Jamberoo Fan

Sea World lighthouse - Star Flyer replacement

'Rescue Point Lighthouse' Demolition & "Star Flyer" Addition  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. How do you feel about Sea World's planned demolition of 'Rescue Point Lighthouse'?

    • Great and replace it with a "Star Flyer"!
      13
    • Great but replace it with something different than a "Star Flyer".
      8
    • Sad but I prefer a "Star Flyer" in 'Rescue Point Lighthouse''s place.
      18
    • Terrible - Keep it! It's irreplaceable!
      11
  2. 2. How do you feel about Sea World's planned "Star Flyer" and where should it be located in Sea World?

    • Great - 'Rescue Point Lighthouse' site
      22
    • Great - 'Viking's Revenge Flume Ride' site
      4
    • Great - Other site in Sea World
      13
    • Terrible - 'Rescue Point Lighthouse' site
      1
    • Terrible - 'Viking's Revenge Flume Ride' site
      2
    • Terrible - Other site in Sea World
      8
  3. 3. Is all this a good move to improve Sea World's future?

    • Yes - The park is now back how it was in it's prime!
      2
    • Yes - It's a good start but just not quite there yet.
      7
    • Yes - It's a good start but a long way to go.
      33
    • No - A "Star Flyer" is not a ride suited for Sea World.
      5
    • No - The negative effects of demolishing 'Rescue Point Lighthouse' on Sea World outweigh any positive effects of anything else Sea World does in the future.
      2
    • No - What were they thinking?
      1


139 posts in this topic

If it’s only 30m tall it would be disappointing imo... and only classified as a filler attraction, it’s not to going to attract people on its own right. 

If it’s 60m+ then it becomes a major attraction that will be a drawcard, offering awesome views and a unique and exciting ride design for the GC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those wondering if they close these rides in a slight breeze like windseekers? The answer is no. It is a bit of a thrilling experience being on the SFoT one of these with the wind blowing you about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of all the areas of SW that need attention, I don't think the lighthouse is the most pressing. However much this project is costing, it would be better spent going towards getting the Flume operational again. I don't think putting a carnival ride in some far flung corner of the park is going to do much to the park attendance wise or add an element of energy and excitement to the place. I'm also not sure totally sure that right next to a dolphin pool is where riders screams should come from tbh.

 

I mean if it's all true then points for remembering they own the park I guess. SW is in desperate need of rides and the star flyers are reasonably well rated.  Not what I'd do but at least its something

Edited by joz
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jamberoo Fan said:

These types of rides are known to be tall. Thus, the height of this ride will be interesting given Sea World has strict height restrictions.

@Jamberoo Fannote before I continue.  I'm not a town planner and I'm not going to spend hours digging out the information but I could be "correct in what I say below":  The codes for Sea World if you're that interested @Jamberoo Fan.

https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Pages/Plan/Book.aspx?exhibit=GCCC_CityPlan&hid=40376

https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Pages/Plan/Book.aspx?exhibit=GCCC_CityPlan&hid=40228https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Pages/Plan/Book.aspx?exhibit=GCCC_CityPlan&hid=40229

https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Pages/Plan/Book.aspx?exhibit=GCCC_CityPlan&hid=40378&s=Sea world precinct

https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Pages/Plan/Book.aspx?exhibit=GCCC_CityPlan&hid=40378&s=Sea world precinct

https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Pages/Plan/Book.aspx?exhibit=GCCC_CityPlan&hid=40268

https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Pages/Plan/Book.aspx?exhibit=GCCC_CityPlan&hid=40270

https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Pages/Plan/Book.aspx?exhibit=GCCC_CityPlan&hid=40272

https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Pages/Plan/Book.aspx?exhibit=GCCC_CityPlan&hid=40443

https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Pages/Plan/Book.aspx?exhibit=GCCC_CityPlan&hid=40280

https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Pages/Plan/Book.aspx?exhibit=GCCC_CityPlan&hid=40449

https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Pages/Plan/Book.aspx?exhibit=GCCC_CityPlan&hid=40462

https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Pages/Plan/Book.aspx?exhibit=GCCC_CityPlan&hid=40474

https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Pages/Plan/Book.aspx?exhibit=GCCC_CityPlan&hid=40288

https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Pages/Plan/Book.aspx?exhibit=GCCC_CityPlan&hid=40486

 

HAD strict height restrictions.

From the not so new town plan.

The purpose of the Sea world precinct will be achieved through the following additional overall outcome:

  1. To maintain low rise development (excluding theme park rides) to retain the natural open space character of the Spit area.

Required outcomes

Height

RO4

Building does not exceed that shown on the Building height overlay map.


OR


Structures relating to theme park rides do not have a prescribed height limit.

 

 

 

 
 
Edited by Skeeta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The height of it will definitely determine whether it is a kids ride or thrill ride. I think anything over 30m would be great, but I can’t see it being too much taller than that due to the height regulations. It was okay for the Eye to be because it was only temporary 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been wanting for SW to build one of these forever, so pretty happy at that.

Agree with @joz odd location choice. This ride doesn't need much foot print so theoretically it will fit where the Lighthouse goes, but it will also fit practically anywhere else in the Park. I'd rather it be placed by Jet Rescue, keep all thrill rides in the same area.

On the other hand , the Lighthouse spot is a fantastic visual location and your eyes are drawn to it the moment you enter the Park. @pushbutton apparently is the exception to the rule. 

For financial reasons I'm sure this wasn't what was originally planned and something with a much bigger budget had to be put on the back burner, at least for now anyway.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe all the work that’s been happening within the area of COTD is related to this. When I visited the other days a lot of the paths had been pulled up, and rollers were being used to flatten out some of the paths (this was alongside the Dolphin Nursery), and looking at this satellite image, I think could definitely be related.

The light house will be where the ride is located, and the garden north of it would be where the queue and entrance is

12195629-3B2F-4FB7-B779-B2054D1A70F3.thumb.jpeg.27c1841ac649f7aab5ca641a45674003.jpeg

They could also keep the COTD there, and the ride could fit into that theme. Some animatronics will have to go or be moved, but I think it could work really well and be a great asset to the park. And I can imagine how awesome the views would be. I do hope this isn’t the only attraction they are planning and they are still going ahead with the Vikings Revenge replacement too

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look - I disagree. the location is great. It's a rarely used area of the park that doesn't see much traffic flow, so by placing the new attraction there, it helps to spread the load. Placing it near jet rescue, in that stupid pathway bridge bottleneck, especially with the flume roped off would be a horrible one-way-street dead end. its bad enough as it is.

Hopefully the bigwigs see this, and if so - building at the lighthouse is a good idea, but ensure the pathway you have back down to lakeside into Nickelodeon is widened, as the current bottleneck around the rear corner of lakeside is stupid.

thinking about it too, depending on height, it'd be a nice mid-size upgrade - kids go from Nick to something like this, before graduating to the big coasters....

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Skeeta. I think you are correct. I wasn't even aware that the height restrictions were altered given their significance of them on The Spit. Theme park rides are now exempt from height restrictions which are, on Sea World's land, currently a maximum of 15 metres or 3 storeys. However, depending on the height of the "Star Flyer", this doesn't mean the community won't argue against the development (I realise they can't submit a submission due to the private certifier process though).

I wonder how high the "Star Flyer" will go? 122 metres? Impressive if they did and serious competition for DW but maybe too high due to The Spit's nature. 50 metres might be the most realistic height now that height restrictions have been amended. That is, to keep the ride from affecting The Spit's nature as best as possible. However, according to Funtime, a standard StarFlyer is about 70 metres high. Regardless of the final height, I now believe it's very likely this will be Sea World's tallest permanent ride ever.

10 hours ago, joz said:

I don't think putting a carnival ride in some far flung corner of the park is going to do much to the park attendance wise or add an element of energy and excitement to the place

Rescue Point isn't exactly a "far flung corner". It's highly visible particularly if a ride is now going to occupy the space. Castaway Bay is in a "far flung corner"; Dolphin Beach/Affinity is too. Seal Harbour can be considered as also being in a similar corner.

If a "Star Flyer" is to be located on Rescue Point, I'd expect the Point will suddenly become a high pedestrian traffic area very quickly and might give them an attendance boost depending on how much promotion they give this ride. Rescue Point has only been a low pedestrian area over time because firstly, there is not much to see there and secondly, the alternative route of going past the Dolphin Nursery was always the main walkway around Sea World.

8 hours ago, MickeyD said:

This ride doesn't need much foot print so theoretically it will fit where the Lighthouse goes, but it will also fit practically anywhere else in the Park.

On the other hand , the Lighthouse spot is a fantastic visual location and your eyes are drawn to it the moment you enter the Park.

It can't fit "practically anywhere". The tower can but when in operation, the ride swings with a radius of about 20 metres so it needs to be 20 metres away of any structure. Stationary, the ride requires a 10 metre radius. Depending on what height the ride starts rotating fast enough to extend the radius to 20 metres, any structures surrounding the ride must not be the same height. But, in case the ride lowers without slowing down, a 20 metre radius would probably be the safest to apply. The only locations that fit this radius are:

  • The Viking Castle (if they decide to close the 4D Theatre permanently when they remove Viking's Revenge Flume Ride so they can also demolish the Castle and re-arrange the area),
  • The former Sea Viper site and
  • Creatures Of The Deep outdoor section including Rescue Point Lighthouse (if the area is being re-arranged apart from the Lighthouse's demolition)

In relation to your latter statement, there is a flaw in that location for the "Star Flyer" compared to the Lighthouse. The Lighthouse is only about 15 metres high and entering Sea World involves walking in an undercover area until you reach the former Skyway station. The ceiling was just high enough to allow you to see the Lighthouse. If the "Star Flyer" is built in this location for this reason, when you walk into the park during the ride's operation, all you would see is a tower as most of the ride will be very high in the air.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sea World has lost of far flung corners it's true. Doesn't mean a Star Flyer is bringing life to a section of park which doesn't need life brought to it. You know what part of the park does need life? The bit behind the Nick Stage. 

 

Also I can't speak for MickeyD, but I assume that his vision for putting the ride near Jet Rescue would also involve fixing that cluster. Jet Rescue is at an annoying dead end. If only there were something else there to give that walk a bit more purpose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the controlling factor height wise is going to be possible different foundations required and how deep/how much they have to spend to keep going up. 

Starts getting real expensive when you have to put in a cofferdam. Might reach a point where the bean counters decide its not worth the added spend to go up another 10m, etc.

Edited by Levithian
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Yeah, I always thought the height restriction was because of the foundations. As much as it would suck, wouldn’t they get around this by having a portable version of the ride, like Inferno is a portable version of its ride type at AW?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't understand why people are talking about height restrictions due to foundations at this point.

1 hour ago, Levithian said:

Starts getting real expensive when you have to put in a cofferdam.

It's not the Q1.  To cofferdam an area isn't the only way to deal with a low water table.

40 minutes ago, iwerks said:

^Yeah, I always thought the height restriction was because of the foundations.

It's not.

25 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

Reckon it has to be 50-60m to be a drawcard attraction 

Agree, otherwise how else will we be able to see the new nudist beach the crazy people want at the spit.

 

What will make this ride a great is height.  The higher the better because it has some of the best views in the world.

Share this post


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

The higher the better because it has some of the best views in the world.

I couldn't agree more with this, but i'd prefer they kept it lower than 'the highest possible' simply because too big will scare people off riding it, and it becomes an expensive white elephant.

A reasonable height, that takes you significantly higher than the surrounding area, enough to see down the beach strip, across the broadwater, or out to sea would be just fine. I know many people who won't ride GD simply because of the height, and that includes people who have previously been on Space Probe - a significantly shorter, but otherwise practically identical ride.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding footings, it depends how far down it is till they reach bedrock. If bedrock is a long way down it means the footings need to be longer which costs more. If bedrock is close to the surface then it’s cheaper. The was the reason why making Kraken at AW a hybrid was to cost prohibitive with bedrock being to over 20 metres deep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So some “take it with a dose of skepticism” gossip..

i hired a guy at work recently, and was working with him last night and got chatting to him about his family etc as you do... after a bit of chat it came out that his son worked at SW. 

We had a bit of a general chat about SW, lack of new and replacement rides etc and he proceeded to tell me about info his son was telling him the other day. 

- Sea Jellies opened prematurely to what they wanted, and is still a work in progress. Fit out was ready to hit the original launch date but they have struggled to find jellyfish to put in the exhibit and this still continues, they are also not happy with the lighting and want to improve it.

- a “carnival style swinging ride” is opening next year (well we knew that.. but I didn’t let on)

- there is a major ride with a very large investment set for 2020 and it will be a coaster. The “manager” recently visited the US to see options and was apparently very excited and said if he got his way, it would be a woodie. 

Take that as you will, but hopefully as a glimmer of hope for SW’s future ride offerings...

Edited by Brad2912
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jordan M. said:

I can confirm I also heard this was the case with Sea Jellies.

Pretty much everyone can confirm that. It is public knowledge. Quote from VRTP CEO Clark Kirby:

Quote

We've just held off opening of that until we've got enough, well, sea jellies (laughs) to, to be honest.

Whilst, apart from the "Star Flyer" & the Sea Jellies Illuminated opening delay, I'll treat what @Brad2912 said as 'unconfirmed', I think it's all very likely true though it's hard to tell if the wooden coaster direction was just the preference of the 'manager' rather than an actual strategic business opinion. I'm sure if a lot of people on here 'had their way' B&Ms would be built even if they might not be a viable choice right now for Australian theme parks.

Given SW already has Storm Coaster, I could only imagine a wooden coaster being part of SW if it was themed as part of a new 'seaside resort boardwalk pier'-themed area (maybe the "Star Flyer" is the 1st stage in such an area?). The boardwalk would have to run from the former Sea World Train Station site to Dockside Tavern, around the "Star Flyer" (if built on Rescue Point) to the reclaimed land edging the ski show lake near Sea World Drive. That way everything between there & the former Sea Viper site can be included as part of the 'seaside resort boardwalk pier'. However, the other boundary of such an area (Ray Reef to Jet Rescue) would have to be appropriately themed to keep the 'seaside resort boardwalk pier' effect. Regardless if it is a steel or wooden coaster, the highest portions of the coaster would also likely be restricted to the former Sea Viper/Pirate Ship site and/or the reclaimed land as it will block all views of Storm Coaster otherwise. However, a coaster could wander though the former Viking's Revenge Flume Ride station, splash zone & castle if SW wanted that.

If there is a new coaster coming in 2020 to Sea World, with no height restrictions for theme park rides at SW anymore, how high would this full-circuit rollercoaster go? Will it be in that 50-60 metre height range that all but 1 rollercoaster haven't ever achieved in Australian history? Would it be as high as (or higher than) DC Rivals HyperCoaster? The thought of 2 hypercoasters on the Gold Coast sounds seemingly possible. With DW's tallest full-circuit rollercoaster being an Arrow Dynamics coaster of 40 metres height from 1995, in 2020, the park would be really lagging behind and with the difficulties the park already faces, it would a massive hurdle to overcome.

Lastly, if the lighting issue at Sea Jellies Illuminated that @Brad2912 referred to is true, the ironic thing about Sea Jellies Illuminated now is that currently it is neither 'Illuminated' nor full of many 'Sea Jellies', the two essential criteria to meet in naming an animal attraction Sea Jellies Illuminated.

Edited by Jamberoo Fan
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s great to hear for Sea Jellies. While the jellies themselves are illuminated well, the rest of the buildings lower level isn’t lit well at all. You can only just make out what signs say, and is easy to bump into someone.

Awesome to hear about a possible coaster coming in 2020 too. But it seems the family attraction replacing VR might be on hold. I do hope they at least remove the flume section next year (possibly during Storms maintenance).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I welcome this news and talk of both the star flyer and a coaster.

Whilst it's a bit early to board the hype train, we must remember that we've seen Sea World advertise attractions a few years out, and that turned out to be WILDly inaccurate... so backstage rumors, that don't even have a billboard in park are to be taken with such salt.

I would like to see them build something akin to Incredicoaster \ California Screamin - the seaside pier 'woodie' look, but in a modern steel construction. Much as i'd like a woodie, we know what the maintenance requirements are, and I feel like a steel coaster, built to reside close to the sea is probably easier to protect than a woodie with our tropical weather. That's just opinion, i'm not stating fact, and i'm sure a park could make a woodie work on the gold coast - I'd just rather they didn't.

  • Like 3

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.