Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. The govt revealed: The theme park was due to open in 2003 on 90 hectares of land donated by the government and was expected to attract up to four million visitors a year. 90 hectares is the size of the LA park (88 hectares) so that was a pretty substantial park. So Disney clearly DID want to build a park of that size, and they did not stop because of fears of visitor numbers, they stopped because of funding shortfalls from the govt. But for that the park would be here today. I hazard to guess that any current proposal would be a similar size (though a smaller parker is certainly possible
  2. Hope not, the whole country is already themed Australia! I want to go to a park to escape to somewhere different!
  3. I think Avalon is a bad location, and evidently so did Disney. I mean seriously, windswept and barren, it's not exactly ideal. In any case, it's a moot point.
  4. I'm saying that's why it should be built on the Gold Coast. Anyway, it's not being built in Avalon, Disney flew down their once at the request of Lindsay Fox in 2005, didn't like the site and haven't been back since. Lindsay Fox even said it was a dead idea (which the fact he is talking about it evidences anyway given confidentiality clauses stop you saying anything). So it's good, this way you take one flight to the GC (or drive) and do all the parks, rather than flying. It's all hypothetical anyway:P
  5. I think the parks will benefit, because if you flew up to the GC, you wouldn't just do Disneyland, you do a few of your fav parks. When I went to Disney in Los Angeles, I still went to Universal and the other parks, I mean Disney is good and all but most ppl still see other stuff.
  6. Yep, don't forget in 2000 the QLD govt got into trouble for even mentioning negotiations. So just cos you don't hear anything, don't mean nothing is happening: ...He said Beattie leaked details of negotiations with Star Land, a company set up to work on attracting Walt Disney Attractions Inc to the state. "Under my government, what was under the coalition a closely guarded secret, has been the talk of the town under Labor," Borbidge told parliament. "They breached confidentiality and gave enormous disrespect to the sensitivities of the Disney organisation." Out of interest the plan back
  7. Well I think that is the key, getting a fair deal with Disney, because the Queensland govt has walked away before when the deal was too expensive for tax payers. So this is not whimsical thinking, this could have already happened. But it has to be a mutually agreeable relationship. Hong Kong is built, Shanghai is in the works, I'd say the next park will be CG Australia (maybe India, but I would say Australia).
  8. I think the point is, there is a train line nearby and an 8 lane freeway right between two booming cities. This makes it an attractive location (well that's obvious given the parks already in this region).
  9. Not my pic, but you know, you gotta visualise the goal;)
  10. Well it will be interesting to see what comes from that. I am curious also why 'www worker', brought up the 2 year old SEQ Disneyland thread below recently with this comment: is that based on goss or just a random post? The timing stuck me as interesting. Site Prediction:
  11. Well sounds intriguing all the same. I'd love SEQ to get a big new park, preferably Universal but I wouldn't say no to Disney or any other big operator. With the Disney rumours, well they are rumours for a reason, so could be true, could be not. I will say this though, the Bizzy Bits column in the Bulletin is surprisingly good at picking up some property industry gossip that is meant to be below the radar, so I would say there is truth to the talk of Disney at least being interested, but interested, whether that amounts to more... guess we'll see, it would certainly be nice.
  12. That's interesting, any hints who it could be? Would love to see something like Universal Studios!
  13. Hi guys, I started that post on Ozcoasters, it's not as farfetched as you think... Here is a chronology for you that explains the SEQ park a bit... 2000 - Pre-Disneyland Hong Kong - Queensland Park was planned As some may know, the Beattie government initially said no to Disney around 2000: http://hk-imail.singtao.com/news_detail.as...;d_str=20050916 If ever there was a succinct definition of a sweet deal, surely this is it. It may be recalled that before Disney signed its contract with the Hong Kong government it attempted to reach agreement with the Queensland state government for an
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.