Dreamworld - Proposed Development

[Narra]

Recently signage has appeared at the entrance to Dreamworld detailing a proposed development which may include nature based tourism attractions. What's everyone's thoughts on what this might be?

[STRAWS]

I can read but what does this mean exactly?.

 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Check out the full application details here

I've skimmed some of the documents really quickly this morning and a couple takeaways:

1. The main DA Form 1 references them as Ardent leisure, not Coast (though documents are from last year so depending on when the change occurred, that's probably in line with the submissions)
2. Looking at the plans, there are 3 current lots - in a nutshell, it looks like they just want to re-draw the boundaries of each lot.
3. They have land available on the north side of Oakey Creek which isn't entirely practical for them to expand the theme park on.
   
4. The new boundaries would create 3 new lots, basically defining the carpark (and the former BB studios) as Lot 1, the theme parks as lot 2 (including the Oakey Creek easement all the way to foxwell road), and turning the land that is on the north side of Oakey creek, adjacent to the old Big Brother site into Lot 3.
   
5. The application includes a MCU (material change of use). I haven't read through it all but I am assuming the MCU relates to the town centre transition precinct as it wouldn't be theme park \ tourism use, whereas I believe the current lots are. It also enables the road connectivity planned out for the Coomera Activity Centre to flow seamlessly into the connector roads.
   

[New display name]

@STRAWSor you can read the original topic from last year.

 

[mickayel]

Apologies for the bump. I'm curious to know if there is any further progress with this application? @New display name posted an image of the old thunderbolt station in thread 'Has Coast Entertainment given up on Whitewater world?' and it lead me down a rabbit hole about the history and future of Dreamworld and surrounding areas. 

[New display name]

A few weeks the application was ready to be voted on by council.  The council meet monthly and I haven't checked when it will be listed on the agenda.

[mickayel]

Thanks for the update. Please keep us in the loop if you have time 

[New display name]

There are a couple of environmental requirements/issues council did seek further information on. (council being council)

 

 

Interesting new site layout.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 5 by New display name

[themagician]

I find it very interesting that we could potentially see the car park slightly redeveloped to introduce commercial spaces that could be used for shopping or dining. And the introduction of what I assume to be a large DW sign on the western side of the car park 

[New display name]

Somebody need to do a before & after car park count.  

[franky]

Gotta say I'm disappointed with what I'm seeing.  For all the improvements they've been making inside the park, they're limiting their ability expand in the future by developing these empty areas around the park with precincts that are frankly a dime-a-dozen these days.

If they're trying to poise Dreamworld as a 'staycation' destination, the park itself needs to be bigger to justify it.

[Themepark Enthusist]

If they are building resorts, who says they won't build a new park? it does seem like they are locking themselves in. 

 

But I still see a few areas that can be expanded into like behind WWW, the island in the middle, motocoaster and old LHLR site. 

 

Also we have seen parks get more creative withy how they use space (see phantasialand) they only have 50acres all up. So its not the end of the world as long as they can keep up with the new theming they have going and continue using the (frankly limited) land for new unique experiences.

Edited May 6 by Themepark Enthusist

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

12 hours ago, franky said:

Gotta say I'm disappointed with what I'm seeing.  For all the improvements they've been making inside the park, they're limiting their ability expand in the future by developing these empty areas around the park with precincts that are frankly a dime-a-dozen these days.

If they're trying to poise Dreamworld as a 'staycation' destination, the park itself needs to be bigger to justify it.

Disagree. Dreamworld is already pretty damn big. there is plenty of space inside the current park envelope for them to expand without needing more. 

Thunderbolt. Troll's Village & FlowRider. Rocky Hollow. There's also opportunity to do something with the Murrisippi and the island as long as they preserve the waterway. As time goes on you start to see other attractions due for refurb or retirement - Motocoaster is 18 this year - maybe they invest in a retheme and refresh to give it another decade or maybe they decide to pull it in favour of developing the plot into something else? (lord knows the dead zone between Giant Drop and Main Street Station could use something to liven it up). There's also potential to slip something inside of Taipan's footprint, or Buzzsaw's plot, and cyclone\gold coaster can't have much more life left in it, surely? I'd love to see them take the convention centre building and turn it into an indoor attraction complex with an ocean-related theme to tie-in to Ocean Parade.

[New display name]

16 hours ago, franky said:

Gotta say I'm disappointed with what I'm seeing.  For all the improvements they've been making inside the park, they're limiting their ability expand in the future by developing these empty areas around the park with precincts that are frankly a dime-a-dozen these days.

If they're trying to poise Dreamworld as a 'staycation' destination, the park itself needs to be bigger to justify it.

Kinda looks like CE are trying to get are trying to get every bit out of DW before the big sell.

[New display name]

Let's try that again.  

 

Kinda looks like CE are trying to get every bit out of DW before the big sell.

Edited May 7 by New display name

[franky]

6 hours ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

Disagree

All valid points.

I would expect that Thunderbolt's plot will be reserved for WWW expansion or other special events.

 

6 hours ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

and cyclone\gold coaster can't have much more life left in it, surely? I'd love to see them take the convention centre building and turn it into an indoor attraction complex with an ocean-related theme to tie-in to Ocean Parade.

Personally wouldn't consider this as expansion though as it involves removing existing to add new - there's no net gain here.

But I agree with your other points on reflection. It's not all bad news.

 

3 hours ago, New display name said:

Kinda looks like CE are trying to get every bit out of DW before the big sell.

Realistically the end goal from a shareholder value perspective.

[Naazon]

11 minutes ago, franky said:

Personally wouldn't consider this as expansion though as it involves removing existing to add new - there's no net gain here.

Gold Coasters plot is severely under utilised. A smart DW would be able to replace Gold Coaster with 2-3 rides.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

1 hour ago, franky said:

I would expect that Thunderbolt's plot will be reserved for WWW expansion or other special events.

The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. both parks could utilise parts of this space. Remember - it was a dry park  plot first.

1 hour ago, franky said:

Personally wouldn't consider this as expansion though as it involves removing existing to add new - there's no net gain here.

There doesn't have to be a net gain, though you're looking at it quite simplistically... Adding in Galaxy's Edge to Disneyland is a big, needed capacity expansion for a park as small as disneyland, but on the other hand take a look at some of the moves Universal is making - closing older attractions and zones for the next big thing - In Singapore, part of Madagascar became Minions, and the rest will also become Nintendo land in the future too. 

In Gold Coaster's case as Naazon mentioned - you can get a lot more bang for buck taking out one old rollercoaster that is getting on in years, and replacing it with several attractions as part of a masterplanned expansion that capitalises on the overall space and is designed cohesively. Remember Cyclone was essentially placed where it was because it 'fit'. It had to work in amongst Thunderbolt, and was designed for a landscape that Dreamworld didn't have, so the entire thing had to be massively elevated. So much could be done with the plot underneath - just look at what Luna Park had in and around the coaster when it existed there!

 

[Levram__]

37 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

There doesn't have to be a net gain, though you're looking at it quite simplistically... Adding in Galaxy's Edge to Disneyland is a big, needed capacity expansion for a park as small as disneyland, but on the other hand take a look at some of the moves Universal is making - closing older attractions and zones for the next big thing - In Singapore, part of Madagascar became Minions, and the rest will also become Nintendo land in the future too. 

This is correct and it should be seriously considered when you talk about growth, for either of the two properties on the site. A challenge Australian parks are always going to have to navigate is keeping their opex at bay and avoiding that from ballooning with the addition of new attractions. 

Take MW as the prime example right now, sure you can say that WOZ replaced what was Arkham. However the opex for Arkham has not existed for many fiscal years so a new "expectation" would have been set. Now all of a sudden you have essentially 3 brand new coasters that significantly grows the direct expenses of the attractions department and similarly for the direct and indirect expenses to the technical services department. Not surprisingly the boomerang racer stopped racing pretty quickly.... 

DW on the other hand you could say that a good portion of their opex for Rivertown has been balanced out over the past two to three fiscal years because you have the vintage cars as a relocation and then Jungle Rush is an absorption of labour from Wiggles World. 

Then you have the maintenance costs, any of these new Vekoma coasters is likely attracting 200K - 300K in annual R&M, rebuilds, labour associated with those works and annual engineering assessments etc. 

I think its very unlikely you are going to see either business rush to growth their attraction lineup in the short term or long term, without, significant growth in their markets/demand, which is not currently the trend that's being seen.  

Another rant for another day, but its a very likely reason why DW have struggled with getting the idea of a Lazy River off the ground for White Water World. The ongoing operating costs and direct expenses for an attraction like that is huge. 

[Baconjack]

10 hours ago, franky said:

All valid points.

I would expect that Thunderbolt's plot will be reserved for WWW expansion or other special events.

 

Personally wouldn't consider this as expansion though as it involves removing existing to add new - there's no net gain here.

Gold coaster’s land could easily fit at least two slide towers on it. I’ve said for years it’s a prime opportunity to complete the water park. There’s a lot of land to work with.

Thunderbolt can be used for both parks and should be. It would be very good for a lazy river (and indeed a lazy river has been earmarked there for a long time) but you can build a coaster on top of it. Lots of out of the box uses for that bit of land

8 hours ago, Levram__ said:

DW on the other hand you could say that a good portion of their opex for Rivertown has been balanced out over the past two to three fiscal years because you have the vintage cars as a relocation and then Jungle Rush is an absorption of labour from Wiggles World. 

I think its very unlikely you are going to see either business rush to growth their attraction lineup in the short term or long term, without, significant growth in their markets/demand, which is not currently the trend that's being seen.  

Valid point but anything new is going to be much cheaper to run than what they had. Purely on the basis of how conservative dreamworld’s purchasing decisions have been in the last few years

Tower of terror, rocky hollow, and wipeout were all crazy expensive to operate because they were unique rides, ultimately their opex is why they all closed. 

Unless their endgame is a smaller park than what they had pre-2016, I think all of these rides that haven’t been replaced with anything will get their overdue replacements one day as more people show up (based on your assessment, taipan replaced Buzzsaw in terms of opex)

[RobMac]

Newgen Rocky Hollow Log Ride should be the next big attraction push, they need a quality water ride, with a good across-age range appeal.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

I think there's still a bit of a psychological barrier for them in bringing a water attraction back to the park. Further - Rocky Hollow's area is essentially greenfields at this point and can coast by unnoticed. The GIANT WALL blocking out Troll's Village is a much bigger sore thumb in the current lineup.

When King Claw opens, the people who have focussed on the new attractions - (Dreamland, Sky Voyager, Taipan, Jungle Rush and Vintage Cars) will return to Ocean Parade (seriously, I can't recall the last time I entered OP proper. Shockwave, Tailspin and GoldCoaster haven't been much reason to draw me to that dead end). With the focus on King Claw, I do think Dreamworld needs to tidy up the end of OP. Whether that sees retirement of Gold Coaster, installation of a new flat into FlowRider's space, reinvigoration of the 'worlds' gate between the two parks, replacement of trolls village with something new and hopefully permanent - i've no idea, but i think that area will have more eyes on it than Rocky Hollow has in the near future - and it's where they should put their attentions if they want to convince people to keep coming back. 

Rocky Hollow can be an entire world expansion with multiple attractions when the time and the budget is right. 

[Baconjack]

On 08/05/2025 at 3:58 AM, RobMac said:

Newgen Rocky Hollow Log Ride should be the next big attraction push, they need a quality water ride, with a good across-age range appeal.

I agree and they'll get to that in the next 10 years. Still lots of rides to replace around the park. They need more flats first, back to where it used to be.

You could comfortably fit a madhouse in the tower of terror station building that's still sitting there. Rivertown stage 2 ride anyone?

Edited May 9 by Baconjack

[Themepark Enthusist]

On 7/5/2025 at 11:10 AM, New display name said:

Kinda looks like CE are trying to get are trying to get every bit out of DW before the big sell.

The question is, if CE is really going to sell Dreamworld. Who is going to do it first because BHG isn’t going to hold onto village for much longer I see them reopening SDSC operating it for 1-2 years drive that value of the chain up then sell at the peak. 
 

will someone even buy DW? Or village for that matter?

[STRAWS]

2 hours ago, Themepark Enthusist said:

The question is, if CE is really going to sell Dreamworld. Who is going to do it first because BHG isn’t going to hold onto village for much longer I see them reopening SDSC operating it for 1-2 years drive that value of the chain up then sell at the peak. 
 

will someone even buy DW? Or village for that matter?

I hope BGH dont buy Dreamworld.