Sydney Gets a Water Park!

[GoGoBoy]

You have to remember too that this is a waterpark we are talking about, not a theme park. By their very nature waterparks require significantly less initial AND ongoing capital expenditure. The general running and ongoing costs are far less too. They tend to be a much higher return business than a theme park. And Sydneysiders love anything to do with water - the weather definitely helps

[Gazza]

And just on that, I reckon some of wonderlands woes could be traced to it being a year round park, despite Sydney obviously not being able to support that. I'm sure a few of us have heard the stories of literally a dozen people or so turning up on certain days. WnW being seasonal should help in this respect.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Gazza

[Thrillrulz]

How won't a Water Park in Sydney reach the projected attendance of 900,000, when Sydney has a much larger population than the Gold Coast. With the Gold Coast only having about half a million people, and Sydney having 4.5 million people.Which means more people willing to visit the park. Plus, Sydney probably also gets more international visitors than the Gold Coast as it has major attractions like the Sydney Opera House, and the Harbour Bridge. Plus the Park is set to be one of the Best Waterparks in the World. So how can you say that Wet'n'Wild Sydney will not reach the expected attendance to the park, or beat that expected attendance?

[joz]

There are a couple reasons why I don't think they'll hit the target, and I'll go through them one at a time: * Wonderland, a full blown theme park didn't draw a million in it's first year. That may have been a long time ago, and the population of Sydney has increased, but from memory Wonderland was projected to attract 1.6million so it missed the mark by a fair margin. Sega World and Fox Studios also fell well short of their projected attendance. * In press releases, Village have talked about using the formula from Wet 'n' Wild on the Gold Coast as a template. What's missing though is WnW has had nearly 30 years to build up attendance, and a significant amount of that growth came from ticket deals with SW and MW, which WnW Sydney won't have. * As on the plan, WnW Sydney is very impressive. Unfortunately if you read through all the documents you find that not all of it will open with the park. A fair chunk of the plans are 'stage 2', so as far as scale goes, WnW will probably be somewhere in between the Gold Coast parks. There are other reasons, but those 3 above pretty much sum up why I think it'll miss it's projections. Unlike Sega world and Fox studios however, I don't think that the shortfall will be anywhere near fatal to the park, and it will be a success.

Edited April 17, 2011 by joz

[Gazza]

Plus, Sydney probably also gets more international visitors than the Gold Coast as it has major attractions like the Sydney Opera House, and the Harbour Bridge.

Ah yes, how could we forget the friggen Harbour Bridge and Opera House!

[themeparkgc]

a significant amount of that growth came from ticket deals with SW and MW, whiich WnW Sydney won't have.

Even though the Sydney Attractions Group has been sold to Merlin Entertainments, Village Roadshow still appear to "operate" these attractions (i.e. sell tickets etc). I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of combo ticketing could be arranged between Merlin and Village. This allow them to achieve higher numbers, but a million for WnWS is pretty high for a first year.

[joz]

^ I'd suspect that will happen, the releases have hinted at cooperation with Merlin, but really I think WnW will stand on it's own, and indeed I'd suspect WnW will be more of a boost to the other attractions than the other way around. I mean lets face it, Wet 'n' Wild on the Gold Coast had Sea World and Movie World on it's side. WnWS's support acts will be an Aquarium, Aussie native animal park, and an observation tower and maybe a Madame Tussauds. I think it's fair to say that WnW will well and truly be the big item on any combined ticket. On a similar point, yes, Sydney does have a heap of international tourists, but I don't think there's much chance that many will go to a water park in the western suburbs. IMHO, the only way they'll get 900,000 in the first year is if they do a stupidly cheap season pass. Personally though I'd like to see Village try a new strategy in Sydney, and actually charge people to enter the park.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Just a quick side note - but I find it interesting that pre-Q150, many long-term posters bemoaned the extremely high gate price charged by village, especially when compared to the gate price of many overseas parks. When Q150 (and subsequently the VIP) was established, it was heralded by many as being "about time" and such a great idea. Now those same people criticise the concept, and take every opportunity to whinge about how detrimental the passes are to the parks. I'm sure i'll see some flames for this, but we all got exactly what we asked for, and now we're upset about it. Personally, many tourists enter Australia via Sydney. Sydney may be not much more than a day or two stopover before moving onto other places across the country, but for most, seeing the harbour bridge, and the opera house (two of the biggest and most iconic landmarks in the country, which most internationals recognise as THE symbol of this country, right beside Kangaroos and Koalas). I'm sure the NSW government is anxious to see this park increase the time spent in the state by many of it's tourists. Increased time in the state equals more money spent. Accomodation, transport, and night-time attractions as well. Wonderland may not have been the best we have to offer, but it was certainly something on the map for overseas tourists to visit. The major reason for the name change from Australia's Wonderland to Wonderland Sydney was because many tourists confused it's location with those on the gold coast, and went looking for it in the wrong state (something that WnWS ahs fixed on day one). I'm glad to hear the possible cooperation between Merlin and VRTP on the Sydney attractions as well. I'd like to see them offer WnWS as part of their goldcoast ticket combo as well - especially for overseas visitors who may tour the east coast. If a (previously three)-park ticket holder wasn't able to visit WnW GC because of poor weather, they'd have the opportunity to visit when they stop in Sydney where the weather might be different. Or if visitors did get all of the GC parks covered, and still had some spare days in sydney, it's yet another day where you've got the guest's wallets inside your gates because the entry ticket is already included - guests feel like they're getting value, when in actual fact VRTP just gets one more day to take a stab at their wallet for food, beverage, merchandise, and unique upcharge experiences.

[joz]

I thought that the cheap passes were a good way to get themselves through the economic crisis, and pretty sure I said something to that effect when the passes came out. You have to remember that 3 park year passes were about $250, so the locals $70 pass for a couple of month pass was a good deal to get themselves out of trouble, and I believed there was room to discount the tickets. I think they were over priced, but I think they went to far, which has hurt both the parks and the bottom line. Simple as that.

[Richard]

The Gold Coast parks have all but given up on the international tourism market. Over the years the parks have cited just about anything and everything causing a downturn in international numbers (from 9/11 to SARS to bird flu to Australia's controversial sushi tax) but in actual fact I think we're just seeing parks being dropped from itineraries as Asian parks continue to outdo ours in size and quality. I don't think a standalone waterpark in Sydney would do what the Gold Coast parks collectively can't, and attract international visitors on significant numbers.

[keadz]

Well out of the 10+ million visitors to the gold coast every year, I would say less than 1 million of them would be international. People don't come to Australia for theme parks (and no offense, but the gold coast doesn't offer much more, well not anything else unique) so your not going to see huge numbers of international visitors flocking to the parks. Sydney would have more success in this area IMO, just because people will already be in close vicinity to wet b wild and won't need to fly to a completely new area/city to go to the park Time will tell though.

Edited April 18, 2011 by keadz

[joz]

If it was in the middle of the city, MAYBE

[rappa]

I think the recent visit from TPR shows that the parks in Australia can and DO stand up against their international counterparts and I for one would like to see the marketing go after that market again. In my opinion they should be turning the parks into a resort, build a hotel and get people staying on property and only going into surfers as an outing, not their base. As for Sydney, perhaps there will eventually be the opportunity to get a waterpark hotel off the ground, they do well in the states. I also think we'll see the parks season extended at some point too.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

To clarify my points, I wasn't suggesting WnWS would be an international draw card, just that those already visiting the country could be kept on village property longer \ in more than one state. Having said that, the Wet N Wild brand is gaining recognition around the world (the six flags of water parks?) with their rapid expansions. It may not be THE reason to visit, but it's just one more box to tick when you're here.

[Wazza1]

I must say I have enjoyed reading the discussion on this topic. (always enjoy reading the Wonderland conspiracy theories) So putting that aside, a lot of people here have put forth their ideas as to why/why not WnW Sydney will/will not reach their target of 900,000 guests annually. I think the number one thing that will work against the park will be location. Sadly location and the terrible lack of public transport worked strongly against Wonderland (lets face it Rooty Hill wasn't exactly the easiest place to get to) Imagine trying to get there if you were staying at a hotel in Bondi. Hopefully WnW Sydney can get some regular transport going from Blacktown station, (which serves a lot more express trains) but tourists are going to have to rely on public transport to get there, and if it is long and convoluted then people will not want to venture that far out of town. As Richard points out parks have pretty much given up on international tourists as a major source of income. They have focused on their growth domestically. The one positive thing for a park about International tourists is that they have a much higher in park spend than a domestic tourist, so they can be quite lucrative and more profitable if you can get them there. WnW Sydney would have done the maths and would have had to justify their figures in order to make the decision that WnW Sydney would actually be viable. Someone has pointed out that they are going to be opening the park in a couple of stages. So although the initial capital cost of building the park is going to be high, ongoing running costs will initially be quite low. One thing to keep in mind is that Village is a very big company with their fingers in many pies. Don't be suprised if they don't mind that the park runs at a loss, especially if it is part of a bigger picture that includes tie ins with some of their other business areas. ie movies, music and radio. The will use the park as a vehicle to drive profits in some other business units. Sydney is the largest city in Australia, and Village are probably trying to expand their presence in the city domestically. The ability for them to have a strong tie in with their radio, music & movie business at their old Sydney attractions is extremely low (they were mainly aimed at international guests) whereas WnW will no doubt be targeted domestically and probably be more integrated with other areas of the Village empire In saying all this I would love to see their breakdown of where/how they expect to get 900,000 people

Edited April 19, 2011 by Wazza1

[Original]

They might be able to have tie ins with movies, cinema, entertainment places and music but they can't with radio anymore since they just/about to sell their stake in Austereo.

[GoGoBoy]

I would have to disagree with you Wazza. I think the sole reason Village is building this park in Sydney is because they believe it will be very profitable/successful and because there is a very large demand for it. You have to remember too that the population of Sydney has increased significantly in recent years and continues to grow. There is a huge un-tapped demand for family entertainment and attractions in the city. Village is not in the habit of building theme parks for the purpose of helping to push and promote their other businesses, as you have suggested. They build theme parks for the benefits of the parks themselves. They see theme parks as a big growth area and this is why they have been selling off so many of their other businesses - so they can concentrate on parks more

[Wazza1]

Actually I do agree with you. I think it will be a sucess, as Village would have to have done plenty of homework to make sure that the place is going to be viable. I think its location will be difficult but I am sure that overcoming transport issues is something they would have looked at as part of their decision to build. I am not saying that their sole reason to build is the ability to cross-market into other areas. But this would have been one of the factors they would have looked at in coming to their decision to build. The demograpics of those who are likely to be repeat customers of WnW would be particularly tasty to a marketer in the entertainment industry and it would be naive to think that Village would not be looking at tapping this.

[Bussy]

It's been a while since i've been on the forums so it's good to catch up with what's going on around the place. I think that this park will make a success of itself for the main reason is that Sydney has never had anything like it, and Jamberoo doesn't count as I don't consider it to be a Sydney attraction. The masses will flock to the park for the first 5 years and if Village keep up the park like they do on the Gold Coast it will continue well after that. I wonder how many ex-Wonderland staff will start working there? I know there are a few who still work at Luna Park who will be interested. I myself will never work at a theme park again unless they can give me the money I'm on now for only working 3 days a week. Wazza's a bit far away for the daily commute Bussy

[Gazza]

The bus is now leaving for where ?

[Bussy]

The bus is now leaving for where ?

"The Bus is now leaving for Wet Gun Swamp, Tasmania"

[CruiseSF]

in the plans it has a Rapids River loop on the lazy river. What is a River Rapids Loop? Link to the plans It is number 22

[Jamberoo Fan]

Correct me if i'm wrong but i think the 'Rapids River Loop' is just simply an extension of the main lazy river. This loop extension is probably where the rapids are created so the extension allows the 'thrill-seekers' to go one way where the waves are while the people who like to relax and be 'lazy' to go the other way where it is a gentle flowing current before the two rejoin each other again.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Jamberoo Fan

[Jamberoo Fan]

Found another version of the Wet 'n' Wild Sydney layout - https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/59eff5e204f6cf4685daa005f94747e2/Appendix_U_Site_Plans_and_Design_Drawings%201.pdf Which one are they using? That one or the one on the official Wet 'n' Wild Sydney website - http://www.wetnwildsydney.com.au/pdf/WNW_Sydney_Proposal.pdf ?

[Gazza]

^Normally it'd be the one with the latest date revision.