Blunders in the concept

Extending the mall to the beach

“A seamless connection between Cavill Mall and the beach.” Sounds good and it looks good on the plan, but is it?

The Esplanade is already the healthiest, most active pedestrian area in Surfers Paradise. Should we really disrupt the multi lane north/south flow of the Esplanade with a mall intervention just because it looks good on a plan?

Should we really cut Surfers into north and south to attract an unspecified number of pedestrians to our already very popular pedestrian promenade?

Disrupting the flow of the Esplanade with a mall will reduce its flow and vitality and has cost ramifications for the entire suburb.

Mall it and they will come

What has emerged from the Council’s interpretation of the data and design concept is the idea that Surfers Paradise just needs a more suburban foreshore to attract suburban Goldcoast. The foreshore re-imagined as a mall – with mall trees and mall behaviours. This may have been informed by answers in a survey where suburban Goldcoasters were enticed with shopping vouchers to give their opinion.

Guess what, I think a lot of those respondents from outside Surfers Paradise told the council what the council wanted to hear – for more chances to win. They ain’t here and they ain’t coming. Why?

Appealing to a majority who hate us

Most of suburban Goldcoast thinks we are fake, showy, loud and uncouth. Too dense, too high, too flashy.

Yes. And we are very popular for it.

For the most part we affront their values. The demographics are very clear, there are very big differences between the people of Surfers Paradise and the greater Goldcoast. To appeal to the majority by being more suburban would be a genuinely fake move. When it comes to suburban Goldcoast we should not be aiming for the majority who are offended by us but a minority exited by us.

The people that come to Surfers Paradise come for city buzz and beachside chill. It’s a powerful combination no one else offers. We should proudly embrace our own show.

That’s what the world wants to see and visit. That’s who we are. That’s the draw card. And that’s what a minority of Goldcoast locals understand, know and love. And then there is…

Inviting car drivers to a traffic jam

Residents of the greater Goldcoast make nine out of ten trips by car. But Surfers Paradise is already notorious for traffic and parking headaches. Mall the Esplanade, add more congestion, and people will stay away because they have options – lots of them. The 70 km of Goldcoast foreshore is lined with family friendly beach fronted suburbs with parking a plenty. Head to the coast, turn left or right and pick a town.

So who benefits? Not locals. Not traders. And not visitors stuck in traffic trying to cross a town now split in two.

Where is the fun?

There is nothing to buy

It’s a beach.  

“The trial aims to create a more vibrant and inviting pedestrian-friendly space that encourages more people to visit Surfers Paradise and spend more time there. This in turn supports [12] local businesses. Pedestrian-friendly environments are known to boost foot traffic, increase dwell time and enhance spending. We’ll engage directly with business owners before and during the trial to gather insights on trading conditions, customer activity and overall sentiment.”

The Esplanade is already the most healthy and successful pedestrian friendly space in Surfers Paradise. There is a list of 24 other projects from their own research that need attention. So why not spend the money activating other areas that really need the activation first?

Bending the surveys to an outcome  

“Pedestrian Friendly” does not mean “pedestrian only”. This is a leap of meaning taken by the Council and a loaded interpretation of the survey data.

They state: Consultation in April 2025 endorsed the following benefits from pedestrianisation:

• Providing a safer precinct for pedestrians
• Creating a seamless connection between Cavill Mall and the beach
• Unlocking an additional 5000 square metres of public open space

It reflects strong community support and incorporates feedback from past community consultations in 2019, 2023 and 2025.

But this is where the Council is taking its permission from.

This is the wrong answer based on the wrong questions asked of the wrong people.  

This aren’t just mistakes. These are strategic blunders at the core of the concept that we will pay for in multiple ways.