Jump to content

Dreamworld’s BuzzSaw is Retiring


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 315
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The main tower is just about all gone   Also the flood lighting for steel Taipan is on, cool.

Just received this email 

Posted Images

6 hours ago, Spotty said:

...too similar to Buzzsaw.

 

1 hour ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

won't somebody please think of the sightlines!

Thats kind of the thing though. I have zero nostalgia for Buzzsaw and how it looks, but I guarantee you there are people who grew up with it who are and think there should be a ride there and that's kind of what it should look like. You build that kind of ride there in a few years and it'll tickle the nostalgia berries of a whole generation. Maybe you'd get that from a 4D, but you'd absolutely get that from a sky rocket

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.... without it, it'd be a lake.

Seriously though - I believe that despite it being man-made, it's got that real 'lived in' feeling after 40 years and I think there is some sort of restriction or protection of the water course as part of the local eco system. i think they'd need permission to change it at this point.

This is all only a very vague recollection of something I remember hearing a couple years back so anyone with a better recollection - feel free to fill in the gaps...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

You don't need anything else in front of your new flagship. 

JMO.

I don't understand, do you think adding another quality ride in front of a quality ride will make people less likely to go or will make the vista less impressive? Actually that's probably why they got rid of Buzzsaw, finally ST will be viable from the highway 😀

 

Edited to add: This post was proudly sponsored by strawman arguments. 'Strawman arguments - misrepresenting your opponents opinion since 1847!'

Edited by joz
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

Well.... without it, it'd be a lake.

Seriously though - I believe that despite it being man-made, it's got that real 'lived in' feeling after 40 years and I think there is some sort of restriction or protection of the water course as part of the local eco system. i think they'd need permission to change it at this point.

This is all only a very vague recollection of something I remember hearing a couple years back so anyone with a better recollection - feel free to fill in the gaps...

The land can be used, the river can’t be filled in. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, joz said:

Edited to add: This post was proudly sponsored by strawman arguments.

Are you sure it's straw & not hay?   You better be careful otherwise the pitchfork gang will be after you.🤪

 

25 minutes ago, Slick said:

The land can be used, the river can’t be filled in. 

Do you know the reason?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Im Hungry said:

Unless you want to turn TOTII's plot of land into a lift hill...

Only if it uses the full length and we get a 300-400ft coaster

42 minutes ago, New display name said:

If DW can't evict the turtles at the very least, they should exploit the turtles.  

 

The Historic Rivermill which is on your way to Mt Tambourine is very popular for turtle feeding.

$2 per 100g bag of Turtle feed that costs them $10 per 20kg 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, New display name said:

If DW can't evict the turtles

Time to get Big Brother back to see what magic he can work..

I beg to differ that the island can’t be redeveloped. The amount of redevelopment around the park in the last 10 years through natural bush land says otherwise. Plus if the park turns to a housing estate or industrial park, they are going to have to develop around the river? 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, TimmyG said:

Time to get Big Brother back to see what magic he can work..

I beg to differ that the island can’t be redeveloped. The amount of redevelopment around the park in the last 10 years through natural bush land says otherwise. Plus if the park turns to a housing estate or industrial park, they are going to have to develop around the river? 
 

You’ve misread. The island can be developed, the river can’t. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TimmyG said:

Time to get Big Brother back to see what magic he can work..

I beg to differ that the island can’t be redeveloped. The amount of redevelopment around the park in the last 10 years through natural bush land says otherwise. Plus if the park turns to a housing estate or industrial park, they are going to have to develop around the river? 
 

It's classified as a marshland or swampland so it theoretically can be built on but the costs involved in approvals and actually getting it workable would outweigh any value in doing it. Unless Ardent have lots of spare money to throw around, I doubt we'll see anything done with the island.

Also redevelopment would be different as that whole area would be drained, filled, flattened and settled before houses begin going up.

Edited by Tinter
Link to post
Share on other sites

There might be something within the councils website, but Slick worked at the park and got insight into a lot of information like this 

EDIT

I couldn’t help myself and I did some research through the councils website 

3B63FAAA-2770-4B7C-8AD9-64204BA2F502.thumb.jpeg.791a2e187f4f5deb3a1522962df1f1f7.jpeg

4E9AD839-E7ED-419C-AA52-79BFBE406A2F.thumb.jpeg.ba511267908674ae8fd6062ab7fca7d5.jpeg

The river is classified as general priority vegetation. To my understanding, that means that it can’t be removed and must be sustained, but through council applications, some works can occur providing they don’t have major impact on the area.

Because the Ferris wheel didn’t necessarily take away any land from the river, but rather sits over it, that’s why it was approved. 

Edited by themagician
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TimmyG said:

Where is the evidence regarding this? I still find it incredibly hard to believe the river can’t be redeveloped. 

 

1 hour ago, themagician said:

There might be something within the councils website, but Slick worked at the park and got insight into a lot of information like this 

I am the evidence. 😄

  • Like 1
  • Fountain of Improbability 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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • 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.