Stage 3 is go go go

[myk]

Yeah I actually agree with Tony sorry Richard, he was just giving his opinion on it. I don't think it was Churros' attention to sound like a smart ass, and when I read his post I didn't really think he sounded like one.. having experience in the area of smart ass-ness myself I think both of you have raised valid points - but I dare say Dreamworld has not made the right decision in terms of their land utilisation. They really could have pulled this off a lot better, but the fact that MLE is money driven (CityWalk) stopped them from using the space WWW occupies as Dreamworld's much needed expansion and using the proposed CityWalk area in a few years as WWW. But as I said, both of you have valid arguments and you are both more educated on the topic than me I'm sure I speak for many others here too. I guess I am just overall disappointed at Dreamworld - which is the general feel we get on the boards these days.

Edited November 18, 2007 by myk

[Gazza]

Yeah, but it's easier to rip up and rebuild a carpark than it is to completely relocate attractions.

And you know whats even easier, to just build on undeveloped land.

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

And the major issue I have is you have this notion that the way MLT does things is the epitome of good management and they are gurus that do everything right. Sure they might be good at pleasing shareholders like you by getting a bit of extra cash out of guests in the short term, but their attendance is falling and they just plain fall flat when it comes to providing a high quality theme park (good attractions, good theming, good experience)

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.

Well, it doesn't take me a trip to the US to 'discover' new water ride technologies. I mean I have known about Tornados since 2003 (when they were first put on the market)

. 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?

I really have no idea what point you are getting at there, those two things are not mutually exlusive concepts. I mean, its great they are doing these expansions, but even just 5 years into the future will see them struggling with space, to me that is poor planning.

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.

Mate, that is a bit smart arse, and hence rude. Obviously I dont have the money, time or resources to develop a whole bloody water park. I could probably come up with something better for the current site though.

[sonic123488]

Just a question about Tornado Alley, does that thing have two tornado elements at different levels, because that would have to take up a large space. This is what I'm talking about http://www.proslide.com/images/rides/1/4_design_2.pdf

[Gazza]

^Yeah thats the one, though its roughly 20*30m which isn't that big, check out the Development application on the GCCC website to see the layout they went with. Remember, the tornado elements are much smaller than the full sized tornados so its not excessively big.

Edited November 18, 2007 by Gazza

[Rollercoaster13]

i like banana milkshakes

Edited November 18, 2007 by PixelPushed

[Gazza]

I dont think that posts in this Board should get personal, it is all over themeparks! I think if you want to behave like adults that you have to keep a professional standard "Omg, the future of dreamworld i would know, as a professional holder of the mighty annual pass" "I should bash churros over his opinions and mistakes" Sounds like a high school, trust me, i go to one -.-

We are keeping a professional standard, the posts are well written and are backed up properly, nobody is writing OMG or whatever. Nobody is "bashing" Churros, i certainly haven't denigrated him as a person. If you don't like people debating with each other then stay off the forums. You actually need to learn the difference between attacking the person and attacking the argument. It seems as if all you want people to do is agree with and like everything people say. Oh, and I think most people on here have been to or are in high school. Anyway, Re WWWs planning, I would have gone for something like this, and yes its all in proportion and has the same number of facilities as the existing par (actually, the current park has 50 sections of shaded deck chairs, mine has somewhere in the 70s) but it has more attractions and all without going east of cyclones loops. Edited November 18, 2007 by Gazza

[Churros]

Woah! I am really sorry guys. I think I may have been grossly misinterpretted. Sorry, I better pull this apart for you guys before you all think I am on a rampage to ambush you all. There were a few core issues and intentions that I will briefly discuss. Richard versus MLE - the endless battle: Ok, Richard, I am going to be mellow with you here my friend, but if I was to give you some posts that indicated you have a general negative opinion of Dreamworld, Movieworld or the like, I would have a thesus. In fact I am sure there is a body of research out there that suggests this is representative of some form of psycological state. Don't ask me what, and don't get upset, I am just saying. The case or not, you have to be aware that this is the way your posts come across. There is a clear focus on the negatives and an ommission of the positives. As for my reference to Wet'n'Wild, the intention was to indicate that both parks on the same playing field with respect to the issues at hand. NB: There is no such thing as neutral, opinionless writing. Journalism while deemed to be culturally neutral, is always based on a person's habitus, which is reflected in the contruction of language and the final production of a literary text, whether this be intentional or not. The focus is to look at such ingrained bias and preconceptions and use effective metacognitive skills to deconstruct these previous beliefs. Alternate Opinion: I ultimately wanted to offer an alternate opinion on the developments of Dreamworld and WhiteWater World. Ultimately, I am very excited about the development of that area and have an enourmous interest in it. In case people didn't realise I took constant trips up the highway where possible to go and see what knew things were happening during the previous months. My attitude: Can I say, my intention was not to be in any way "smarmy" or at least I don't think. (ps - I have no idea what that means. At the risk of being burned at the stake, can I guess it is a word specifically related to the field of engineering and business =D ) Jokes aside, I have never heard the term. While on the topic of the English language, the word "champ" is short for the word "Champion", which is better known in the world as a compliment. Design Challenge: As for my little design challenge. The objective was not to be rude. I actually wanted to see what you would have done. It kind of helps you appreciate the effort that a few hard working people have gone to. And yet, we sit here and brush these efforts aside with a simple statement like... "One thing this plan has highlighted for me is the lack of long-term planning that has gone into the park." What a slap in the face! Again, it isn't so much the nature of the argument, but the delivery. NB: next time don't have a dig at high school kids, please. Give a design challenge like this to high school kids and they would go ape bananas at it. And thanks Gazza, I really appreciate your eventual reply. I just wish initially it was taken in such a bad light. I must apologise Gazza, it probably came across the wrong way, but I genuinely know you have a good hand for drawing this type of stuff and spend enough time on here to prove that you would have an interest. In closing: Finally, I really don't want to go over the same ground, but no it isn't high school debating. High school debating is structured, and built on academic rigor, this is a message board where people come to be enthusiastic about an area of interest. I think the nature of the community should dictate that people are allowed to express their excitement, opinions etc. I honestly agree that critical discussion is imperitive, but at some point we have to posses the metacognitive skills to deconstruct our own preconceptions about an issue or topic.

[Richard]

Ok, Richard, I am going to be mellow with you here my friend, but if I was to give you some posts that indicated you have a general negative opinion of Dreamworld, Movieworld or the like

What I find so crazy is you've taken what was initially a passing comment I made amongst what was a largely positive post about this expansion, and blown the whole issue out of proportion; by misrepresenting me and drawing false conclusions from what I'm saying you leave little choice but for me to come back and elaborate, snowballing into what we see here. Of course my posts are going to be overwhelmingly negative in nature when you choose to highlight and misinterpret a singular negative out of a handful of positive and neutral statements I made. Do you want me to add out of the blue that I'm very much a fan of the innovation that WhiteWater World brought to this country, and that I'm very excited for the competition it has and will continue to create in what has previously been a fairly uninteresting section of the theme park industry? If you're going to take issue with only negative points I make then of course my response is going to be negative. How does Movie World suddenly come into this? Enlighten me.

While on the topic of the English language, the word "champ" is short for the word "Champion", which is better known in the world as a compliment.

I can assure you I took no offence to your statement, and brought it up as a side-point as it was totally out of place amongst the rest of your post: I honestly don't mean to be offensive or anything champ, but why is this so? You'd honestly say that it was intended as a compliment?

And yet, we sit here and brush these efforts aside with a simple statement like... "One thing this plan has highlighted for me is the lack of long-term planning that has gone into the park." What a slap in the face! Again, it isn't so much the nature of the argument, but the delivery.

And those charged with these responsibilities are appropriated remunerated for their efforts. I know full well that it's by no means an easy job, but you're totally mistaken; by and large I'm saying "that's not the best way of doing things", you're interpreting that as "I can do better", which is not at all what I'm saying. I have always been the first one to sing praises when any park does something that I see as an intelligent or interesting move. And it's by no means infrequent; feel free to delve into my posting history. Perhaps through your overwhelmingly optimistic outlook you've failed to notice such posts, while those that go against your views stick out more. All I keep hearing from you is that I'm anti-Dreamworld (and anti-Movie World now too) and I have an unjust dislike for them and everything they do, as if it proves your points. Without going into the details of my personal finances, I thought for clarity's sake that it would be worthwhile mentioning that financially I stand to gain from the success of Dreamworld/WhiteWater World, so I can assure you I have no vested interest in anything but seeing these parks become more and more successful.

[Churros]

Ok mate, it's cool. To be honest, the reason I put in the whole 'champ' thing was so you didn't think I was intentionally having a stab at you. But yeah, from my perspective I previously got the feeling you have an inherit dislike for Dreamworld. And was genuinely interested in finding out why (thinking maybe you knew something I didn't). Now that you have detailed how you feel then I can probably look at the situation from a different perspective. Now back to the discussion, is it possible that you can forsee that in some way the Dreamworld/WhiteWater World expansion infrastructure could develop into a very strong product in spite of its design flaws? Personally, the gist of my initial post is that yes I believe it can. But I think we need to give it some time, and give it a chance.

[Richard]

I don't think it's a problem without a solution, but it's really not a situation that lends itself to easy steady expansion. You get where I'm coming from with the lateral versus radial expansion, and how the latter is undeniably preferable yeah? This current expansion doesn't pose any significant problems for the short term; my real concerns are five or ten years down the track as I think we face the prospect of seeing the park move solely towards the east. Relocating the car park etc. are all things that if they happen, will happen in the long run. It's safe to say that subsequent expansions of WhiteWater World will head east as it's unutilised land that'll cost significantly less to develop than building into the car park, necessitating new parking facilities and roads elsewhere. My fear in this situation is that we'll see the park lose its 'centre of mass' so to speak. WhiteWater World is currently a very centralised park, and its facilities and design plays to that particular setup. Down the track important infrastructure will not be easily accessible from all areas of the park, which again comes back to my point that during the initial design phase of WWW, such things don't appear to have been appropriately considered or addressed. WhiteWater World has the sound financial backing of a large company; unlike other older water parks around (such as Wet'n'Wild) it wasn't a family investment that didn't have the benefit of being able to plan up front for things in the long run. I think a lot more could have been done in regards to designing a park that lends itself more easily to long-term expansion considering the resources that were readily available (monetary, expertise and of course land).

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Richard: 2 Churros: 0 I had thought, at this time, of posting a picture of a person with down's syndrome, as a baseless insult towards churros' intelligence level, like he did with the fat guy in the WnW improvement thread. I won't, purely because I know a few people who have down's syndrome who are markedly more intelligent than the people who insult them, and I won't stoop to his level all the same. I will however go one further than Richard on this one and say something that I think a lot of forum members will back me up on - when I say to Churros - PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Richard is bang on the money when he defends his "neutrality" over all of the parks. In fact in the past R-C.com.au received more accomodating attention from Dreamworld than Warner Village in the past, under WVTP's media policies, and this is further shown by the media event and on-ride footage obtained at the Motocoaster launch. I have to admit I have a bias when it comes to Dreamworld vs. Warner Village, however that bias comes from numerous disappointing visits to dreamworld, and numerous memorable ones to the Warner parks. I typed this last night but forgot to post it, so forgive me if this is a little late and the conversation has continued on since then...

[Gazza]

What are the seven aspects of appropriateness? "Mmmm, i really can feel three kinds of softness"

Edited November 19, 2007 by Gazza

[Churros]

Seven aspects: Functional - does it serve an appropriate function Economic - is it cost effective for what it was intended to be Environmental - how does the design solution affect the environment. Is it sustainable? Aesthetic - is it visually appealling, pleasing to the eye? Ethical - is it ethically appropriate? Social - hows does it sit with comtemporary societal beliefs? Wwhat affect will it have on society? Cultural - which culture does the solution serve? Which culture does it omitt, and how can be be improved to satisfy different cultures? From Technology Education Framework

Technology has impacts and consequences Technologies can be judged by their positive and negative impacts on people and the environment. ‘Appropriate Technologies’ seek to minimise the negative consequences associated with the design and development of technological products while maximising their positive effects. Seven aspects of appropriateness can be used to guide the design of a product, or to critique an existing product: Functional appropriateness, Aesthetic appropriateness, Economic appropriateness, Environmental appropriateness, Cultural appropriateness, Social appropriateness, and Ethical appropriateness.

I love you too Alex I must admit, you must be getting into shape though carrying all that anti-Churros baggage and that giant brain of yours around Churros: 3 Alex B: Come on, you love it!

I don't think it's a problem without a solution, but it's really not a situation that lends itself to easy steady expansion. You get where I'm coming from with the lateral versus radial expansion, and how the latter is undeniably preferable yeah? This current expansion doesn't pose any significant problems for the short term; my real concerns are five or ten years down the track as I think we face the prospect of seeing the park move solely towards the east.

Totally. I understand where you are coming from. Ultimately, my point was that it could be beneficial in the long term (certain aspects at least) with regards to the option of building a resort style complex. I understand that this is not sound design, but keep in mind that they could be designing it something like this: *Not to scale or in correct proportions. Now, yeah, before people have a shot at my intellect further, can I just give why I think it has been designed this way. The first, in my opinion was due to Big Brother. In many respects that would have been a short term decision. The second is that designing it this way sees the resort in some ways becoming the focal point of the area. Essentially, it would allow access points to the commercial area located directly north of it, and the parks to the south. In saying that, perhaps the idea was to make Dreamworld (their flagship park) the first park you walk into from the resort, rather than the waterpark. Which is why I was saying that if the waterpark was built to the north where there was plenty of land, this would be the case. Also, if eventually the park was built right down to the border of the eastern side, it would allow for more than one park transfer point. Of course, again this is long term thinking, but I can see the boundaries between the two parks becoming more and more open as people slowly become more aware of the nature of two parks directly adjacent. And relating this to a couple of your posts earlier, but I feel they are thinking this way so they are developing a long term infrastructure for what they want out of their area. Hence, perhaps this setup suits them better. This is also why I was attempting to say earlier, it would be easier for them to remove or rebuild aspects of the carpark then it would to remove an entire waterpark and relocate it in the southern corner later on. But again, I don't have the crystal ball, so I can't tell you exactly what the future may hold. I am also aware that this design lends itself to people walking up and down the entire centre, but realistically, this is what will occur when the land his rectangular in shape.

WhiteWater World has the sound financial backing of a large company; unlike other older water parks around (such as Wet'n'Wild) it wasn't a family investment that didn't have the benefit of being able to plan up front for things in the long run. I think a lot more could have been done in regards to designing a park that lends itself more easily to long-term expansion considering the resources that were readily available (monetary, expertise and of course land).

I was merely attempting to see why MLE has designed their setup in this way, given that yes they do have the finances, etc to suggest that they may not always be looking for the least expensive option.

[New display name]

Dreamworlds ability to expand beyond its current footprint is limited. If you noticed past applications to the G.C.C.C. by Dreamworld for land clearing have been denied. The main reasons for the land clearing rejection in the past has been because the area has protected trees within it. The good new for dreamworld is a CEO life at one company is normally not that long.

[GoGoBoy]

I initially thought the only obvious room for expansion for WhiteWater World was the old thunderbolt site. My understanding is that once this new expansion is complete, all of this area will have been used up. Are you guys saying there is additional land behind this? I know there are some maintenance sheds there but that's about all I know

[Gold Coaster]

*Not to scale or in correct proportions.

Gotta say -- your drawings rival Gazza's!! Edited November 19, 2007 by Tony Teulan

[Richard]

Just using your diagram as a basis, here's the basic point I'm making here. Like your rough sketch, I'm not trying to demonstrate anything with accuracy but rather as a general idea. This first image is WhiteWater World's basic layout as it stands. The blue area represents what was phase one, an area that does and always will contain the bulk of the core facilities and infrastructure. Things like guest services and car park access aren't likely or are unable to be replicated elsewhere in the park with subsequent expansions. The red area represents future expansions; which not only are unlikely to contain these core services, but through what appears to be lack of foresight, are also quite a significant distance away, especially if we look beyond a year or two down the track; as I've said the current expansion plans are definitely well within the infrastructure capabilities of the park, but my initial point was that it highlights that this could very likely become an issue down the track. Sure they can easily add more lockers at the other end of the park, build more food outlets or changing rooms and so on to cater to the increased audience, but the fact is that visitors will enter through the front gate (or most will, for the sake of the inter-park gate), get a locker there and intersperse themselves throughout the park. When lunchtime hits, they're going to come back to this same locker at the front of the park, from there they'll go to the nearest food outlet and then put their wallets back in the same locker. Now, with subsequent expansions of the park, they'll be banking on increased attendance, increased capacity etc., which will only serve to put more and more strain on the existing facilities; it's not reasonable to expect (again, years down the track) people to walk 250+ metres to the other end of the park to pay for renting a locker because those at the front of the park were already full. Now, still not what I'd call 100% ideal given the park's generous land situation, but if we're to assume that the park's current location was the one and only place the park could have been built, here's my basic suggestion. Basically, it puts the park more centrally on the land that will have been earmarked for the park and all subsequent expansions. This way, what are and always will be the core facilities and infrastructure for the park, as explained above, are more or less in a position to always be central to the park. More lockers, changing facilities, etc. can be dotted around the edge of the initial blue oval such that they too are central to the park. I'm not seeing any reason that this kind of initial design would have been unattainable within the same budget, but to me it just would have required a mindset going into the design process that wasn't caught up on getting only phase one correct, but also always keeping in mind the fact that this park can and will need to expand over the years. WhiteWater World's current setup is and was perfect for the short-term future of the park; it's prominently located next to the highway with a lot of big rides up front, it's right up against Dreamworld, and it used what was already flat cleared land. It seems to me that it was a decision dominated by the promotional/advertising possibilities to build the park in this location, overriding the long-term infrastructural requirements of a water park based on sound crowd management principles. Of course, the caveat in my basic design is that it sacrifices the maximum promotional potential of the Pacific Motorway and possibly Dreamworld. Not a big thing, but this park needed to be a success from day one. Publicly listed companies thrive on growth; the issue with theme parks, and this is demonstrated on a much larger scale abroad by companies like Six Flags and Cedar Fair, is that often theme park growth is too slow and long-run oriented to achieve the short-term results needed to positively influence share prices and appease shareholders. Now, the means to achieving strong long term results are typically - especially in this industry - very different to those needed to achieve short term. Therein lies the basic problem, as typically a long-term outlook will result in short-term shortcomings. Park operators like Disney and Universal can afford to absorb these costs, but few others can (and even these guys are starting to lean more towards short term). Back to our specific example here, the position WhiteWater World was put in was basically that it had to be a success from the start. You can understand then why every effort would be put into making it appeal from the beginning, and why it wasn't in the company's interests to approach it from a long term perspective.

[New display name]

I totally agree with you Richard. I believe that they are only thinking about the short-term profits and this is what is going to get Dreamworld into trouble. We have already seen this with things just disappearing around the park and Dreamworld not willing to spend money on getting these things going again. One example was the relocation of the vintage cars. What dreamworld don’t understand is I didn’t go on the vintage cars for the thrill of the cars as I think must people didn’t. I went on the cars for the atmosphere like diving under a wooden bridge or bouncing in a toll both. If Dreamworld thinks they can save money by not keeping current attraction operating then it won’t be long before Dreamworlds profits decline and Dreamworld is sold on. Dreamworlds own reports already show a decline in guests. Dreamworld can only offset a decline in guest with price increases for so long before no one is willing to pay.

[thunder001]

WOW, you go into serious work mode for a couple of months, and then you come back to find all this stuff happening (truth be told, was a 50/50 splitt between work and World of Warcraft...hehe) Now that I have kicked one of the above distractions, no I am still working, I have come back to the news I was waiting for...sort of. I was told about Dreamworld having some "Loose expainsion plans" for WWW when they first built the park that was a 4 stage process. I am guessing we would be calling this latest one stage 3 due to the little rippers being put in, but now seeing the plans, am starting to wonder where the next part would be placed. The only way it could expand as I see it is to go into the current dreamworld land area, and for the park to either retire or relocate the vortex, dogems, and the arcade areas. This is something I am sure will never happen, but it seems to be the only area that they would have left to expand. But this is just my ramblings at the mome INFORMATION FOUND Now onto something that I have just noticed in the forms to the GCC. In the first PDF file, on page 11 there is an application for the park to build structures over the 7.5m height, but rather than just for this construction, the park has asked for that permit to be a 10y agreement. Now unless the park is planing more attractions within this area in the upcoming years over that height, why would they be asking for a permit to last so long. Have just read down the form further and it states that the rides will be no higher than 24.5m tall. And it also states that not all rides will open with the expansion, so I guess I have answered my own questions about future expansions there...looks to be inside the current area, but I am still reading the 64 page document so will be right back.

[GoGoBoy]

Ok I'm not sure if anyone's alive on these forums lately but in case there is anyone out there reading this I have a question. For anyone that has been to Dreamworld recently can you tell me if there has been any progress on clearing/construction for the WhiteWater World expansion? I am worried that with the recent problems on the share market (and concerns over company borrowing levels) that it could be temporarily shelved. Combine this with Stephen Gregg's worrying obsession with only adding low cost 'interactive/skill' attractions and I have my doubts. Hopefully all will proceed as planned. Anyone got any info?

[dreamworld_rulz]

^ With all the rain they have had i doubt if anything has been done.

[New display name]

There will be no construction for some time yet. The plans for the expansion are at town planing at the moment. Once Town Planing has approved the scope of the extension the plans will have to be submitted for a building approval. The reason why Town Planing is required is because this work is outside of what is allowed in the Coomera Town Plan. The building approval is to make sure the plans comply to the amend Town Plan, Australian Building Standard, the fire department and so on. We also don’t know at the moment if WWW are planing to open all the new attractions at once or if is will be rolled out over the next ten years.

Edited January 17, 2008 by skeetafly

[saberon]

I have a feeling they will start the next expansion quickly, and finish it in reasonable time. It's to their advantage to grow the park as quickly as allowable.

[Rollercoaster13]

kk

Edited January 17, 2008 by PixelPushed

[thunder001]

Just an update from the park... The tent that housed the pirate show is now gone, and cars are back in that area for the moment. There are a couple of shipping containers on site also, but this could just be the pirate stuff. Also the truck for the Honda "Asmio" ( or how ever it is spelled) is now in that car park area. I did notice that there have been some ground works started just towards the back of the park, perhaps to relocate the maintenance shed on the edge of the car park before work starts, or for the start of a new staff car park behind the tiger island pens?? As always, only time will tell. EDIT : After looking over the plans in the council application, I noticed that it looks as if the splash pool for the mammoth slides seems to be in the same area as the Gravatron is now. If that is correct, then it looks like that end of the park might be in for a couple of changes in the next few years. Am heading back to the park next weekend so will have a look around and will try to see if I can pick out any marking pegs for the construction at all.

Edited January 20, 2008 by thunder001