https://www.facebook.com/103864547897132/

Wayne Purcell for Better Planning Gold Coast

Home
Australia
Gold Coast, QLD
Wayne Purcell for Better Planning Gold Coast

This page is dedicated to raising and discussing planning and other issues of relevance to the GC I have been a Gold Coaster since 2005.

I have worked in environmental management and tourism. My work has ensured infrastructure and development projects take into consideration local environmental and social issues. Recently, I have been looking after my two young children while completing my Masters in Development Practice. I enjoy the outdoor lifestyle of the Gold Coast; cycling with the kids, kayaking our waterways and hiking our National Parks. I believe government exists to serve and provide for its residents. People should be able to live, work and play locally for a great lifestyle. My aim is for page visitors to engage with the issues and, in doing so, potentially bring about some positive change to the Gold Coast. I look forward to hearing from you.

16/10/2026

News this week is that the Mayor is meeting with the Premier to try and sort out a $400M gap in funding so the proposed indoor arena in Southport can be built.

It's quite staggering that this is where we're at. There are two major stuff-ups which puts the Mayor, and the City, in this position.

𝐂𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒

The original $ figure for the arena was $480 million. In less than 2yrs, it's been blown out of the water. It's now double that. Underestimations on costs is a great way to get people on board. But, it sets you up for trouble in the long-run. As we now see!

𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐏𝐀𝐘𝐒

Council went down the Public Private Partnership model. But, history is littered with examples of where this doesn't work. The financials would struggle to work at $480 million. It's impossible now.

But, the indoor arena is supposed to be an Olympic venue. Along with an upgrade of the Hockey Centre in Labrador (which is costing Gold Coast ratepayers $10 million directly from municipal coffers), they are the only venues to not be funded by the State and Federal Governments.

Let that sink in!

Every other venue is being built using State the Federal Government money. No other Council is chucking in money. But, Gold Coast City Council, said they could sort it out themselves.

When money was available (not anymore), they didn't ask for it.

Instead, we're now going cap in hand asking for the State Government to hand over land so it can be sold to make up the shortfall (they've already transferred ownership of Carey Park to Council). I guess we'll see if the Mayor is successful with this approach (and where $400 million worth of land is located and what might potentially be lost by having it sold).

17/09/2026

Council has spent the last 10yrs handing out extra height limits for luxury apartment developments under a questionable pretext. Now that they’ve been called out on it, they’ve doubled down.

Under the City Plan, these lucrative uplifts are only supposed to be granted if a project delivers “𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲.” Most residents reasonably read this as, in exchange for extra profit, an affordable housing component needed to be incorporated into the development. Instead, Council interpreted this so broadly that it became meaningless, repeatedly approving luxury towers while claiming their hands were tied.

A recent landmark 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠, however, has shattered that excuse. It determined “housing choice and affordability” must actually be given substance, pointing to the State Planning Policy, which calls for incentives that promote affordable and social housing outcomes. The Court confirmed what residents have said all along.

This should have been a turning point.

Council had the chance to acknowledge it had been wrong and to apologise to the thousands of people who made submissions on affordability grounds only to be dismissed. They could have apologised to the residents who spent hundreds of hours and $$$ taking these matters to Court, while Council spent even more public money fighting them.

They could have started demanding real community benefits for allowing these height increases.

Instead, they’ve taken the extraordinary step of challenging the ruling in the High Court and rushing through a 𝐓𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐋𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 (TLPI) designed to override the Court’s findings. The TLPI will enable height uplifts and no affordable housing portion to be locked in for years to come (approvals last 6yrs with opportunities for extension). This, when a new planning scheme is due in late-2027.

Council claims this is about "certainty" to ensure the development sector won't collapse. But, building height uplift provisions affect only a small % of DAs. One‑third of all new apartment sales are occurring in Surfers Paradise, where the height‑uplift provisions do not apply. They also do not apply in Hx zoned areas (Main Beach, Broadbeach and Southport C*D) and low-density zoned areas. There is already a 5-year pipeline of over 40,000 approved, unbuilt dwellings.

It's also worth considering what has been delivered for the GC under this approach -

● The highest dwelling price growth of any major Australian city
● The highest median apartment prices in the country
● The 2nd highest overall dwelling prices in the country
● A public housing share of just 1.9% (less than 1/2 the national average)
● A mere 137 social housing bedrooms

It is hypocritical for the Deputy Mayor to champion the TLPI while simultaneously bemoaning that Council staff are priced out of the city, or "gifting" $1.5M to an NFP for social housing in Nerang to paper over the cracks.

Arguments such as the coastal suburbs being too expensive to provide housing for those on lower incomes is bunkum. High-cost global cities like Manhattan and Paris successfully use 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐳𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 to mandate lower-income housing in expensive areas.

Council can play a role in addressing the housing affordability crisis. Instead, they've squibbed it!

13/08/2026

For years, public transport has been treated like a plaything on the GC; debates going round in circles while very little gets done. Politicians have over-politicised it instead of being up-front with the community.

Right now, we’re seeing data‑gathering exercises dressed up as progress -

- The 𝐅𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐏 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐌𝐜𝐏𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 is gathering contact details via a petition for a heavy rail business case
- The 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐌𝐏 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐆𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐧 is doing the same thing with a light rail petition

Here’s why it's just grandstanding -

𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐯𝐲 𝐑𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐄𝐱𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧

●The Feds already funded an $8M study in 2020. It still hasn’t been released
● Extending heavy rail south of Currumbin faces significant geographic and cost barriers. I wrote about this 6yrs ago*
● It’s primarily a State responsibility. I can't see the Feds helping to fund this before Melbourne gets its airport rail link

𝐋𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐑𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝟒

●Stage 3 cost $1.55B for 6.7km - $224M/km
●Stage 4 requires land resumptions, large creek crossings, and cutting into hills. It will easily exceed $5B
●The Member for Gaven, when in Government, did not commit funds to build it

These projects make noise, but they’re not happening. With Olympic construction absorbing all spare labour and funding, neither could start before 2033 at the earliest

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐝?

The State Government has announced 4 other PT projects -

● Varsity Lakes to GC Airport via Burleigh Heads (Metro-style bus)
● Broadbeach to Nerang via Carrara Stadium (Metro-style bus)
● Miami to Robina via Bond Uni (Metro-style bus)
● Griffith Uni to Harbourtown (Light Rail)

Two of these (Broadbeach-Nerang and Miami-Robina) are tied to the Olympics, so they’re pretty locked in. But almost no detail has been released.

These are the projects we should be scrutinising, not the ones that exist only in petitions and press releases. We need more information on -

● Station locations
● Service frequency
● Traffic priority
● Integration with the existing network
● Mode choice
● Costs

In my opinion, we need to stop being distracted by thoughts of a rail line to the airport and start focusing on what's actually happening, what's actually realistic and what will actually help more residents use PT to where they want / need to go on a daily basis - to work, school, shops, cafes, parks and the beach. And, now, not in 15yrs' time.

It'd be great to see some details, genuine community engagement on the projects in the pipeline.

We might eventually get somewhere!

03/08/2026

6 years to go!

Time is ticking until the Brisbane 2032 Olympic Games.

When the current government was voted in in Oct 2024, they declared an end to the "Olympic chaos". They would get things back on track.

It's 18 months since their 100 day review. While they made some big announcements and changes, most notably -

● Moving the main stadium to Victoria Park
● A National Aquatic Centre at Spring Hill
● Scrapping Brisbane Live and offering up the GoPrint Site in Woolloongabba for a privately-funded indoor arena
● Moving the main Athlete's Village to the RNA Showgrounds
● Moving the GC Athlete's Village to Royal Pines
● Taking rowing to the Fitzroy River in Rockhampton

There hasn't actually been much progress at all on the ground. It's still just concept drawings being released to the public. There's no construction happening (unless you consider early works / site investigations construction).

What's happened is that, by making these changes, things have essentially been delayed by 2 years. This is because all the above has had to start again from scratch.

We now have a more concentrated construction timeline. The Qld Audit Office raised the issue last year, stating "Workforce constraints and early stage planning present delivery risks for both the capital program and Brisbane 2032 projects".

It was also pointed out by the Qld Major Contractors Association back in 2023, before the Government made the above changes.

The big problem we have is, unlike many other infrastructure projects, the Olympics needs to be delivered "on time". Given the current situation, "on time" means two things -

𝐑𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐞 - May happen with stadium design / size, and ancillary works like landscaping / rehabilitation or associated transport infrastructure projects may be reduced or paid out of another magic bucket of money

𝐁𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬 - Almost certain as work transitions to weekends and, potentially, 24/7 set-ups

With all this in mind, you would think the Government would try and keep things simple. But, in going with their choices for the main stadium, aquatic centre and main athlete's village, they've gone with locations that are extremely complex.

It's necessitated more detailed and longer preliminary investigations and design work as well as more earthworks and site establishment. They've compounded the problem, making delivery more difficult, not less.

Obviously, the idea we won't be ready in time for the Olympics seems unfathomable. But, there is a mammoth amount of work to be done from now until then.

We can forget about any semblance of sticking to the $7.1B venue or $3.5B athletes' villages budgets, despite the Government's continued insistence.

22/07/2026

The impending closure of the Burleigh Library has raised significant community concerns regarding the decision-making process, the lack of community consultation and Council priorities.

Some people may remember the same happening with the closure of the Palm Beach Library in 2020.

Unfortunately, this is not new. Council decided way back in 2001 to go with a smaller number of libraries. It led to the closure of Mudgeeraba and Cascade Gardens libraries prior to Palm Beach and, now, Burleigh Heads.

In my opinion, it's a strange way to go about providing services to a growing population. 2001 was 25yrs ago. A lot has changed since then.

What it means is residents having to travel further and longer to access what should be a "local" library. Despite Council saying services will be maintained, the following stats (courtesy of the Queensland Public Libraries
Statistical Bulletin 2024-25) suggest otherwise -

1. The GC with only 11 libraries will have the highest ratio of residents to libraries of any SEQ Council at 60.5k people/library. The rest of SEQ is only 40k/library

2. The GC also has the lowest number of physical items per resident (0.71) of any SEQ Council and is, also, the 3rd lowest across all of Qld (behind only Torres and Townsville). The State average is 1.01

3. The GC spends less on libraries per resident ($44) than others SEQ Councils with the exception of Scenic Rim (SEQ ave $50)

The Burleigh Heads Library is not small. At 680m2, it's bigger than 13 of Brisbane's 33 libraries. When it comes to other community infrastructure such as parks and sporting facilities, Council recognises the importance of scale, planning for local, district and regional. I don't see why libraries should be any different, why a small number of big libraries is deemed sufficient.

Council may point to the GC having the highest collection usage per capita in Qld to justify their approach to library services. This is due, in part, by the large number of digital services on offer compared to other SEQ and Qld Councils, which is a welcome part of a library's offerings.

But, a library isn't just about collection use, it's about the space it provides for people to study, to read, to relax, to connect. It's a safe, free space for all to enjoy.

I'd love to see more, smaller libraries, not less. And, the 2001-2011 Library Infrastructure Plan definitely needs reviewing!!

As for the Burleigh Heads Library, it's worth noting the first part of the resolution from back in 2001 that's led to its closure -

"That the future development of the City's library infrastructure network will be based on fewer, larger libraries sited optimally within or adjacent to successful key retail / activity centres or in high profile locations on major traffic corridors"

21/06/2026

Following revelations that Council has pencilled more than $𝟑𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐬 into the next four budgets, attention now turns to what might soon have a For Sale sign out the front.

According to the latest Bulletin article*, several “𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐚𝐫 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬” are being eyed off to help fund the Gold Coast Arena.

The Mayor argues selling land to fund community infrastructure - a hall, a library, an Arena - is beneficial. Generally, I agree. But only if the land is 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐥𝐮𝐬.

This is where it looks pretty shaky.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 “𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐥𝐮𝐬”

Mal Burke Car Park and Athol Paterson Car Park are currently car parks. Council charges $8.70/day - hardly a money‑spinner, so I can understand the argument that they’re not profitable.

But profitability is not the point.

Both sites have long‑held strategic purposes -

𝟏. 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬

In the current 𝐋𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐈𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧 (𝐋𝐆𝐈𝐏), both sites are identified as future 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬 to be delivered by 2036. This makes sense. As Southport grows into its role as the city’s C*D, high‑density needs matching public space. The Broadwater Parklands alone isn't enough.

Cities around the world rely on smaller civic squares to keep density liveable. Even Brisbane C*D (smaller than the Southport PDA) has four, plus the Botanic Gardens and Roma Street Parklands.

𝟐. 𝐅𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞

Athol Paterson has also been earmarked for years as the logical home for a future Council administration building when the move from Bundall finally happens.

These are not leftover scraps of land. They are strategic C*D assets.

𝐁𝐮𝐭, 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞?

Curiously, there's an LGIP amendment currently underway^ that 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬 from future planning. This is despite the amendment also showing even 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐭𝐡 for Southport-North than previously projected.

Removing the parks from the LGIP makes the land far easier to be considered "surplus".

𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐬, 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 -

● Is Council genuinely selling only “surplus” land?

● Are we sacrificing long‑term city‑building just to plug a financial hole?

● What future benefits - civic parks, public buildings, C*D flexibility - are being traded away in the process?

16/06/2026

Over the last 6mths or so, there's been a number of headlines / rumours around Council "investigations" into potentially selling some of its land holdings. The latest involves a "secret" list of 100 properties*.

The Mayor responded by stating he has "no intention to sell them".

But, what does the budget tell us?

If you dig deep into Council's Annual Plan^, you will find a line item - 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭 / (𝐋𝐨𝐬𝐬) 𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐬 (p38).

This can include many things. It's not just land sales. Ordinarily, this sits around $5-10M/yr.

But, for the next 𝟒 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐭'𝐬 $𝟑𝟑𝟑𝐌!

What is Council proposing to sell in order to make about $𝟑𝟎𝟎𝐌 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥?

And, if the Mayor has no intention to sell, why do these numbers remain in the "most heavily scrutinised budget"?

30/05/2026

There’s been a lot of noise recently about air taxis on the Gold Coast, especially the headline‑grabber -

“𝐆𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐞 𝐀𝐢𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧 𝐔𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐁𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤”

It sounds fantastic (for those affording Uber Blacks), but the reality is far less straightforward.

Getting an air taxi into Brisbane Airport means crossing the busiest controlled airspace in Qld. Slotting slow‑climbing eVTOL aircraft into parallel runway operations is, in my view, highly unlikely. The more realistic scenario is landing outside the airport precinct and finishing the journey by road.

As for the “$900 total” price tag, I don’t think that’s where it will land once real operating costs are factored in.

But none of this means air taxis don’t have potential.

In fact, you may have seen Cr Glenn Tozer raise the idea of 𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐭𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐒𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐤.

It's not a bad one!

Springbrook is exactly the kind of route where air taxis can work - short distance, no controlled airspace, high tourism value, over difficult to construct terrain. When you compare the two options, the differences are striking.

𝐀𝐢𝐫 𝐓𝐚𝐱𝐢 (𝐞𝐕𝐓𝐎𝐋)

● Very low environmental impact — no towers, no clearing, no national park footprint
● Can take off from Surfers, Broadbeach or Southport
● Small capital cost (around $𝟏𝟎-$𝟐𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 for vertiports)
● Low political and environmental risk
● Ticket price around $𝟏𝟓𝟎-$𝟑𝟎𝟎 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧
● Door‑to‑door time around 𝟐𝟎-𝟑𝟎𝐦𝐢𝐧

𝐂𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐲

● High environmental impact - towers, clearing, permanent structures
● Base station would be far inland (Mudgeeraba), requiring ground transport first
● Large capital cost ($𝟒𝟎𝟎-$𝟔𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧+)
● High political and approval risk
● Ticket price around $𝟏𝟎𝟎-𝟏𝟓𝟎 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧, but with an added $𝟏𝟎-$𝟓𝟎 to get to the base
● Door‑to‑door time 𝟒𝟓-𝟕𝟓𝐦𝐢𝐧

Air taxis deliver most of the tourism benefit of a cableway at a fraction of the cost, with almost none of the environmental or political risk.

Of course, air taxis aren't actually operating in the world at the moment so there's still a long way to go. But, a cableway's a long way off as well (it's not getting built before the 2032 Olympics).

If Council is serious about “de‑risking” options for hinterland access and bringing air taxis to the GC, then this is an idea worth serious consideration.

It also potentially enables access to, not just Springbrook, but Binna Burra and O'Reilly's as well

28/05/2026

There’s been a lot of conjecture about whether the Miami Arts Depot (MAD) is really a creative industries precinct, or more a major residential development wrapped in creative‑industry branding.

There’s also been some back‑and‑forth about how tall the buildings would need to be.

Now that the EOI documents have been released, we can get a clearer picture.

Based on the information contained in the EOI documents released by Council to tender participants, the 4‑hectare site is proposed to accommodate:

● 6,000 m² of “MADSCAPE” creative industries space
● 3,500 m² of retail
● A public plaza (size not specified)
● 𝟖𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎𝐦𝟐 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥, accommodating approx 780 dwellings

That’s over 13 times more residential than creative‑industry space.

𝐒𝐨 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝟖𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐦² 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤?

The EOI diagrams show a 3,250 m² ground‑floor footprint for the mixed‑use buildings (retail at ground level, residential above).

In real‑world built form, residential towers typically sit at 70–85% of the podium footprint once you account for setbacks, articulation and tower separation.
Using those standard planning assumptions, the residential floorplates would be in the range of 2,300–2,600 m².

When you divide 80,000 m² of residential GFA across those floorplates, you end up with buildings in the order of 𝟐𝟖–𝟑𝟒 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐲𝐬, plus podium levels.

Yet the diagrams released publicly show buildings of around 12 storeys. So either:

● the diagrams are purely illustrative,
● or the yield assumptions in the EOI don’t match the built form shown,
● or something in the numbers needs clarification.

And for those interested in the 𝐁𝐮𝐫𝐥𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐁𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐆𝐲𝐦𝐧𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬:

The EOI confirms that both facilities are proposed to be demolished as part of the redevelopment.

26/05/2026

New artists impressions have dropped on what a 𝐌𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐢 𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐃𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐭 (MAD) could look like.

There one pretty important question, though, that hasn't been answered along the way - 𝐖𝐡𝐲?

MAD (on the site of the Council depot) is supposed to become a mixed-use creative industries precinct that strengthens the Gold Coast’s cultural and economic landscape while delivering new residential, retail, and commercial spaces.

It sounds very familiar, though!

Back in 2015, Council launched their new Masterplan for the Gold Coast Cultural Precinct (now known as HOTA). It was to become a -

● "Cultural Centre of Gravity": clustering arts, culture and creative industries
● An economic driver: complemented by entertainment, retail and hospitality to attract investment

It was even embedded into the City Plan -

● "The Gold Coast Cultural Precinct is the focal point of the city’s cultural and creative activities"
● "Bundall and Gold Coast Cultural Precinct ... fosters creativity and innovation in art, design, lifestyle and performance industries"

Council also has quite a few office buildings across the road that could be repurposed for creative industries employment.

After all, the City Plan also says Council was to establish Southport as the Gold Coast's C*D and there's been long-term plans for Council to move there.

There's also plenty of privately-owned land and buildings in the Bundall area that could provide important studio space.

This is what does my head in - government and the community spending countless hours putting together masterplans, schemes, agreements etc only for it to be ignored.

Can anyone explain why we're going with MAD (and the subsequent flow-on effects with depot relocations) all of a sudden when we already have BAD?

Address

Gold Coast, QLD

Website

facebook.com

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Wayne Purcell for Better Planning Gold Coast posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Wayne Purcell for Better Planning Gold Coast:

Want your business to be the top-listed finance company in Gold Coast?