Dreamworld once had a great strategic plan, developed by a man named John Longhurst, who actually cared about the total experience people had visiting the park. People here get two topics totally confused 1) Park layout/functionality and 2) Attractions.
All parks get some [most] attractions "right" and some "wrong". However, whether an attraction proves popular (getting it right) or unpopular (getting it wrong) should not impact upon, or be impacted upon, regards park layout/functionality.
Let me give you one glaring example at DW. Dreamworld once "looked beautiful" and it "flowed naturally" you walked down "Main Street" to the [steam] train station, behind that were the gardens with the Model T's and further down in "Rivertown" was the Paddle-wheeler, it "flowed", it made sense to the senses as it were. Likewise, you could place the TOT/BD, Cyclone, Motorcaster, Buzzsaw and every other attraction with a bit of thought - have all the attractions just think about their location a bit.
Now, you walk down a tacky "Main Street" (can't we call it "Federation Street" or "Australia Parade" - something more unique to us as a nation?) you come to a once nice train station, now in need of some more love and behind that, you have a 2nd rate steel mess and a kids type playground, by a muddy river with nothing on it - WHO IS RUNNING DW???
Have the attractions you now like > but plan where you place them.
Every time that blasted TOT roars through the heart of DW it's like a Super Hornet on heat! Whoever placed it there knows NOTHING about Theme Parks - mind you, under Macquarie Bank, DW was run by accountants
