Jamberoo Fan

Songcheng Legendary Kingdom in Nerang

124 posts in this topic

Hi All, new here,

But for those who are interested the DA was submitted for 'Australian Legendary Kingdom' today: MCU201700907

Early days yet in terms of documents that are available to view, but one to watch!

On track to open within 3 years! Indoor skiing sounds interesting!

Gold Coast theme parks: Chinese giant Songcheng to open new $600 million theme park featuring indoor ski field ...
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/glitter-strip-bare-gold-coast-news-and-gossip/news-story/e2ea545d0bb6e6b85ac596da93889afb

'Australian Legendary Kingdom' and 'Australian Legends Kingdom' have also been trademarked.

Edited by Locke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for the update @Locke 

I'm super dubious about Songcheng - they have crazy inflated numbers on everything i.e. they say they're one of the world's biggest theme park operators with the most attendance etc. etc., but they don't even register on the AECOM list of top theme parks globally.  For me, to be one of the global leaders, you need to own more than just one SLC to register.

They strike me as an early 2000's Chinese Company modelled for the government's insistence so build big at any cost - they say they've got over 30 theme parks, but their website only shows six.

They're super vapourware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Slick said:

I'm super dubious about Songcheng - they have crazy inflated numbers on everything i.e. they say they're one of the world's biggest theme park operators with the most attendance etc. etc., but they don't even register on the AECOM list of top theme parks globally.  For me, to be one of the global leaders, you need to own more than just one SLC to register.

I think that's more due to how AECOM define theme parks now, this is of relevance from their 2016 report:

A change of category affects Chinese operator Songcheng Worldwide in relation to the 2016 Theme Index. Songcheng is a successful attraction operator with a growing number of properties and attendance. However as this operator’s focus is on large performance shows with small supporting areas, we are no longer considering Songcheng in the same category as full-day, large-scale theme parks. Therefore Songcheng Worldwide is not included in the 2016 report

There's still a big player though, they are in the process of buying out the Norwell cane fields as well and have some big plans there as well. I'd rate this park probable to be built, Tom Tate is meeting the execs again next month. 

Of course, I'd rather a full blown theme park with Universal or Paramount branding, but I'll take this over a grass field;)

 

Edited by Locke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Locke said:

I think that's more due to how AECOM define theme parks now, this is of relevance from their 2016 report:

A change of category a ects Chinese operator Songcheng Worldwide in relation to the 2016 Theme Index. Songcheng is a successful attraction operator with a growing number of properties and attendance. However as this operator’s focus is on large performance shows with small supporting areas, we are no longer considering Songcheng in the same category as full-day, large-scale theme parks. Therefore Songcheng Worldwide is not included in the 2016 report

There's still a big player though, they are in the process of buying out the Norwell cane fields as well and have some big plans there as well. I'd rate this park probable to be built, Tom Tate is meeting the execs again next month. 

Of course, I'd rather a full blown theme park with Universal or Paramount branding, but I'll take this over a grass field;)

 

Fair point, and valid consideration @Locke - I guess we're both technically right in that sense, there's valid reasons why they aren't on AECOM's data, but also, when you do indeed a little digger, there's only a lot of surface level to Songcheng, and not a lot of anything else.

Happy to be proven wrong of course, but when you boast 30 theme parks and your name barely registers on Google, let alone RCDB, I think it's worth seeing something a little more solid before we give them any credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Locke said:

 

On track to open within 3 years! Indoor skiing sounds interesting!

 

LOL, they have never met the G.C.C.C. planning department.  You can’t say it’s on track if nobody has looked at the application yet.

That parcel of land is zoned Limited Development.

“The purpose of the Limited development (constrained land) zone code is to identify land known to be significantly affected by one or more development constraints (such as flooding).
Such constraints limit the ability to fully develop the land”.

They have a battle to get a Theme Park built in that location.  Not only is the land poor but just wait until all the residents get a chance to voice their opinions on the application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This project has a lot of backing from the Mayor right through to the Prime Minister and the development issues you note are not major hurdles, rezoning happens all the time as do residents voicing their opinions, they seldom stop a project and this is not a controversial one in any case. Flooding issues can be planned around, they have the same issues with the New Norwell city that they are planning and it's not a deal-breaker.

 

48 minutes ago, Slick said:

Fair point, and valid consideration @Locke - I guess we're both technically right in that sense, there's valid reasons why they aren't on AECOM's data, but also, when you do indeed a little digger, there's only a lot of surface level to Songcheng, and not a lot of anything else.

Happy to be proven wrong of course, but when you boast 30 theme parks and your name barely registers on Google, let alone RCDB, I think it's worth seeing something a little more solid before we give them any credit.

I agree that they are not well known outside of China and this will be their first foray into an English market. Still, they have a $6 billion dollar market cap, that's like over 6x that of Ardent, they're not exactly minnows. They beat up a lot of other big players  from China and the Middle East to get that $1 billion dollar Norwell slice of land as well (I would have preferred if Wanda had got that, but oh well!).

Edited by Locke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Norwell location is flood prone and mostly acid sulfate soils. 

In 1999, my year 12 class did a large project on the proposed 4 runway international airport for the same location.

They where talking of raising the ground 4 metres to get above the flood height. I don't remember their plan for the soil problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Locke said:

I agree that they are not well known outside of China and this will be their first foray into an English market. Still, they have a $6 billion dollar market cap, that's like over 6x that of Ardent, they're not exactly minnows. They beat up a lot of other big players  from China and the Middle East to get that $1 billion dollar Norwell slice of land as well (I would have preferred if Wanda had got that, but oh well!).

Again, I don't buy any of the numbers that market cap is built on. The company's share price was the same as Ardent for years all the way up until roughly 2015, when they reported a 104% increase in attendance (with no mention of capex or how they got it, plus that kind of jump cripples theme parks, could you imagine if Movie World's crowds doubled?) and started talking about building in Australia. Then suddenly they're boasting that their signature park is outdoing Hong Kong Disneyland in attendance alone. For reference:

hangzhou-songcheng.thumb.jpg.b01d95cf683d6ae8a857fff2d237590c.jpg

This is their signature park, and it gets more attendance in a space not much bigger than Westfield Chermside than:

Hong-Kong-Disneyland-Map-2008.thumb.jpg.5c56e4b5ded2ae287025714ba5c8c941.jpg

I can keep going if you need more healthy reasons to be skeptical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skeeta said:

@Locke The Mayor also wanted a cruise ship terminal on Wavebreak island.   This is the same Mayor that wanted to turn a MDF movie set into a dive site.  I think I will wait to see the application before I say anything more.

Yeah but the Spit's always been a bit of a hot topic (I expect the current cruise terminal and integrated resort though will proceed). I don't think anyone cares much about what gets built in Nerang and  you don't meet too many people who hate the theme parks. We'll see I guess.

 

 

35 minutes ago, Slick said:

Again, I don't buy any of the numbers that market cap is built on. The company's share price was the same as Ardent for years all the way up until roughly 2015, when they reported a 104% increase in attendance (with no mention of capex or how they got it, plus that kind of jump cripples theme parks, could you imagine if Movie World's crowds doubled?) and started talking about building in Australia. Then suddenly they're boasting that their signature park is outdoing Hong Kong Disneyland in attendance alone. For reference:

hangzhou-songcheng.thumb.jpg.b01d95cf683d6ae8a857fff2d237590c.jpg

This is their signature park, and it gets more attendance in a space not much bigger than Westfield Chermside than:

Hong-Kong-Disneyland-Map-2008.thumb.jpg.5c56e4b5ded2ae287025714ba5c8c941.jpg

I can keep going if you need more healthy reasons to be skeptical.

I'm not some massive fan of Chinese park operators, I think they have a long way to go to meet Western standards (though they are trying which is good), but I mean they paid $66 million for the land, they are buying a $1 billion dollar parcel of land up the road, they've met with the PM and TT on multiple occasions, and they are spending hundreds of thousands lodging a DA, they're not exactly some guys trying to get a snow park started on kickstarter!

Now it might lead to nothing, but then it might not;)

1 hour ago, red dragin said:

The Norwell location is flood prone and mostly acid sulfate soils. 

In 1999, my year 12 class did a large project on the proposed 4 runway international airport for the same location.

They where talking of raising the ground 4 metres to get above the flood height. I don't remember their plan for the soil problem.

There was a site that had some early concept stuff for Songcheng's Norwell, they called it 'New Norwell', really interesting stuff but then they pulled it, probably not intended for public release yet, but we're talking a *massive* development, like crazy amounts of stuff. I had kinda hoped Wanda will get that though as they were toying with a big park in that location.

 

Edited by Locke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. buys land to build 'theme park'
  2. makes half arsed attempt at theme park that nobody likes
  3. residents, enthusiasts, et al, all lodge objections etc.
  4. proposal denied by regulatory authorities
  5. makes alternative proposal which cashes in on land value - ie: industrial zone or residential estate
  6. ...
  7. profit.

@locke - you do seem to be very firmly in the Songcheng camp here - any conflict of interest?

 

I'm with Slick here - when they break ground on an approved DA for a theme park, then i'll get excited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AlexB said:
  1. buys land to build 'theme park'
  2. makes half arsed attempt at theme park that nobody likes
  3. residents, enthusiasts, et al, all lodge objections etc.
  4. proposal denied by regulatory authorities
  5. makes alternative proposal which cashes in on land value - ie: industrial zone or residential estate
  6. ...
  7. profit.

@locke - you do seem to be very firmly in the Songcheng camp here - any conflict of interest?

 

I'm with Slick here - when they break ground on an approved DA for a theme park, then i'll get excite

No, I'm not a Songcheng fan at all really, like I said I'd much rather a Universal or a Paramount Studios or something, but then on the flip side I don't get the huge doubt either. Many of the biggest projects on the coast atm are being built by the Chinese, from Spirit Tower to Jewel and most of the names behind them aren't very well known to locals but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I think you vastly overestimate the impact of resident objections, almost every project on the coast gets objections but council is smart enough to pay them little attention as most are by loony NIMBYs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Locke said:

from Spirit Tower

Residential development

42 minutes ago, Locke said:

to Jewel

Residential development

50 minutes ago, AlexB said:
  1. makes alternative proposal which cashes in on land value - ie: industrial zone or residential estate
  2. ...
  3. profit.

I appreciate that you don't see the doubt. This is a community that has been actively following theme park proposals and developments across the country for over 13 years (probably 14, but i can't remember the exact date) - the fact is we have seen SO MANY of these proposals come and go, that skepticism is par for the course. If you don't understand the doubt, you need to spend a few days trawling through the back catalogue of announced-and-never-heard-of-again proposals that have been discussed on Parkz and its predecessors.

Off the top of my head I can recall a chinese proposal for some sort of park near port macquarie, and another near newcastle. I never heard of either of them again. We've seen stuff all up and down the east coast of Australia that never reached fruition.

Sure, they do great with residential developments - however there are also some changes afoot to the foreign ownership laws that may change that - and you may not see such great successes there - but I HAVE seen developments with proposals for "entertainment precincts" and "parks" become paved paradise, where they put up a parking lot.

 

As for objections - my wife is the construction administrator for the largest residential builder in Queensland. i know a lot of objections are bullshit. Hell, I read every single objection lodged to the VRTP carpark proposal, and laughed my ass off at a lot of them - however buried within them were grains of truth, people who cited town planning rules \ guidelines and restrictions, and raised (some) legitimate concerns. The local council member when he announced the official refusal by council was very careful to say that during the litigation that inevitably follows - that VRTP will have the opportunity to counter the concerns raised (and they'll likely win, but not without a fight).

But some concerns are fatal. If this mob were to raise the entire site to be above flood level - what does that do to the surrounding areas that are lower? where does the water go - someone elses BackYard - which is a genuine NIMBY concern.

I fucking hate NIMBY reactions, but some are legitimate and justified. If council simply ignores objections, why then are VRTP taking them to court over their carpark?

I would be very interested to hear of how many chinese led recreational \ entertainment \ theme park developments there are on the coast at the moment...?

Edited by AlexB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that a lot of visions/proposals/rumoured projects come and go but how many major new theme parks have reached development application stage on the Gold Coast in the last 10 years? I'm not aware of any. We're not talking Disneyland/Jurassic World style rumours here. If you're thinking of some of the other projects in places like Sydney like Chappypie China Time they totally dubious projects where the companies proposing the development did not even own the land and had non-existent funding.

The key is funding, you need the means to deliver. Now, whether you're talking Spirit or the ASF Integrated Resort or Jewel or maybe RDG's other non-residential projects or whoever, it doesn't really matter if they're residential, the point is, and this the critical factor - they have the money and you can make a lot happen and if the governments, be they local, state or federal like you then that also helps immeasurably because they make the laws at the end of the day.

 It's actually even better in the sense that no one is going to bother with a theme park development application for ulterior motives like to flip a site for instance. This has also been reviewed by the Foreign Investment Review Board.

This is world's apart from your local Surfies wanting to create a wave park or some skiing fans want to build a snow park that likely never progress beyond some whimsical visions. They just don't have the $$$ and I think it's right to be doubtful about such projects (even if I wish them all the best of luck).

There may be some residential concerns that are legitimate, it happens like you say occasionally, if so they'll be addressed. If they can't be worked around the project will fall through. Is that a possibility? Sure, is it a probability - Unlikely. There's external factors that could affect such a project (China's economy,  labour negotiations), but flooding the neighbours etc not so much, this is why we have consultants. 

I'm not saying it's definitely going to happen, but it's a far more concrete proposal than I suspect many people realise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2016 at 6:48 PM, SunshineTom said:

They're better off linking it to the tram. 

Got a spare billion to fund the spur line? Would only take 60 years to pay for itself...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who are interested and want to have a read about this park, there are now a lot more documents up on PDonline about this one:

201700907

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Purple line is outline of development.
  • LDR1 Residential
  • RD6 Residential
  • RD1 Residential
  • RD6 Residential
  • Car Park
  • Main Performance Centre
  • Inside Ski Slope
  • Wetland Rope Courses
  • Retail Shops
  • An eclectic mix of shows and smaller scale attractions located around the significant built form elements.(Performance Centre)
  • Maybe a future Animal Area 

VBVBVBVBVBVB.thumb.JPG.dd8d62a092f1774bfbff1dd635d25330.JPG

 

Have I missed anything @Locke

 

 

I have placed a cross through the picture because the application dose not described what they are flashing around

fc1a0877f2769c8c78714d82e8c9f6f8.thumb.jpg.7e86dd26e0b2e4e0720860f577d59403.jpg

 

 

Edited by Skeeta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that concept pic is clearly out of date, there's no indoor sky facility in it for starters. TBH I'd prefer if they just made the whole thing a giant indoor ski centre, ala Ski Dubai.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skeeta said:
  • Purple line is outline of development.
  • LDR1 Residential
  • RD6 Residential
  • RD1 Residential
  • RD6 Residential
  • Car Park
  • Main Performance Centre
  • Inside Ski Slope
  • Wetland Rope Courses
  • Retail Shops
  • An eclectic mix of shows and smaller scale attractions located around the significant built form elements.(Performance Centre)
  • Maybe a future Animal Area 

VBVBVBVBVBVB.thumb.JPG.dd8d62a092f1774bfbff1dd635d25330.JPG

 

Yeah I can't see that winning anybody's support on the GC:

Check out the indicative built forms envisaged in the medium and high density zones (RD6 and RD8 above).

 

Medium Density.GIF

HighDensity.GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bush Beast Forever said:

Yeah I can't see that winning anybody's support on the GC:

Check out the indicative built forms envisaged in the medium and high density zones (RD6 and RD8 above).

Out of interest, it's actually not that tall relative to what RDG (previous owners of the site) wanted to do:

Property insiders confirmed DBI Architecture had created the design for the integrated resort but rejected speculation that the city’s tallest tower, at 100 storeys, would be part of it — as originally planned.

http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/jewel-developer-proposes-massive-riverfront-casino-just-east-of-nerang-railway-station/news-story/6e0b6a4e12830f973469622cdcb3f1bd

100 storey tower in Nerang, lol, having said that, I think there is too much residential relative to theme park here.

 

7 minutes ago, joz said:

So it's a themed residential development mostly?  Sounds truely awful.

I'm not a fan of the residential element either, I can see why they want to do it, what with it being waterfront land, but best if they left it off.

Edited by Locke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Parkz Crew

    Support Parkz... join the Crew for:

    • Ad-banner free viewing
    • Parkz Crew profile badge
    • Extended editing
    • See who's liked your posts
    • Purchase discounts

    Join Now from $20/yr

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.