Dreamworld - Proposed Development

[Jokes_on_you]

7 hours ago, New display name said:

 

 

 

 

 

Wouldn’t be the first time DW the Koalas dirty. Didn’t the government give them money for a save the koala hospital but ended up using the funds towards Steel Taipan? 

[Michelangelo]

5 minutes ago, Jokes_on_you said:

Wouldn’t be the first time DW the Koalas dirty. Didn’t the government give them money for a save the koala hospital but ended up using the funds towards Steel Taipan? 

No, not quite… Don’t get caught up in the media spin.

Firstly, it was a research lab for uni students, not a Koala Hospital.

And DW didn’t just spend the money elsewhere. COVID hit, the park shut, the lab project on hold. DW asked if they could use the $2M elsewhere amongst more funding (for other obvious reasons), the Government said yes.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

I don't care about overlays, or law changes - I care about the fact that people will scream about the loss of koala habitat while living in a home that only exists because their builder demolished koala habitat. 

A development proposal like this preserves a lot more trees than Metricon, or Westfield.

[New display name]

Dude, all I said is "it's a headache"  I'm not for or against the change of use DW have applied for and I haven't set my tent up on either side of the fence.   All I was doing was explaining why it's a headache and why what Westfield did 7 years ago sets no precedent of what you can do today.

Edited September 16 by New display name

[Brad2912]

Planning minister has “called in” the development which should see things fast tracked, or at least not held up by petty objections and the court processes 

 

https://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/northern/dreamworld-future-of-gold-coast-theme-parks-expansion-plans/news-story/54db918c8f73b02f63d0cc2c7b165c0b

[New display name]

Objections for displacing Koalas for residential towers isn't really petty.

[Ashley Jeffery]

40 minutes ago, New display name said:

Objections for displacing Koalas for residential towers isn't really petty.

Just ignore them like every other development in SEQ.

[Brad2912]

7 hours ago, New display name said:

Objections for displacing Koalas for residential towers isn't really petty.

Residential towers are far more beneficial right now for the northern GC and lack of available properties than a handful of koalas, who will no doubt be well looked after given DW is actively involved in koala rehab and environmental rehabilitation 

[Ash]

Can’t wait to see the congestion on the m1 once this is all said and done…

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

6 hours ago, Brad2912 said:

Residential towers are far more beneficial right now for the northern GC and lack of available properties than a handful of koalas

On the contrary, the Koalas were there first... why don't people just not live on the northern GC? plenty of other non koala habitat areas to build in?

Saying 'we need houses more than those (officially listed as Endangered species in Queensland since 2022) koalas' doesn't pass the sniff test.

I'm all for leisure and tourism development on this plot, especially where they can preserve habitats, and work in partnership with the wildlife team - but i'm not supportive of development for residential towers that are all about maximising the available build space to fit as many units in as possible.

(also I can't read the article because I don't believe in giving money to GCB - a copy pasta would be great)

[Brad2912]

6 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

On the contrary, the Koalas were there first... why don't people just not live on the northern GC? plenty of other non koala habitat areas to build in?

It doesn’t matter where you live, some animal was displaced/killed to facilitate the construction of your home, the roads to reach it, your local shopping centre. 

It’s hilarious when people have an issue with land being developed now that benefits other people, but had no issue with it when it benefits them. Convenient Conservationists… 

why don’t people not live on the northern GC?  Haha. Apart from the cane fields (which will no doubt one day be developed) there is no other significant developable land on the GC remaining. What is needed is medium-high density developments close to public transport and infrastructure, and this ticks all those boxes. 

 

[themagician]

1 hour ago, Brad2912 said:

there is no other significant developable land on the GC remaining

There certainly is, we just don't know it yet!

[New display name]

8 hours ago, Brad2912 said:

Residential towers are far more beneficial right now for the northern GC and lack of available properties than a handful of koalas, who will no doubt be well looked after given DW is actively involved in koala rehab and environmental rehabilitation 

Which means nothing when you are the one causing the environment destruction.

1 hour ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

(also I can't read the article because I don't believe in giving money to GCB - a copy pasta would be great)

@DaptoFunlandGuygo to the source

https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-03014051-2A1631720&v=undefined

35 minutes ago, themagician said:

There certainly is, we just don't know it yet!

+ There is no need to continue to smash the koalas when the governments are already increases density with our existing suburbs, so these residential towers can be built on existing cleared land.

Edited Tuesday at 11:21 PM by New display name

[Brad2912]

You realise any applications will still have environmental restrictions placed on them.. calling in doesn’t circumvent planning and environmental laws, just removes costly and long drawn out processing

they are not just napalming the entire bushland and then bringing in bulldozers. 

maybe we should just knock the entire park down and plant some trees instead.. 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

2 hours ago, Brad2912 said:

It’s hilarious when people have an issue with land being developed now that benefits other people, but had no issue with it when it benefits them. Convenient Conservationists… 

If you'll read further back in this discussion you'll note i've made similar observations. I am all for leisure and tourism development of this space - and I feel as though leisure and tourism would be able to work more closely with the natural environment and potentially leave large amounts of habitat untouched. 

Residential high rises on the other hand aren't likely to be able to make the same accommodations.

2 hours ago, Brad2912 said:

What is needed is medium-high density developments close to public transport and infrastructure, and this ticks all those boxes.

 

32 minutes ago, New display name said:

+ There is no need to continue to smash the koalas when the governments are already increases density with our existing suburbs, so these residential towers can be built on existing cleared land.

Skeet and I don't often agree but on this occasion - absolutely spot on.

Replace existing low-density developments with higher density developments, rather than bulldozing the habitat of an endangered species.

18 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

You realise any applications will still have environmental restrictions placed on them.. calling in doesn’t circumvent planning and environmental laws, just removes costly and long drawn out processing

Why do we have such a costly and long drawn out process otherwise? is it because calling in circumvents local consideration? is it because big business and big politics can do backroom deals that smooth the way and overcome the opportunity for local representatives to stand for what their constituents elected them for?

Maybe we just get rid of all local government and let the states decide what is best for everyone? I'm sure that'll go down well for the regional areas.

[Brad2912]

4 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

Why do we have such a costly and long drawn out process otherwise? is it because calling in circumvents local consideration? is it because big business and big politics can do backroom deals that smooth the way and overcome the opportunity for local representatives to stand for what their constituents elected them for?

Maybe we just get rid of all local government and let the states decide what is best for everyone? I'm sure that'll go down well for the regional areas.

Red tape is drawn out for the sake of being drawn out, it keeps money in lawyers, solicitors and the councils coffers. 

For what it is worth, the elected local govt counselors for the northern GC, Donna Gates and Mark Hammel (who is also the planning chair of GCCC and deputy mayor) are both in support of the development - so had the call in not proceeded, they would still have been voting favourably in any council led planning decisions - meaning opposition would have been coming from counsellors with no skin in the game in the region that this development will impact - which is an example of the red tape that bureaucracy constantly throws up slowing down processes and progress.  

[New display name]

You have no skin in the game either @Brad2912

 

[Brad2912]

1 minute ago, New display name said:

You have no skin in the game either @Brad2912

 

Don’t I? 
I live in and have property on the northern GC. I can see GD from my backyard and the proposed development is essentially on my doorstep (figuratively). The jobs created by the development both in construction and then operation, and the revenue brought to the region by increased tourism has flow on effects for everyone. I work in the entertainment and hospitality space, which will again be boosted by such a development. 

so tell me again how I do not have any skin in the game? 
 

[New display name]

Oh you're talking about the skin that means very little in the scheme of town planning.   I hate Koalas as much as you, but urban sprawl isn't the answer.

Edited yesterday at 12:37 AM by New display name

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

2 hours ago, Brad2912 said:

the revenue brought to the region by increased tourism

How does highrise residential housing contribute to increased tourism?

[Brad2912]

47 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

How does highrise residential housing contribute to increased tourism?

Unlike you to nitpick on a detail… 

the high density residential is a component of the overall development. I never said the residential dwellings alone contribute to tourism, though you could argue the more people living within walking distance of the park the more likely those people are to be passholders and spending money in the theme park and in surrounding businesses

[New display name]

Were you talking about the new car wash or the new phone exchange @Brad2912?   The new development code covers almost everything and nothing in the code forces anybody to build a new tourist attraction.

Development Code intended to facilitate future development of the following land uses across four precincts: Food and drink outlet, office, shop, veterinary services, market, sales office, showroom, outdoor sales, bar, car wash, childcare centre, healthcare services, community use, educational establishment, emergency services, medium impact industry, environment facility, indoor sport and recreation, major sport, recreation and entertainment facility, outdoor sport and recreation, park, motor sport facility, caretakers accommodation, multiple dwelling, residential care facility, retirement facility, rooming accommodation, hotel, theatre, tourist attraction, function facility, nature-based tourism, resort complex, short-term accommodation, tourist park, parking station, telecommunication facility, and air services.

[Brad2912]

26 minutes ago, New display name said:

Were you talking about the new car wash or the new phone exchange @Brad2912?   The new development code covers almost everything and nothing in the code forces anybody to build a new tourist attraction.

Development Code intended to facilitate future development of the following land uses across four precincts: Food and drink outlet, office, shop, veterinary services, market, sales office, showroom, outdoor sales, bar, car wash, childcare centre, healthcare services, community use, educational establishment, emergency services, medium impact industry, environment facility, indoor sport and recreation, major sport, recreation and entertainment facility, outdoor sport and recreation, park, motor sport facility, caretakers accommodation, multiple dwelling, residential care facility, retirement facility, rooming accommodation, hotel, theatre, tourist attraction, function facility, nature-based tourism, resort complex, short-term accommodation, tourist park, parking station, telecommunication facility, and air services.

You’re talking about the code, I’m talking about the most recently updated plans which are readily available 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

45 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

though you could argue the more people living within walking distance of the park the more likely those people are to be passholders and spending money in the theme park and in surrounding businesses

You could argue that, but it still wouldn't be tourism any more than your trip to Costco Coomera is.

46 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

Unlike you to nitpick on a detail… 

All of the recent replies have been specific to residential highrise development. Your own words were that we needed highrise residential accommodation more than we needed koalas.

As you'll see if you re-read, i'm supportive of leisure and tourism developments that will preserve large habitats, and I don't support residential construction of any density within the bounds of the dreamworld land holdings...

 

So, while we're nitpicking - and to be clear (as you said yourself) - you have skin in the game and you stand to financially benefit from killing Koalas. 

That tells me all I need to know.

[New display name]

@Brad2912

and I can't be bothered explaining it to you because I only have enough energy for one crusade at a time.

And that is, getting WWW open, so I can have a bath.