Parkz News There's no new major rides or attractions coming to Dreamworld after Sky Voyager

[red dragin]

Yeah, sorry Push. There are two ways to read that post, and you've taken the 2% of the time option, not 98% of the time. 

Re-read it as if SV was being built as originally intended at Southbank, Brisbane, and you will understand what Brad meant. 

[pushbutton]

I'm not sure of the nuances that would have applied in that scenario, but ok.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

20 minutes ago, pushbutton said:

I'm not sure of the nuances that would have applied in that scenario, but ok.

That explains a lot.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

On 22/02/2019 at 4:07 PM, Slick said:

It's worth pointing out that as it stands today Dreamworld (without WhiteWater World) is a smaller park per m2 than Movie World. If you were to compare apples vs apples (so say PC, WNW & MW against DW & WWW) the gap is even greater.

 

On 22/02/2019 at 4:49 PM, AlexB said:

It's pretty easy to add some extra land to your footprint when you run a hypercoaster out along your property boundary. It doesn't really change the size of the park (think Disneyland, and the buildings beyond the berm). Otherwise, can we start counting the BB Arena and  Gumtree plantation in DW's footprint too?

HWSW's footprint, for example, occupies space that is also utilised by waterslides, and guest accessible footpaths.

How big are the two land wise if you measure MW to the 'pre-hypercoaster' boundaries?

Nevermind - Here's some that were prepared earlier - and I retract my Hypercoaster comments - you can include DCR if you want...

 

[Slick]

49 minutes ago, AlexB said:

 

Nevermind - Here's some that were prepared earlier - and I retract my Hypercoaster comments - you can include DCR if you want...

 

So just take out dreamworld’s admin buildings like you have for movie world and any other guest inaccessible areas like the island and you’ll get something more realistic. 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Not my maps, but if we're going to nitpick every possible unusable space, you'll note the admin buildings behind HWSW are included, as is Sky Voyager, despite currently being guest inaccessible. And while maintenance sheds and other admin buildings aren't included, there's a decent space behind Roxy and other main street buildings that IS included.

Where practically excludable from the finished boundary, it has been - otherwise we can painstakingly measure out the loop the train does around blue lagoon - since that's guest accessible too. 

The Rivers of America, and Tom Sawyer Island, have plenty of guest inaccessible parts, yet nobody would think to exclude that from 'disneyland' in measuring it - so i don't see why the Murrisippi should be?

But... if you insist -

Dreamworld - excluding admin buildings, excluding Sky Voyager (since it isn't guest accessible), The river and island - hell, let's exclude the dodgems and arcade just for shits and giggles. We'll exclude the brock sheds too, since it isn't open... And we're still looking at a bigger park envelope.

It's not by much - but as mentioned, there's still plenty of guest inaccessible areas on the MW map too...

So.... since nearmap is still open... why not?

Note, that this still includes the BOH area that is the old chinatown alley from main street to the back end of gotham where the scooby lane opens up, which of course is more than just the superman showbuilding...  I've excluded as much of the admin buildings as i can - including those behind Rick's \ Roxy. Maintenance and storage have been cut out, as has been the BOH areas behind HWSD. I've sliced a portion out of showstage to allow for the mixed use that is Aquaman...

 

Sure, it's much closer, and if we allow a margin for error, hamfisted plotting, or just downright laziness, its close enough to call it a statistical tie - but a tie isn't "Dreamworld (without WhiteWater World) is a smaller park per m2 than Movie World"

Call it a draw?

[Slick]

Yeah for the purposes of keeping it on topic i'll call it draw, as you can endlessly pick apart definitions, used areas etc. etc. - I think the two points stand - Dreamworld shouldn't be selling off any land and when you start comparing like for like products in each chain (adding in respective portfolios and animal areas like PC into the equation) then the gap becomes larger. Again, not that area used is an indicator of quality, rather just debunking this idea that Dreamworld has too much land which we've heard from the likes of Craig Davidson is simply not true for either short term or long term additions.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Agree on all accounts. Dreamworld as it stands, more or less is much the same size as Movie World - although Movie World does make far better use of the land available. 

As for an apples vs. apples comparison - i think Dreamworld vs. Movie World, the DW marketing campaign should be 'biggest', because they are (more quality is needed), however if you were to compare PC, WNW and MW with DW\WWW, i think your marketing strategy has to change up at that point - you aren't arguing biggest when there's three different parks - you're arguing an all in one message - maybe something like "so many worlds in one" would work?

My main point however still stands -

On 22/02/2019 at 4:00 PM, AlexB said:

That is Dreamworld's answer to Movie World - a park that cannot expand much further behind it's gate - it will eventually be forced to overtake it's carpark to continue expansion, or it will have to replace attractions. Dreamworld on the other hand has plenty of land even within the park's boundaries that it can develop (provided, that is, they don't just keep cramming more shit into ocean parade).

Both parks 'as they stand' are comparable - but for MW to expand, there is little room to the south, due to the studios and other facilities. There is little to the west, because of their neighbours and boundaries. Not much option going north either - so east is their only direction, and that involves a complete realignment of the park entry and carpark.

Dreamworld on the other hand has about 4 key areas they can expand without impacting external entry or facilities.

• Approximately 30,000 sqm of land is occupied by Blue Lagoon and the former Goldrush*
• Approximately 34,000 sqm of land is occupied by the Island and River
• Approximately 14,000 sqm of land is occupied by the lazy river construction zone.

*I view these as two separate areas, each about half the total, for expansion. The 'blue lagoon' space does include the train sheds and tracks - however this doesn't preclude development of a kick ass coaster in and around the area designed to fit around the sheds and facilities. It also includes BB Studios, which is "inside the berm" so to speak.

If Dreamworld master planned these areas, with an 8 year, $100M budget, they could be installing a "maximum impact" attraction every two years. When you consider the park value decline - the money they've lost on that value could have been spent on this master plan, which would absolutely see them back on the map.

It's just that they don't have the balls to pull that trigger...

 

[pushbutton]

The island at Dreamworld could be guest accessible and the river could be used too (as it used to be). 

They're both space that could be very much part of the guest experience, if only the owners had the required guts and determination! 

[Rivals]

If they eventually add a roller coaster, they could add it on the island? A RMC raptor could easily fit there

[pushbutton]

30 minutes ago, Rivals said:

If they eventually add a roller coaster, they could add it on the island? A RMC raptor could easily fit there

and going over the lake could make it a bit unique within Australia, as I don't know of any other Aussie coasters that do go over water.

With some thought, they might even also be able to incorporate an underground section, a bit like one at Alton Towers in the UK.

 

There's allsorts that can be done to make the experience unique, giving tourists genuine reasons to want to go on it, rather than one of the numerous other coasters.

[Baconjack]

Remember the last time a theme park in Australia tried their hand at investing in 'capital light' events rather than actual rides? How well did that work out for them?

Well GG's DW. You're playing this by Wonderland's book now.

It's only a matter of time before this park bites the dust. At this point you can't even tell the difference between Ardent and Sunway. DW is quite literally not long for this world. I'll give it two years before Dreamworld as a whole is announced to be ripped down and turned into housing or Westfield expansion.

Edited February 24, 2019 by Baconjack

[Rabbit2014]

If the park is sold of for development in the future what rides would you like saved and moved to either SeaWorld or movieworld depending on costs

personally I would like buzzsaw and at least tailspin, the claw or Pandamonium. SeaWorld does need some rides. 

Almost everything else is too old and outdated  to be saved except some of the kids rides 

 

 

[Baconjack]

Buzzsaw, Tailspin, Claw, Pandemonium, Shockwave, MDMC and all of the kids rides are the rides worth saving. Most of these rides are going to go to international buyers. I don't see many domestic parks interested. Maybe LPS, Funfields, LPM or AW could snap up a couple of flats. MW and SW most likely won't be interested in buying used DW rides.. it is kind of counterproductive to market the Dreamworld veterans as new rides because the public will recognise them as relocations right away.

Edited February 24, 2019 by Baconjack

[Santa07]

33 minutes ago, Baconjack said:

MW and SW most likely won't be interested in buying used DW rides.. it is kind of counterproductive to market the Dreamworld veterans as new rides because the public will recognise them as relocations right away.

I don’t see MW buying used rides (even though a pendulum ride like the claw would work great there), but down the road SW did just add a travelling ride (and did very little to dress it up). If they continue that way and DW does bite the dust, tail spin and shockwave could fit well at sea world - they wouldn’t require much, if any retheme and their lower capacity (for tail spin mainly) isn’t much of an issue for the park.

[aaronm]

I imagine most rides are too old to resell and would be scrapped. Buzzsaw is a maintenance nightmare whose manufacturer has pulled out of the business, MDMC and ToT are problematic prototypes, nobody wants ancient Arrows anymore which rules out HWSW. Maybe Madagascar would be picked up but that's really the only coaster I could reasonably see being relocated.

[joz]

Sea World could give it a Rugrats theme.

 

And that's it really, I could see a Fun Feilds or Aussie World picking up a couple of the smaller and kiddie rides, Tailspin and Pandamonium but after that nothing seems that salvageable. Maybe Claw, but even it has 15 years on it now. Depends on how much they want for it. 

 

Tell ya what I reckon would get sold off succesfully though; all of the slides at WWW. Even with heavy use I reckon theres a lot of smaller parks that would love to get their hands on WWW's collection.

[New display name]

MDMC would be like the sale of Neverland.  Nobody want's any part of that.

[Gold Coast Amusement Force]

Neverland is just too high of a price

19 minutes ago, Skeeta said:

MDMC would be like the sale of Neverland.  Nobody want's any part of that.

 

[New display name]

24 minutes ago, Gold Coast Amusement Force said:

Neverland is just too high of a price

 

So is $1.00 for MDMC.

[Gold Coast Amusement Force]

I think MDMC after a repaint would be an ideal coaster for Movie World.

[joz]

What makes you think that? Like obviously I disagree but I'd love to hear if there is any reasoning or if it's a joke.

[-nick.white.1543]

I could see Funfields picking up MDMC as well as any slide from WWW.

[New display name]

33 minutes ago, Gold Coast Amusement Force said:

I think MDMC after a repaint would be an ideal coaster for Movie World.

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by Skeeta

[Gold Coast Amusement Force]

Why would I be joking. Movie World have no flat level coasters which aren't intimidating. MDMC is a fast-ish ride that doesn't go to great heights and isn't intimidating. It also is a good looking coaster. - We aren't looking at it as if it is at Dreamworld.