• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

London Entertainment Resort: All Discussion

All interesting...

Suppose if a crappy Scotland team can finally qualify for a major football tournament then maybe there is a slight chance here.

As much I can see the 'never going to happen' crowd being perhaps right in the end, part of me does want to see this come together and see the sceptics eat humble pie and be honest, there is a lot of them around here though not entirely surprising.
 
I don’t think it’s that anyone here doesn’t want this to happen. I think it would be exactly the disrupters to the UK market that we need to give the big players a serious wake up call. But many of us have been around long enough to have seen numerous projects like this come and go, and thus far there isn’t anything to this project inspiring that much more confidence than those that have preceded it.

I’d much sooner be pessimistic and grounded in realism and then be pleasantly surprised, rather than get over excited about anything at this point and be let down. There are still far too many unanswered questions and missing details currently surrounding the project to get fully invested.
 
The timescale seems unrealistic. The estimated pot required seems way off too. No way is 3.5bn going to cover all that. No chance. I think it's more likely to be closer to 5 or 6bn.

Not fully convinced they do have the full amount of investment either. They mention an 'investor' but unless they are going to fund the whole thing then this will never get off the ground.
 
QTXAdsy said:
All interesting...

Suppose if a crappy Scotland team can finally qualify for a major football tournament then maybe there is a slight chance here.

As much I can see the 'never going to happen' crowd being perhaps right in the end, part of me does want to see this come together and see the sceptics eat humble pie and be honest, there is a lot of them around here though not entirely surprising.
Click to expand...
That's only because they increased the number of teams in the tournament tbf :p
 
Hearing they want to put a castle in the centre of the park doesn't inspire any confidence. It just screams "We have no ideas of our own and are just copying Disney". Or insert fantasy park here and just assume it'll happen.
 
Tim said:
Hearing they want to put a castle in the centre of the park doesn't inspire any confidence. It just screams "We have no ideas of our own and are just copying Disney". Or insert fantasy park here and just assume it'll happen.
Click to expand...

It certainly doesn't help with the 'UK Disneyland' either.

However I truly believe every major theme park resort needs a park centre piece of some kind but yea it doesn't have to be a castle.

Tower of London would be a great fit though you can't deny if it was a castle. Fits the the theme perfectly.
 
In these times of uncertainty any investor would be crazy to put down over 6bn and not have a realistic time frame when the investment pays back. That’s always going to be the sticking point it’s a risky investment and its a lot of money to pay out.
 
Mr Pearse said:
In these times of uncertainty any investor would be crazy to put down over 6bn and not have a realistic time frame when the investment pays back. That’s always going to be the sticking point it’s a risky investment and its a lot of money to pay out.
Click to expand...

A quick Google search shows that Disneyland Paris make between 20 to 25m profit per year. That's Disney though remember which is incredibly expensive to visit and they have gate figures of 10m a year which is double what they are projecting at the London Resort.

This just shows why it's just not a viable project. I'm assuming they are hoping to make more profit from the other entertainment venues proposed such as convert venue, hotels, shopping outlets restaurants etc.

Just doesn't seem to add up to me though.
 
Mr Pearse said:
In these times of uncertainty any investor would be crazy to put down over 6bn and not have a realistic time frame when the investment pays back. That’s always going to be the sticking point it’s a risky investment and its a lot of money to pay out.
Click to expand...
Coincidentally, $6bn being roughly what some hedge funds look set to lose on shorting Gameshop stock. Surely this has to be a less risky investment to someone? :p
 
As a fairly local lad I want to point out a few things:
1) Traffic can be bad but this is mainly around rush hour because of the Dartford Crossings. I expect this to be sorted with late openings and closings.

2) The land is a dump, fly tipping, rubbish etc. I'm a big eco nut but I can see bigger advantages if the site was cleaned and the quantity given to wildlife is reduced but of higher quality and managed.

3 The area has huge roads around it to accommodate Bluewater (Europe's biggest shopping center). Yes if tourists drift on to 'local' roads they can get clogged up but with good planning and direct major road access i can't see an issue. M25 and M2 are both 3-4 lanes at this point and it's got alot of capacity at that point with the new (ish) junction for the above road at Dartford. With the high speed rail link I really don't see a point of the ferry service but it could add that magic touch.

4) Considering Bluewater seemed to take forever to build I can't see this project being does a quick as they want. Land preparation will take a considerable amount of time.

I'm positive for it as I believe this is the best location for a European theme park, those from the north might complain but then again it's quicker and cheaper for me to get a train to Disneyland Paris from Kent than it is to Alton. 3 Hours from Ashford International (no changes and the Disney branding starts in the Ashford station) for about £49 each way. As opposed to £150 and 6 hours on public transport to Alton towers with mutiple changes.

Lastly those who are concerned about the position in the UK. Ebbsfleet is a breeze by train. If your train gets to Kings Cross, Euston, Stratford or st panc. I think worst case scenario from any of those stations is an 45 mins furthest away). If you get in to Kings cross cross the street and get the next train (all stop at ebbsfleet) the gap between is only 20-15 mins) the time is takes to get to Ebbsfleet is about 15 mins max.
 
I don't think anyone in the north will be uspet. For me the best two parks in the country are in the north. Blackpool and Towers. Towers just about qualifies as North I suppose however it's classed by many as Midlands.

So if this goes ahead in the south I will be pleased for us all and especially people in the south as I genuinely don't like Thorpe Park at all.

And if it does get built we will travel by car for sure from here in Manchester. A train journey would just be too expensive for us. You'd be talking £200 plus. I'd rather just drive down in the night when it's quieter on roads.

But let's be realistic. This project has an awful long way to go before we can get excited yet. I'm still firmly in the camp of this being too good to be true.
 
Something else worth noting; massive infrastructure projects of this type are not quick to build in Britain, and have many hurdles to jump over. Take HS2, the massive rail project linking London and the North, for example; it was first proposed in 2009, but didn’t start construction until 2020, and phase 1 alone isn’t due to open until 2029.

I know comparing a theme park resort to a railway line probably seems slightly odd, but HS2 has the same NSIP status as the London Resort, is a similar massive infrastructure project, and has had similarly polarised support (in fact, I’d probably say even more so), with many both in support of it and in opposition of it. It’s taken years to get this far, and it was a case of “will it, won’t it” for years, but is seemingly now going ahead, as it eventually won approval, and started construction last year.
 
There is a solution to get around the traffic concerns which will no doubt be one of the biggest obstacles to this project.

Open the park at 11am everyday instead of 9 or 9.30am and close it after the evening rush hour at around 8pm. That way the operating hrs aren't effected but the people needing to travel to work in the mornings can still do so without being caught up with theme park folk. That would alleviate a lot of the pressure on local rds at the key travel times. Sure you will still get some people mixed in with the rush hr folk but it won't be the majority.

I just can't see this being approved unless they do something different like this. The roads in this country, especially near London, in the rush hours are biblically bad.
 
Matt N said:
Something else worth noting; massive infrastructure projects of this type are not quick to build in Britain, and have many hurdles to jump over. Take HS2, the massive rail project linking London and the North, for example; it was first proposed in 2009, but didn’t start construction until 2020, and phase 1 alone isn’t due to open until 2029.

I know comparing a theme park resort to a railway line probably seems slightly odd, but HS2 has the same NSIP status as the London Resort, is a similar massive infrastructure project, and has had similarly polarised support (in fact, I’d probably say even more so), with many both in support of it and in opposition of it. It’s taken years to get this far, and it was a case of “will it, won’t it” for years, but is seemingly now going ahead, as it eventually won approval, and started construction last year.
Click to expand...

I think I've talked about this before, but London Resort as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project is extremely questionable at best. As the name suggests, NSIPs are intended for infrastructure. If you take a look through the list of current projects, that almost exclusively means energy related projects such as wind farms, pipelines and power plants, or transport related projects like road and rail.

The outlier in this is London Resort. It's a commercial leisure project, and whilst you could argue the plans include 'infrastructure improvements' by way of new roads to the park, they are being built solely to facilitate access to the resort. If the resort actually did get off the ground with the visitor numbers they're stating, it would almost certainly put additional strain on existing roads around the area. A huge chunk of NSIPs are Highways England projects to reduce congestion by improving existing roads, or creating new ones - London Resort would likely do the exact opposite. To be bluntly honest, this project as an NSIP stinks of someone calling in some favours to try and force planning through a little quicker using a procedure that is absolutely not intended for this type of project.

So I don't think it's possible to even remotely compare other actual infrastructure projects like HS2 to London Resort. HS2's stated aims (let's not get into an argument about the realities of HS2) is to improve economic growth nationwide, be that through direct links on that line or by facilitating better connections to HS2 stations. Likewise with road projects, it's all about reducing travel times and the UK's carbon footprint. Same goes for energy infrastructure to hit climate targets and reliance on energy imports and dirty fuels.

Whilst London Resort has the potential to improve the local economy, I see little economic benefit from a nationwide point of view to recognise it as "Nationally Significant", or anything that will ease what are already substantial transport issues in the local area.
 
Attraction Source (new name for TTSP) has done a bit of digging through the planning documents, and produced this incredibly helpful summary article: https://www.attractionsource.com/20...r-the-london-resort-accepted-for-examination/

Some of the stuff they go over is stuff we already know, but I’ll pick out a few highlights and things that interested me:
  • 6.5 million visitors anticipated per year with only Gate 1 & resort complex open, and 12.5 million per year once gate 2 is open too.
  • 35% of visitors projected to come from overseas.
  • Gate 1 will open in 2024 and take up 57 hectares, while Gate 2 will open in 2029 and take up 22.5 hectares. The areas will include IPs such as film, television and computer game IPs, as well as bespoke themes.
  • The proposed maximum height parameters (I’m guessing this means how high they can build) have been proposed to be 40-100m in Gate 1 (131ft-328ft) and 35-65m (115-213ft) in Gate 2. The upper limits will allow for the construction of “tall rides” and “centrepieces”.
  • At least 60% of the attractions will be indoors.
  • The entrance plaza area to the Resort will contain a “Foadarche” (I don’t actually know what this is, but I’m guessing some kind of arch) that will be 100m in diameter and 130m tall(!!!). Hedges and berms will be planted around the edge of the plaza to facilitate wildlife.
  • There will be a total of four hotels with up to 3,550 rooms. The first hotel (the London Resort Hotel) will have 800 rooms within two wings, one of which will house the waterpark. The second hotel will have 1,500 rooms, the third hotel will have 800 rooms and the fourth hotel will be a “boutique” offering with 400 rooms.
  • There will be a “Coliseum” dedicated to housing eSports events across three key levels. “Innovation City”, a hall demonstrating the best of technology, will occupy the ground floor, while the middle floor will house the “Gamers’ Level”, which will be focused on gaming with demonstrations of technology as well as TV studios. The upper level will be a 2500-3000 seat arena.
  • A “conferention” centre accommodating up to 4,000 visitors will be built.
  • Construction on gate 1 is set to start in Q3 of 2022 for a July/August 2024 opening, while construction on gate 2 is anticipated to start in Q3 of 2027 for a 2029 opening. There’s a more detailed construction schedule within the article if you’d like to read it.
  • One of the most interesting things the document mentions is funding. Now this has been the key reservation for many of you, but it would appear that investment has been secured. Investors have apparently been found, and this external investment is apparently sufficient for the project to go ahead fully funded by them. The investors currently wish to remain confidential as their commitment to funding the project is conditional based on it gaining approval. I don’t know if I’m reading too much into this, but that to me sounds as though they have secured the finances to pull this off.
  • LRCH have secured two thirds of the required land; the remaining land is estimated to cost £200m, with this being included in an overall £1.8bn cost to bring gate 1 into operation, followed by £0.7bn to bring gate 2 into operation and expand gate 1.
I apologise, as I may have missed a few details, and it is quite a lot to take in, but isn’t this interesting stuff! What are your thoughts?
 
Matt N said:
Attraction Source (new name for TTSP) has done a bit of digging through the planning documents, and produced this incredibly helpful summary article: https://www.attractionsource.com/20...r-the-london-resort-accepted-for-examination/

Some of the stuff they go over is stuff we already know, but I’ll pick out a few highlights and things that interested me:
  • 6.5 million visitors anticipated per year with only Gate 1 & resort complex open, and 12.5 million per year once gate 2 is open too.
  • 35% of visitors projected to come from overseas.
  • Gate 1 will open in 2024 and take up 57 hectares, while Gate 2 will open in 2029 and take up 22.5 hectares. The areas will include IPs such as film, television and computer game IPs, as well as bespoke themes.
  • The proposed maximum height parameters (I’m guessing this means how high they can build) have been proposed to be 40-100m in Gate 1 (131ft-328ft) and 35-65m (115-213ft) in Gate 2. The upper limits will allow for the construction of “tall rides” and “centrepieces”.
  • At least 60% of the attractions will be indoors.
  • The entrance plaza area to the Resort will contain a “Foadarche” (I don’t actually know what this is, but I’m guessing some kind of arch) that will be 100m in diameter and 130m tall(!!!). Hedges and berms will be planted around the edge of the plaza to facilitate wildlife.
  • There will be a total of four hotels with up to 3,550 rooms. The first hotel (the London Resort Hotel) will have 800 rooms within two wings, one of which will house the waterpark. The second hotel will have 1,500 rooms, the third hotel will have 800 rooms and the fourth hotel will be a “boutique” offering with 400 rooms.
  • There will be a “Coliseum” dedicated to housing eSports events across three key levels. “Innovation City”, a hall demonstrating the best of technology, will occupy the ground floor, while the middle floor will house the “Gamers’ Level”, which will be focused on gaming with demonstrations of technology as well as TV studios. The upper level will be a 2500-3000 seat arena.
  • A “conferention” centre accommodating up to 4,000 visitors will be built.
  • Construction on gate 1 is set to start in Q3 of 2022 for a July/August 2024 opening, while construction on gate 2 is anticipated to start in Q3 of 2027 for a 2029 opening. There’s a more detailed construction schedule within the article if you’d like to read it.
  • One of the most interesting things the document mentions is funding. Now this has been the key reservation for many of you, but it would appear that investment has been secured. Investors have apparently been found, and this external investment is apparently sufficient for the project to go ahead fully funded by them. The investors currently wish to remain confidential as their commitment to funding the project is conditional based on it gaining approval. I don’t know if I’m reading too much into this, but that to me sounds as though they have secured the finances to pull this off.
  • LRCH have secured two thirds of the required land; the remaining land is estimated to cost £200m, with this being included in an overall £1.8bn cost to bring gate 1 into operation, followed by £0.7bn to bring gate 2 into operation and expand gate 1.
I apologise, as I may have missed a few details, and it is quite a lot to take in, but isn’t this interesting stuff! What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
This certainly is interesting
Things that have caught my eye
"Foadarche" has zero results on Bing so either they've made a typo or they've made up a word.
The arena I guess would be for concerts and shows. Is there a demand given how many big concert arenas and theatres exist in and around London?
eSports? I guess I'm out of the loop here, do people buy tickets to watch a video game tournament?
 
Matt N said:
Attraction Source (new name for TTSP)
Click to expand...
Worth noting that Attraction Source is essentially an entirely new thing with new people, due to the majority of those who made TTSP, and in particular its editorial content, no longer being at the site.

There's a huge amount of information in these documents, the author of this article has done a very nice job in going through them all so quickly.
 
I think post-Brexit the location isn't right. It could have been good with people coming over from Europe, but I don't see that being as big a focus post-Brexit. There are much better locations with better transport links in central England.
 
jon81uk said:
I think post-Brexit the location isn't right. It could have been good with people coming over from Europe, but I don't see that being as big a focus post-Brexit. There are much better locations with better transport links in central England.
Click to expand...
Well will Brexit stop Brits from going to Disneyland Paris?
 
Stop, no. But it will deter a few people. Disney Paris is an established site so probably won't see much change. But it does make a new attraction a harder sell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top