Sea World Expansion

[iwerks]

And Sydney's WetnWild is not.

[Brad2912]

2 minutes ago, YLFATEEKS said:

jupiters casino is free.  

Likely to change once the redevelopment is completed 

[Original]

36 minutes ago, Glubbo said:

If the new multilevel carpark is built in that area, knowing Casinos parking will not be free. Will this see a precedent set for Aussie theme park car parking fees?

Wet'n'Wild Sydney? 

33 minutes ago, YLFATEEKS said:

jupiters casino is free.  

But for how much longer? Pacific Fair followed in the footsteps of other AMP centers with paid parking and The Star in Sydney is paid and considering they on Jupiters (soon to be The Star) how much longer will it stay that way? Same goes for   The Treasury in Brisbane, also set to become The Star. 

[Whombex]

1 hour ago, YLFATEEKS said:

jupiters casino is free.  

 

1 hour ago, iwerks said:

And Sydney's WetnWild is not.

Thanks for the info Skeets and iwerks.
 

32 minutes ago, Original said:

Wet'n'Wild Sydney? 

But for how much longer? Pacific Fair followed in the footsteps of other AMP centers with paid parking and The Star in Sydney is paid and considering they on Jupiters (soon to be The Star) how much longer will it stay that way? Same goes for   The Treasury in Brisbane, also set to become The Star. 

I was under the impression that the Treasury was to close and become a hotel, once Queen's Wharf Star opened.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2016 by Glubbo

[New display name]

Documents seen by the Bulletin reveal Village Roadshow employed traffic consultants to prepare a submission to the council as councillors prepare to vote on Sunland’s twin 44-level tower development.

http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/theme-park-launches-shock-protest-against-sunlands-planned-twin-towers/news-story/1e574fb412310e439c3232b64c49dba5

SW was opposed to the twin towers.

I think SW will build into the existing car park and the casino will provide the parking for SW.

 

 

All the land on this map is crown land.

Car park already goes outside SW boundaries.

If I recall correctly, the original Sunland development was going to reclaim some of the Broadwater.

SAVE OUR SPIT statement-

SOSA has been in direct contact with officials from the state government yesterday. To clarify the mixed news reports -

• No, there has been no signing off on anything other than the initial request (process deed) to see preliminary details of a proposed development. This happened over a year ago so it is not news
• No, the state government has not approved anything or signed off on any approval of anything. As far as a proposal or any detail - nothing has been tabled by ASF
• The state government is cautious and skeptical at this stage, but is engaging with ASF nonetheless to at least see what they propose
• There are strong indications suggesting that the state government inherited this mess from the LNP and is looking to see the process through to cover its liabilities and obligations - to be proactive in its approach to development and investment - but also heavily scrutinise any proposals and if need be, reject them.

The Sunday Mail report yesterday, contains many false/unattributed/unsupported statements and remarks. We suspect the story has been manufactured to put downward pressure on local councillors to create confusion, fear and ultimately force support for items such as Sunland's proposal and this yet-to-exist proposal.

No, SOSA has NOT given ASF our blessing, and it is a lie that has been printed by the Sunday Mail without any attributed source or evidence.

SOSA is strongly opposed to megadevelopments and towers on The Spit, and we are strongly opposed to any private/commercial/large developments north of where there currently is, this includes any notion of a fanciful yet completely unusable cruise terminal.

SOSA supports the view that the city plan, including height limits, must remain enforced and respected.

 

Edited September 5, 2016 by YLFATEEKS

[Santa07]

I see where they're coming from - getting to Sea World can be a nightmare in traffic, especially along the spit.

(also those towers are ugly  )

[Theme Park Girl]

That's exactly one of the reasons I don't visit Sea World as often as the other parks. Despite its being the closest park to my residence, the lack of accessibility and carpark situation there really irritates me. 

I actually find it less of a headache to jump on the M1 and get to the other parks further away.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

I do like the suggestion of a bridge across the broadwater - hopefully connecting to Smith St intersection to bypass all that congestion.

[themagician]

There was this article from 2014 about a cable car ride travelling past to the spit and over the broadwater.

http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/a-bit-of-a-stretch-a-24km-cable-car-ride-going-to-southport-the-spit-south-stradbroke-island-and-sanctuary-cove-could-be-built-before-2018/story-fnj94idh-1226813502386

[New display name]

2 hours ago, AlexB said:

I do like the suggestion of a bridge across the broadwater - hopefully connecting to Smith St intersection to bypass all that congestion.

I like the idea of a tunnel.  How high would it have to be to let the sail boats pass.

[Brad2912]

And they'll slug you $6 to go through it...

 

Last thing SE Qld needs is more tunnels. Campbell 'Tunnels' Newman is no longer around. 

 

[New display name]

What's your idea?  A big ass bridge would look shit and be higher than the gold coast highway bridge to let the sail boats out.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

51 minutes ago, YLFATEEKS said:

I like the idea of a tunnel.  How high would it have to be to let the sail boats pass.

The part I had read talked about a 'florida keys' style bridge. To me that meant:

It would only need one segment tall enough for those boats moored in the Marina to fit under. The picture below is how I see it being built - attached to Smith Street, and crossing the channel - the image below - showing the whitewash from boats in the channel would be the only part that would need to be elevated high enough for the boats to pass under.

At the narrowest point, that channel is about 130m wide. I'm no engineer, but i'm sure you can't do a span that wide without significant cost, but you probably can do something big enough to accommodate the boats berthed below.

The alternative to building up so high (i'm not sure we'd host superyachts - but i've found some around 90m tall - so given we do see international boat shows etc at the marina, its probably not the right idea) would be a drawbridge style bridge - there are plenty of examples around, and done right, it in itself could become a tourist attraction...

[New display name]

Yay.  Take the kids to the Broadwater and look at that the whole time.  It's not a river.

One option was to connect the spit to South Straddie and over to Brisbane Road

Edited September 5, 2016 by YLFATEEKS

[themagician]

There used to be bridge that crossed over that area of water. But was removed in the 60s.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

1 hour ago, YLFATEEKS said:

Yay.  Take the kids to the Broadwater and look at that the whole time.  It's not a river.

One option was to connect the spit to South Straddie and over to Brisbane Road

Connecting the spit to South Straddie has the same problems - it passes over the GC seaway, which is the primary entry path for ocean going vessels. a bridge over that would have the same problems.

The broadwater isn't a river - but neither are the florida keys. It is a massive chokepoint down the GC highway, not only for access to the spit, but the GC strip itself. Having a major arterial bypass the landlocked GC HWY and offer a second entry point to Main Beach would really be a no brainer for me. ship traffic is obviously a problem, but I don't think a tunnel is viable - entry and exit points typically require a lot more space than a bridge. I'd love to see a drawbridge done up, with a nice viewing tower or similar, with walking and cycle paths along the length of the bridge also - think Houghton Highway \ Ted Smout Bridge.

[Jamberoo Fan]

Found out about this 'expansion' yesterday and have since found the proposed site of the casino exactly (everyone already knows it's approximate location) and here is the official website of the development as well as the QLD Government's webpages for the development (both don't reveal much...yet).

I have a slight concern that Sea World may 'claim' the casino as part of the park similar to how Movie World is 'claiming' TopGolf as part of their park despite being a completely separate entity. It's a 5 hectare development site after all - just enough for Sea World to 'claim' and 'overtake' Dreamworld as Australia's biggest theme park. But to "double in size"? That is really sudden and unlikely. It depends on how they defined 'size' - are they referring to hectares or the number of rides etc.? I'd probably think the latter. It is easier to double the number of rides etc. than by doubling the number of hectares the park has.

If this casino is built, I hope Sea World's entrance ends up being as far away from the proposed casino as possible to avoid it 'blending' in. Thinking of families, I don't think parents would want their children walking past gambling advertisements & glittering lights as they walk from a car to a family theme park - children might associate the two like how sport & gambling are being intertwined. I rarely go to the Gold Coast but personally, I wouldn't like to see a casino so close to a theme park. It should be distinctively separate like Conrad Jupiters.

Talking of Conrad Jupiters, what are the chances Sea World's monorail will be connected to the new casino with a new station? Conrad Jupiters is connected by monorail too remember and if most of Sea World's daily visitation comes from the Nara Resort, would that reduce some traffic congestion around Main Beach by having 2 resorts connected to the theme park by monorail? A light rail branch line to the other side of the casino could help too.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Jamberoo Fan

[Brad2912]

Couple of points...

* I don't think Movieworld is trying to 'claim' Top Golf at all, other than it being an associated entity under the same umbrella of VR/VTP. It's no more under claim to MW as OS is, which again is minimal. 

* How could SW claim that the casino was part of its park? Completely different owners and land usage, I find that a mind boggling suggestion. 

* every aspect of this proposal is in draft format. There are likely years of planning and changes before anything happens, so don't take the media articles, figures of sizes/expansions etc with an real validity at this point in time. 

* as a parent of a young child, I would have no qualms with my son seeing advertising for a casino in the carpark of a theme park, or having to walk past an entryway to the casino etc, it just give further opportunity to re-inforce with your kids the dangers of gambling. Sport and gambling are intertwined because you bet on sports. Unless SW is going to take wagers on which jet ski will do the best tricks prior to the show, that line doesn't even exist to be blurred. 

* I don't see a monorail station for the casino being added to the existing network, unless a seperate track/link was created running purely between the SW entry and the casino accommodation. The current set up works with sea world resort as guests get access to the theme park. Guests staying at the casino hotel/resort won't get given free access

* there is no land available to be reclaimed to incorporate a light rail track running along the Spit

[iwerks]

When you look at Sentosa, a casino and a theme park can work in close proximity to each other.  Sea World could even get its own downtown area/city walk.  On Sentosa they did away with their previous generation monorail that used to go around the island and replaced it with a more modern urban transit type of vehicle.  I could see this being the more likely option as there just aren't enough trains with the SW monorail the way it is.

[Tim Dasco]

Or they could get a cable car system like Singapore has to Sentosa Island. Heck they even have a bridge going over to Sentosa which has travelators going the whole length so you can walk over.

[Jamberoo Fan]

1 hour ago, Brad2912 said:

* I don't think Movieworld is trying to 'claim' Top Golf at all, other than it being an associated entity under the same umbrella of VR/VTP. It's no more under claim to MW as OS is, which again is minimal. 

OS is very well promoted as separate from MW. When I said 'claiming', I'm referring to promotions like this from MW's Facebook page:

Quote

Exciting news! We’re bringing the global leader in sports entertainment, Topgolf to Australia with the first venue coming to Warner Bros. Movie World in mid-to-late 2017. #topgolf

If you read the Facebook comments to that post, some of the general public automatically assumed it was part of Movie World (until they asked).

1 hour ago, Brad2912 said:

* How could SW claim that the casino was part of its park? Completely different owners and land usage, I find that a mind boggling suggestion. 

I was thinking along the lines of that proposed Westfield development near Dreamworld.

1 hour ago, Brad2912 said:

* every aspect of this proposal is in draft format. There are likely years of planning and changes before anything happens, so don't take the media articles, figures of sizes/expansions etc with an real validity at this point in time. 

I'm definitely not taking this Sea World expansion as fact by the way. After all, our only source is the media for this one and such an expansion is very sudden and unlikely on the scale rumoured. I feel the media or property developers are playing with their own words to make the casino proposal sound better. In the end, I'm just speculating possibilities - I'm for theme park expansions wherever possible.

1 hour ago, Brad2912 said:

* as a parent of a young child, I would have no qualms with my son seeing advertising for a casino in the carpark of a theme park, or having to walk past an entryway to the casino etc, it just give further opportunity to re-inforce with your kids the dangers of gambling. Sport and gambling are intertwined because you bet on sports. Unless SW is going to take wagers on which jet ski will do the best tricks prior to the show, that line doesn't even exist to be blurred. 

Regarding the possible proximity of the 2 entrances, I meant like walking really close to the casino (like walking past poker machines at an RSL club) - not just a billboard or revolving doors. It would be better if the link between Sea World and the proposed casino is clearly separate and if the casino is built, whilst being a glamourous building, be hidden of gambling iconography on the outside (apart from the brand name of the casino).

Yeah, sports and gambling have eternally been interwined but not on the scale of the recent past.

1 hour ago, Brad2912 said:

* there is no land available to be reclaimed to incorporate a light rail track running along the Spit

No land would need to be reclaimed. Most light rails operate jointly with roads or pedestrian plazas. I imagined a branch line going down Waterways Drive then turning into Sea World Drive with stops at Southport Yacht Club, Palazzo Versace before terminating at Sea World. The only difficulty is construction. Sea World would have to cope with even worse traffic congestion or maybe temporary closure until it is built.

1 hour ago, iwerks said:

Sea World could even get its own downtown area/city walk. 

I'd prefer that happening between the casino and Sea World (particularly if it is built on top of Sea World's current car park) as those downtown areas etc. are really vibrant areas so a casino could be 'hidden' from view amongst it all. I just don't think a standalone ground level casino should happen close to Sea World.

1 hour ago, Tim Dasco said:

Or they could get a cable car system like Singapore has to Sentosa Island. 

Thinking of this, it would be unlikely given the recent demise of Sky High Skyway unless they decide to build one with a larger capacity connecting the proposed casino/Sea World with Southport. It would be more of a tourist attraction than the bridge and avoids large marine traffic too. It would be only be a question of whether it is an eyesore depending on it's height?

[Tim Dasco]

The Cable Car from Singapore to Santos Island is a tourist attraction. However it has a large capacity. It is like the one they are trying to build over the swan river from Kings Park to Elizabeth Quay and then down to the new stadium. I am pretty sure each cart can hold around 6 people concretely and they have air-conditioning.

[themagician]

Just watched a news story on the proposal for the casino and nothing has been approved or proposed at this point in time, as usual it's just the news papers saying untrue things. However if the casino were to be constructed, a bridge would also be constructed across the Broadwater. Also sea world have said that the statement that the park will be doubling in size are untrue and at this stage no such plans exist.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

9 hours ago, Brad2912 said:

* I don't see a monorail station for the casino being added to the existing network, unless a seperate track/link was created running purely between the SW entry and the casino accommodation. The current set up works with sea world resort as guests get access to the theme park. Guests staying at the casino hotel/resort won't get given free access

I can see it being done easily, so long as the rolling stock had an upgrade - Sea World Resort still has a 'gate' inside the souvenir shop where tickets \ passes are scanned before guests can enter the monorail station, which is 'part of' sea world. Disney also managed to do it quite well with their monorail entering Disneyland Hotel. It would be quite easy to extend the track to the Casino, build a station that enters the 'hotel' section of the Casino, with ticketing \ gates installed at that end also - OR a slight rework of the SW 'in park' stations (there's only two) with park entry gates positioned inside the park, allowing people to 'tour' the park without actually entering it.

[Brad2912]

No doubt It's possible Alex, but at this stage we don't even know if the monorail will fit under the new roof.. I'd think shuttles would be a more likely alternative