Levithian

You're like a broken clock, only you're not right twice a day but completely useless instead. You have absolutely no regard for reality. They could remove superman and reinstate the studio tour and movie magic stage show. What has been changed can be changed again right? The reality is your idea is fundamentally flawed. Come up with a new one grounded in reality of not being able to utilise any of studio grounds. I know. They could fill in the swamp and build on top. They do it for housing estates all the time....

This is not part of the park area anymore. It is fenced off and part of WB studios. No direct access at all from the theme park. You can actually see the dividing fence from the overhead image you posted. And despite what lots of people think, the theme parks and the studios are two separate entities now. They don't share space and access is restricted, plus and they don't give up space from the studios. Simply because studios generates more actual income than the parks do. Want evidence of this? have a look where they created site access for the new area. Storage across the road and road access down a gravel driveway along the boundary fence and around past facilities instead of straight through any choice of 3 nice, paved entrances from studios.

The reason the carts are stored in back of house here is because food and bev have their warehouse and offices for retail sales in the park. You would have to build infill walls that partition off access to the various departments now in this area which would narrow this space further. Im not sure if you could reclaim the space against the superman building. There are false walls on the left side of the alley with a pretty large cavity behind. Hides things like the old HVAC units from the movie magic sound stage show that used to be in the building. There isn't as much space to that alley way wall as you might think. It also has emergency exits from the ride. There are a lot of services on the left side of the alley way too. It's not just so clear cut. The new area is honestly in a poor position where it is. Ideally you would like to be walking right through the middle of the scooby building straight up to the new land, but obviously that doesnt work. You can't really go around the back of scooby too as it further reduces back of house access during the day, not only to the rear of scooby but retail/merchandising have offices in the old petrol station building too. Plus, when scooby doo shuts for annual maintenance, access is needed to the lift and the high areas through the back of the building, so the whole access would be closed off any time scooby doo is down for work. I think we are just going to have to settle with a number of average entry/exit points as nobody is going to start tearing down walls or buildings to provide increased public access. Afaik, it hasn't been recommissioned and has experienced substancial upgrades while it was closed which haven't been fully implemented. So the long shut times could likely be a combination of having to implement changes, test and report with the aide of intamin, then submit to the government for approval and registration. It would have come under the new laws regarding 10 yearly maintenance too, so there could be a number of things that need to be done or changed to meet their requirements. And that's all before they might consider things to make it look pretty like theming, or even the notion of training staff. Plus, we know what village are like, if they can't make a show of it during a holiday period they are likely to wait until the next one for an opening even if the attraction is ready. So christmas holiday period might be too close, which makes easter holidays in april the next one in line.

A big part of the issue is the launch distance. With current technology you need a longer launch area than compared a hydraulic launch. Something compact like superman would likely require a track redesign.

There actually appears to be a little more space reclaimed than just the footprint of Arkham. Looks like they cleared everything right up to the old commissary building and across to the road. There was a bit of a grassy hill there before and some parking/storage.

Where will you place it? Doesn't matter what it was in the past, it's what it is now. There's like 4 departments utilising the space. The maintenance building isn't big enough/tall enough for parade storage and everything that goes with it. It's a tiny building and isn't anywhere near as tall as the toons building.

There is more than just storage in that half of the building. Its not easy to split these facilities up and move them away from maintenance departments.

You have to understand that Movie World only has a connection to Warner Bros. because they licence the name for use. Warner Bros. don't have any control or share in the park at all, they don't own anything. So every single IP usage you see is under licencing agreement. Now there are all kinds of agreements that licence their use for all kinds of things. Just because you have the image rights to use a particular character for live action characters or statues, doesn't automatically mean you can build an attraction or sell their likeness of merchandising. It's all negotiated upon. The more you want to use, the bigger the $$$$$$ You are forgetting about the yogi bear 3d movie and recent Tom and Jerry usage too. Plus the use of characters in the park and in merchandising. It's not like they haven't used any at all. It's pretty simple really. You want to pay for things that are current and relevant in the public domain in order to get your best return for the investment. There is a lot of HB stock that really isn't known to the current generation (even the previous generation) of kids. So you have to be careful about where you put your money.

Maybe you should understand there is a national practice in place regardless of state rules? Do me a favour and post some of the requirements on inspections and log book requires from worksafe. I'll wait. Amusement Devices - Information Sheet for Annual Inspections and Records - Updated September 2022.pdf (safeworkaustralia.gov.au)

The same requirements apply to all operators whether you meet the requirements for an amusement park licence or not. The new regulations apply to all rides and amusement devices above a certain class, that is what they were developed for. Doesn't matter how many rides you operate or large your company is, you could operate one single class 2 ride and still have to abide by the same regulations. It covers all instances of operating these devices, so fairs, fetes, shows, etc. For reference, an example of a class 2 ride is a red baron style kids ride or something like a mini drop tower. It's basically the minimum class you'll find for pretty much any actual moving ride. Worth noting that the intention is actually to develop a national code of practice, even though, as pointed out, other states have similar requirements from worksafe.

We see it all the time project managing building projects like this. Everything grinds to a halt when there is a dispute about money/costings. I would not at all be surprised if either their builder failed to notify them of the additional cost the second level is going to incur because of the existing dwelling next door being so close; or the owners were notified of this cost and it's in their agreement, but they failed to realise/understand this when the builder notified them of what was happening with the top floor. The fact that the build has stalled when there are a number of solutions available to be able to finish off this side of the building says to me there is an ongoing dispute with the builders and the owners want someone else to blame.

Notice that the hatchet job done by ACA go to great trouble NOT to show the left rear of the new property and how close their second story is to the existing property on the left? You don't comprehend things do you? You can apply to council to build within the limit, it's only a guideline. I guarantee it was applied for and was approved as Greg said. You don't make your house 2m wider and apply for retrospective approval, that is not a minor change. The article even says the building was approved that close. A minor change would be the top floor/front looks like it might have originally been exposed/open area as it appears to be an alfresco/deck. They've added a privacy screen by adding cladding (the strips of timber) around the open area. You can see the facia only extends around the side of the house maybe 6 or so meters and stops. This has extended the width of the front section of the property by the width of the cladding and the facia and is what the application is likely for. Not the whole second story. That would make absolutely no difference at all as the building still has to be within the boundaries of your property, not over it. The addition is still within the boundaries of the existing dwelling that was there before the new build was started. Probably before it was even planned. More evidence of this being the case is they offered to remove the siding to allow them access to finish the building on the second story of the new house next door. The Yong's have no requirement to do this, only simply trying to avoid problems given you have to live next door to these people. It's within their best interest to keep things civil and it shows council they are willing to work with them if they have objections to their addition. None of this at all changes that the new property was positioned and/or designed with the flawed assumption that they would be allowed access to the neighbouring property to errect scaffolding. The didn't have the same problem with the other side because the build is set back further from the property, and the second story is further setback again to provide them with styling features of an overhang/soffit. If you look closely, the new building is offset heavily to the left at the rear of the property to the point it looks like it nearly touches the existing property too. So by their reasoning, they are basically guilty of doing the same thing they are calling the Yong's out for. Not providing enough space. Talk about being hypocrites. The firewall would have been a requirement of the new dwelling long before the build even got started and it's 100% their cost to be able to build within the envelope. It's just a cheap shot trying to leverage the Yong's, to what reason, I don't know, because there isn't a council around that will make someone remove part of a dwelling that is still within their boundaries, so they aren't getting any space back to make it easier for them to finish the new build. The council would just make the owners of the existing dwelling jump through a lot of hoops (and fees, plenty of fees) to achieve the retrospective approval. It would have no impact on the building next door and will be sorted long after the new building has been completed. It sounds like someone complaining, then dobbing the neighbour into council in the hope that it will cause them issue/cost because they are unhappy and want other people to be unhappy too. Yeah. But remember when we didn't build houses on 300sqm properties too? Developers have been reducing the size of blocks to maximise their profits and councils have been allowing it to happen. It's really evident over the last 20 years. It's not like houses have changed in area, if anything they have gotten bigger because everyone wants a 4th bedroom, 3 bathrooms, a media room and a second lounge for the kids to make a mess in. So every bit of available space is being taken up and previous building limits have been amended/changed over the years to allow greater land usage per sqm of the vacant land and jam more houses in. It's complete crap, but it's what happens with urban sprawl. The density goes up as the land size decreases.

You don't need access from anywhere near the old arkham area/new oz precinct to even completely gut and replace the entire ride. There are two large access (roller doors) in the high zone building that provide more than ample access. It's how they completed the rebuild last time. All the themed areas are just boxes built inside of the shed. It's just open expanses above the ceilings. If it wasn't for the track you could drive a bulldozer through everything and end up with a clear box right up to the queue line inner castle. It's quite a big area inside to house/allow machinery access and skip bins to cart all your trash away without the track being in the way. Just speculating, but the track structure is very old now, and unlike other rides with solid columns for foundation, scooby doo is a large mad mouse and uses a lot of turret like supports that allow a lot of movement in the structure. It might be a permanent install now, but it's built with cones and tapers bolting the fixings to the supports and the track sections are flanged, so it can be dismantled relatively easy (compared a a rollercoaster with multiple permanent fittings) and transported. My guess is perhaps they found something wrong, maybe with wear or fatigue that required intervention now, either as a temp measure to keep going until the planned later closure, or potentially due to the cost wastage, bringing forward the closure and start of any future works as a possibility instead. This is largely what happened with the last renovations/upgrades. It was just because they decided to keep the ride open with everything removed that we were spared the immediate, long shutdown period too. Whatever the reason, sometimes the unforeseen forces your hand or at the least gives you cause to revaluate your plans and things change. Can't do anything at all about it other than make your decision and move forward.

Culture? Money? Training? Money? Time? Money? Investment in their staff? Money? Did I mention money? Provide staff with more than 1 day of introductory training then stop throwing them straight in with existing staff in a buddy training system to learn plenty of their bad habits would make a difference. Ohh and operate rides with a full compliment of trained, experienced staff instead of short changing your guests by running with the absolute minimum you can. Trained, experienced and full compliment being the key words here. For example, something we have all experienced; What is the point of having a sorter if they don't do their job and dispatches routinely leave with empty seats? Ultimately it has to come down to management. They could look into how effective their procedures are in relation to load/wait times and improve upon the standards with training and even possible incentives, but the long and the short of it is, they don't seem to care enough about people like us critiquing their processes and/or want to put the money into labour hours for both additional, more indepth training and extra staff to make a difference. Until that changes (and we have yet to see any evidence of that in a very long time), it's going to be more of the same and everyone is going to keep seeing the 2-3hr wait times during peak periods.

It's had a major overhaul though including the ride control/drive systems as part of the new requirements qld government introduced to operate an amusement device. I don't think it has even been run since this has happened, so for all intents and purposes it's a new ride, so age shouldn't be a problem with a view to it only being temporary before its too old and worn out and is removed again.