Disney contemplating smaller regional parks...

[coasterfreak]

We all know that Disney is looking at Australia... but its probably not going to be a 2 day, Resort Park like in the United States... Source

[mikrowave]

Dilluting the brand... again. Great.

[joz]

It's also contemplating smaller, more regional parks in places like South Korea, Singapore and Australia. Those sites wouldn't necessarily be replicas of the "Magic Kingdom" but could be designed to appeal to local residents, said Jay Rasulo, president of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts.

Disney's Australian Adventure? I think this sounds much worse then it is. Realisticly, Disney is number 1, and the smaller reigional parks will probably make number 2. I've had people tell me that they've been to DCA and its the best park they've ever been to. A DCA style park would no doubt thrive in Aus, and could possibly be better recieved then a scaled down Magic Kingdom. I'll hold back judgement until we find out how much smaller they're thinking.

[bigglesworth003]

It doesn't necessarly mean a DCA anyway, they could do a studio's park, or take a whole new concept all togeather, and who knows the sucsess of this sort of regional park could lead to a disneyland being built second to make it into a multi-day destination. but heck, a DCA would be great! still beat's pretty much everythingwe have so far!

[taronga]

I've read on another site about a proposed Disneyland @ Avalon in Victoria. Can anyone find more info?

[Richard]

There is an article here which claims Lindsay Fox (who purchased Luna Park recently) has put in a $115 million bid to build a Disney park in Avalon. Avalon + $115 million. I can't think of a better way to dilute the Disney name. Believe it or not there were more reasons than a selfish government that caused the Melbourne Paramount park to go belly-up. You'd find unsuitable climate to sustain a year-round park would have been up there on the list.

[D.C.]

A nice selection of E-ticket rides would rock.

[Gazza]

Well, Avalon is on the M1, Has an airport, fast rail and is in between Victorias two biggest cities so it could work. I dont think climate is an issue because It snows at Euro Disney but that place is year round.

[bigglesworth003]

^exactly snows at Tokyo as well and they get hurricanes as well

[T-bone]

You know I cannot see this one happening at all. I have the same views as David Fox in that article.

[Richard]

Climate isn't so much an issue but location very much is. Location is affected by climate. In turn tourist numbers are affected by climate. Large-scale Disney parks are designed to be destinations. They have billions of dollars invested to infrastructure that create places where you can spend a week or more with ease. This is how they can survive virtually anywhere. A regional park by its nature would be a single-day affair, and as such not have the extent of supporting infrastructure (hotels, transport systems, shopping districts, etc.) and therefore not be able to attract tourists on its own merits, but rather need to rely on surroundings, as the Gold Coast parks do to attract guests. A properly done Disney park, even a small-scale one would need presumably around 2-3 million guests per year minimum to meet costs. Disneyland Paris is also in France, a country which happens to attract more tourists than any other country in the world. I think if you looked at a breakdown of guests attending in winter, a very significant percentage of these would be English or Japanese speaking tourists, who are visiting France not exclusively for Disney. Disneyland Paris also has the advantage of 17 million residents within a two-hour drive and another 310 million who can fly there in two hours or under. In Australia the entire population is not even 10 per cent that number (let alone those within a feasible travelling distance, be that by plane or car), and we're looking at needing at the very minimum 20-30% of Disneyland Paris' attendance to make this Disney park sustainable. I know I'd sooner spend $2000 on a holiday to Anaheim than $1000 on a holiday to Avalon.

[Gazza]

Here is a Herald Sun article: Disney wishes upon a Jetstar John Masanauskas and Geraldine Mitchell 07sep05 AVALON airport is being considered as a site for a the first Disney World in Australia. US Disney executives inspected Avalon last month as part of a tour of possible Australian sites. Sources said the group, which was entertained by airport owner Linfox, was impressed with the location and the presence of cut-price airline Jetstar. Jetstar flies to Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide from Avalon, and hopes to carry one million passengers through the airport annually by 2008. "A low-cost airline flying around families appealed to Disney," a source said. "This is the site that interests them the most." It is believed other sites looked at were Docklands and Werribee. Avalon airport manager Tim Anderson declined declined to comment. A spokesman for Linfox chief Lindsay Fox also declined to comment. Disney operates theme parks across the world, including in the US, France and Japan. Its latest park opens in Hong Kong next Monday. Treasurer John Brumby said global tourism and leisure companies such as Paramount, Warner Bros and the Walt Disney Corporation were constantly monitoring the Australian market for opportunities. He said the State Government could not comment "at this time". http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/st...55E2862,00.html

In Australia the entire population is not even 10 per cent that number (let alone those within a feasible travelling distance, be that by plane or car), and we're looking at needing at the very minimum 20-30% of Disneyland Paris' attendance to make this Disney park sustainable.

Those sort of Issues would affect a Disney park anywhere in Australia.

Large-scale Disney parks are designed to be destinations. They have billions of dollars invested to infrastructure that create places where you can spend a week or more with ease. This is how they can survive virtually anywhere. A regional park by its nature would be a single-day affair, and as such not have the extent of supporting infrastructure (hotels, transport systems, shopping districts, etc.) and therefore not be able to attract tourists on its own merits, but rather need to rely on surroundings, as the Gold Coast parks do to attract guests.

Well Geelong is just down the road so people could stay there and further on south is the Surf Coast which already is a popular tourist area. The area already has good Infastructure and It wouldnt take much to build a motel or something.

know I'd sooner spend $2000 on a holiday to Anaheim than $1000 on a holiday to Avalon.

I doubt it would cost even half that, I imagine Jetstar would run all manner of packages for people to visit the park which could make things cheaper. Also, what you need to remember is that for some people a domestic holiday would be easier than an overseas one and would sooner spend money on Disney trip to somewhere in Australia rather than going overseas. And people wouldnt just stay in Avalon, they could go to Geelong or Melbourne from there. Or people on Holiday in Melbourne could take a trip down there. Edited September 7, 2005 by Gazza

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

i still think Melbourne is the wrong place for a Disney Park. I honestly think somewhere in NSW would be the best, but thats with a residential bias. Queensland or NSW would be the best possible places, both for climate and existing local and international tourism destinations. Put down to the bear facts, Australia's three biggest destinations are: Sydney - landmarks, icons, and animals Brisbane\Gold Coast - sun, fun, and heavily "Aussie" tourist attractions Melbourne - Shopping Now as an international tourist, if i could choose only two of the three, the loser would be melbourne. As a domestic tourist from another state, the shopping would not be too far from what I would pay at home, so again its still not that much of an attraction. Spreading the tourist attractions so far apart, where there is nothing else in between is just too much. To see everything worth seeing in the US, it might take a year to do it properly. To see everything worth seeing in Australia, im confident that it COULD be done in under 6 months. Bear in mind that the size of our country is very close to that of continental america... they just have so much more to see...

[Midge]

I find it interesting how people from Qld and NSW are quick to shut VIC down as a possible location for a disneyland. You all seem to be an expert on this part of the world. Melbourne was not voted the "Worlds most liveable city" for nothing. It is not suprising that the figures for Int Tourist to VIC is growing faster than any other state. It is a city with considerable sophistication and natural charm, more than Sydney and far more than Brisbane/GC. The is so many attractions, natural & cultural, so close to Melbourne due to the size of VIC that do appeal to Int tourists. Just becuase you don't know about them doesn't mean they are not there. You bag the weather, but have you actually spenty a long period of time here? Our summers are hot like yours, our autumn is usually still hot, out winters are rarely below 15, not that worse from sydney and spring usually in the 20's. One the most popular Australian natural attractions for the Int Tourist, The Great Ocean Road is literally 30 min away from Avalon. The beaches here rival any in NSW and QLD. Melbourne also has Lindsay Fox, one of the richest men in the country and a man intent on getting DL to Avalon. You cannot rely on Governments to do things like this, it will never happen. You have to rely on individuals, extremely wealthy individuals that own airports, like Avalon. Sarcasim aside, tell me this, would you really boycott Disneyland if it were built in Melbourne??

[T-bone]

I know someone who would say YES (many people for that fact), but not me. I love melbourne. The good thing about Canberra is that Melbourne is pretty close to A.C.T, and it has so many good things there. It has kinda been preseverd. However, Sydney is a total mess. They seem to have the attitude of "Hey it's old, bulldoze it, forget about it, and build an Industrial Estate there, just to create more pollution. Don't worry about what is there now, no-one will care if it's gone".

Edited September 7, 2005 by Paul_Hollibone

[taronga]

I'm not a fan of Melbourne but if Disney was built there i'd go. The herald writer must have made a mistake where is says Disney World (instead of land). I don't know why they would list Docklands as a possible site for Disney now. It was the Bracks government that didn't want Paramount.

Edited September 7, 2005 by taronga

[Richard]

It seems to me that it's not necessarily people from NSW or Qld who are disagreeing, but rather those who have been to Disney properties overseas, and know how special they are and how at this stage this doesn't sound promising. It's a $99 flight away. I could really care less about state-patriotism or anything of that nature. I'm just approaching this situation logically. Liveability and viability as a major tourist destination would seem to me to be two different things. I sure as hell would never want to live in Surfers Paradise or Orlando. By that same token I love Melbourne as a city - it's likely that I'll end up living there within the next few years. One thing is for sure, last time I was in Melbourne (May on a business trip), it sure was a great deal colder than it ever gets up in Queensland or even Sydney. Brilliant sunny days but the mercury doesn't get too high. A bit of research just now showed that the average maximum temperature across the winter months is around 14ºC compared with around 21ºC for the Gold Coast. That to me is the difference between comfortable and uncomfortable, especially in an outdoor environment. Disneyland Paris was built in a cold climate, yes. This park also happened to be a financial disaster - and that's with the very dense population of Western Europe. I don't think Australia needs a Disney park. We simply don't have the population to support it, even on a small scale. We're looking at a $115 bid. This is less than the cost of just about every major Disney ride out there. Dreamworld's replacement cost sits at around $250 million. So we're looking at a park that is also worth less than half what Dreamworld is. You can expect it to be no bigger than half the size of Dreamworld - that's without theming and planning expenses. It just doesn't seem like something to get worked up about at this stage, unless someone ups the ante, in which case it shifts from being a poor theme park choice to being a very poor financial choice.

[bigglesworth003]

I don't think the bid was the soul finance for the park, i would imagine disney would fessup money for it and be the major owner, and the only way a park would ever be built here is if the government put in, like with most O.S. Disney Parks. I think Lindsay just wants a share in it andthe get things moving.

[lil' monster]

I have only ever being to Melbourne once and i love it. If a disney land was built in VIC, i would definitely travel there to visit it. However, this would partially be because i have relatives in VIC who i could also see at the same time. I think climate wise, the VIC summers would be better than the QLD summers, but the QLD winters would be better than the VIC winters. I really don't see how climate effects the position of a theme park that much. I wouldn't say i'm not going to Disneyland because it's too cold. I wouldn't really care. But maybe that's just me. If i could put Disneyland anywhere in Australia, i would choose the Gold Coast but this is mainly due to the fact that i live 2 hours away. I also think the Gold Coast is a good location because it already has existing Theme Parks that people visit. If i was an international traveller, i would much rather go to one location to visit 4 theme parks than have to go to 2 seperate locations and having to spend more money on airfares.

[pazzap]

We're looking at a $115 bid. This is less than the cost of just about every major Disney ride out there. Dreamworld's replacement cost sits at around $250 million. So we're looking at a park that is also worth less than half what Dreamworld is. You can expect it to be no bigger than half the size of Dreamworld - that's without theming and planning expenses. It just doesn't seem like something to get worked up about at this stage, unless someone ups the ante, in which case it shifts from being a poor theme park choice to being a very poor financial choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On the news it was stated clearly that the total cost of the park would be about 1.5 BILLION.

[RAVER22]

After living in Melbourne for the six months this year, i would have to say Sydney or Goldcoast. Melbourne is a great place to visit, boring place to live. Unlike the other two where any night people are out and spending cash every night of the week with high tourist numbers. Bar certain parts of the city on saturday nights, its a ghost town most of the week. The only time you see people is at a AFL match or at Crown. (and i lived in Fitzroy st St Kilda) For something like that you have to rely on the high numbers of overseas tourists which they dont get, People go to the Gold coast from all over the world because of the beaches and holiday atmosphere. Tourists go to Sydney for all the icons, the harbour and the electric atmosphere! Melbourne has a few discount shopping strips (Bridge rd, Smith st, Chadstone) and trams. The park would have to placed where the people are, and where the weather is decent all year round. I love cold and snow, but Melbourne is bitterly cold in winter, and rains a heap!

[Richard]

On the news it was stated clearly that the total cost of the park would be about 1.5 BILLION.

Let's start off by saying $1.5 billion is a big number. $1,500,000,000.00. Assuming a per-capita spending of $75 per person per visit (ie a three day stay implies three visits) - I've made this $15 more than at Dreamworld, and an operating margin of 20% - I've made this a bit less than what Dreamworld's margin because there will be higher operation and staffing costs at a Disney-standard park. This means that for every guest we'll say the park will profit $15. Given the higher standard of everything, this is a generous figure. Interest on a $1.5 billion loan will sit at around $100 million per year. Now we're looking at needing over 6.6 million guests a year. That's more than the combined attendance of all of Australia's existing parks. No bank or investor is going to hop aboard this ship.

[Slick]

I'm definitely agreeing with Richo on this one here. Already even if they did say 1.5 Billion, that'd be to the value of an entire new Magic Kingdom, not something that Melbourne would be likely to support. However, what everyone's looking at is the current trend of population, bear in mind that even if this park was approved today to be built somewhere up the east coast it still won't be in operation for say another fifteen years minimum, provided it was a small scale park. And contrary to what other people have said, the south east of Queensland currently does hold the biggest increase in population and tourism for next two decades, in fact, it's been considered to increase to well around fifteen million, and that's just the permanant residences, not just the overall flow of tourism. So when I add this up, I see that a)it's not going to be viable right away in a place like Melbourne b)The weater is going to really effect the total outcome of tourist flow in Avalon regardless of what's there c)even if we see a park down south of this nature, no bank or fund is going to support it and d)The only currently strong tourist areas are central Sydney and the Gold Coast. Now tell me, regardless of "team" spirit, would you spend hundreds of dollars to go into a small, probably overcrowded park with rain toppling over you just because the park has the Disney trademark on it?

[willsy]

Who care. Put it anywhere!

[Flip The Man]

So when I add this up, I see that a)it's not going to be viable right away in a place like Melbourne b)The weater is going to really effect the total outcome of tourist flow in Avalon regardless of what's there c)even if we see a park down south of this nature, no bank or fund is going to support it and d)The only currently strong tourist areas are central Sydney and the Gold Coast. Now tell me, regardless of "team" spirit, would you spend hundreds of dollars to go into a small, probably overcrowded park with rain toppling over you just because the park has the Disney trademark on it?

Maybe it's not viable right away for Melbourne, but think about the future. I have noticed a real climate change here over the last 10 years at least. If you take this into consideration, and the fact it may take 15 years minimum to build an operational Disney park, I really believe it could work. Melbourne sure has some great weather (right now it's perfect outside), and the forecast for the next week is in the 20's. Most people visit Melbourne and experience one day where it rains so they think it is like that all the time. It is not at all true. Don't forget, we haven't even started our hot summer yet, and we average mid to high twenties throughout, plus many 30 - 40 degree days. Rain throughout the summer months are pretty rare, usually a few thunderstorms on those hot summer nights, which I am sure Queensland experience now anyway. I did some quick google searches and found these reports. see http://www.cmis.csiro.au/healthycountry/up...ep05/story7.htm for more information on Melbourne and climate change. see http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/ClimateC...azardsMenu.html for a report and information about Queenslands climate change. From my understanding, there looks to be a predicted increase in average temperatures for Melbourne for the comming years ahead, as well as a clear increase temperatures for the summer months. Queensland looks to be subject to extreme storm surges and Tropical Cyclones. Not one person would be forced to go to a Disney park when it buckets down with rain in Melbourne. The majority of the time, most people are smart enough to travel during the best times of the year (when the probability of rain is much less). There are currently at least 9 months of the year (September through May) where the weather is fine in Melbourne. Yes. it rains, sometimes it rains a lot, but it also rains in Sydney and the Gold Coast in winter too. Just look at the recent floods on the Gold Coast, wasn't Dreamworld effected? I really feel that Melbourne could do well with a good theme park. Most people who live in Perth or Adelaide would sure welcome a plane fare over to Melbourne to experience Disney. Or otherwise, the public could choose to spend their money going to Queensland, and visit 4 different parks at once, which means overall having to spend more money and time traveling. If a family went to Queensland, and go to Disney plus the kids would want to go to other parks as well, imagine the number of days and money required doing all the parks. That same family could fly over to Avalon and spend just a fraction of the time (a good weekend) at Disney without half the hassel of the family going between mutilple parks. Edited October 1, 2005 by Flip The Man