Stage 3 is go go go

[New display name]

I have just found out that WWW is expanding at the end of next year. All I am willing to say is the new car park behind WWW is going to be no more. WWW will double in size. Look out WetnWild here they come. From what I can make out there will be eight new attractions.

[MickeyD]

That's a pretty impressive expansion.. Where did you hear this news? Or is it just a rumur?

[New display name]

I am sending my information to Richard and maybe he will do a report up about it. If I know Richard he already has a report ready to go.

[mickey_079]

If true, Impressive. Makes me nervous for Wet 'n' Wild though. What could we expect from the expansion, more high tech world firsts or just your everyday slides, perhaps a dark mammoth? Hey they could even go with another Intamin ride and watch it go downhill when they install it (surfrider and motocoaster). Sorry I had to say that, Intamin rocks though

[Richard]

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.

[Gazza]

You can view the DA online here: http://pdonline.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/maste...&key=140733 the "Part 3" pdf is the one you want to look at. From what we can see, one of the dark mammoth slides will be enclosed and have a twisting and compact run to the splash pool, the other is one that goes between open air plunges and enclosed u turns. The tornado alley is just 2 mini tornados with a tight U turn between them, and you'd ride it in a whirly wheel. The two mammoths share a raft lift, and the tornado alley has a dedicated one. The lazy river looks better than WnWs with multiple routes, such as a river cove, what appears to be rapids, fountains, a separate wave channel, a kids shallow area, and the normal lazy river. There's an elevated platform over the shallow area. We've got a 3rd kids area coming, with a tiny triangular play structure (the smallest one in White Water West's catalogue, i think its the "AP50". There are a few floating animals, and about 3 of those 'rope crossings" where there are floating oam stepping stones, and netting above to hang onto: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Water_P...of_America9.JPG .

Edited November 16, 2007 by Gazza

[T-bone]

Sorry, am I the only one not able to see the Development Plan mentioned above?

[Gazza]

In that case, from that page, agree to the terms, on the next page in the left column, click search by applicant, and then search for Macquarie, from those results pick Macquarie leisure, and that will take you to their page of current applications, 'extensions to theme park' is their most recent one.

Edited November 16, 2007 by Gazza

[New display name]

You did a good job on the news article Richard. It’s not that often that you could get this type of information from the Gold Coast Council web site. The Gold Coast council do not do much certification these days they are mainly just interested in the bigger jobs, relaxation, Material Change Of Use or jobs that outside the scope of the town plan. It was interesting to read through the application to see Dreamworld have lodge there application under the old council (Albert Council) town plan and not the Gold Coast Council town plan. From what I have read is if Dreamworld application went under the Gold Coast Town Plan then it would not be approved due to the height factor. Under the Albert Council there was a provision for theme parks (Theme Park Town Plan). At the time Dreamworld was first built I believe it would have been part of the Albert Shire Council before the amalgamation. If an application falls inline with the town plan then is would be assessed by a private certifier and we would not find out any information on the application till after the application has been approved and built. The only other information I could see about other parks is Movie World has an application to extend a footpath. Sea World has an application for a Material Change of Use. If any other parks where currently planing anything there application could be with private certifiers.

[GoGoBoy]

This is absolutely huge. If this goes ahead (and I'm hoping it does without Macq Leisure taking bits out of it to save money) then we will end up with one of the best water parks in the world in my opinion. Love the idea of the mammoths and it will also be great to experience a tornado alley slide. Best of all is the fact that all of these attractions including the lazy river will have longer ride times compared to WWW's existing attractions. This is much needed and very exciting. I just have a few questions though. Is Macquarie Leisure likely to be very happy about the release of this information and will this have any impact on the development? I know it is available to the public but it just seems strange as we've never seen this much detail for a new attraction before so far away from the opening date. I'm also wondering why they are choosing to open the new area all at once rather than stagger the introduction of each new attraction from year to year

Edited November 16, 2007 by GoGoBoy

[Churros]

That looks unreal! The new slide tower looks really impressive. I just have a couple of questions though, how does that lazy river work? Can you kind of pick which direction you take or what's the deal? Also, the food banquet thing, 328, is that going to be attached to the function centre? Man, I hope they put this much effort into their future Dreamworld expansions.

[Dylaan]

The Tornado Alley looks pretty sweet, short, but should be great! The mammoths look insane too! Hopefully one's enclosed and one isn't. Having two identical slides is a waste IMO. I dunno if it'd become the best waterpark in the world, but it'd sure come close... And what better place to have it?

Man, I hope they put this much effort into their future Dreamworld expansions.

Well I guess this justifies things on Dreamworld's part, but I reckon WhiteWater World will get the funding to keep up competition. Heaps of my friends from school have said when they overhear us talking about WWW, "It's crap, don't go there you get bored too quickly." They also think of Dreamworld being way better than Movieworld though, so I guess it doesn't count, but that's the general public for you.

[GoGoBoy]

Heaps of my friends from school have said when they overhear us talking about WWW, "It's crap, don't go there you get bored too quickly."

Then I guess that exact sentiment answers the question of why Macquarie Leisure want to go ahead with such a large expansion in one hit. Before the park develops a reputation for being small. Because once that happens they will have trouble shifting it, just as Movie World has. Although contrary to my initial understanding, it looks like the entire expansion may not all open up at once. I read a statement in one of the development application papers which mentions that while they would like to open the expansion in late 2008 and initially most of the rides will open, some rides may open in subsequent years for 'marketing purposes' Edited November 16, 2007 by GoGoBoy

[Richard]

If this goes ahead (and I'm hoping it does without Macq Leisure taking bits out of it to save money) then we will end up with one of the best water parks in the world in my opinion.

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.

[Churros]

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.

I'm not sure what you mean Richard. In each of the bottlenecks there is more than one traffic flow area. Not to mention the fact that this moves a greater deal of attractions closer to the duel access point. I mean, look at Wet'n'Wild and you have one pathway leading to the bulk of their most recent additions. And with regards to planning, apart from the paths heading west there is no indication of how future expansions will go. Keep in mind you have to plan with respect to what is on offer as well.

[Gazza]

By crowd management, you are also talking about how evenly guests are distributed around the park, in the mornings you can guarantee the new section will be dead, Supertubes and Green Room will pick up a lot of the crowds coming in the gate because of their sheer size, location and pulling power, Pipeline plunge will pick up a few because it sticks out, Rip and BRO will pick up less (I mean when i was at WWW i hit GR and STHC first thing, and when i made my way to the rip after i was still among the first riders) Temple of huey is out of the way, so its going to be dead, so naturally the attractions beyond this in the other section of the park are also just going to be dead because its out of the way and out of view, the lazy river in particular because you wouldn't be able to see it at all. Richo is absolutley right, for what the park has and where it needs to be going its not a very good layout. there is one thing I hate at a theme park, and it's the feeling that you are just walking in one big long curve, and everything is in a line so all day you end up back tracking up and down the park, WL did this, and WWW is doing it again. AS i have said in the past, everything is far apart for no paticular reason, and there is a lot of wasted space which they cant afford to have. They are competing with a park down the road which will basically never have space problems, but here they are using no obvious logic in the way they are doing things. Dont get me wrong, the park has great rides, but 10 years from now, what can they do? (and that isn't a rhetorical question, im interested in hearing answers to that one) Already you can tell it will be difficult.

here are dozens of water parks out there that are much bigger and have greater attraction variety

Not to mention having theming. EDIT: I quickly cobbled together an "open source" map of WWW, and have put in all current buildings and rides, and the park boundary, but I deliberately left out the paths and gardens to illustrate what I'm saying, everything is too far apart and there aren't enough rides for what space they have. Edited November 17, 2007 by Gazza

[GoGoBoy]

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.

Hey stop bringing me down off my high Well I wasn't saying it is going to be the best waterpark in the world but I certainly think it will be up there among some of the best. Once this expansion is completed we will have a park which virtually has one of every item in ProSlide's ride inventory (and certainly all of the best ones). As a big ProSlide fan myself, that makes for a very appealing waterpark. Oh and I forgot to mention before I am just so pleased they have come to their senses and are adding a lazy river... and by the looks of it quite a decent one too

[Churros]

By crowd management, you are also talking about how evenly guests are distributed around the park, in the mornings you can guarantee the new section will be dead, Supertubes and Green Room will pick up a lot of the crowds coming in the gate because of their sheer size, location and pulling power, Pipeline plunge will pick up a few because it sticks out, Rip and BRO will pick up less (I mean when i was at WWW i hit GR and STHC first thing, and when i made my way to the rip after i was still among the first riders) Temple of huey is out of the way, so its going to be dead, so naturally the attractions beyond this in the other section of the park are also just going to be dead because its out of the way and out of view, the lazy river in particular because you wouldn't be able to see it at all.

Nah, that's rubbish. I have been on really busy days and by about 11 everything is packed. If people walk into the park and see that the Green Room and Supertubes are packed they will keep walking and see what else is on offer. Not to mention the fact that the front entrance is not the only entrance to the park. What you are forgetting is that WhiteWater World is not a lone park. The connectedness of it to Dreamworld and mobility for those who choose this option between parks makes this park different from others. If you were to genuinely subscribe to this theory, no one would even start lining up for Tornado until after lunch.

Richo is absolutley right, for what the park has and where it needs to be going its not a very good layout. there is one thing I hate at a theme park, and it's the feeling that you are just walking in one big long curve, and everything is in a line so all day you end up back tracking up and down the park, WL did this, and WWW is doing it again. AS i have said in the past, everything is far apart for no paticular reason, and there is a lot of wasted space which they cant afford to have.

I think you're confused mate, one minute you want even distribution and the next you are saying they have wasted space.

They are competing with a park down the road which will basically never have space problems, but here they are using no obvious logic in the way they are doing things. Dont get me wrong, the park has great rides, but 10 years from now, what can they do? (and that isn't a rhetorical question, im interested in hearing answers to that one) Already you can tell it will be difficult.

Well, I think this shows your naivity to the situation. While Australian Outback Spectacular runs (which it will for some time - it rakes it in) Wet'n'Wild essentially cannot expand out the back any further, nor can it head north. As for WhiteWater World... I must ask what you are actually asking here. Is your question, how will they expand? Or in terms of what future attractions they can install? Here's your answers for both. Expansion: Dreamworld and MLE have a few key things that will occur in the next ten years that will dictate the changes they make. The first is the eventual departure of Big Brother. Removing the house, and amphitheatre will allow Dreamworld to recreate the entrance of the park, or at the very least improved parking in that area. This would allow WhiteWater World to expand into the existing car park. In case you are no aware, the current Dreamworld/WhiteWater World sight only occupies roughly a third of the total land MLE owns in this area. So don't go saying they have issues with space. The second is the creation of the commercial area adjacent to the train line, and the future creation of a hotel/resort type model. Richard was harping on earlier about the 'Disney Product'. Expect one day for MLE to adopt a similar model whereby visitors can attend the resort, major themepark and waterpark all for a package price. This makes the parkhopper facility so much more important. Not to mention the way in which guests will enter both parks from different locations. What you have to realise is that MLE is in no hurry to move on some of these plans as Coomera the eastern side of Coomera is still in some of its earlier phases of development. Why go nuts and make all your moves before the game is even being played. We all go they are making quick bucks now, but in essence the future of their product is dependent on the future of Coomera. Installations: I hope to dear God you are not implying that WhiteWater World will run out of options in the next ten years just because they are on the edge of contemporary water rides at this point in time. All this means is that unlike the dry parks in our area, Australia will not be ten years behind the rest of the world. There will always be attractions to install.

[Gazza]

Not to mention the fact that the front entrance is not the only entrance to the park. What you are forgetting is that WhiteWater World is not a lone park. The connectedness of it to Dreamworld and mobility for those who choose this option between parks makes this park different from others.

So you're saying people will enter DW at 10am, and then straight away go to ocean parade and enter WWW

If you were to genuinely subscribe to this theory, no one would even start lining up for Tornado until after lunch.

But extreme H20 has the advantage of having big, popular rides that stick out.

I think you're confused mate, one minute you want even distribution and the next you are saying they have wasted space

Whoops, forgot to start a new paragraph, its edited now.

Well, I think this shows your naivity to the situation. While Australian Outback Spectacular runs (which it will for some time - it rakes it in) Wet'n'Wild essentially cannot expand out the back any further, nor can it head north.

Though the extreme H20 area has suffient spaces within that area alone for plenty of expansion, the hills on park land at the south west part of the park are also perfect for slides to be built down. In any case, nowhere near as bad as the situation WWW are in. After this new phase any new expansions will require renovation/demolition of something. Thats the key difference, you're saying they can expand on a (newly built) car park, but they could have put off having to do that for many years yet if they had just planned better in the first place. Oh, and no I wasn't talking about what they could build, there are plenty of things out there they could build, though the trick is differentiating themselves from the park down the road that can build the same things....in terms of slide technology now, its really only 'turbo tunnel' type slides we are yet to see, the future will depend on manufacturers being innovative. Plenty to build yet. Edited November 17, 2007 by Gazza

[Richard]

I'm not sure what you mean Richard. In each of the bottlenecks there is more than one traffic flow area.

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.

And with regards to planning, apart from the paths heading west there is no indication of how future expansions will go.

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. Edited November 18, 2007 by Richard
fixed typos

[sonic123488]

I'm not sure where you're getting all the info for what sort of rides they'll be. Could someone give me a link that gets me straight there?

[Gazza]

^There is no direct link. Go to: http://pdonline.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/maste....aspx?page=home And then follow the steps i gave in post #8 Again, the PDF entitled "Part 3" is the one you want to open.

[Churros]

So you're saying people will enter DW at 10am, and then straight away go to ocean parade and enter WWW

Ahhh... yes. If you buy a World Pass from RACQ you will enter via the Dreamworld MAP entrance thanks to that early entry hoojimagig. If your intention was to then head straight to WhiteWate World in the morning, namely establish locker hire etc, you would be moving straight to that parkhopper point. If not first up, at least remotely close to it. Not to mention that some people also purchase just single entry tickets to Dreamworld before going and when they see the water park go and investigate what it takes to get in there. Namely, an upgrade.

Though the extreme H20 area has suffient spaces within that area alone for plenty of expansion, the hills on park land at the south west part of the park are also perfect for slides to be built down. In any case, nowhere near as bad as the situation WWW are in. After this new phase any new expansions will require renovation/demolition of something. Thats the key difference, you're saying they can expand on a (newly built) car park, but they could have put off having to do that for many years yet if they had just planned better in the first place.

Yeah, but it's easier to rip up and rebuild a carpark than it is to completely relocate attractions. The major issue I have is that you all sit on here thinking that you know better than the people who are doing this. People whing about the CEO and how he isn't in tune with the amusement industry, but remember he did go on a research trip to the US some time ago with the intention of bringing back ideas for future Dreamworld attractions. What he discovered was many of the new water ride technologies that we are seeing Dreamworld install today. If it isn't evidence that is trip is reaping some benefits, then I think we might just be looking for ways to not be happy. I mean, one second we go, WhiteWater World is too small. They release plans for expansion and we are down their throat for poor planning. No offense, but wtf? Look at what is happening. They have decided to build a Water Park, they knew that they were continuing to run with Big Brother, realise that they could potentially be apart of this area for a while and didn't want to waste all of the land they have. Reference: removal and demolition- that would surely have occured if they were to build a water park in the northern area, you would have had wasted land in the south-west corner. They reached a point during their plans for redevelopment that it would be a standalone park rather than integrated with Dreamworld to increase the potential for profits - and yes, they are a business, build a bridge. Hence, they also decided that they wanted it to be competitive, so they realised that redeveloping blue lagoon would not be good enough, and developing a truly well sized park through this area would remove options for expansion of both Dreamworld and any other future MLE plans.

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.

Not to mention north. This is what I am trying to explain. People are merely assuming that the Dreamworld/WhiteWater World set-up will continue to run in the format that it is currently. What I am trying to say is that the options were this. Develop a WaterPark in the south western corner that can have visual appeal, cover up the Cyclone and utilise what land is available in this region. Or develop a Waterpark on the northern side that dicatates that any future expansions of Dreamworld would occur in the south western corner. What people seem to be forgetting is that in that thunderbolt area, Dreamworld could have essentially installed all but nothing. Extreme thrill rides would have disrupted the tigers (hence why the two enclosed waterslides and lazy river are being developed closer to this, and if they were to install a roller coaster, it would only be one attraction. The end result, Dreamworld has the opportunity to expand north, and WhiteWater has managed to install almost five feature attractions in that area. In my opinion, very good use of the area available.

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.

I completely agree with you on this point, however, you have to understand that the waterpark was not built with a completely clean slate. They had to provide an option that could see a unified carpark implemented, as well as the option of a parkhopper facility. And as for the radial approach, if expansion was to progress well north as it meets the demands of expansion, you would eventually see this design integrated with Dreamworld. Clearly, the focus for this Dreamworld sight is to offer an integrated package of both types of parks, in a common location.

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.

Why is it such an issue that they would like to build either commercial or resort style additions to their land. Currently, they are working with Westfield to provide the integrated town centre the GCCC wants for Coomera. As for a resort, I mean you talk about the 'Disney Product' and when a theme park like Dreamworld decides they want to make a leisure centre with a theme park, water park, resort, shopping facilities and whatever else they can think of, you immediately look to criticise. I honestly don't mean to be offensive or anything champ, but why is this so? Working on this principle, can you please develop a design proposal for a waterpark on the land that you would have considered more appropriate? I am not being rude, I would just like to see what you would have done. I also think Gazza should do one also. I know Gazza is good at ride design, etc, so I would be interested to see it. You will be marked on the following criteria: - Investigation and satisfaction of the needs of the client - Recognition of diverse market opportunities - Meeting the contraints of the design (ie, does it meet the budget, does it meet the requirements of the client) - Evaluation with respect to the seven aspects of appropriateness Please provide a detailed sketch, appropriate documentation for applying for the waterpark development, cost analysis, and a three stage expansion plan. Thank you.

Wet'n'Wild will obvious 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.

The grazing land for the Australian Outback Spectacular is located directly west of the Extreme H20 zone.

[Richard]

The major issue I have is that you all sit on here thinking that you know better than the people who are doing this.

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.

Not to mention north. This is what I am trying to explain. People are merely assuming that the Dreamworld/WhiteWater World set-up will continue to run in the format that it is currently.

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.

Develop a WaterPark in the south western corner that can have visual appeal, cover up the Cyclone and utilise what land is available in this region. Or develop a Waterpark on the northern side that dicatates that any future expansions of Dreamworld would occur in the south western corner.

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.

Extreme thrill rides would have disrupted the tigers

We're straying from the point, but you pulled that 'fact' out of thin air.

Why is it such an issue that they would like to build either commercial or resort style additions to their land.

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.

I mean you talk about the 'Disney Product' and when a theme park like Dreamworld decides they want to make a leisure centre with a theme park, water park, resort, shopping facilities and whatever else they can think of, you immediately look to criticise. I honestly don't mean to be offensive or anything champ, but why is this so?

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.?

Working on this principle, can you please develop a design proposal for a waterpark on the land that you would have considered more appropriate?

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.

The grazing land for the Australian Outback Spectacular is located directly west of the Extreme H20 zone.

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.

[Gold Coaster]

Champ is just a word he uses all the time, it's not being smarmy...