Topgolf Gold Coast Construction

[Jamberoo Fan]

6 hours ago, YLFATEEKS said:

What do you think MW will do if they can’t move the overflow car park to make way for a new hotel?

They could maybe re-design the hotel to add an extra level of undercover parking below the hotel which merges into the existing main MW car park. These undercover car parking spaces are not reserved for hotel guests (as they are already getting their own car park). It's hard to know if this is all possible given there is more than the hotel being built on that site but I'd imagined everything built on the site would be built on top of such an undercover car park.

[Slick]

9 hours ago, YLFATEEKS said:

With the tally, up to 31 objections now for the new car park and a week to go to get your objections in.  What do you think MW will do if they can’t move the overflow car park to make way for a new hotel?

Probably build a bridge and get over it.

 

 

 

Get it? Because there's a creek. I'm so funny I make myself laugh sometimes.

[New display name]

I thought they were going under it by building a tunnel.

 

Objections up to 47. 

 

17 hours ago, Jamberoo Fan said:

They could maybe re-design the hotel to add an extra level of undercover parking below the hotel which merges into the existing main MW car park. These undercover car parking spaces are not reserved for hotel guests (as they are already getting their own car park). It's hard to know if this is all possible given there is more than the hotel being built on that site but I'd imagined everything built on the site would be built on top of such an undercover car park.

 

There could come a point that the project is not viable and it will put in the not going to make a big enough return off original outlay.

Adding undercover car parking is also extremely expensive.  If this was to happen I would see MW charging you to park there.

Another strange fact is the world has gone silent on TopGolf and I could have sworn MW said construction would start this year.

Can you check your timetable on this?

Edited November 22, 2016 by YLFATEEKS

[Tim Dasco]

@YLFATEEKS in a post on the first page you posted this saying construction will happen in 2017 for TG.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Tim Dasco

[New display name]

@Tim Dasco That proves I don't even take notice of my own shit.

[Tim Dasco]

We all have those days! ?

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

7 minutes ago, YLFATEEKS said:

@Tim Dasco That proves I don't even take notice of my own shit.

Nobody else does either!

[New display name]

I already knew that.

[Jamberoo Fan]

54 minutes ago, YLFATEEKS said:

There could come a point that the project is not viable and it will put in the not going to make a big enough return off original outlay. Adding undercover car parking is also extremely expensive.

True.

54 minutes ago, YLFATEEKS said:

 If this was to happen I would see MW charging you to park there.

I was thinking that as a possibility but didn't think it was relevant at the time so didn't add it to my post. I was thinking of it as 'VIP' parking during fine off-peak days. During inclement weather (where car damage is potential like from potential hail/damaging winds) and during peak periods would the car park be free for use (except maybe if they introduced a 'reservation' system where you can 'reserve' a car park space prior to arrival - they could charge for reservation).

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

@Jamberoo Fan stop overthinking everything.

1. they're not going to add an extra level of parking on the ground floor of their hotel. it would be ugly, and there would be no benefit to the hotel guests.
2. even if they did, view the hotel as it's own little precinct. the hotel operators aren't going to want 'general public' disturbing their guests
3. even if they did, they aren't going to allow places to be reserved \ paid for
4. even if they did, few people would pay to park at the far end of the carpark (even if bad weather was forecast... if you expect bad weather that will damage your car, you probably won't go to a theme park)

Mate you make some really thoughtful and insightful predictions and speculations, but fuck me sometimes you just take it to the extremely ludicrous. You make so many predictions and speculations about things we might as well just conclude here and now that you forecast, predicted or otherwise estimated that everything would happen at some point between now and the end of the world.

[Brad2912]

I'll stick that on my fridge too...

[Jamberoo Fan]

1 hour ago, AlexB said:

stop overthinking everything.

I wasn't - I was only answering @YLFATEEKS's question (below). Had he never asked it, I would never have thought it. It also wasn't a prediction. Despite the number of objections to the car park proposal, I still think it is possible that the new car park will be allowed to proceed.

On 21/11/2016 at 10:59 AM, YLFATEEKS said:

What do you think MW will do if they can’t move the overflow car park to make way for a new hotel?

1 hour ago, AlexB said:

1. they're not going to add an extra level of parking on the ground floor of their hotel. it would be ugly, and there would be no benefit to the hotel guests.

I said it would not be for hotel guests and like I said earlier, there are other attractions going on that site & because I don't know what they are, I can't fully imagine how an extra level of undercover parking would work. But if it was just a hotel, I can imagine a design that would hide the car park from view. In case you thought it, I wasn't imagining the hotel's reception being located on the same level as such an undercover car park.

1 hour ago, AlexB said:

2. even if they did, view the hotel as it's own little precinct. the hotel operators aren't going to want 'general public' disturbing their guests

It's an overflow car park - no one would use it except during peak periods. Plus, there are other attractions going in that area so the general public will be there anyway (depending on what those attractions are).

1 hour ago, AlexB said:

.3. even if they did, they aren't going to allow places to be reserved \ paid for

Doesn't stop Wet 'n' Wild Sydney (not reserved though).

1 hour ago, AlexB said:

4. even if they did, few people would pay to park at the far end of the carpark (even if bad weather was forecast... if you expect bad weather that will damage your car, you probably won't go to a theme park)

This is the only thing I agree with - I should have realised that.

1 hour ago, AlexB said:

Mate you make some really thoughtful and insightful predictions and speculations, but fuck me sometimes you just take it to the extremely ludicrous.

With the information I had at the time I 'made a prediction', I don't think I've made "extremely ludicrous" predictions. Sometimes you've pointed out some are & that was because I didn't have all the information. Once I seen that information I didn't have, I acknowledged that it was unlikely what I 'predicted' would happen.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Jamberoo Fan

[Santa07]

1 hour ago, Brad2912 said:

I'll stick that on my fridge too...

brb adding that to the image

[New display name]

@Santa07 Are you lost?   @Richard you might need a total re-design of Parkz.  There have been cases of people saying they are leaving and they can’t find the exit.  Now Santa07 said he will be back and I can’t find him anywhere.

Objections for car park up to 95.

.

 

 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

On 15/11/2016 at 11:43 AM, YLFATEEKS said:

 

This is the link if you want to have a look for yourself.

http://pdonline.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/masterview/modules/applicationmaster/default.aspx?page=wrapper&key=233422#

 

Although the link worked on the first day, this link once again points to some guy's carport application elsewhere on the coast. stupid GCCC pdonline!

Although I found it last time i went looking, its tedious. Skeet can you include the lot \ plan number next time so I can just search on that?

Nevermind - Lot 2 on plan SP114768

[New display name]

Pdonline has a lot of searching problems. 

MCU201600948 is the application number when it works.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

This one is a particularly interesting read - not for their objection, but for all the attached documents - who knew they were so informative to local residents, and they even give free tickets to local residents for fright nights!

58811087[011].pdf

[New display name]

LOL @AlexB did you read everyone? 

I think 90% of them are regarding traffic at the roundabout and this sort of thing would be conditioned in the council approval anyway.  This type of condition is “normal” and after the approval is issued it will be negotiated on who covers the cost or what percent MW will pay.  Same thing happened on the new overpass at DW.

 

GCCC sent MW an information request ages ago and MW would have answered the questions by now.  Most of the questions people are asking GCCC should have already been answered now.

 

Quote

Some of the questions GCCC have already asked MW

It is unclear how pedestrians from the proposed Parking Station will gain access to Movie World which is located approximately 900 metres away. The applicant is requested to provide further details on how pedestrian gain safe and efficient access to Movie World as the existing footpath terminates before the Movie World site.

The landscape plans provided as part of the application indicate a golf buggy link with a separate access. Should the applicant propose a shuttle service utilising golf buggies for patrons and staff, the applicant is requested to provide information relating to how many shuttles will be in operation, pickup and drop of location and the proposed timetable.

Operation of Parking Station

        The applicant is to confirm that the operation of the parking station is to be limited tothe use of the staff and patrons of Movie WorldSocial Planning Management measures/ Access control.  Large car parking areas can be a target for anti-social behaviour (‘hooning’) at times when they are not in use for legitimate purposes. It is requested that the applicant provide detail with respect to any proposed management measures to prevent anti-social behaviour on-site including whether access to the car park will be restricted after hours."

 

 

 

 

The list goes on but people get the idea.

Edited November 25, 2016 by YLFATEEKS

[Santa07]

1 hour ago, YLFATEEKS said:

@Santa07 Are you lost? 

Maybe, is this Parkz that I'm reading?

Where I'm really lost though is as to how a carpark would be any noisier than the motorway 100m down the road. Chances are the noise coming from the linking streets will be worse than a carpark, plus cars these days are so quiet you'll get more noise from within people's houses. Plus I feel like the roundabout should be able to handle traffic fine, it's not like it's going to be in use all year round and a few busy days should be managed easily by the roundabout.

[Reanimated35]

Quote

"Not only do we object to this application, but this application must be refused."

 

Sorry guys, Dawn & Stuart said no, everything is cancelled now. Move along. 

Edited November 25, 2016 by reanimated35
Quoting manually on a phone is a pain in the ass

[New display name]

@reanimated35 thank you for clearing that up.  We can now move on.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

57 minutes ago, YLFATEEKS said:

LOL @AlexB did you read everyone? 

I think 90% of them are regarding traffic at the roundabout and this sort of thing would be conditioned in the council approval anyway.  This type of condition is “normal” and after the approval is issued it will be negotiated on who covers the cost or what percent MW will pay.  Same thing happened on the new overpass at DW.

I've read most of them. skipped quite a few 17kb ones because i know its going to be the same one paragraph drivel.

The thing that gets me on many of these though is how they point out that VR should pay to upgrade the roads and roundabout, when by their own evidence, the road and roundabout are already not coping with the traffic flows, which as some of them point out, aren't affected by traffic from the park which has its own dedicated intersections feeding to the motorway.

So sure they want to add 700+ cars to that roundabout, and that probably means they should contribute to the cost of the upgrades, but not made to pay for them in its entirety.

Other things that get my goat:

• its a green space and should be retained - no, it's private land owned by a corporation. it is zoned for development (albeit residential) and nothing would prevent a developer from dropping 100+ townhouses on the site which would probably:
  *increase traffic without an obligation to upgrade roads
  *increase antisocial behaviour (a usual occurrence for an almost entirely rental demographic
  *be difficult to sell, as there is minimal barrier to park and highway noise
• birds live there - bullshit - birds live wherever they can build a nest (oh and most don't nest in eucalypts because they are too sparse)
• the road can't handle any more traffic (they fail to acknowledge that traffic using the carpark would travel in the opposite direction to the peak traffic flows, so only the roundabout would be affected)
• the park should build a carpark elsewhere on their land as they have heaps of vacant land (but don't realise the number of other uses the currently vacant land will have - eg Hotel)
• the old cades county plan identifies the block as green reserve (the old cades county plan has been superseded numerous times)
• many of the objectors have not lived in the area prior to the park opening - therefore moved into the area with full knowledge of the parks operations and activities - some of them only in the past 5 years or less.
• they point to the other parking areas on property and their lack of landscaping, or lacklustre landscaping with poor attention paid to upkeep, without realising - unlandscaped lots were approved as were by the council at the time, and those that were landscaped and have subsequently been killed off - this mainly comes from guests walking through garden beds and otherwise damaging them (i think this was in reference to the AOS carpark as it is the only one I know of with any decent effort and planting within the parking areas itself, rather than on the edges...)
• they complain about increased noise, when the highway generates far more
• they complain about fumes - as if the 700 cars would all sit there with their engine running all day - and again - the highway would contribute far more, especially in traffic jams etc

i could go on and on, but in summary - very few of the objections lodged raise anything that is valid, and those that do make valid points fail to identify that many of these points have already been addressed by the park.

[New display name]

To add to that QLD main roads referral response back to GCCC is they have no objection to the car park because it is not on its main roads network and will add no extra load to the M1.

If I was a resident I would be worried more about a 60-metre coaster, however many new cabins that MW are about to build, a hotel and a golf thingamabob that people will get intoxicated at.

What I don’t understand is why buy next to a theme park and complain about it.  2 out of the 5 people on the back of the new car park purchased the property last year.

This is a very good lesson for anybody who is ever going to buy a house.  Do a 5min check and see who owns the undeveloped lots near you.  MW was always going to do something on this land because you don’t pay rates on land for 30 years just the fun of it.

 

 

Only so much can be said about a car park so now I want to discuss the hotel.   I'm having one of those skeet feelings again that the hotel will sit on top of TopGolf. 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

the thing about the 60 metre coaster, cabins, hotel and golf thingamabob is that they all exist on land within the movie world zoning - which is zoned for these types of activities.

as you know, but for the benefit of others - the big difference here is that MW is asking the council to rezone the land to permit the carpark, hence the MCU or 'material change of use' - and is the reason why so many objections make reference to the current zoning plan for the area, and how different this proposal is from that plan.

I feel like the other developments referred to, whilst they may receive objections, would sail through a lot easier based on the zoning of the entertainment precinct for that purpose.

 

It would be hilarious though to see these same residents object to the other applications when some of these guys have said things like 'why don't they build on the land they already have?'

[New display name]

Don't you worry about that @AlexB  in one of the objections some guy was complaining the coaster was being built to close to the M1.

Edited November 25, 2016 by YLFATEEKS