DaptoFunlandGuy

In my opinion - Dreamworld removing gold coaster is not an option removing motocoaster is not an option Installing any big mega coaster (Flying Dinosaur being just one example here) isn't financially viable. doing something with Trolls \ Kevil makes the most sense and cleans up that end of the park nicely Any further DW expansion should make use of the rocky hollow plot before anyone thinks of cramming more shit at the end of Ocean Parade by venturing into the thunderbolt plot. Ideally rocky hollow development would allow them to connect steel taipan's dead end with giant drop, forming a loop - like thunder river used to have - rather than a dead end and a long walk between the two big thrill rides. WhiteWaterWorld Needs a lazy river Should utilise the shell or thunderbolt plot Install a good slide tower of body slides. Use manufacturers that don't set absurdly low weight limits requiring scales everywhere. Don't remove Fully 6 (at least not yet)

Park still closed = don't agree with you. We have both been in agreement that WWW needs sprucing up and refreshing, the only difference has been the timing. If they are starting to turn their minds towards WWW, perhaps they are pleased with the progress of the dry park. I still think the dry park is short a few key attractions, given how many were gutted from the park in the last 10 years, in reality they have added Sky Voyager, Taipan, Jungle Rush and Flyer, refurbished the vintage cars and upgraded the claw. Does that make up for the loss of TRRR, Buzzsaw, Rocky Hollow, Wipeout and technically Eureka? I'd say it's pretty close - so maybe they are ready to start work on WWW after all?

Who said it was secret?

Which always confused me - people riding a dark ride during a night event makes zero sense.

You just keep expecting them to pay more money on workforce at a time when they're still trying to build the business up, and profits are razor thin. maybe saving money is a good thing right now? At any rate, we've heard your take. ad nauseum, and on repeat. Its safe to assume that the good people at Coast have heard it too - and clearly they don't agree with you - so it'd be super awesome if this topic didn't go the way of the turnstiles and become the meme everyone references every time you yell at a cloud.

Distracted by Drea... ? *Gasp* You think the company's biggest and most profitable asset... is a distraction? 😮 Isn't Dreamworld the prize? Wouldn't shareholders be like... super critical if Coast was devoting all their time into operating a waterpark during off peak and low patronage seasons, purely and foolishly to try and compete with their big competitor down the road, instead of returning Dreamworld back to its full capability? They would? cool. Can someone go back and find that reply where I said i'm happy for them to keep WWW on cruise control while they focus on rebuilding the core product of Dreamworld and once Dreamworld is back on track, then they can focus on their other issues? And then quote it here for him to ignore again? K. thx. P.S. - when you find that - if you could happen to find all the other people also saying the same thing, while this guy is the sole voice of opposition, feel free to quote those other people too.

You could argue that, but it still wouldn't be tourism any more than your trip to Costco Coomera is. All of the recent replies have been specific to residential highrise development. Your own words were that we needed highrise residential accommodation more than we needed koalas. As you'll see if you re-read, i'm supportive of leisure and tourism developments that will preserve large habitats, and I don't support residential construction of any density within the bounds of the dreamworld land holdings... So, while we're nitpicking - and to be clear (as you said yourself) - you have skin in the game and you stand to financially benefit from killing Koalas. That tells me all I need to know.

How does highrise residential housing contribute to increased tourism?

Oh, darn! I'm afraid I left those in my other sock. I'm sure the park has them though and has made an informed decision on costs to operate vs. opportunity to make a buck. Oh look! we've gone full circle again!

If you'll read further back in this discussion you'll note i've made similar observations. I am all for leisure and tourism development of this space - and I feel as though leisure and tourism would be able to work more closely with the natural environment and potentially leave large amounts of habitat untouched. Residential high rises on the other hand aren't likely to be able to make the same accommodations. Skeet and I don't often agree but on this occasion - absolutely spot on. Replace existing low-density developments with higher density developments, rather than bulldozing the habitat of an endangered species. Why do we have such a costly and long drawn out process otherwise? is it because calling in circumvents local consideration? is it because big business and big politics can do backroom deals that smooth the way and overcome the opportunity for local representatives to stand for what their constituents elected them for? Maybe we just get rid of all local government and let the states decide what is best for everyone? I'm sure that'll go down well for the regional areas.

oh, sorry (not sorry) - I thought you were holding out the fact that the Big Banana was open despite the larger waterpark just down the road also being open as being demonstrative of there being sufficient demand to have two waterparks open in periods where most people are still in school or at work. So it turns out they don't have a bigger, better waterpark down the road that is directly competing for the off-peak patronage - and so they are likely to catch any and all people looking for a waterslide and pool facility - they have a captive audience, which is not the same situation on the northern gold coast, and so your mentioning of the fact that Big Banana was open mid-week was entirely irrelevant to the discussion and is just another strawman in your land of Oz...

On the contrary, the Koalas were there first... why don't people just not live on the northern GC? plenty of other non koala habitat areas to build in? Saying 'we need houses more than those (officially listed as Endangered species in Queensland since 2022) koalas' doesn't pass the sniff test. I'm all for leisure and tourism development on this plot, especially where they can preserve habitats, and work in partnership with the wildlife team - but i'm not supportive of development for residential towers that are all about maximising the available build space to fit as many units in as possible. (also I can't read the article because I don't believe in giving money to GCB - a copy pasta would be great)

What about the other, bigger, better waterpark just down the road from them?

You're a very unintelligent person.

Once again putting words into my mouth. I explicitly called it out - school is in session, nobody is on holidays. December would be a very different story. But you knew that.