Jump to content

Luna Park Sydney's expansion


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, 19Michael96 said:

I think this has been withdrawn actually. http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=9056

Hmm yeah you are right mate. Interesting. One wonders if this was removed when the issues with the DA process and compliance  reared their head not long after this was first put forward in  January? I have a feeling that LPS may revisit this plan at some point....

 

12 hours ago, 19Michael96 said:

And a sidenote: personally, I'd prefer to have a rollercoaster on the tumblebug site, mainly for the reason that the Big Dipper building is there. I mean, why have a rollercoaster building when you've got no rollercoaster? It's always bugged me. Granted the options are limited due to space but I've always thought they could extend the slab and have the worker's area undercover. Maybe?

Yeah I agree 100%. The Tumblebug space would be best utilised with another coaster. Its possible, with some alterations to the site, that a Maurer SC2000 could fit here. It all depends on how imaginative they can be with the site- ie does part of the coaster structure sit over the slab etc. I agree that utilising Big Dippers facade for a coaster makes much more sense.  It will be interesting to see that if they do put a coaster here, WILL they name it Big Dipper? Personally, I would like it to be named the Wild Cat ( after the former Schwarzopf  coaster from the 70"s) . I think that would be a good selling point to have the Wild Mouse and the Wild cat facing off against each other across the Midway.

3 hours ago, XxMrYoshixX said:

Hydrus is a Gerstlauer Eurofighter 320+ model, albeit a modified version without the extra helix added to the end in order to fit on a pier.

image.png.6b3684d66aca510544d630b997b966a2.png

The dimensions of this model, at 60m x 38m, even when removing the helix is far too large for any of the big spaces the park has.

That is why I specifically ruled it out because it is physically impossible to fit it in.

Ah yes given that data you are correct on that it would be difficult to fit in to either space.

The removal of the Helix would definitely accommodate the width, its the length that's the main issue. I think that working with Gerstlauer on a custom layout would work in the space behind Coney and even the possibility of moving the kids rides  and running the length of Maloney's Corner from the start of Lavender  Green  could be a possibility. Good stuff.

On 07/11/2018 at 4:52 PM, XxMrYoshixX said:

I can see that building being due for a refit in 10 years or so because the concert facility doesn't make as much money for the park as it once used to.

Still no sources on this?? Just curious.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 364
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi there, I am AheadMatthewawsome. I have signed up here as I have noticed a little conversation about me back in 2017. I just want to say, this is a great example of people who become understand

Got down to the park today to check out Luna Park's lates ride - the Volarè (and can confirm it is pronounced VOL-ARE-AY). So, first impressions. Walking into the park, it absolutely DOMINATES the mid

WEEKLY VOLARE UPDATE: It was a wet and miserable evening tonight but I braved it so I could check more of the ride's progress, as I'd already noticed on Wednesday that construction had significantly a

Posted Images

Building rides for real life theme parks isn't like RollerCoaster Tycoon in that it either builds and works or you get a red error dialog box. Every single major roller-coaster, including those that are replicated over and over again (like Boomerangs or SLC's) are still unique installations that are built to the theme park's unique set of requirements as well as local, state and federal engineering/safety standards.

If a theme park put a tender out for a roller-coaster, Gerstlauer aren't going to go "sorry, we have this model we'd love to sell you but like RollerCoaster Tycoon there's just not enough green squares" they're going to go "oh yeah, we can modify x, y & z to suit and it'll cost this." They're not like cars and they're not a smartphones - they're as customisable as houses.

Adding to this - it's 10000000% proven that really good roller-coasters are the best thing theme parks can buy in terms of ROI. Adventure World proved this. Many, many other parks proved this. Parks like Luna Park & Sea World in particular need to stop building middle of the road chaff and build something worth visiting for.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jobe said:

It will be interesting to see that if they do put a coaster here, WILL they name it Big Dipper? Personally, I would like it to be named the Wild Cat ( after the former Schwarzkopf  coaster from the 70"s) . I think that would be a good selling point to have the Wild Mouse and the Wild cat facing off against each other across the Midway.

See I would prefer a coaster to be called Big Dipper. Especially considering LPS still has the name rights for it apparently. Sure, it won't be as BIG as the previous iterations but at least it would a more thrilling coaster than the Wild Mouse (not that that's a dig, we just need an alternative ride to compliment it). IMO, I could see a MACK Big Dipper being built at the park. https://mack-rides.com/products/rollercoaster/bigdipper/ BUT WAIT - I hear you cry - won't it be too big to fit in the Tumblebug space? At first glance yes, but the MACK seems to promote the fact that the layout can be modified and custom made for a small footprint. So if there are modifications done on both sides, I could see a coaster like this fit at LPS, theoretically speaking. If if neighbours wanna complain about noise, they can install mufflers on all the seats, which are placed in front of the mouths of patrons, blocking their screams. COMPROMISE!!!

2 hours ago, Jobe said:

One wonders if this was removed when the issues with the DA process and compliance  reared their head not long after this was first put forward in  January? I have a feeling that LPS may revisit this plan at some point....

 

Honestly, I'm not too fond of this proposal at all so I'm kinda glad it's been withdrawn. I mean a cinema might have been a good idea back in 2004 when Multiplex was trying to have Luna Park be a mixed use venue, but times have changed and it feels like that with the recent renovations, they are trying to give LPS a more traditional pier-side amusement park aesthetic. And a cinema doesn't fit that theming imo. Sure, they've modified it so that it's now a flying theatre ride in the vein of "Soarin'" like at DCA and Epcot but I still don't feel like a ride extravagant as that is appropriate for a small park like this, especially when it's proposed to be in the space of more appropriate traditional rides like the upcoming "Flying Carousel" or "Tango Train". I mean I don't object to LPS having a simulator ride, but not to this scale. IMO, I would rather have a decently sized simulation ride placed somewhere like in Maloney's Corner directly behind Coney Island, or they move the Hair Raiser opposite the Ferris Wheel (they would have to level the area with all those worn out steps but that's a good thing honestly considering how worn they look. Leave the ramp though, and some seating for Helter Skelter cafe patrons like myself.) and then put a simulator in that space. Either that or a more permanent "Mystery Manor" style attraction. 

Honestly, I don't really mind what Luna Park does as long as they have a bigger coaster, have consistent and pristine theming, bring back the River Caves and modify the walkways leading to Maloney's Corner so then that section is more permanently connected to the rest of the park. Feels more "whole" that way. Here's some crap-ass mockups to give you a visual example.

Revamped Maloney's Corner.png

Future Luna Park Sydney Layout.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/11/2018 at 5:39 PM, AlexB said:

*groan*

Forget any hope or chance of modifying, or removing the big top.

In my opinion, The Big Top was a massive mistake, and as it is really popular, it changes LPS from a theme park to a concert hall. Also, the opera house is right across the harbour, so why did they bother?

On 09/11/2018 at 3:30 PM, 19Michael96 said:

See I would prefer a coaster to be called Big Dipper. Especially considering LPS still has the name rights for it apparently.

Yes, the park DOES say they have the name rights, but the name "The Big Dipper" was used in many coasters in the '20s, such as The Big Dipper at Blackpool Pleasure Beach in the UK, and the identical wooden Big Dipper from LPM that opened after WWI.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nimble said:

In my opinion, The Big Top was a massive mistake, and as it is really popular, it changes LPS from a theme park to a concert hall. Also, the opera house is right across the harbour, so why did they bother?

Ummmm.... could someone else with a bit of nuance rebut this please? Because I can't... I just can't....

3 hours ago, Nimble said:

Yes, the park DOES say they have the name rights, but the name "The Big Dipper" was used in many coasters in the '20s, such as The Big Dipper at Blackpool Pleasure Beach in the UK, and the identical wooden Big Dipper from LPM that opened after WWI.

Yes I did know all this but I'm talking about LPS specifically.

Oh by the way, went back to Luna Park again last night, the Tango Train is down for maintenance. Again. 😒

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Nimble said:

In my opinion, The Big Top was a massive mistake, and as it is really popular, it changes LPS from a theme park to a concert hall. Also, the opera house is right across the harbour, so why did they bother?

You are entitled to your opinion, however wrong it may be.

Plenty of reasons why a venue such as the big top is suited to Luna. For starters, the changing attractions inside the venue gives plenty of flow-on patronage to the park. The venue is far cheaper to hire out than a concert hall in the Opera House, and to be honest, its easier to get to, and cheaper to park at too.

I don't think anyone is claiming LPS as a theme park. Sure, there's themed elements, but this is far closer to an old school 'seaside pier amusement park'

In other news - Dreamworld was right up the road, so why bother building Movie World? They're both just theme parks...

Edited by AlexB
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a walk through LPS for the first time in years last weekend. The place has hardly changed from my memory of it as a 12 year old. I thought it had a good amount of life to it, they had performers down the main street and music playing which gave the place an uplifting feel. There seemed to be a decent amount of guests in the park as well, mostly families with young kids. I think the Maurer spinner would be a fitting addition to the park, and a potential compact Eurofighter out the back end would probably seal the park's prosperity for quite some time. I've got a positive feeling about the future for LPS.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that this will sound really dumb, but I'd actually like a re-themed Power Surge to make it's way into the park as a permanent ride. They have come as temporary rides many times, and I actually love them, and I don't think the locals complain about them, since LPS hasn't gone into the news from one... Anyways, it'd need a lot of repainting and fixing up to make it's way in, but I think that if they put enough effort into it, it could make it's way in.

 

Anyways, I'm open to criticism on my suggestion, so tell me if I'm missing something important...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt Joylands would sell their Power Surge, but if Luna Park bought one from Zamperla (which they seem to be doing nowadays - starting with the Flying Carousel), I would 100% support their discussion. I think it's an awesome ride which suits LPS very well, and Sydneysiders seem to soak the thing up when it comes in there temporarily!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/11/2018 at 3:30 PM, 19Michael96 said:

See I would prefer a coaster to be called Big Dipper. Especially considering LPS still has the name rights for it apparently. Sure, it won't be as BIG as the previous iterations but at least it would a more thrilling coaster than the Wild Mouse (not that that's a dig, we just need an alternative ride to compliment it). IMO, I could see a MACK Big Dipper being built at the park. https://mack-rides.com/products/rollercoaster/bigdipper/ BUT WAIT - I hear you cry - won't it be too big to fit in the Tumblebug space? At first glance yes, but the MACK seems to promote the fact that the layout can be modified and custom made for a small footprint. So if there are modifications done on both sides, I could see a coaster like this fit at LPS, theoretically speaking. If if neighbours wanna complain about noise, they can install mufflers on all the seats, which are placed in front of the mouths of patrons, blocking their screams. COMPROMISE!!!

Yeah I love the Big Dipper name but i think that name should be reserved for a coaster befitting its status. If that can be accommodated for a Gerstlauter Eurofighter install or similar then I would absolutely support that!! However, for mine, it doesnt feel right to couple it with a Maurer Spinner install and if thats the case, then I would lean to using the name Wildcat instead.

 

On 09/11/2018 at 3:30 PM, 19Michael96 said:

Honestly, I'm not too fond of this proposal at all so I'm kinda glad it's been withdrawn. I mean a cinema might have been a good idea back in 2004 when Multiplex was trying to have Luna Park be a mixed use venue, but times have changed and it feels like that with the recent renovations, they are trying to give LPS a more traditional pier-side amusement park aesthetic. And a cinema doesn't fit that theming imo. Sure, they've modified it so that it's now a flying theatre ride in the vein of "Soarin'" like at DCA and Epcot but I still don't feel like a ride extravagant as that is appropriate for a small park like this, especially when it's proposed to be in the space of more appropriate traditional rides like the upcoming "Flying Carousel" or "Tango Train". I mean I don't object to LPS having a simulator ride, but not to this scale. IMO, I would rather have a decently sized simulation ride placed somewhere like in Maloney's Corner directly behind Coney Island, or they move the Hair Raiser opposite the Ferris Wheel (they would have to level the area with all those worn out steps but that's a good thing honestly considering how worn they look. Leave the ramp though, and some seating for Helter Skelter cafe patrons like myself.) and then put a simulator in that space. Either that or a more permanent "Mystery Manor" style attraction. 

I definitely did not like the cinema option for Luna- it felt way out of place for mine. However, the idea of a flying theatre style ride would be IMHO, a great addition to LPS. I sincerely hope that this can be revisited at some stage and I think it would be a very popular attraction with the general public and enthusiast alike.

Yeah like the idea of the Hair Raiser ride being moved- in front of the  park- in front of the Ferris Wheel would definitely work but I do think that next to the Rotor would also be a good option, to make as much use of the available space as possible.

A more permanent Horror walkthrough attraction would also be a welcome addition, and I think that the popularity and adaptability of the Mystery Manor attraction has proven that. Great call.

On 17/11/2018 at 11:06 AM, Wil_i_am_not said:

I doubt Joylands would sell their Power Surge, but if Luna Park bought one from Zamperla (which they seem to be doing nowadays - starting with the Flying Carousel), I would 100% support their discussion. I think it's an awesome ride which suits LPS very well, and Sydneysiders seem to soak the thing up when it comes in there temporarily!

Power Surges are great rides but they are fairly common attractions- there are two park installs in Australia at Adventure World and Luna Park Melbourne. and at least one travelling unit, I would rather see something more unique come to the park.

Any  thoughts as to what flat rides you would like to see replace the aging Huss rides at LPS?

Edited by Jobe
Link to post
Share on other sites

Aging Huss Rides....

Isn't it funny to see though, that rides like the Ranger came here in 1988, and is STILL operating! That is a true testament to HUSS for creating such incredible machines. To see that many of their rides are over 30 years old and are still operating, some looking like they've just come out of the factory is a great thing to see! If LPS is to sell the 3 HUSS rides, i'd hope they'd go to travelling showmen who will look after them and give them the love they really need. Fingers crossed the Ranger at least stays in the country!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ranger is still looking pretty good, especially after it's latest refurb, although the Breakdance there (in its current state) is shocking IMO. Would love to see a showman buy that up and run it to its full potential. 

The  Troikia is in a bit of a odd place. Whilst it still runs pretty well (yet still needs a massive visual overhaul), I doubt any showman would want to buy something so large, with nowadays travelling family rides usually fitting on to 1 - 2 trailers at the most, and being relatively easy to set up/pack down. I can't really see it staying in Australia either, as despite being a quality HUSS machine, many parks nowadays are looking to buy new rides that won't require immediate and constant attention.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/11/2018 at 7:25 PM, Jobe said:

Yeah like the idea of the Hair Raiser ride being moved- in front of the  park- in front of the Ferris Wheel would definitely work but I do think that next to the Rotor would also be a good option, to make as much use of the available space as possible.

The problem is though, the is very little space around the Rotor to make the Hair Raiser fit. And when one takes into account the queuing area.... yeah I'd prefer it moved into the space between the ferris wheel and Crystal Palace. Visual examples are featured below:

UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_a4bc.jpg

UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_a4bd.jpg

In other news, the sign over the "Tango Train" entrance has finally been installed. Apparently this is what constitutes a bridge nowadays....

UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_a4be.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 19Michael96 said:

The problem is though, the is very little space around the Rotor to make the Hair Raiser fit. And when one takes into account the queuing area.... yeah I'd prefer it moved into the space between the ferris wheel and Crystal Palace. Visual examples are featured below:

There is more space here than you think. Here is a closer shot for you to compare. The room provided has about as much space as the current spot in where the Hair Raiser resides- queue included , which isnt really a large area to begin with. I do like your idea of moving it next to the Ferris Wheel though and think it would be excellent to ride the Hair Raiser and eyeball the riders on the adjacent Ferris Wheel, but if Luna could make it work in this spot, then that would leave that larger space as an option for another attraction.

IMG_0855.thumb.JPG.bf7a9a612a1fcd55525574b28c0ed496.JPG

10 hours ago, 19Michael96 said:

n other news, the sign over the "Tango Train" entrance has finally been installed. Apparently this is what constitutes a bridge nowadays....

Ah yes..the long lost art of installing a bridge.......lets hope  that Luna remembers some of the fantastic bridges that have adorned Luna Parks rides from yesteryear. They have stated that they have plans for their new installs to have extensive theming and facades and if the new Light House /Helter Skelter theming is any indication then  that is heading on the right direction.

12045293_10153320543523640_793311116813855629_o.thumb.jpg.d4eb2d0f797e106d8a7c5c9c8b1bd8f3.jpgIMG_0872.thumb.JPG.a8542727b7ab24c5245d439bed0ae1d9.JPGIMG_0873.thumb.JPG.db89e02149672b732b934fbe30d59b4a.JPG

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure the space is suitable.

Here are the three spaces outlined:

image.thumb.png.815f525391a5275a930e5e348ae5e9b6.png

Looks ok, doesn't it?

Measurements of those spaces are shown here:

Current: image.png.afa76d41ae358503bcd1b6bc065713cc.png

Ferris Wheel: image.thumb.png.c3500e5f44aa610dfa697bf7eb2de12f.png

Rotor: image.png.692db4207a520cdc458365597485b3dc.png

 

While the overall land area is about comparable, you can see the rotor space infringes on the rotor building. While this could be worked around, its still quite a tight space to work in.

The next issue you have is what is behind that space.

image.thumb.png.b86716508acf1897326ea77b0593f20f.png

The back of house area behind the rotor is clearly used frequently - even by Jobe's own picture showing the gate being used at the time. Hair raiser in this position would completely block that space, which - i would suggest - is used for vehicular access into the park (perhaps for street sweeping vehicles etc). It may not be that easy to relocate those services to another place in the park either.

Next to the ferris wheel is a much more suitable spot - however, i'm not sure its a good idea. The wheel has great, unobstructed views for much of the wheel. Although the tower is narrow, and doesn't obstruct much, it would ruin those picturesque lavender bay photos many visitors to the park like to take whilst on board.

I'm certain Hair Raiser was put where it was for good reason, and I can't see much of a good reason to move it, especially to a spot next to the wheel. Whilst I understand the desire to try to 'fit things in', the space it currently occupies couldn't take an attraction much bigger than hair raiser anyway - due to the boardwalk access, and dining areas adjoining the nearby service areas. Putting a bigger ride into Hair Raiser's place would ultimately see more dining space occupying the midway, making it even harder to negotiate in peak times (and probably breaching the midway width rules recently established).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

BEFORE YOU COMMENT ON THE PHOTO: I DID NOT MEASURE OR CHANGE THE SIZES OF THE ROTOR OR HAIR RAISER!

 

 

I decided to see whaScreenshot_311.thumb.png.3d166b55e10666b9e6845c2c584bb5c6.pngt it would look like if we moved the Rotor to where the hair raiser is and the hair raiser on the left side of the face, and since I did not change the sizes of the images, this could open up a space for a new ride where the rotor is right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously practice is far different to theory @GoGoBoy. We just wanna see Luna Park make the most of it's space so there's an even balance between amusement park rides, and mixed-use entertainment facilities. Because lezbreal; it's been very unbalanced for the last 14 years. But again, we can only see what will happen when it happens. I'm fine with anything as long as they get another coaster and bring the River Caves back....

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, AlexB said:

The back of house area behind the rotor is clearly used frequently - even by Jobe's own picture showing the gate being used at the time. Hair raiser in this position would completely block that space, which - i would suggest - is used for vehicular access into the park (perhaps for street sweeping vehicles etc). It may not be that easy to relocate those services to another place in the park either.

Yeah you are right- this is used frequently. However, it is not for vehicular access but rather just a storage area from what I could see. The staff seem to use it as an access to the offices-this access could be redirected to the access point near the carpark lift entrance.

The storage area COULD theoretically  be used further down the park such as in between area between the Big Top and the Cliff face .which would then free up this ENTIRE space for another attraction- the Hair Raiser would then fit in here quite nicely. Not saying that this is ever going to happen but I guess if the park wanted to do something like this- they could probably make it work.

23 hours ago, AlexB said:

Next to the ferris wheel is a much more suitable spot - however, i'm not sure its a good idea. The wheel has great, unobstructed views for much of the wheel. Although the tower is narrow, and doesn't obstruct much, it would ruin those picturesque lavender bay photos many visitors to the park like to take whilst on board.

I dont believe this space, however usable it could be , will ever be utilised for a new attraction. In addition to your points, the space in question is  the open entrance to the boardwalk and also the open space where small shows are held - with the steps forming a mini ampitheatre. As much as I could SEE an attraction here, I dont think this space  will ever be utilised in this way.

 

23 hours ago, AlexB said:

I'm certain Hair Raiser was put where it was for good reason, and I can't see much of a good reason to move it, especially to a spot next to the wheel. Whilst I understand the desire to try to 'fit things in', the space it currently occupies couldn't take an attraction much bigger than hair raiser anyway - due to the boardwalk access, and dining areas adjoining the nearby service areas. Putting a bigger ride into Hair Raiser's place would ultimately see more dining space occupying the midway, making it even harder to negotiate in peak times (and probably breaching the midway width rules recently established).

Yeah the ride footprint where the Hair Raiser currently resides is not huge. They have utililsed it in the past for several other rides- a Miami I believe and a Hurricane was situated there in years past before Hair Raiser's time.

Any ride that is positioned here would need to be of a similar footprint. I honestly dont think Hair Raiser is going anywhere in the park anytime soon but it is fun trying to come up with some possibilities.

19 hours ago, GoGoBoy said:

^ Funnily enough where you have located The Rotor Nimble I'm pretty sure is its original location from way back in the day. But I can't remember why you guys are trying to move the rides around? Don't forget it is an expensive process, so probably not worthwhile.

Yeah @GoGoBoy you would be absolutely correct in saying that. The Original Rotor had moved around the park several times- it started life situated adjacent to the Wild Mouse and then the Wild Cat. For the 1980's incarnation, it was moved slightly to be sited next to the Crystal Palace. In 1995, the new replacement Rotor ( slightly smaller than the original) was placed halfway down the Midway , next to the Tango under the then Big Dipper. It was moved in 2005 to its current location.

Yeah we are just having a bit of fun, moving rides around in a vain attempt to maximise space. Moving rides around the park is not unprecedented,  rides and attractions were moved around the park quite regularly even in the early days. This was mainly done in the off season ( Luna park used to shut down during the Winter Months) , especially when a new attraction was coming or to just give the park a refresh or new outlook. I think the process to move an attraction back then was not as involved or expensive as it is now. 

Another idea I have been throwing around is the utilisation of another area in the park that is virtually bereft of any use at all  I am referring to the area of the park that is the roof to the underground carpark.( See below pic for the red arrow). Currently, this area is a green area of quite a decent size. It is quite an elevated position but I think that this area would be an awesome area for the relocation of the kids rides that are currently situated in Maloney's Corner. With one or 2 new additions, this could turn into a fantastic themed kids area. Of course , the area would have to be paved but it could still retain its greeness via suitable gardens and a ramp or access would have to be built to allow access from the park itself. This space is self contained and is locked after the park is closed, making it ideal for an attraction space. Kids rides are non invasive and would not upset the nearby residents. If done in a very sympathetic and amenable way, it could be highly themed and would allow greater space for the installation of significant attractions in the Maloney's Corner area of the park. It will probably never happen and under the new proposed legislation, this area of the park would require a land application and DA approval to build here , but its only a thought. Parks with small footprints like LPS need to think outside the box in regards to land utilisation and how to install attractions to the best available use.

I think we can all agree that Luna park currently does not make the best use of the land it has at its disposal. It will be very interesting to see what ideas the park will implement in installing new attractions in the near future.

969507551_LunaParkoverhead.thumb.png.3b40f047b827b464864e596b15b701c6.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jobe said:

Yeah you are right- this is used frequently. However, it is not for vehicular access but rather just a storage area from what I could see. The staff seem to use it as an access to the offices-this access could be redirected to the access point near the carpark lift entrance.

The storage area COULD theoretically  be used further down the park such as in between area between the Big Top and the Cliff face .which would then free up this ENTIRE space for another attraction- the Hair Raiser would then fit in here quite nicely. Not saying that this is ever going to happen but I guess if the park wanted to do something like this- they could probably make it work.

The door in use in your photo is marked as a fire exit. If you look closely, you'll see the larger panel the fire door is contained in, as well as the almost identically sized panel to the right of it are both actually gates. (You can make out the hinge connection at the top right). THis is also backed up by the vacant space in front of them. If those gates aren't in use regularly for vehicles, there'd be no reason to leave the space in front of them clear to swing them open.

On 26/11/2018 at 11:29 AM, Jobe said:

imageproxy.php?img=&key=33dbdb8b5f3d6bf3IMG_0855.thumb.JPG.bf7a9a612a1fcd55525574b28c0ed496.JPG

Note also, just above the left side of the gates, is a large number of stacked pallets. You don't do that by hand - thats a forklift, and that's a vehicle.

On 26/11/2018 at 12:45 PM, AlexB said:

image.thumb.png.b86716508acf1897326ea77b0593f20f.png

This is also supported by the yellow lines painted on the ground - a good WH&S indication of 'keep clear' or 'pedestrian walkways' (go to bunnings - you'll see them).

3 hours ago, Jobe said:

Another idea I have been throwing around is the utilisation of another area in the park that is virtually bereft of any use at all  I am referring to the area of the park that is the roof to the underground carpark.( See below pic for the red arrow). Currently, this area is a green area of quite a decent size. It is quite an elevated position but I think that this area would be an awesome area for the relocation of the kids rides that are currently situated in Maloney's Corner. With one or 2 new additions, this could turn into a fantastic themed kids area. Of course , the area would have to be paved but it could still retain its greeness via suitable gardens and a ramp or access would have to be built to allow access from the park itself. This space is self contained and is locked after the park is closed, making it ideal for an attraction space. Kids rides are non invasive and would not upset the nearby residents. If done in a very sympathetic and amenable way, it could be highly themed and would allow greater space for the installation of significant attractions in the Maloney's Corner area of the park. It will probably never happen and under the new proposed legislation, this area of the park would require a land application and DA approval to build here , but its only a thought. Parks with small footprints like LPS need to think outside the box in regards to land utilisation and how to install attractions to the best available use.

I think we can all agree that Luna park currently does not make the best use of the land it has at its disposal. It will be very interesting to see what ideas the park will implement in installing new attractions in the near future.

 

I have to disagree... sort of.

I guess, yes, they could better use their land if they tetris-ed everything in - but Luna is a little more about the whimsy, not the regiment. They're never going to be doing any sort of large expansion. I'd rather not start clusterfucking the park for the sakes of fitting in an extra flat.

As for the grassed area, I feel like the roof of the carpark probably wasn't built to withstand weight on top of it, or at least more than what is on it. The carpark would probably need significant reinforcing works to have large moving machinery plonked down on top of it, with is probably prohibitive. In addition, the need to put in a ramp or accessway to get to it would also take up more 'in park' space as well - which could probably be better spent used for other things.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Multiplex all smiles at Luna Park win

Ian Mutton, an independent councillor on North Sydney Council. Picture: Hollie Adams Ian Mutton, an independent councillor on North Sydney Council. Picture: Hollie Adams

NSW Planning Minister Anthony Roberts appears set to agree to demands from property giant Brookfield Multiplex to remove planning controls to allow it to erect rides at Sydney’s Luna Park, some permanently fixed and up to 12-storeys tall, without having to seek development approval.

The move comes only months after Mr Roberts defeated Multiplex in a court case in which it sought just such freedom from standard planning procedures.

Multiplex will also be allowed to install rides where they are currently prohibited, including the Lavender Green section of the site on Crown land near the northern end of the Harbour Bridge.

According to Ian Mutton, an independent councillor on North Sydney Council, it follows a campaign by Multiplex ahead of a March state election, in which it threatened to close the iconic amusement park unless it obtained freedom from having to lodge development applications for new rides.

“Nobody wants to be the premier who sees Luna Park close — Multiplex plays that game all the time,” Mr Mutton said.

The warning was issued by the managing director of the Multiplex subsidiary Luna Park Sydney, Peter Hearne, in July, after Mr Roberts won a case in the Land and Environment Court against Multiplex, which had claimed it was exempt from planning controls for new rides.

“Rules are being interpreted in a way that places the long-term future of the park in doubt,” Mr Hearne said at the time.

Soon after that, Multiplex asked the government to provide it with what it had failed to win in court and Mr Roberts, while a final decision is pending, has with some haste taken steps to make that happen in the form of drafting a proposed amendment to the State Environmental Planning Policy governing Luna Park.

The SEPP would allow Multiplex, without seeking planning approval, to erect permanent rides and amusements up to a stationary height of 36 metres.

When many residents objected, Mr Roberts instituted one of the fastest acts of independent consultation on record: he wrote to the Independent Planning Commission on November 20 requesting advice and that panel met at 8:30am that morning for a one-hour meeting with departmental staff. The IPC sought no public comment, supported the proposal, and issued a press release to that effect three days later.

IPC chair Mary O’Kane said the turnaround was “faster than we do on some but not impossibly fast” and reflected the fact “we were asked for very fast advice”. She insisted the process had been independent and rigorous.

A spokesman for Mr Roberts admitted the incongruity of his fighting and winning the court case against Multiplex only to subsequently provide the freedom from planning control.

“But it’s important for the public and stakeholders to understand the government will always prosecute a vigorous defence of our own laws when challenged,” the spokesman said.

Mr Hearne declined to speak to The Australianbut in a statement the company said the proposed changes had received overwhelming support from public submissions.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/property/multiplex-all-smiles-at-luna-park-win/news-story/c07f3c8956366e9f6131e49a8ea9d9c4

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • 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.