to this day.

Article: WhiteWater World prepares for expansion Friday 16 November 2007 - WhiteWater World Dreamworld has submitted a development application to the Gold Coast City Council outlining plans for a major expansion of WhiteWater World for 2008 featuring five new attractions. Read On... Thanks to skeetafly for the tip-off on this one. It's been a busy few days for news here which always makes things more interesting.

Article: Dreamworld profits up while attendance slips Friday 16 November 2007 - Dreamworld Macquarie Leisure Trust Group's latest results show that Dreamworld is continuing to achieve strong financial results while attendance has taken a slight fall. WhiteWater World continues to perform ahead of expectations as it nears the one year mark. Read On...

There is a school of thought at our parks that the only way to successfully market an attraction is to wait until weeks before it opens and go out full force with it then. I suspect the thinking is that announcing things early might negatively impact intermediate attendance. That said it doesn't seem to be a problem for international year-round parks, as we frequently hear what they are doing months or even years in advance as the case is with Disney. I don't think it has a lot to do with competition. You can be sure that each park has a very good idea of what the other is doing well in advance, and they're not really trying to trump each other as much as we'd like to think. It really comes down to what they believe is an effective marketing strategy. There are exceptions of course. Back in 2001 Cyclone was announced in around May because it was bought from Luna Park. Often we'll also get official information about them through the park's owners rather than through the park's own marketing department (as the case was with Hot Wheels etc.), but it's still not quite the same given that it's not really announced so much as it is quietly revealed under the radar.

The page implies that it'll only be shut for the single day, not that this is the start of an indefinite closure. It falls in line with all the other scheduled annual maintenance that the parks generally always do at this time of year. The peak period doesn't hit until after Christmas so this would just be one last chance for some regular maintenance before the real crowds hit. TOT is and always will be unreliable, and it looks to be getting worse as it ages, but I wouldn't go ringing the alarm bells just yet.

On the point of value, now it totally depends on the time of year you go, but I've never once spent a day at Movie World where I hadn't ridden absolutely everything by about midday. A day at that park consists of reriding. I don't quite understand how Sea World could be considered bad value when it undoubtedly has far more rides/experiences/activities than Movie World or Dreamworld. Compared to parks overseas, I think our parks do lack value considering their size and what they cost to enter. I remember visting Knott's Berry Farm and paying around the AUD$40 mark a few years ago. There was a whole area closed due to construction and several other rides weren't operating because it was the off-season. The park wasn't too crowded yet it was a completely packed day with only a handful of rerides on a few things. Here a day at a theme park is about filling half the day reriding and yet it costs more to do it. Obviously it's an economies of scale situation. Getting back to the point, if you're not into animals fair enough, but that doesn't make the park any less good-value. You might feel in retrospect that your $66 would be better allocated elsewhere, but if you look at what is on offer in the park, there's no question it's the best value park on the Gold Coast. If you're there to enjoy everything on offer then Sea World has more than enough to do in a single day, which is more than you can say about the other parks. If you're looking at value in terms of $$, the best option is by far the Super Pass which gives 14 days unlimited access to all three parks (SW,MW,WnW). You're only paying an extra $35 for the added option of unlimited access and Sea World. Far better than paying the $15 for a second Day at Dreamworld, and a second day at Movie World will set you back $33 anyway and I wouldn't be sure you can get that option if you go with the 2-park Fun Pass (MW/WnW).

What does "fondness" mean exactly? In my view Sea World is the only park that really has consistently remained true to itself while also keeping things fresh. The park hasn't had to sell itself out completely to keep people coming like our other two Gold Coast parks have. The Dreamworld I grew up with is no longer there, Movie World is only really just now coming into itself, yet Sea World has continually grown (perhaps a bit slower than I'd have liked, but that's not relevant) as itself and continued to build on its 30+ year history. I agree that there is so much untapped potential with the park, but I'd disagree completely that it's a product that needs to be defended like there's anything really wrong with it as it currently is. I'd maintain without a shadow of doubt that it's the best value theme park on the Gold Coast and also the most overwhelmingly pleasant to be in. If you enjoy a theme park experience moreso than just going on rides then it's undeniably Australia's best park.

In my view Sea World is the most balanced and highest quality theme park on the Gold Coast. If you're one of these people that must live and breath thrill rides while at a park or it's no good, then you mightn't enjoy it, but if you can appreciate the overall atmosphere and quality of a park, then you definitely shouldn't miss Sea World. I don't think you need to be an "animal person" as such to enjoy it. Surely anyone can enjoy 10-15 minutes watching polar bears play and that sort of thing, and even then there are still heaps of non-animal attractions and shows in the park. It's really nothing like zoos such as Australia Zoo where it's nothing but animals.

It'd be for the board of directors to decide whether his remuneration is deserving. He is in charge of an organisation that reports profits of about $30 million a year, and I'd be confident salaries are in line with other organisations of a similar size. His predecessor was paid around the same mark as well. Fact is, whether people here like it or not, Dreamworld has been very successful in recent years. As I've said before, I'm not convinced their current methods will translate to long-term success as well, but in the past five years or so, looking at it strictly from a business perspective, they've performed well above the industry average. I should clarify skeetafly that WWW is on track to meet its performance targets for the first year. Strictly speaking it's not there yet, but the latest results only cover its first six months of operation, suggesting that it's on track.

I'd start with the financial releases and reports by Macquarie Leisure for the past 18 months or so (dating prior to the water park up until today). The goal for WhiteWater World was an internal rate of return of around 20% per year and reports since the park opened have suggested that the park is meeting expectations.

I'm talking financial independence from the perspective of the cost of building the water park. It's very black and white; Macquarie Leisure financed the park through a combination of its own capital and loans with the expectation that the park itself could meet associated costs. If it couldn't it'd be a bad investment and that'd be the end of it. Of course they're managed and operated by the same team and are very much in unison, but at no stage does Dreamworld's financial situation play a role in the expenses of building the park. As we speak the water park is surviving on its own and meeting its own expenses relating to its construction, and the net effect to Macquarie Leisure is that they are more profitable than they were before it was built, so any cutbacks at Dreamworld simply aren't related. With a second gate they can also be more strategic about future additions such that they can spend less than they ordinarily would need to to keep each park viable if they weren't in close proximity, and they could also make operational cutbacks such as we saw with the closure of Blue Lagoon, but it's not a situation of starving one so the other can grow. Dreamworld's spending patterns have been relatively consistent since Macquarie Leisure purchased the park a decade ago. Any perceived cutbacks at Dreamworld would be strategic moves, unrelated to the finances of the water park.

The purpose of an allocated annual capital expenditure budget is basically to make expenditure consistent from year to year so as to boost the park's short to mid-term prospects. The biggest flaw in the strategy is that the focus seems to be on "what can we build within this budget?", rather than "what do we need to maintain our position in the market, and how can we achieve it financially?". It puts emphasis on the bottom dollar and automatically creates a bias towards creating attractions along these lines. They're not going to come up with a $50 million idea and cut it back to meet their financial requirements. Rather they seem to be going out with their budget and seeing what they can get for it, which seems to go against the basic creative process as I get the feeling that they're backtracking, trying to thematically justify their attraction choices, rather than the other way around. On the other hand, would anyone believe Movie World went out, found the Mack Wild Mouse and then came up with the Scooby-Doo theme? The same goes for Superman Escape, Wild West Falls etc. Back to the budget, it's obviously in place for the purposes of creating year-to-year consistency that bodes well with stock exchange prices and unitholders given that its the Trust's major asset. I can't see it as being a strategy that'll work in the long run against a company like Village Roadshow, who have shown they're not afraid to spend big amounts on rides and upgrades at their parks in the interest of achieving strong results in the long-run. It seems with each passing year Movie World moves further and further ahead. As far as WhiteWater World goes, the $6 million per year capex budget was put in place a few years before WWW was announced, and if you look back over the decade or so that Macquarie Leisure have owned the park, you'll see it's more or less how they've always run the park. WWW was funded by Macquarie Leisure such that it is an independent investment from Dreamworld.

I see it more as a question of Dreamworld's overall strategy with this ride, rather than one asking whether you think the physical ride experience is a good one. In this case, I think it's perfectly alright to vote having not ridden as it's not hard to formulate an opinion, as the actual ride experience would only be one of many aspects. My answer would be that it's really too hard to tell right now. I think it's pretty widely accepted (certainly online) that it misses the mark as a pure thrill ride, but isn't bad if it were targeted exclusively at kids or families, which I believe makes their teen-centric advertising pretty unfocused. To see whether it's truly been a success or not, we'll need to wait six months or so and see how it's impacted Dreamworld's attendance, which up until now has been slightly declining. I've since removed the option to double-vote as this defeats the purpose of a black and white Yes/No poll. If you don't agree 100% with either answer then I'd say choose the closest and elaborate in a post.

Well that was about the dodgiest thing I've ever seen. I think that speaks volumes about the ride.

Nah, that didn't include the water parks and the figures are for each company's combined total, so each of the non-Disney parks are averaging around the 5 million mark (4.3 - 6 million) while, the Disney parks average around 11 million each (8.9 - 16.6 million). Amusement Business release these figures annually so if anyone's interested you should be able to track more down with a few Google searches.

Statistically you'll find that the majority of visitors to Orlando don't visit the other theme parks. Total attendance for all the Walt Disney World parks in 2006 was 45 million. Universal Studios / Islands of Adventure were 11.3 million. Busch Gardens and SeaWorld were just over 10 million. As has been said many times already in this topic, Disney don't compete, they build a superior product and reap the rewards. They use a pricing strategy that rewards longer stays and provide an all-inclusive product that satisfies every one of the customer's wants and needs.

Look, we're not a baby-sitting service here. If you've got an issue with another member take it up with them in private. If you think they've broken our Community Guidelines then contact a staff member. If you're going to disagree with someone then at least have the decency to give reasons and justification for your difference of opinion. Of course people are going to respond negatively if you don't. Let's get back on topic and act like adults here.

Good idea. Copyright posts have been moved to here.

In light of a few technical errors that have cropped up in recent times, the "full sized" view for photos is currently disabled. When you currently click photos they open up using the alternative image viewing system instead of the popup system used up until now. Basically instead of viewing them at the full 1024px wide, they are now only available at 700px. I have opted not to fix this issue as the next incarnation of the site which is due to be rolled out in coming months is built 100% from scratch and such problems won't affect it. For more about the new site see the blog link in my signature.

The park would own the copyright, but there's no justifiable reason for them to pursue such usage in this manner. They got their 15 bucks and it's acting as free publicity (especially given that it's plastered in logos etc. for Movie World). We have no issue with members posting such photos here, and I've never had any indication from any park that it's something they don't approve of. While on the topic I'm sure if someone posted scans of wedding photos on some message boards not too many photographers, despite holding the copyright, would take any legal action. For one it'd be incredibly difficult to prove loss of income, and if anything it's again free publicity for the photographer.