I don’t have any issue with the design of the hotel apart from the rake on the side.

I wish they licensed WB for the hotel, Abu Dhabi shows that a WB Hotel can be executed well.

I’m sure the hotel will do well and be successful overall but “Hotel V” and the Oxenford site to me is not enough of drawcard to stay away from Surfers.

8 minutes ago, Brendan said:

Proposed hotel versus current site where would the bus parking be moved to ?

7 minutes ago, Brendan said:

Proposed hotel versus current site where would the bus parking be moved to ?

The photo's you posted show the buses.

 

3 minutes ago, Park Addict 93 said:

I’m sure the hotel will do well and be successful overall but “Hotel V” and the Oxenford site to me is not enough of drawcard to stay away from Surfers.

It's a chicken and egg situation, but hopefully keeping people on property past 5pm will encourage more nightlife development. 

A big factor in holiday planning for families can be the dreaded end of day travel. 

When you consider this end of the gold coast can keep a family busy for a solid 3 days and two nights, it has potential -

• Movie World Day
• Dream World Day
• Wet n Wild \ Paradise Country Day (season dependent)
• Top Golf Night
• AOS Night

it won't take much to really make an onsite hotel attractive.

I feel like there isn’t a “WB” logo on the hotel due to Wet n Wild being right next to it. I wouldn’t just say this is a Movie World Hotel, it is a generic hotel serving MW/WnW.

1 hour ago, Brendan said:

The WB hotel opposite the Warner Bros World indoor theme park in Abu Dhabi

I like this new Hotel V, but I do like the WB Hotel better. Not sure I can quite understand how there's an appetite for 600-rooms unless they're really banking on this as a full-time corporate conference hotel over being a theme park hotel.

Hotel V numbers.

I think there is a theme park hotel market, and that's what my fanboy thinks they should lean into. Be the 'Movie World Hotel', your location next to MW is what makes you special. Not being a fairly generic hotel.

 

On the other hand, the rest of me says 'There are no decent hotels anywhere around there. If you make it a theme park hotel you potentially exclude others from staying. If you make it that anyone feels like they can stay there, you've got the only good viable hotel for miles around and you won't lose the Theme Park crowd.'

 

I've tried to book accommodation in that area before (for someone working on a movie at the studios oddly enough) and the accommodation options on the Northern GC are awful. I would strongly suspect there is a lot of demand outside of the theme park holiday crowd. It's not the hotel my fanboy wants to see, but I can kind of see how it's a thing.

Edited October 26, 20223 yr by joz

4 minutes ago, joz said:

It's not the hotel my fanboy wants to see, but I can kind of see how it's a thing.

Absolutely agree with you on every point - the thing is they can cater to both. I know I keep banging on, but it's my most recent experience and it feels relevant (and I'm about halfway through my TR draft so it'll get there eventually) - Far East Hospitality have one of their Village Hotels right opposite Universal in Singapore. The hotel doesn't give off any specific 'kids hotel' or 'theme park hotel' vibes in any of their facilities (except that they have many family \ adjoining rooms) - but the hotel itself catered VERY well to kids and the pool spaces reflected both of these - the sophistication of an adult's only pool with swim up bar, to a lazy river and shallow paddle pool with kiddie slides for the little guys. I'll talk more about it when I get around to posting it, but just felt it relevant to mention that you can do one hotel that can cater (well) to both crowds without excluding the others.

I reckon i'ts really aimed more at people booking functions at the park than it is for day guests. Opens them up to being able to offer bigger packages, book your 500 seat catered function and your guests can stay in the hotel sort of deals. Can't see it being themed or pretty much anything other than corporate hotel. 

Not saying it can't be used for day guests, but there is literally nothing they can package together at the moment that doesn't include transporting people to seaworld resort. Given movie world actually has bigger conference/function facilities than seaworld resort (about double), it's a massive amount of money going out the door. 

Absolutely the lucrative C&E market is primarily the focus of this hotel 

It’s pretty easy to see who the target market is just by looking at the design of the place. It really doesn’t scream family theme park hotel. It just looks like a generic, modern, corporate hotel plonked down at the front of the park (though it is aesthetically pleasing).  

Not sure how well this link is going to work, but saw something come up on my suggested feed regarding MW Hotel proposal:

https://www.facebook.com/WilliamOwenJonesDivision2GoldCoast/posts/pfbid025dUq6QaadMRQUuDjozkQ3y89LbZcxQQq4do3SKz8LyeuDGjyaWFcnB8kcwoBkZpMl

Few comments from surrounding residents not happy about the height, but generally supportive of a hotel. Might see some changes to the initial design yet.

Residents complain about height with multiple structures above 30m already existing within 100m. 

Yep. sounds about the usual. Likely comes from the same people that complained against the proposal for the park to use the vacant land on kopps road for parking because they would lose their dog park.... 

People need to get a life, what's it matter about height. It doesn't really it just come from people who have too much time on there hands.

To me it's the same as noise complaints about the park, I live very near an airport and across the road from a school. I also lived very near a rail line, you don't notice the noise after so long.

Like all developments outside those expected based on surroundings (ie - a house being built in a residential neighbourhood), opportunity should be given for impacted parties to comment on the proposal. 

This doesn't mean you have to agree with their objections (I don't), but to permit a developer unrestrained opportunity to simply do as they please without regard to local planning and sentiment is a slippery slope. 

I feel as though this latest proposal has taken into account several of the previous proposal's flaws - including being so tall so close to the highway. By placing it closer to the park the setback permits the height so its unlikely the council is going to have an issue with it (or at least, as much of an issue). 

7 hours ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

Like all developments outside those expected based on surroundings (ie - a house being built in a residential neighbourhood), opportunity should be given for impacted parties to comment on the proposal. 

I feel as though this latest proposal has taken into account several of the previous proposal's flaws - including being so tall so close to the highway. By placing it closer to the park the setback permits the height so its unlikely the council is going to have an issue with it (or at least, as much of an issue). 

True, I just think people complain about nothing.

And is that what happened to old hotel plan? Never knew, thanks.

Need to keep in mind that a planning application and an application for material change of use are different things. 

One is actually applying to build something, it's tangible. It's going to happen exactly as provided in the application if the council approve the development.

The other is just basically registering intent and wishing to change how the property is being used. In this case, the area is probably designated as car parks, and amusement/theme park with no mention of a hotel or accommodation facilities. So they want to apply to have this changed so they can potentially go ahead with a future development. 

The material use gives them scope of what the property could potentially be used for. They still have to apply for a development application for the building and site works if they ever decide they actually want to build the hotel. 

See the difference? It's not even really a commitment. As we have seen over the past 8 years, anything completely out of your control could happen that would place your immediate future plans on hold. 

@Levithianyou are confusing yourself.  The MCU covers the development application.  In QLD they are not separate applications, so all the Hotel requires is a MCU and building approval.

Edited November 8, 20223 yr by New display name

Nothing related to the topic, but I just had to mention to it. @New display name, (or should I say Skeeta, prefer that name but whatever) love the new profile pic. You have good taste.

I think @Richardwould prefer if I changed it back to ylfateeks.  Ylfateeks was his favourite.

 

 

3 hours ago, New display name said:

I think @Richardwould prefer if I changed it back to ylfateeks.  Ylfateeks was his favourite.

 

 

Ylfateeks? Haha

Well, that was before I started coming here.

New supporting documents and plans released to the public:
Plans.pdfSupporting Documents.pdf

What on earth is this?

25 minutes ago, Guest 239 said:

New supporting documents and plans released to the public:
Plans.pdfSupporting Documents.pdf

What on earth is this?

Pictures.😵 /s

 

It's in the fountain location.

From this picture it looks like they have just put Batwing in the wrong location.

 

 

 

Edited February 21, 20232 yr by New display name

it's like they inserted something to represent batwing, and left it in in the side profile, without realising it was already visible!