I had no idea Dreamworld buildings were so closely modelled on Disney's. 

What a pity they didn't do the same with the attractions! 

21 hours ago, pushbutton said:

I had no idea Dreamworld buildings were so closely modelled on Disney's. 

What a pity they didn't do the same with the attractions! 

The main entrance is also modeled off Disney’s Entrance... not sure which park though

34 minutes ago, Gold Coast Amusement Force said:

The main entrance is also modeled off Disney’s Entrance... not sure which park though

Walt Disney World. Magic Kingdom to be exact. Same goes for the IMAX "Gazebo" facade which was never a feature of the original Main street USA.

The original Disneyland entryway featured more angular, pointey rooftops - similar to the DW actual Train station which it was not surprisingly modeled on😃

 

You know what, knew a lot of these. Never noticed the train station one.

Here it is folks -  looks like five of Dreamworld's original Disneyland-copy facades are getting the boot & when they come down it'll mark the official end of John Longhurst's original Dreamworld.

Edited August 11, 20187 yr by Roachie

What on Earth is up with the People running our Theme Parks? Here's a start, they have no clue, that's what. 

Removing facade architecture that was inspired and modelled on Disney - of all People, the World Leaders and Pioneers in Theme Parks.

But hey, what would they know huh?

 

Are they trying to avoid copyright or something?

It’s such a nice facade to, and i think would be a perfect entrance for the new ride. And I doubt what they do for the facade will be anywhere near as good. 

But maybe they wanted to keep it, and it comes down to the fact the ride can’t be installed inside without demolition. But I’m sure there would’ve been a way

1 hour ago, iwerks said:

Are they trying to avoid copyright or something?

What do u mean? Copyright of the facade? There isn’t such a thing, it’s an architectural design, not branding. 

It probably will just be rebuilt with no infrequent design but just simply enough to cover the ride

4 hours ago, Brad2912 said:

What do u mean? Copyright of the facade? There isn’t such a thing, it’s an architectural design, not branding. 

Yeah, it’s not like Disney’s litigious. 😖

If you look at the plan, the facade, First Aid and so on are coming down due to Asbestos. Hopfully they get replaced with something nice.

Yes, asbestos riddles so many of our buildings from the last century. If they do take them down completely, it would be good to have something similar and it would be great to have something that was taken care of as nicely as the Disney buildings.

Asbestos is safe unless it's damaged. Otherwise many thousands (probably millions) of buildings would have to be demolished. 

I have to assume they would need to damage the asbestos in order to install the ride. In which case I really hope the replacement facade is tasteful and of high quality. 

You reach a point with old buildings that just stripping out plasterboard or paneled interior is enough to disturb asbestos containing dust within the wall and roof cavities and turn the place into a hazardous work zone without even touching the sheeting itself. 

15 minutes ago, Levithian said:

You reach a point with old buildings that just stripping out plasterboard or paneled interior is enough to disturb asbestos containing dust within the wall and roof cavities and turn the place into a hazardous work zone without even touching the sheeting itself. 

True. Well, we can only hope they get it right. 

On 11/08/2018 at 5:05 PM, Roachie said:

Here it is folks -  looks like five of Dreamworld's original Disneyland-copy facades are getting the boot & when they come down it'll mark the official end of John Longhurst's original Dreamworld.

 

Perhaps demo the cinema building but keeping all the facades? Look at the RNA may have took all the sideshow area but kept all the original facades.

On 11/08/2018 at 5:05 PM, Roachie said:

Here it is folks -  looks like five of Dreamworld's original Disneyland-copy facades are getting the boot & when they come down it'll mark the official end of John Longhurst's original Dreamworld.

I couldn't give a hoot if DW removed all of Disney style facades.  John Longhurst original DW died the day he sold it.  When you sell a house and can’t expect the new owners to keep it the way you had it.  If you want that to happen, you don’t sell it.

30 years ago, it was fine to rip off Disney designs because nobody travelled to America but now every second person has been to Disney.   DW shouldn’t be reminding guest of their trips to Disney when they visit because when you start comparing DW to Disney you realise DW is truly a dump.

Unlike 30 years ago DW doesn’t only compete with Australian parks but now competes with parks in Asia, America and Europe.

I do have a but-

DW don’t have a clear plan/idea on what DW is.   For example, MW has lost many of their great original attractions over the years and DC is the “in thing” no matter where you are in the park it still feels and looks like MW. 

The changes to the buildings over the last 10 years is a disgrace.  DW has become the home reno from hell and that is what I give a hoot about.  If DW removed every building I wouldn’t jump up and if they replaced it with something better.   DW clearly don’t have anything better and for some strange reason only known to DW are intent on degrading what they already have.

 

You don’t buy a Ferrari and put roof rakes on it.

Looking at the site plan, the important parts are missing from the photo, because I can't see where it says they are demolishing the entire facade.

The colour of the photo is washed out and is missing the key, but the focus seems to be the wording in the notes on the right hand side that says to only demolish areas marked in red colour?

The blocked out section that makes up the majority of the cinema facade is running along outside, its just an exclusion zone to dump, package and store possible asbestos contaminated material before its removed from site, it doesn't say it's being demolished. See the difference between it and the boost juice exclusions? The boost juice one is a complete, no access, demolition zone that appears to fall within or has access to from within the cinema building.

The facade is still there on the plans. The original entry is down for demolition, 2.7m wide to a height of 4m which sounds simply like improving access. Nothing actually says to remove the facade of the building, only that the highlighted columns are being removed. These, along with piers for the banked seating are marked red. There's nothing about the awning above once the columns have been removed. It could possibly be free standing and/or have replacement columns instore, so removing them doesn't mean its going either, which would normally be on the site plan too.

Pretty much the only facade I can see that is specifically being torn down is the one between the box office and the coffee shop. The plans call for 5m length of existing facade at 6m height. It's going to become the site access in and out of the entire construction area for the build, but buildings each side look untouched. 

It reads like the entry/foyer at street level is remaining, while the cinema building itself is gutted from within  to remove the banked seating and the piers supporting it as the building basically just appears to be a big free standing shed with no internal support columns. Im guessing from it's shape, and the external steel supports that are noted, its either block or tilt panel concrete construction, so you could rip pretty much everything out of it without having to touch the roof/ceiling. Be interesting to see the rest of the plan for the site profile, a 5m site access would be big enough to take vehicles through without needing site access from the rear. You could be taking the majority out into big skip bins to be removed from site when the park is closed, so you wouldn't need trucks to come and go during the day. It could explain the exclusion zone outside.


 

Edited August 13, 20187 yr by Levithian

31 minutes ago, Skeeta said:

When you sell a house and can’t expect the new owners to keep it the way you had it.

Given the history of the park it isn't too much of an expectation. Kings Island is currently owned by Cedar Fair but I bet the International Street section of the park looked a lot like it does now when the park opened. If Cedar Fair are smart enough not to do stupid shit to buildings in the park is it really too much to expect the same with Dreamworld?

Edited August 13, 20187 yr by pin142

40 minutes ago, pin142 said:

Given the history of the park it isn't too much of an expectation. Kings Island is currently owned by Cedar Fair but I bet the International Street section of the park looked a lot like it does now when the park opened. If Cedar Fair are smart enough not to do stupid shit to buildings in the park is it really too much to expect the same with Dreamworld?

I'm not a nostalgic type.  The same reasons people want to keep the buildings is the same reasons why people wanted to keep Eureka and Eureka was a whole load of rubbish tips put together.  Let’s be clear here, I’m not calling for the buildings to be demolished.  If DW had a better design or idea I wouldn’t jump up and down is all I am saying.   Some people here are saying they don’t want the facades modified simply because of old memories but I like to create new memories.  

I would be most happy if another company came in, closed DW for 5 years, bulldozed the lot and started from scratch with a new theme park.

Edited August 13, 20187 yr by Skeeta

5 hours ago, Skeeta said:

but I like to create new memories.   .

The thing is Dreamworld don’t create new memories anymore that can compare to the previous dreamworld. The facade will be replaced with temporary fencing knowing dreamworld 

I see both sides. Part of me thinks one of the best things Dreamworld has is their Disney-esque architecture. It's certainly not a decades old Waikiki super flip or ToT. I'd like them to try and hold onto something connecting them to their heritage, but at the same time, not at the expense of progress.

For example - on the ground that now sits Space Mountain in Disneyland, there was once a hover-bumper car attraction. This attraction was revived for Cars land circa 2013, but has already been removed due to capacity, reliability and experience. If we held onto that Tomorrowland attraction simply because it was the first in that space (Disney historians, I know it wasn't THE first attraction on that spot, but prior to that was the circus I think, and that isn't really tomorrowlandish - if I'm wrong, meh, I'm going from memory). The point is that not everything does need to be held on to just for history's sake.

Wherever possible the park should be sensitive to its history, and honour that where they can (so, for example, the new exit doors through the Emporium are just ridiculous), but in terms of the I-ride, whilst it suited the 'cinema' style of attraction very well, and fitted on the previous 'main street' - that 'main street' is slowly disappearing, so to keep just that one building in original condition would then look very out of place.

Further - we have no idea what the ride theme is yet. Although unlikely it could take on the 'Soarin' look of an airport \ runway \ hangar façade - for which of course an old school southern colonial style building would look completely out of place. Likewise - would we have cried foul if they'd left Wayne Manor when they installed JL3D ? Ok - it has a tenuous connection, but then they'd need the story to get you from the manor, through the batcave and into the JL part of the attraction, and the Hall of Justice (if not somewhat skewed) is much more suited to the attraction.

If it were presented as a 'theatre' or 'cinema' and then once you got in it was transformed into flight, sure, but I find that a hard theme to flesh out in my head. Although it's a shame to see it go, especially with the Disney versions above so clearly resembling it, at the end of the day, history shouldn't stand in the way of progress (which is why ToT should be unceremoniously ripped out too)

20 minutes ago, AlexB said:

If it were presented as a 'theatre' or 'cinema' and then once you got in it was transformed into flight, sure, but I find that a hard theme to flesh out in my head.

I like the idea of a grand theatre/cinema theme.  I would like a preshow that ran from the birth of cinema all the way up to I-Ride.  A bit of a history lesson but portrayed in a fun way.  Who wouldn’t want to watch Charlie Chaplin clips while they waited?😊

Edited August 14, 20187 yr by Skeeta

2 minutes ago, AlexB said:

I see both sides. Part of me thinks one of the best things Dreamworld has is their Disney-esque architecture. It's certainly not a decades old Waikiki super flip or ToT. I'd like them to try and hold onto something connecting them to their heritage, but at the same time, not at the expense of progress.

For example - on the ground that now sits Space Mountain in Disneyland, there was once a hover-bumper car attraction. This attraction was revived for Cars land circa 2013, but has already been removed due to capacity, reliability and experience. If we held onto that Tomorrowland attraction simply because it was the first in that space (Disney historians, I know it wasn't THE first attraction on that spot, but prior to that was the circus I think, and that isn't really tomorrowlandish - if I'm wrong, meh, I'm going from memory). The point is that not everything does need to be held on to just for history's sake.

Wherever possible the park should be sensitive to its history, and honour that where they can (so, for example, the new exit doors through the Emporium are just ridiculous), but in terms of the I-ride, whilst it suited the 'cinema' style of attraction very well, and fitted on the previous 'main street' - that 'main street' is slowly disappearing, so to keep just that one building in original condition would then look very out of place.

Further - we have no idea what the ride theme is yet. Although unlikely it could take on the 'Soarin' look of an airport \ runway \ hangar façade - for which of course an old school southern colonial style building would look completely out of place. Likewise - would we have cried foul if they'd left Wayne Manor when they installed JL3D ? Ok - it has a tenuous connection, but then they'd need the story to get you from the manor, through the batcave and into the JL part of the attraction, and the Hall of Justice (if not somewhat skewed) is much more suited to the attraction.

If it were presented as a 'theatre' or 'cinema' and then once you got in it was transformed into flight, sure, but I find that a hard theme to flesh out in my head. Although it's a shame to see it go, especially with the Disney versions above so clearly resembling it, at the end of the day, history shouldn't stand in the way of progress (which is why ToT should be unceremoniously ripped out too)

That's pretty much where my head's at - i'm all for change & I think the golden rule for any kind of change is that whatever comes next should be way better than what came before it. As an example - Gremlins at Movie World was great, but Scooby Doo is way better. The opposite could be said for the Looney Tunes River Ride and its replacement, Junior Driving School, which is the equivalent of replacing the Sea World Resort with the Coomera Motor Inn.

So in that regard, i'm all for the Flying Theatre itself - I reckon it'll make for an excellent addition to the park - if done correctly, it aligns with John Longhurst's original vision of attraction development where he would take something great overseas (like Soarin' in this case) and replicate it the best he could for our smaller market.

Basically, my thought process is in regards to the facades and heritage is this - if a company's going to knock down Disney-inspired facades on a whim I don't know if they have what it takes to put something better up, especially when their attention to care and detail post incident hasn't at all met the bar (think tin shed cage at the end of Tiger Island, Peter Brock's Garage signs left up a month after closure, maroon tin everywhere etc. etc.). And what's staggering is that for a park that desperately needs all the positive support it can get, Dreamworld's defaulting to the outdated marketing model of "ohhhh it's a secret something's coming sooon ooohhh ahhhh" instead of pre-emptively enrolling brand loyalists (us) and getting them enrolled into the future of the park. Research has shown that guests staying a hotel who had a problem during their stay and then had excellent, prompt & transparent service in fixing the problem would rate that hotel higher than guests who had no problem to begin with. Post incident, that's where Dreamworld need to be right now, particularly at a time when they're ripping down iconic parts of the park and the trust is very, very weak with both the public and folks like us.