Pop Century

[Eeyore2U]

I hope this qualifies as Rumors/News. We were driving back from the All Star Sports Cafe last week. We saw the new Pop Century Resorts. They are IMHO disgusting. It is the worst design/theme I have ever seen. They are next to CBR and if it is such a drastic difference it's sad.

[YoHo]

You mean their is something Uglier then a 50 foot high guitar?

I think we should all hope and pray that the delayed construction is left delayed forever and that eventually the themeing is redone.

[toefungus]

I think that the theme is ok, but the purple is just.....yuck! I hope that it will look better up close. :(

[Eeyore2U]

There are phrases all over the buildings in LARGE letters. There were a couple of HUGE yoyos that were gross. If someone like that moved into my neighborhood I think I'd ry to round up the neighbors in protest. Like they did in Arkansas with the Osborne lights!

[All Aboard]

I completely agree.

Personally, I love the All Stars (if that gives some perspective.) I think the hyperbolic icons at the AS's are quite cool and well done. (especially Movies)

However, each time I drive past Pop Century, I too get nauseous. The buildings are just plain awful looking. So far, I am very disappointed with Pop Century.

[d-r]

<h1>Platform Shoes!</h1><p>
<strong><blink>GROOVY!</blink></strong>

[JeffJewell]

Personally, I love the All Stars... (snip) ...However, each time I drive past Pop Century, I too get nauseous ...I'm curious, would you go into more detail about the differences you see between the broad iconic theming of PC versus the broad iconic theming of the AS?

It probably comes as no surprise to anyone that I don't think either of these resorts is themed particularly well. Specifically, I feel there is a clear difference between, say, Port Orleans (where the buildings and landscaping are intended to take your imagination to some other place, some other time), and the Values (where I see no attempt to take anyone anywhere).

The Values appear to rely on simple recognition to inspire a memory (hey, there's Pongo! Wow, I remember that movie), whereas the other resorts can actually give you the feeling of being somewhere other than Florida, somewhere of which you had no previous experience.

Personally, I find it difficult to even describe the Values as being "themed," rather, it seems to me they are "decorated," which I consider a vastly inferior concept. There's a pizza place near here with Disney characters painted all over it (in flagrant disregard for most or all of our copyright laws, I'm quite certain) that could be described as being "themed" even better than ASM, if not on nearly as grand a scale.

Anyway, I was just curious if the different reactions to Pop Century and the All-Stars were a result of personal preference for one set of icons, or if I'm overlooking something when lumping the two resorts into the same "poorly themed" basket.

Jeff

[YoHo]

What if instead of huge yoyos, they were huge.......YoHos. Then it wouldbe perfect. :D

[JeffJewell]

they were huge.......YoHos ...if they were huge HoHos?

Jeff

[larworth]

Why would Disney want to adorn their new motel with a giant replica's of this cream filled chocolate snack cake. Won't a twinkie be a much more recognizable icon.


Ohh, you said YoHo's and not HoHo's. Sorry.

[Eeyore2U]

I'm glad someone else went to the YoHo, HoHo remark. I think that a pink elephant is a more appropriate symbol.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Personally, I find it difficult to even describe the Values as being "themed," rather, it seems to me they are "decorated," which I consider a vastly inferior concept.WOW!!!!! For years I've been searching for the right words to put this concept across. And for years the task eluded me. "Decorated" is the perfect description!! And a blind man can see that it is indeed 'inferior'.

Thank you and well done, Jeff!!! Well done indeed!!!


http://www.wdwinfo.com/sites/family/jumpinggreens.gif

[All Aboard]

Where to start. Ok, theming. What does it mean? Seems that Jeff has joined Landbaron in deciding that "theming" means taking you to a geographic location when it is applied to a WDW resort. I disagree. Instead, theming is the underlying element that everything about the resort is based upon. Until the All Stars were built, that was a geographic location (except of course for the Contemporary.) Now the All Stars have expanded the elements upon which theming is based. The theme of Pop Century will be the decades of the 20th Century. That's a theme. History is a theme, art could be a theme... literature, water, space, health, evil, religion... these could all be themes. Theming isn't limited to geography.

The Ramada Inn has no theme, the Holiday Inn has no theme. But the All Stars have themes. One has a sports theme, one has a music theme and one has a movies theme. The theme is carried from the buildings themselves to the lobby to the food courts to the gift shops to the pools to the play areas. It's theming, not decoration. It's a consistent subject matter upon which everything about the resort is based.

One might argue that the All Star Movies is the only Walt Disney World resort with "Disney" theming.

Now, about why I like the All Stars and not Pop Century. Simple matter of taste. I think PC is ugly. The buildings coming up right now are bright purple. Like another poster mentioned, the theming includes a bunch of giant words attached to the buildings. That's ugly. Buzz Lightyear is not ugly, Pongo is not ugly, surfboards are not ugly. In fact I think they are kind of cool. That's not what I see at Pop.

I can understand folks that think the All Stars are ugly. That's fine, opinions vary. But, don't be surprised if alot of folks who like the All Stars (like me) end up hating Pop. There's a big difference to me.

[YoHo]

gcurling, what if All Stars movies looked like Hollywood boulevard or the tower of Terror out of Disney studios instead of like a motel 6 with a giant dalmation?

I think what's needed here is a good illustration, but I can't think of one. All I can say is that a Disney resort based on movies should look the same as a Themepark based on movies. The DIsneyland Hotel is a resort Decorated to look like Disney. it looks thousands of times better then the allstars and still just looks like your typical hotel.

[Eeyore2U]

I told my wife about the post. She said it doesn't have anything to do with theming. It has to do with a simple matter of taste. This is simply decorated/designed tackily. Her other comment was "do they think people paying less have less taste"

[Peter Pirate]

gcurling is RIGHT! Landbaron, JJ & Yoho are...ummm, err, ahhh....WRONG!!!:D :D :D

Theming is firmly in place at AS & PC. Whether you like the concept is irrelevent. Whether you think they went far enough is irrelevent. Whether they're "cheap" is ...You got it, irrelevent.
Webster says "theme" is "the topic or subject of something". Pretty straightforward and the AS & PC Resorts are certainly themed.

Now is it good or not? I would like to say that the Disney snobbery that I tried discussing is rearing its ugly head. :o First, PC isn't yet complete & the landscaping is not in place. Maybe it will appear vastly different when it is. Second, "Disney" doesn't have to mean elaborate (Splash Mountain = elaborate; Mad Tea Cups = not elaborate)... and the ellusive "magic" means so many different things to so many different people that I think it is "snobbish" to label the Values as non-Disney, cheap, garrish, basic or non-Disney (did I say that already?;) ) when it is clearly a Disney themed Resort that many, many people enjoy staying at. People who may not be able to stay at a deluxe, but still many who can but find the AS's offering what they or their children like or want in an on-site hotel and this could be anything from simple dollars and cents to love of the totally whimsical and blatent overexposure of huge icons (there is no accounting for taste).

gcurling defines theming perfectly...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Eeyore2U]

Peter Pirate,

I go back to my original point. What I saw was visually unappealing. I don't care about the theme. I'm not talking Disney Snobbery. I'm not talking anything but the way they look. IMHO the only way landscaping can help is if they totally block the view of the buildings.

[YoHo]

If the Polynesian resort had the same level of service as the all stars, had exterior doors and had the same price, but still looked like the polynesian, which would you stay at?


I'm not going to agree or disagree with JeffJewell's statement. I merely think that the Allstars are ugly and would have much preferred that they look like old school hollywood for Movies. Music and sports are harder, but I can think of a couple ways to make it a little better. I think if we took a poll on the resorts board as to why people like the All Stars resorts, the themeing would come in dead last if at all. You know what, I'm going to start that poll. If I'm wrong, then I'll shut up. But I have a hard time believing that people choose it over other options due to its "Theme."

[Peter Pirate]

Good idea Yoho! And if i'm wrong I'll...Do something...;)

Eyore2U, Idon't disagree with your assesment, it's the anti-theming screeming meemmee's that I find contention with. We all have different tastes here on the DIS...Heck, Yoho & I were romantically linked in a vicious and salatious attack not so long ago on a now locked thread and yet here we are disagreeing...Well, not totally, I agree Yoho that I'd like your vision of the budgets better than what they've done...I'm just saying who am I to cast dispersions?
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[HorizonsFan]

If the Polynesian resort had the same level of service as the all stars, had exterior doors and had the same price, but still looked like the polynesian
I think this hypothetical may be flawed. Could the look of the Poly (extensive landscaping) be maintained if they only charged what the AS charge. My point is that the theming (or decorations if you will) rely very little on landscaping and require much less maintainence than your average moderate therefore the lower price. Just a theory...
...if they were huge HoHos?
mmmmmmmmmmmmm... HoHos...

[airlarry!]

Just Great. I am usually in the Baron Bunch...but I need some help here...it seems like I'm on the wrong side. Let me work this out...

I like the All-stars, especially the Movies.

I like them because:

They are cheaper--sometimes you don't want to break the bank just to visit.

They have a cool pool.

Err. Umm.

I guess that's it.

I sure don't have fun walking around the place, like I did exploring Dixie Landings, or Caribbean Beach this past Mardi Gras. My kids loved walking through Parrot Cay. My feet didn't. ;)

I sure can't have a nice meal like we've done at the Contemp, or check out the awesome scenery like at the Wilderness.

Hmm...

Maybe I am being selfish here. Let's face it. The only real reason to like the AS is cause of the price and you can stay at Buzz's place. But Yoho! hit the nail on the head--wouldn't you rather have slept on Hollywood Blvd, in a giant mockup of a Western Town or Buzz Lightyear Star Command or whatever instead of just giant Coke cups and Huge Saxophones?

[JeffJewell]

...the only clarification I'd want to make about your assessment of my definition of "theming" is that the "place" the theme takes you need not be a specific geographical location. The obvious examples to compare, the other resorts at Disney, do generally bring to mind a specific place in the world, but other aspects of Disney, say, the Buzz Lightyear ride and Universe of Energy, take you to a different place in time; yet others, like Pooh or It's a Small World, take you to a different place in imagination. In a way, I suppose we're getting back to that thread where "story" was being related to theme; I go to the Wilderness Lodge and it feels like I'm in a movie. I go to ASM and it feels like I'm in a hotel with movie posters.

I could possibly accept "sports" (or "music" or "movies," although I'd suggest that all those categories are rather broad, undifferentiated themes that lead to a decor about as cohesive as that stuff on the walls at TGIFriday's. I'd much prefer a "Mighty Ducks" resort, with the movie building and the cartoon building and the pro sports team building) as a theme but to YoHo's point, for Disney style theming, I'd expect things along the lines of furniture that looks like football benches, or stadium-style urinal troughs in the restrooms (hey, I never said it was a _good_ theme) parquet basketball floors in the rooms... I don't know, something that places you _in_ the theme, rather than icons intended to remind you of what the theme is supposed to be.

That last sentence describes something that, to me, is an integral aspect of what Disney has historically done differently from (and better than) similar vacation destinations.

Jeff

[Planogirl]

Actually, I personally think that most Holiday Inns are more attractive than the Allstars. The big icons are cute but if you take those away, you just have a rather drab hotel IMO. And I totally dislike the front with the big garish star! But that's just my TASTE.

By the way, I guess that my beloved Disney Marketplace would be considered decorated rather than themed. I think that it's MUCH more attractive than the Allstars not that I'm biased by the shopping or anything. ;) But again, that's just my TASTE.

Interesting discussion. Carry on. :)

[JeffJewell]

...actually, the theme of the Marketplace is "It's a Mall World, After All."

Jeff

[Eeyore2U]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Touche' Jeff!!!

[DVCDAVE]

I agree 100% with JEFFJEWEL, the cheap resorts are nothing but motels with cheap, tacky decorations with gaudy colors, I can almost invision the day when they start putting in trailer homes on some of the empty lots and call them home away from homes (decorated with black velvet Elvis paintings and Dogs playing Poker). The delux preferred views will have driveways with a delapodated pickup truck, Confederate Flag front plate, up on cinder blocks with a shotgun rack mounted in the back.

I guess you get what you pay for.;)

[All Aboard]

And I failed to mention that the All Stars also provide folks who couldn't otherwise afford to stay on-site that opportunity. No doubt, many hundreds of thousands of families are thankful for that.

Perhaps when I ascend to the Bourgeoisie elite one day, my opinion of the All Stars will change. But for now, I think they are absolutely wonderful and so does my daughter.

I would rather stay at the All Star Movies than at any offsite hotel. That includes the Peabody, MOWC, Grand Cypress, any of them. When going to Walt Disney World, staying on-site is a must for us. It's very much a part of the experience. We're so happy that we have the All Stars.

Back to theming resorts. Actually that seems to be a rather new concept at Walt Disney World. Let's take a look at the resorts that were around during the first 16 years of Walt Disney World:

Contemporary - unthemed
Polynesian - themed
Disney Village - unthemed
Disney Inn - unthemed

It wasn't until 1988 that theming resorts became the standard practice for Disney.

[YoHo]

Based on my understanding of the responses, I'd have to say the most important factor of staying at the allstars is the money. 34% of respondents said that they'd stay at a Moderate or Deluxe if money were no object. Plus 20% said money and only money was their reason for choosing it.. (I had some convoluted options. I really wish you could do multiple polls in one thread.)
A number of people mentioned that they didn't care about themeing as they only sleep there, but the transportation and resort hopping was good.

17% actually thought it was Top notch themeing and would stay their even if the price was higher. Some comentators said that they chose this, because of their kids and that they themselves didn't really agree.

24% don't like them and would never stay in them.


17% is actually a little higher then I expected, but with the exception of JeffH, Most of us here rarely discuss our children's opinions. (oh it happens every now and then, but Certainly not often) I'm tempted to dismiss it using JeffJewell's old Shooping Cart down the escalator themed as pooh (Personally, I want to see that ride :D) BUT, I stop myself, because really, in a resort meant for the entire family, keeping the kids happy is a top priority. If the Kids like 50 ft guitars and the parents don't care, then is it bad? Nobody said they had a miserable time there, but their kids loved it. At the same time, I can't imagine a Child not loving the polynesian, especially with its new pool.



Anyway, I understand that the landscaping is the big expense with the poly and other resorts, but even without the landscaping, wouldn't an All-star movies resort be better if the Buzz Lighter building was mocked up like Al's Toy barn? 101 Dalmnations like Cruella's House?

How about a french Chateu for Cinderella, or the Dwarve's house for Snow white?

You could do this relativley cheaply by avoiding too much landscaping. maybe leaving some of the natural florida landscape?
Certainly other things were possible here.

[YoHo]

gcurling, the Contemorary is themed. It is a contemporary, even futuristic theme meant to blend into tomorrowland. It has gotten a little long in the tooth.

[All Aboard]

YoHo, those things you describe sound great, but they're not value resorts. You won't get the economy of scale that you do with the values. And in order to get return on investment, you'll have to charge more. Much more, I would suspect.

Yes, the "value" is an intregal part of the value resorts. I estimate that we spend no more than 3 hours of "awake time" in our resort room each day. Heck, we rarely take advantage of the pool or other amenities. For us it's "all theme parks, all the time." The thought of spending $200 a night gives me stomach aches. I spend some 30-40 nights a year in WDW resorts. The All Stars make it possible.

The inescapable fact is that WDW is able to fill 5,700 All Star rooms nearly each and every night of the year. The on-site resort that is the most difficult to book is the All Star Movies.

Clearly not everyone shares the opinion that the All Stars are cheap and tacky.

I'm interested to see what the reception of Pop Century will be, though. I have no problem with the choice of theme, or the "motel" design in general. My concern is that the theming elements are not as well done as the All Stars. I'm aware that I'm about the only person on this board that thinks WDW did a good job with the All Stars, but it's my honest opinion. I'll wait to make a final judgement on Pop until after I've stayed there. We were booked for opening night, but that of course has been moved.

Anyhow, "Motel" was not a bad word to Walt. I have seen several of his hand drawn master plans that include areas labeled "Hotels" as well as areas labeled "Motels."

[YoHo]

Oh, I agree, Walt fully intended for there to be motels on property, BUT I would have preferd they look like the Disneyland hotel. With little to no external themeing then what they are. I agree the biggest draw is cost.

I may be going out on a limb here, but I'd have preferred they just built a plain Jane motel and left it at that. Then the cost would be even lower.

I understand the thoughts of people who are all parks all the time. Ironically on the resorts board, a person who goes relativly often said that because he goes so often he stays at the other resorts, because he isn't all parks all the time.


So certainly yes, Motel like resorts should provided, but why do they have to look like that when they could have looked better and been done cheaper. I'd stay in the Disneyland hotel any day of the week over any of the allstars.

[Eeyore2U]

Nice to see you two kissed and made up. ;) Or at least found common ground. :D

[DVC-Landbaron]

Seems that Jeff has joined Landbaron in deciding that "theming" means taking you to a geographic location when it is applied to a WDW resort.No! That's not it. It's only a small aspect of a "Disney" theme. And because it's convenient to make the analogy (an easy frame of reference so to speak) we sometimes stop short of making the entire point. "Disney" theming is much, much more. It certainly can include the geographical location bit, and most of the more (or easily) well defined themes in Disney do carry the guest away, but it is not imperative. What is crucial is the way "Disney" themes differ from the rest of the world's themes.

I recently had a seventh birthday party for my son. We had a Mickey Mouse theme. No one can argue that the party wasn't 'themed' in Mickey! We had a dozen Mickey Mouse balloons and a four foot stuffed Mickey at the head of the table!! The cake had a Mickey on it and we even had Mickey napkins! My son was elated. So was I. It came off very well. But I would have been sorely disappointed if "Disney" offered me such tripe! "Disney" themes have to be so much more. Detailed. Subtle. Almost a story within themselves. Exotic helps. Carried to a different location helps. Immersive. Engaging. Involving. All inclusive. Encompassing. Intricate. Complex. Elaborate. Elegant. Refined.

Maybe it would help to think of just what Walt started out to create. And in the same way the complexities of the SHOW can be boiled down to a fairly simple philosophy so can theme. What it is, of course, is a movie. A film. In 3-D!! A living movie set. A movie set that transports the viewer (guest) to a different place and/or time. Let's face it, Walt only did what he had done all his life. And for him, walking through a movie set was an everyday occurrence. But he knew that for us (the guests) it was special. Just walk down Main Street. Nothing but a movie set! Now try Adventureland. A movie set. Add a little music or native drums, as the case calls for, let the people touch and move, three dimensionally, through the facades, pay very careful attention to every little detail you can possibly think of and you sudden have a "Disney" theme. Rich in every single aspect and all encompassing.Buzz Lightyear is not ugly, Pongo is not ugly, surfboards are not ugly.Greg, those things may not be ugly, but at the same time they are not even close to a "Disney" theme!!Theming is firmly in place at AS & PC. Whether you like the concept is irrelevant. Whether you think they went far enough is irrelevant. Whether they're "cheap" is ...You got it, irrelevant. Webster says "theme" is "the topic or subject of something". Pretty straightforward and the AS & PC Resorts are certainly themed.Captain!!!! Or was it Peter this time?! How can theme possibly be irrelevant?!?! It is what makes Disney, Disney!!!! I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the "Large Icon King"!! That's right!! It's nothing but Ei$ner-speak! We need to de-program you. And quickly! He's got you believing that a forty foot guitar is "Disney" theming! How sad. :(

By building the AS, Ei$ner has effectively created a class system of "Disney" themes and has dumbed down the "Disney" experience to the lowest common denominator. He threw their long standing and much revered "standards" right out the window for the sake of a couple of bucks. Again, how sad! :(

Back to Greg: The Ramada Inn has no theme, the Holiday Inn has no theme.I beg to differ!! It does indeed have a theme. It has a mid-level hotel theme. One that is easily recognized. And one that can be recreated in a movie set with little effort. It can also be disguised (although not very well) by placing a few primary colored icons in front of the building! Back to theming resorts. Actually that seems to be a rather new concept at Walt Disney World. Let's take a look at the resorts that were around during the first 16 years of Walt Disney World:

Contemporary - unthemed
Polynesian - themed
Disney Village - unthemed
Disney Inn - unthemed

It wasn't until 1988 that theming resorts became the standard practice for DisneyNO!!!!!! Absolutely not!!!! The Contemporary was themed "futuristic"! Or at the very least "Contemporary". The monorail through the lobby takes care of that, if nothing else. The Marketplace was themed as a quaint little, peaceful village (huts instead of building) from no where in particular, yet evoking a certain 'feel'. The same holds true of the Golf Resort. Sort of themed as a giant Pro-shop. Again evoking a pastoral, out of the way, peaceful feeling. A feeling intricately tied to golf!!

But let's go a little farther. Look at the first five year plan. What was called for? A Persian, an Asian, a Venetian!! WOW!!! Talk about exotic!! You mention 1988 as the year theming took place and I look at it as just the opposite. It's when the theming aspect of Disney took a hit. Instead of exotic, as in other countries and/or times, we got "American-made" (i.e. Floridian, Port Orleans, Dixie Landings, Old Key West, Wilderness Lodge, Beach and Yacht Club, etc.) I, for one, was extremely disappointed. While I like some of them, I would have given anything to see what Disney could have done to a Mediterranean theme! Wouldn't you?

And so as not to exclude the 'value' bit I offer: Oh, I agree, Walt fully intended for there to be motels on property, BUT I would have preferred they look like the Disneyland hotel. With little to no external theming then what they are.YoHo! I couldn't agree more. They took the cheap and easy route. They could have answered the 'motel' and 'value' question a thousand different ways. And they chose a way that my seven year old could have thought of. "I know!! It'd be way cool to have the biggest and best Pongo ever in front of the building!!!! Way cool!! Awesome!!"

They should have handled it the way they did Fort Wilderness or the Golf Resort or the Marketplace. Evoke a feeling, if not a location. And they really should have tried to keep up the original concept of theming. That of a 3-D movie set. They had an obligation to either do it right, or not do it at all. They chose, instead, to do it cheap and easy. Which, it turns out, was simply wrong.

[All Aboard]

Could they have done the All Stars better? Yes. Could they have done them better and still offered them at the current price? I don't know. I doubt it, but I don't know. And that's a big part of my point. Offering something that most everyone can afford.

I hate to keep going back to this but, the vast majority of folks staying at the All Stars enjoy them!

Landbaron, seems you believe that there should only be one category of WDW resorts. That's where we disagree. Remember my ticket analogy when we were sitting at the Dolphin. I believe the same way that the Mad Tea Party peacefully coexists with the E ticket attractions... the All Stars peacefully coexist with the Grand Floridian.

And in the case of resorts I think it's very necessary to have something for all tastes and all income levels.

YoHo, I couldn't disagree with you more about the plain motel v. the All Stars. That's why I really dislike most of the Disney Institute offerings. The townhouse I still own in Tallahassee looks almost exactly like the townhouses along the golf course at DI. What's special about that?

Part of what makes Disney special is cases where they do it like nobody else has. To me the All Stars are a marvelous example of this. I guess I haven't travelled enough yet, but I sure haven't seen anything like them anywhere else.

PS - eeyore2u, don't worry about YoHo and I, we are pretty good buds. Two of the more open minded folks on this board in my opinion :D :D . In fact we've been imortalized together in the avator of a fellow poster. Whom I haven't seen in a little while....hmmmm.

[JeffJewell]

The inescapable fact is that WDW is able to fill 5,700 All Star rooms nearly each and every night of the year. The on-site resort that is the most difficult to book is the All Star Movies.
Clearly not everyone shares the opinion that the All Stars are cheap and tacky.
...does the fact that someone booked an All Star room necessarily imply that they _don't_ consider them tacky? There seem to be a couple different reasons folks choose the All Stars (hey, I've slept there, myself, actually), and some of those reasons are compelling enough such that folks would stay there even if they _do_ consider them tacky.

Yes, the "value" is an intregal part of the value resorts. And here's where I have to start treading pretty lightly.

Not everyone considers the lowest priced option to automatically offer the best value. Disney was able to pack resorts before the All Stars existed because there are actually many people who felt Disney, although pricier than some other vacation options, offered so much more "meat" for the extra money that it was a better way to spend that money: a better value.

It's disappointing to me that Disney seems to have largely abandoned that approach to value, an approach that made them unique in their industry. By equating "value" with "cheaper," it seems to me they've chosen to play on the home field of the competition, rather than on their own historical turf.

Economies of scale are most valuable to businesses in commodity markets. If you can offer the same product for less money, you will sell more than your competition. If, on the other hand, you offer a product that your competition cannot offer at any price, you might very well become a household name around the world.

Is it a good thing that Disney no longer makes the unique product, even though they can still be competitive in the commodity market?

Not if you're looking for more of the unique product with which the brand was once synonymous.

Jeff

PS: Maybe it's the way I read it, but it seemed as though you were on the defensive somewhat, and it was not my intention to put you in that position. For good or ill, the All Stars ain't going anywhere, so it's just as well that someone appreciates them for what they are. Actually, if I was a couple hours drive away, I'm relatively certain that I'd be in a low-priced hotel several week-ends a year, too. If the money is the biggest question, the All Stars are certainly a valid answer. So go, have a good time, and enjoy the All Stars all you want... see if I care. ;)

But does my position that the type of theming exhibited by the All Stars is a clearly different _type_ of theming than that of Animal Kingdom Lodge strike any chord in you at all?

[DisDuck]

Hi. guys.

The Disney Inn.. How much more themed then AllStars is/was that 'motel'. Since Walt himself invisioned motels not just hotels at WDW unless there is concept art hanging around how do we know (100%) that they would not look like AllStars.

I am with gcurling.. I have stayed at Contemp & Coronado when on-site (since I own a timeshare off-site, I rarely stay on-site). After our last on-site visit at AllStar Movie 2 years ago, my families opinion is why stay more expensive. We liked the 'themeing' very much, thank you and did not have to pay a small fortune.

Those who want to pay top dollar.... I say go for it but for us value seekers give me the AllStars anyday.

[YoHo]

gcurling, have a stay at the Disneyland Hotel and I think you'd disagree. I've never been to a more magical hotel that for all practical purposes LOOKED like a ramada inn. It's a very different feeling from that of walking into the lobby of the polynesian, BUT at the same time uniquley Disney. If they could have built that in Florida only with external doors (which some people prefer) and Value service levels I'd probably stay there.

I don't think that bed spreads with mickey on them, Armore's with the Original Disneyland conceptual art and Goofy wallpaper cost any more then 50ft tall Dogs. And yet I felt at home as if I were at Disneyworld (that changes once you leave the resort, but that's because Anaheim is a pit.) So in that case, More is emphatically Less.

[All Aboard]

Jeff, I stay in defensive mode here on the Rumors board all the time. It's just my nature. Even with my recent car #2 defection, there are still so many more threebies (or is it threeophytes?) here on the RB.

Just one point. I didn't say that "everyone" staying at the All Stars loved them. That's certainly not the case. But I would assume that the majority do really enjoy them.

Yes, WDW filled it's few deluxe resorts in the early years. But, I seriously doubt they could build as many rooms as they have now, make them all deluxes and charge deluxes prices for all of them. Perhaps they could, but I seriously doubt it.

Clearly the business side to the decision is - why lose business to the outside? But the other side is that the offering be well received. Which I think it is, just not here.

Like YoHo, I'll post a poll on the resorts board. Mine will be more simple, aimed at a specific set of responses.

[Baileymouse]

I don't think I'd want to stay at PC, and I've never wanted to stay at AS. My sister did and I wasn't impressed. PO was just too pretty to pass up.

However, I do want to sneak over to PC when they complete the giant Monopoly board and take pictures of my Scottie Dog. :D

I couldn't resist.

[YoHo]

My Only concern gcurling is that your Poll targets a specific subset of guests. Everyone who has seen the place can have an opinion on its themeing even if they haven't stayed there.

I tell you this right now, If the All Stars Didn't make my Eyes bleed when looking at them, I'd stay there.

I love the polynesian, but I'd love it if I could get a cheaper hotel room that didn't disgust me at every turn.

I KNOW I'm an extremist in this sense. I love the concept of a "Disney" Motel. I just think that given the amount of money spent. ALl stars could have been better. Sometimes less is more.

[JeffJewell]

Even with my recent car #2 defection, there are still so many more threebies (or is it threeophytes?) here on the RB With a nod towards Captain Pirate, I'd have to say I prefer "Screaming Three-Mees."

To me, that's the drawback of the Car analogy: despite the fact that folks sometimes get into heated arguments, it's not my intention to use Car 3 as a weapon to bump anyone else off the road. Indeed, the most heated I've ever gotten, myself, was with a person whose posts suggested to me a view of WDW similar enough to mine that I thought he misunderstood the question and actually belonged in here with me. Somehow, it came across as me trying to push people from their car into the ditch. I'm a much poorer communicator than I wish to be, at times.

In the final analysis, Cars 1, 2, and 3 are all still heading _to_ WDW. Everyone (except that poor lonely b*****d in Car 4) agrees that as it exists at this moment, WDW is a worthwhile place to be. If I seem to sing a gloom and doom tune, it's only because I'm concerned that there is a business philosophy in Disney's upper echelon that I see as leading us someplace bad.Clearly the business side to the decision is - why lose business to the outside? But the other side is that the offering be well received. Which I think it is, just not here. Fair enough point of view, even though it comes from a different direction than my own.

Let's imagine a wonderful restaurant, with unique food, over-the-top ambiance with spacious booths, and a staff that can't wait to make sure you have the best meal you've ever had. The restaurant enjoys great success.

As a matter of fact, it's _so_ successful, that it turns out people sometimes have to wait hours for a table. McDonald's and Jack-in-the-Box toss up restaurants nearby, and end up doing a nifty bit of business off of the folks who think hours is too long to wait for a meal, no matter how wonderful it is.

From a business point of view, there are two ways to go, if you want to avoid "losing business to the outside." The first restaurant could expand, offering more tables with the same experience. Or, they could push the tables closer together, have the servers wait on more tables at once, and offer a Value menu that looks suspiciously similar to the bill of fare at the Jack-in-the-Box.

I believe that the first method maintains the original appeal of the restaurant, which will continue to become more popular, and that the second method will only serve to undermine all the wonderful things that made the first restaurant such a success in the first place.

Ya know what I mean? I don't think McDonald's or Jack-in-the-Box are _bad_ places, but they're pretty much the same places that exist every seventeen feet in every major metropolitan area. By trying to compete with them, the first restaurant simply does not offer the same experience that gave it its success. I don't think the people who eat at McDonald's and Jack-in-the-Box are inferior people in any way, they simply have a different set of priorities than I when it comes to choosing a restaurant. By catering to that different set of priorities, the first restaurant is _less_ attractive to the set of priorites important to all those customers that gave it its success (with the unfortunate side effect that those folks who loved the "old" first restaurant now have no where to go to get that experience).

It'll be difficult or impossible to prove or disprove the following, but it's how I feel: the first restaurant would be better served to ignore what the fast food restaurants were doing in every town, village and hamlet, and continue to offer that unique dining experience upon which they built their success.

I'm playing under the assumption that my analogy is sufficiently transparent. ;)

Jeff

[YoHo]

But JeffJewell, What if the Buisness opened a new veture that did compete with the McDonalds at its level. It offered the services and expectations of that McDonalds, while maybe adding glint of the originals personal Charm.

Landbaron likes to harp on the current price of the Deluxe resorts, the "True" Disney resorts, but the fact is that they are quite competitve for the experience offered. There is perhaps a different type of vacationer now, lets call them the fast food type. In a world of park hoping and shows and different meals and everything else. These people want a bed to sleep on, but they also want the park related advantages of a Disney resort. Certainly Disney can and should offer them.
My gripe is that the themeing of those resorts is a sick joke. (which now that I look at it may be the point of your analogy) I would prefer that Disney offer the perks of on-site with the look of off-site then try and give me half-hearted themeing. As an example I gave the Disneyland hotel which is priced as a moderate-Deluxe for its convience formost. This resort could be built today for the price of an Allstars and would be a better looking place to stay.

[All Aboard]

Jeff, your analogy makes one big assumption that I think is incorrect:

Applying your analogy to WDW resorts - the presence of the All Stars cheapens or reduces the experience Grand Floridian guests are having. I disagree.


Sure, WDW could have continued to build nothing by Deluxe quality resorts. It's not that folks aren't willing to wait in line long enough to experience them... it's that there are folks that cannot afford them.

So, should WDW have made the decision to shut those folks out from staying on-site. My thought is "definitely not."

[YoHo]

Perhaps a different analogy.
What if Morton's Steakhouse of Chicago owned Outback steakhouse and the Sizzler. (does the sizzler exist anymore?)

Would the quality of food at the sizzler or Outback affect the quality of the food at mortons? NO.

But, me thinks that JeffJewell meant something else. I think he was refering to theming. All Walt Disney world resorts are the resturant and themeing is the menu.
the Polyneisian is the Filet, the AK Lodge is the Salmon, DxL is the gormet Burger and All Stars is Chicken McNuggets. How would serving Chicken McNuggets enhance an already packed resturant.

[Eeyore2U]

I don't think that the All Stars affect the deluxes or the moderates, one way or another. But if my view from the CBR was of Pop Century I'd ask to change my view and view has never mattered to me.

I guess to me, what Disney has done, has nothing to do with theming. It has to do with what might be appropriate. I was watching a show about all different kinds of architecture throught out the US. Pop Century is like putting the hot dog shaped restuarant in a an average everday residential area. It doesn't fit with what it's around. It doesn't fit with "Disney Style".

[YoHo]

And some of us would argue that neither do the All stars.

[Peter Pirate]

And some of us (extremely happy people) will argue that both do!:D :D :D
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Eeyore2U]

LMBO, I'm so glad we can all agree to disagree!!!!:D :D :D

[hopemax]

I know most of you guys are "WDW people" but have any of you been to the "Value" resort at Disneyland Paris aka the Santa Fe?

I've been trying to find some pictures of the hotel, but aside from a couple on the official site I haven't had much luck. The inside shot shows a very nice looking room, and looks more pleasing to me than the shots inside the All-Star rooms. But the outside shots I can't tell much, other than it's going for the adobe South-west look?

[YoHo]

Based on the www.disneylandparis.com website, the Santa fe is NOT the cheapest, but even the cheapest ones look a million times more fanciful then 50' guitars.

[airlarry!]

Wow. Yoho! hit the nail on the head Again! This sums up a #3 car rider, IMHO. This statement should be on the Flag of every Threebie. Mr. Ei$ner should have hired Yoho! as his consultant for the PopCentury phase ;) See for yourself:

I KNOW I'm an extremist in this sense. I love the concept of a "Disney" Motel. I just think that given the amount of money spent. ALl stars could have been better. Sometimes less is more.

Yes. I love the prices that we pay for the All-stars. But did the builders really build them to Disney specs, while still maintaining the value? To those that argue that there should not be a "Value" resort, I love Yoho!'s analogy of E ticket hotels and A ticket hotels. All we ask is that the A ticket and E ticket both have that...call it magic, call it quality, call it Wow!, call it Show, call it whatever, but both should have it...same should go for the hotel/motel.

[JeffJewell]

Applying your analogy to WDW resorts - the presence of the All Stars cheapens or reduces the experience Grand Floridian guests are having. I disagree. ...the timing of Animal Kingdom and the All Stars muddies the water, so I'm gonna switch horses in mid-stream here for the sake of the point I want to make.

I believe that the almost 6000 extra on-site rooms of the Pop Century will indeed affect the experience of those in the Grand Floridian, in terms of load on the transportation system, crowds during EE and E-nights, rental car traffic on property, that sort of thing.

Jeff

PS: That said, yeah, in hindsight I realize I kinda tied in some aspects of other conversations in my analogy. Oops.

[Peter Pirate]

JJ, some of what you're saying is a possibility...But as for transportation, no deluxe will be sharing routes with budgets and as for EE & Enights, perhaps (given full hotels), EE could be expanded with perhaps a rotating "other Park" on the MK days (since MK always sees the biggest crowds)...Or perhaps other Parks (MGM) could participate in an occasional e-night. I know this is speculation, and based on recent history you 'screemin three-mees' (thanks for the alteration!) won't acknowledge the possibilities...But it's as salient to discuss them as it is what might happen when the PC opens...

Man, Eyore2U...Look at the volume on this seemingly harmless topic! You never know what we geeks, er, ah gentlepeople will find interesting!
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Eeyore2U]

And all I was pointing out was a truly ugly group of buildings. :eek: :rolleyes: :D

[d-r]

fwiw, I don't think the point is "could they have made the value resorts better and still afford to charge value rates."

If the value resorts were as immersively themed as the moderate or deluxe, or if the rooms were bigger, or there were more transportation options, or more dining options, etc. (insert whatever downside of the values you would like) and the rates were value rates, why would anyone stay at a moderate or deluxe?

If they could theme it as well as the polly with motel doors etc. I might be tempted to stay at the cheap version of the polly rather than forking over $300 a night.

I've stayed at the all stars once, b/c we got a great rate and took an unplanned bonus trip. It beats staying off property, but personally, I hope not to stay there again. But then again, staying in the all stars for a weekend was better than staying at home in some ways.

I find the decorations to be tacky personally, but if they weren't why would I choose to stay somewhere that costs more? They are purposefully designed to serve a specific role: value accomodations on site. There are some people who will pay a lot of money to stay at a moderate or deluxe, and Disney wants their money. There are other people who wouldn't and would stay off property, but Disney wants their money, too. But the key for Disney is to keep getting the more money from the first group, and so the value resorts fit the bill - on site accomodations for those who refuse to pay for the extra theming / perks, but not so nice that they would cannabilize the other resort categories. For that matter, that's why there is a camp ground at ft. wilderness (Disney would rather have the money from the campers than have them camp off site), home away from homes (why rent a house off site) and DVC (don't let them waste their money on off site time shares). Heck, vero beach is to keep the money from those few extra nights that some families want to go to the beach.

It is simple economics, you don't charge what you can afford to charge, you charge what people will pay. And if there are different levels of what people are willing to pay, you can make the most by appealing to all of them.

DR

[KaraJade]

IMHO, the allstar resorts can be as tacky as they want to be. If it means I can get that great rate and save a TON of money during the times when my budget is pretty tight, yet STILL stay onsite at disney, I'm happy. Would I rather be staying in a much more elaborately themed room? yes. Maybe I can say this because I don't think its so bad. Besides, I LIKE the color purple. When I was a kid, I'd have painted the whole world that color if I could have, lol. :)
I suppose, ultimately, I'll hold out judgement until I see what more of it looks like.... the pool, the food court, how the food court is set up, what the rooms look like on the inside.

[SPAGo 98]

I haven't stayed at the All-Stars, but I've visited them...and they suprisingly weren't as tacky as I thought they'd be. I'd much rather stay there than any other similarly priced (m/h)otel offsite...and the prices are quite alluring. Just my thoughts.

Oh, and YoHo, the Hotel Santa Fe *is* the cheapest of the DLP hotels, not including the Davy Crockett Ranch, which is more of a Ft Wilderness thing.

[larworth]

I assume by the WOW that congratulations are in order. A boy or a girl?

[Eeyore2U]

I hope the new DISer doesn't get anything that resembles the Pop Century. It could be scarred for life. :D :rolleyes: :D :p

Congrats!!!! I never thought this thread would get here!!!! ;)

[YoHo]

Wow, I'm helping out car number 3?

Well, as the resident punk on the Harley with the Kaiser Helmet (German with the pointing thing) on. I have to spread my wishy washyness everywhere.



discoop, I myself am all for giving as many people the oppertunity to enjoy the world as possible and I'm willing to allow services to be reduced at the hotel to do it, but why do my Eyes have to burst from my skull in a searing uncontrollable pain every time I look at the buildings?

Every other resort at every Disney park in the entire world including DLP is lightyears ahead in terms of themeing. Why must central Florida be cursed with eyesores?

D-R, I don't mean to suggest that the value resorts be themed AS emersivly as the moderates and the deluxes. In fact I'd prefer less themeing. For instance, I don't consider Old Key West to be heavily themed. Wouldn't a typical motel that looked like that with miniml landscaping be better?
Also don't forget the lack of sit down resturant.

[YoHo]

Oh, And congrats to thedscoop. (talk about addiction, it took me a minute to actually read what you were saying there. :))

So how is thebabyscoop?

[CapHook]

Originally posted by JeffJewell

Personally, I find it difficult to even describe the Values as being "themed," rather, it seems to me they are "decorated," which I consider a vastly inferior concept. There's a pizza place near here with Disney characters painted all over it (in flagrant disregard for most or all of our copyright laws, I'm quite certain) that could be described as being "themed" even better than ASM, if not on nearly as grand a scale.
Jeff

I would not disagree with this. If you want to say that the AS are not themed so be it. I am very happy that the AS exist because it means my family can stay on site.

I have only been once so I was pretty happy to be there. It take us 16 hours to drive there so I kind of like feeling like I am at WDW instead of "someplace else". I understand that great themeing makes for a great stay at the other resorts and someday I would like to experience that. I do not think this is your intention but you make it sort of sound like people who pick to stay at the AS are 1. too poor to really go or 2. idiots.

My wife and I alway say that we are not going to stay in the room. We just want a bed. I know we could do that off site but the EE and Transportation make AS's too good to pass up.

Just my .02

[DVC-Landbaron]

Scoop says:
But, I do want to specifically point out the GC's points have been exceptionally agreeable to me, especially this one:

And I failed to mention that the All Stars also provide folks who couldn't otherwise afford to stay on-site that opportunity. No doubt, many hundreds of thousands of families are thankful for that.

Ok! Fair enough. I don't think anyone can successfully argue against the concept (although If I were head mouse, I wouldn't have even considered it). So we can concede the point. But the question here is: Did they do it right?

Now the argument boils down to taste. Some say a huge Buzz icon is a wonderful image. Kids love them. Great "Disney" ties. Yada-yada-yada!

But do they live up to the "Disney" standard? Here's where I completely disagree. I contend that they do not! In fact, I further contend that they deliberately dumbed down the theme in order to justify and quantify the price difference between the three venues.

KaraJade sums it up pretty nicely: IMHO, the Allstar resorts can be as tacky as they want to be. If it means I can get that great rate and save a TON of money during the times when my budget is pretty tight, yet STILL stay onsite at Disney, I'm happy. You see, they've got her, and potential millions more like her, and they know it!! They could put out cardboard boxes and they'd still have people lining up for the "Disney" experience. Except it really isn't a "Disney" experience, is it?

I can totally understand her concept though. And I empathize. I was quickly falling into this category concerning WDW visits, even though my income was rising much faster than inflation. But each year Disney was getting more and more out of my reach. I started out, comfortably, in the Poly. As the Ei$ner years went by the Poly was no longer affordable to me. A quick change to the Caribbean and Port Orleans. Still some pretty nice theme, but not quite so much care regarding some of the details. And the outdoor-access-only, was quite a change. But still not too bad at all! Very nice. At the time the main drawback was NOT being on the monorail run.

That lasted a couple years, but even they began to get a little pricey. Just at about the time that the cost was almost out of reach for these resorts, (wouldn't you know it!) they built the All Stars!! I was pretty fed up by this time and seriously reviewed my options. This is one of the major reasons I bought into the DVC concept.

Now if you think about it, just what can justify the cost difference between the three classes of resorts? Do you really mean to tell me that, other than a slightly increased capital investment (for a bit better theming) it costs any more to maintain? The rooms still have to be cleaned. The size of the staff is the same. What is the difference? I'm not talking about the difference between the Floridian and the All Stars. I'm talking about the difference between Port Orleans and the All Stars. What are the differences that can possibly account for the price difference? I don't get it. Unless, of course, they chose to minimize the theme in order to make it clearly apparent that the All Stars was… well… how to put it… CHEAPER!!!

Now, I'll admit that it's hard for me to verbalize this elusive concept. And it may well be that the words will become clearer throughout the discussions. I do know that I've had this 'feeling' for years, but I've never really had to translate these 'feelings' into logic, concrete concepts that can be easily communicated.

Any thoughts??


PS: SCOOP: Boy - Girl or Other? And congratulations!!!! (But I hear they're a lot of trouble for the first… for the first… for the first… 21 years or so!!! ;)

[DC7800]

I have to say I like the All-Star Resorts well enough. It's hardly my favorite Disney resort - the Contemporary takes that honor - but All-Star or Pop Century are so far above the typical "road-side" motel (off-property) there is simply no comparison. Given the choice of Days Inn or All-Star Music for the same money, it's quite obvious which is the more magical experience (any Disney property would win this, simply because its inside Disney World). Sure, the Polynesian is wonderful, but you can spend a week at All-Stars for two days at the Poly, and if you only get to go once a year - better to enjoy a week of theme park magic than 48 hours of ultra-luxury. Besides, you can visit any other resort for anything except sleeping there, which gets back to someone's previous argument of exactly how many waking hours you spend in that room anyway.

Actually, the value resorts have a few advantages over the moderates (theming isn't one of them). I wouldnt exactly call either "compact", but even the worst All-Star rooms are more convenient than some Coronado rooms (in a different time zone from the restaurants and lobby). Port Orleans (French Quarter) was great, but it's now a value-level service resort at moderate prices. Since we visit other resorts for dining and other activities, I can't see much advantage of moderate over value.

The difference in theming (and price) between a deluxe and value resort is really a matter of supply and demand. Disney can fill another 6,000 value-priced rooms by drawing on guests who otherwise stay off-site. They might not fill that many (well themed) deluxe rooms, and there has to be a difference between value and deluxe resorts other than price, or else deluxe properties would sit empty! Lets say Disney built two resorts priced $99: one with All-Star service level but theming more elaborate than the Poly, the other with no theming at all but with a level of guest services even greater than Grand Floridian. For many, this would effectively remove the primary reasons to stay at Disney's nicest resorts. Sure, the Polynesian would still be convenient, and the All-Stars would stay full of formerly off-site guests, but how many people (other than many of us) would pay $300 when they can get a similar room for $99?

[YoHo]

According to Disneyworld.com, the Value resorts have these amenities.

Food Courts
Snack Bars
Lounge/Bars
pools
playground




Moderates have this set
Food Courts
Snack Bars
Lounge/Bars
pools
playground
bell services
Table-dining
Whirlpool
watersports

Home away from home has this set
Food Courts
Snack Bars
Lounge/Bars
pools
playground
bell services
Table-dining
Whirlpool
watersports
Beach
Fine Dining
Room Service/Full Service
Character Breakfest
Power boat rental
Fishing
Valet Parking
Kids Programs
Tennis Courts
Walking/Jogging paths
Fitness Center/Spa
Kitchens or Kitchenettes

Deluxes have this set
Food Courts
Snack Bars
Lounge/Bars
pools
playground
bell services
Table-dining
Whirlpool
watersports
Beach
Fine Dining
Room Service/Full Service
Character Breakfest
Power boat rental
Fishing
Valet Parking
Kids Programs
Tennis Courts
Walking/Jogging paths
Fitness Center/Spa
Concierge
Monorail access
Closest to parks
Larger rooms
Suites



I would say that diferentiates things well.

I will continue to say that I would have preferred no themeing at all.

[Eeyore2U]

Theming or decorating would have been ok as long as it wasn't disgusting, putrid, eyesoreish. I hope I got my point across. It was my point at the beginning! :D

[YoHo]

43% of those in my poll would stay at a different Disney resort if money was no object.

16% prefer the All Stars to other Disney resorts including the themeing and would stay there if prices went up.

Nearly 20% say they would never ever stay at the All Stars.

Draw any conclusions you would like.

[larworth]

I assume we all agree that Disney needs to offer a variety of different price points to fit differing customer needs. The values surely allow more people to stay on-site, and if this enhances their overall vacation experience, it sure seems like a good thing from both a business and a guest perspective.

If we are not talking matters of taste than we are back to that elusive question of minimum standards across the resort. We sure don’t want Disney to do anything that devalues the brand. Sounds similar to the Downtown Disney debate of a month ago. I think we were all over the map on whether the resorts as a whole should be treated the same as the parks.

Let’s go ahead and use the A-E ticket analogy. What I hear some people arguing is that the values been not been plussed enough to qualify as a Disney A ticket hotel. The effort here is below the effort Disney makes to take a commodity flat ride and turn it into a Disney A ticket attraction. I’m not qualified to render a judgment myself as I have not stayed at these properties, but it might be another way to look at things.

[CapHook]

Originally posted by YoHo
43% of those in my poll would stay at a different Disney resort if money was no object.

16% prefer the All Stars to other Disney resorts including the themeing and would stay there if prices went up.

Nearly 20% say they would never ever stay at the All Stars.

Draw any conclusions you would like.

The poll has some flaws.

I was one of the 43%. There is a difference between would you ever stay at a different resort if money was no object and would you stay at a different resort on your next trip. Sure someday I hope to stay at another resort just to see what it is like. If money were no object I would always stay at the most expensive place wether it was WDW , Las Vegas or New York City.

I can tell you this, Pop Century may be ugly, but if I can stay there for $49 per night I don't care. If you stayed there, many of you would feel ripped off. Don't stay there, but don't try to convince the rest of us that the Value Resorts are a rip off. They are not.

[JeffJewell]

Since we visit other resorts for dining and other activities, I can't see much advantage of moderate over value. ...I completely agree with this. Because of the lack of alternative transport/direct access to parks and lack of a full range of dining options, I don't feel any non-Deluxe (and the AKL doesn't even count... you still have to take a bus everywhere, even AK, counter-intuitively enough) offers the "step into Walt Disney World, leave the normal world behind" atmosphere that was actually the main goal of buying all those orange groves and swamps in the first place.

Everyone makes a big deal about Walt once scribbling "motels" on an early plan for WDW that was about three hours past the cocktail-napkin stage, and I can certainly understand that he realized a need for different price levels in his resorts.

I do not think that means there was the intent to throw away the "World" aspect of Disney World just to compete with a Motel 6 price point.

Jeff

[JeffJewell]

don't try to convince the rest of us that the Value Resorts are a rip off. They are not. ...did anyone sugget the Values were a "rip-off?"

If you felt that way from anything I've said, let me apologize for the miscommunication. I never intended to imply the Values were a "rip-off."

At the Values, you're paying for a cheap hotel room, and that's precisely what you're getting: a cheap hotel room.

My problem is not that the Values are a rip-off, I just don't think "cheap hotel room" is a product that fits well within Disney's tradition of quality.

Jeff

[CapHook]

Well, I disagree. I am just thinking of where this is going. These cheap motel rooms dont fit into the Disney you want. Therefore my family does not fit into the Disney you want.

Eisner must want them because he is not tearing them down and is in fact building more.

[YoHo]

It was never my intention to suggest that the value resorts are a ripoff in any way, only that they were an offense to good taste. An opinion that is realistically mine and mine alone.

Jeff, Now we're getting back into a different question. A question I try to avoid. I think its fairly obvious that if your going to have such a large number of rooms, some of them simply can't be near the parks. (its a different question whether they should have so many rooms)

I agree there was no intent to throw away th "World" but I wonder if better transportation would improve things?

[YoHo]

Lets try to stop this before it spreads. I happen to remember the last time the conversation went down this path and it wasn't pretty.
I think I'm safe in concluding that those of us here that don't particularly like the All-stars would just as soon tha the Deluxes were cheaper. That even the most financially challenged person could afford to stay at the poly, because the Poly should be priced that low. I don't particularly want to walk that path. I just think the Allstars are ugly, I am perfectly fine with their existance.



Lets just keep thing civil. Nobody is trying to exclude anyone.

[JeffJewell]

These cheap motel rooms dont fit into the Disney you want ...they don't fit into the Disney that, in the past, built a reputation and fan base worldwide on the basis of over-the-top theming and quality, the Disney with a history of doing things the best they possibly could do them. What I want or don't want has nothing to do with this conversation.Eisner must want them because he is not tearing them down and is in fact building more. Yes, they fit quite well into his business plan that treats entertainment is a commodity, not an art form. The same business plan that has led to the less-than-stellar business results of Animal Kingdom and Disney's California Adventure.

Disney is struggling right now, and was struggling even before 9-11 changed the face of travel in this country. It is my position that the struggles are a predictable result of abandoning tenets that were once central to the company and every product it offered, the tenets that made the company what it was.
Therefore my family does not fit into the Disney you want. I have no idea why you think my evaluation of a business decision equates to a personal desire to exclude you from anything. I said this to another poster earlier in the thread, and it applies here, too:
For good or ill, the All Stars ain't going anywhere, so it's just as well that someone appreciates them for what they are. Actually, if I was a couple hours drive away, I'm relatively certain that I'd be in a low-priced hotel several week-ends a year, too. If the money is the biggest question, the All Stars are certainly a valid answer. So go, have a good time, and enjoy the All Stars all you want

We can discuss this impersonally on a business level and agree to disagree, if it comes to that, or you can continue to take personal offense at something that has nothing to do with anyone personally. Up to you, really.

Jeff

[DVC95-BW]

At least the Animal Kingdom Lodge is fantastic so this oops on Disney's part isn't a sign of slipping quality.

(Haven't seen Pop Century - but the pictures on the 'net do look dreadful)

[CapHook]

If you want to continue to discuss this on a "business" level go ahead. I will quit reading and posting to the thread. You can theorize all you want to and I will not bother you any more.

[hopemax]

Question for everyone:

You have 2 choices for hotels:

1. The Pop Century or the All-stars

2. A hotel that the rooms are located in buildings that look like a Comfort Inn, Holiday Inn Express, etc. The hotel is located on Disney property, has Disney transportation, early entry, has a Disney name, staffed by Disney employees, has some Disney character art in the lobby, foodcourt and minor decorations in room (no more elaborate than at the All-stars), a pool that looks similar to the All-stars (basic pool w/ characters in the middle), costs the same as #1.
Basically all things being equal but no giant icons, and a different color pallette.

Which would still choose #1?

[YoHo]

I would stay in 2 any day of the week and twice on sunday.

[DVC95-BW]

Comment on pricing - Disney should charge a price the optimizes asset utilization - if the Polynesian is full at current pricing, there is no reason to drop the price.

The entry level hotels are there to leverage Disney's significant land holdings and capture another price point.

Expect lots of deals and specials as Disney drops prices in package deals to increase the occupancy rate. And expect those rates to climb back up when this crisis slowly passes and the economy slowly improves.

I don't want Disney to give away their product - nor do I want the price to exceed the value.

As a profit seeking mechanism the Walt Disney Corporation will continually optimize price, value and occupancy rate in their on property hotels.

Anecdote: I've had the good fortune to visit every Disney park globally (DisneySea coming up in November hopefully). I stayed in Sante Fe hotel at Disneyland Paris and had numerous complaints (lousy hotel) and wrote to Eisner. I received a very specific response from the head of Disneyland Paris that addressed each point - including a policy change to include breakfast with the room (common in Europe).

The best response to any disatisfaction with Disney is to write specific, well written letters to the appropriate executive.

I expect that Disney quality will slip over the next 12 months due to the economic downturn. On the other hand, an ex-Disney Imagineering friend said that Disney is also considering significant plussing and new attraction investments while the parks are not as full.

[JeffJewell]

Jeff, Now we're getting back into a different question. A question I try to avoid. I think its fairly obvious that if your going to have such a large number of rooms, some of them simply can't be near the parks. ...well, it's a different question, but I think it's the underlying question.

Is it in Disney's best interests as a company to compete on the commodity level? Is it possible to maintain "Disney Standards," whatever that means to you, if Disney has set itself against companies that never cared about Disney Standards, that are only interested in making as much money as possible?

Disney was once creating masterpieces as they went along, original and packed with detail and effort, whether or not those works all happened to capture the audience. Now, Disney is largely running off prints, pretty much the same as what's available elsewhere, but in much huger numbers than the masterpieces.

Are the masterpieces or the prints the better goal? Well, just about anyone can run off prints, so Disney is at the mercy of price points and fickle consumers if that's the business choice they make. Not everyone can make masterpieces, and if you're talented enough to be that kind of creator, you'll maintain your market simply because your customers have no where else to go to get such a product.

If you want a business that is likely to capture and maintain an audience over long periods of time, through economic uptimes and downtimes, making the masterpieces is the way to go. If you want to subject yourself to the whims of the mass market and the winds of the economy, well, running off the prints fit that bill quite nicely.

Jeff

PS: Of course, that leaves us with the question of whether or not years of running off prints has destroyed Disney's capacity for the masterpieces, altogether...

[DVC-Landbaron]

YoHo!! I can't believe that you can fall for this type of spin. If a restaurant doesn't make a profit, in other words isn't self sustaining, they close it down! PERIOD!! End of conversation!! And it doesn't matter where it is. Do you really think that if a Cape May's or California Grill wasn't making money they'd keep it open just because it resides in a "Deluxe" resort? How absurd!! And conversely they could certainly put a Table-dining restaurant into a Value if they chose to. Let it sink or swim on it's own merits. The point is they don't chose to. Why? In order to further their class distinction!! That caste system was first instituted when the Caribbean Beach was opened. It had no table-dining. Just a food court. Until, that is, the All Stars were built. Then, suddenly, a table dining restaurant opened at the resort. Just coincidence? I don't think so!! They needed to add one in order to delineate and justify the cost difference!

So, I unilaterally discount table-dining as a reason for the extra costs. As for the "amenities", some yes, some no! I really don't know how to answer the whirlpool question. I would suspect that this perk affects very few guests. And I really think that it either wouldn't be considered mandatory if included and would be missed by a very small minority if excluded.

That leaves bell service and watersports. Now, I'll give you no argument about bell service. I do indeed think this is not only an additional cost (relatively little however) for the resort, but also an amenity that could be considered a 'deal breaker', depending on how you vacation and personal desires. But watersports!!?? Just what the heck is meant by this?!?

So what other things can clearly depict a difference in the public's mind? What would grab the customer's attention, right away, that tells them, I am getting a deal or for a few buck more a real "Disney" experience can be mine? How about theme vs. decorations?

Larworth you hit the nail on the head. If we are not talking matters of taste than we are back to that elusive question of minimum standards across the resort. We sure don't want Disney to do anything that devalues the brand. That is exactly what has happened. But it came so slowly and was "reasoned" by way of "value" that the company could get away with it and the general population bought it. Heck! It's only in hindsight that even yours truly really figured out what had happened. The Captain always wants me to give Ei$ner credit for a job well done! Well, Ei$ner was masterful in his approach! He slowly and efficiently eroded the Disney Standard, created different Disney experiences according to class, until we are all left squabbling here as to the 'true' definition of the term. Job well done Ei$ner!! Let's go ahead and use the A-E ticket analogy. What I hear some people arguing is that the values been not been plussed enough to qualify as a Disney A ticket hotel. The effort here is below the effort Disney makes to take a commodity flat ride and turn it into a Disney A ticket attraction.How perfect an analogy!! Well, I disagree. I am just thinking of where this is going. These cheap motel rooms don't fit into the Disney you want. Therefore my family does not fit into the Disney you want.WOW!! Slow down there, partner!! It is definitely true that these 'cheap motel rooms' don't fit into what I consider "Disney Standards". But that does not necessarily mean that those that stay there don't. If not for the DVC I would be staying there as well. No! I don't blame the people who stay there at all. It has nothing to do with socioeconomic standing or disposable income or even personal taste. I blame Disney!! And more particularly, I blame Ei$ner for giving us this garbage, wrapping a forty foot icon around it and having the nerve to call it a "Disney experience"!! SHAME ON HIM!! He should know better!!

[JeffJewell]

DVC95-BW...an ex-Disney Imagineering friend said that Disney is also considering significant plussing and new attraction investments while the parks are not as full ...I sure hope this turns out to be the case. It's certainly the logical and time-tested way to grow a business: during slow times, you feed and water the horse so you can ride him for all he's worth when it's time to run again.

hopemax...Basically all things being equal but no giant icons, and a different color pallette. Which would still choose #1? ...at that point, I'd really have to decide what, precisely, I was going to do that trip, and would make my decision largely based on where on property the two were located, in relation to things I wanted to do. As many have pointed out, it's unlikely you'll spend much time at either of those hotels, anyway, you'll be going off doing other things and just coming back to sleep; so the choice would be which hotel most facilitated that coming and going (for instance, when I was choosing a moderate for a trip a couple years ago, DxL won on the basis of the boat to the Downtown Disney and Disney Institute area. That was the trip when Suzy and I each took several DI classes [we're two of the probably seven people who actually lament the closing of DI to one-off day guests], ate at Fulton's and Rainforest Cafe, and did two years worth of Christmas shopping at WoD).

CapHook...I will quit reading and posting to the thread. You can theorize all you want to and I will not bother you any more. ...it was not my intention to run you off, but merely to reiterate that my position is not for or against any particular family's vacation plans.

Jeff

[YoHo]

Landbaron, I was not attempting to SPIN anything or buy into spin. It is a little Devious to Plus CBR when the Allstars came out. At the same time, the Proximity of said resturant is the added amenity. As a guest at any Disney resort, I currently have the privlege of using Disney Transportation to get to any Disney resort AND to use the Dining Facilities at that resort, but If I want to Dine at Victoria and Albert's (an extreme example) isn't it a plus to be staying within close walking distance? might it be worth some small amount more?

Watersports refers to the sprites(or whatever they're called now) and such. everyone has acces to them (I realize that at OKW you need to go to DTD to use them, so its a bit of a stretch, but still its available). But the Deluxe resorts have more immediate access. its all about proximity.


I'm not going to argue about caste systems, its counter productive and in case you've already forgotten, causes a lot of bad blood. Its simply not worth it.

I just think that based on previous construction (namely Disneyland) it would have been preferable for a lower priced resort to be more plain looking, not garish looking.

I personally don't think disney is getting into a comodity market here. Even with the Value resorts they sell something nobody else can offer.

As I hinted at earlier on, We the consumers have changed the way we want our Disney expireance. I suppose that Eisner and company have helped or hurt us along the way, but ultimatly we changed it and Disney adapted to it, Just as Disneyland HAD to change the way they did buisness when WDW turned them from a destination into a locals park. We see how DCA, an attempt to reverse that failed.

It may be in Disney's best interest to do what we the people most want, but to do it with Disney quality and for the good lord's sake NOT with large plastic Icons.

[hopemax]

So how does the average Disney guest get these $75 Contemporary rooms. According to the Disney.com website and the travel brochures you get at your local travel agency says they are? (and I do know about calling CRO, but I've never seen $75)

2001 Room Rates Wing Room $ 260 $ 285 $ 330 $ 370

[Eeyore2U]

I started this thread because the Pop Century are <font size=8>UGLY.</font>

Can we please agree that they are <font size=8>UGLY!!!!</font>

[Janet2k]

Could someone please post a link to some recent Pop Century photographs so that I may join in on the fun? I feel so left out.

[SPAGo 98]

I don't really think they areUGLY. They're not beautiful, but I wouldn't call them UGLY. Sorry.

[Planogirl]

First of all congratulations. It doesn't get any better than that. :)

Secondly, kids will surprise you. I took my 8 year old to the Allstars last June for the first time. He has stayed in the Poly and we visit it often when we don't stay there. We visited the Poly again and he asked me if we couldn't stay there again. I asked him if he didn't like the Allstars and he said that they were OK but the Poly was better. So you never know...

By the way, I'd pick Hotel #2 if it had the same pricing as the Allstars. Anything to get away from those ugly stars. :D

[Eeyore2U]

SPAgo 98,

When did you see them? I saw them between 9/30-10/6 and they were quite disgusting.

[Peter Pirate]

See Eyore2U, now we're getting totally subjective because while I think it's quite laughable and not a place I'd like to stay, I don't find it disgusting. My 8 year-old (a Disney veteran of S/D, BC, Poly, AKL & CSR- all numerous times) thinks it looks really cool, expecially the Bowling Pin(:confused: :confused:). Even my 12 year old finds the "odd look" (her words) intriguing.

Only time will tell if they should have been built or not and the only real test will be their capacity - I'm not addressing Yoho, JJ & Landbaron's "they never should have been built" agrgument as thats a totally different realm...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool:

[JeffJewell]

contemporary garden wing...the most poorly, weakly, and pathetically themed Disney resort ever...heck, even if you don't like AllStars, at least it only costs you 75 bucks a nite rather than the $200 plus they charge you at the Contemporary Red Roof Inn wings....dooh.... ... I'd just like to commemorate an occasion when we agree completely.

And take the oppotunity to add my congratulations. You'll have to rename the ranch "Raisin Bran."

Jeff

PS:
Baby Scoop just whispered something about how kids like Big Buzz and Mighty Ducks and don't give a flying flip about being immersed into the admittedly beautiful but all too different purposed French Quarter....Or did that ONE original point in my thread just get completely ignored... didn't mean to ignore it, thought YoHo'd kinda covered it with his suggestions on a making a kid-friendly theme more immersive. If the scooplet likes a big stationary Buzz outside, imagine how he'd like entering his room to find out it's Andy's room, and the check-in building was Al's Toy Barn, and the food court... well, the food court would have to be themed as the baggage sorting conveyors...

[Eeyore2U]

I agree Peter that we all have our own taste and outlook. My original post was to express how visually unappealing the Pop Century was. I'm just staying true to my post and my convictions. I don't begrudge anyone theirs but did you think about getting you 8 year old's eyes checked :rolleyes: (just kidding)

I find it funny how a comment went in so many different and interesting directions.

[Peter Pirate]

I find it funny how a comment went is so many different and interesting directions.
This this is just another interesting facet that we Rumors Board "friends" share. Additionally, many of us have been disagreeing for quite sometime and we'll remember comments & inuendo from threads long gone...Entertaining to us participants (yourself now included), but confusing to a newbie, I suppose.

Really only one tenant needs to be remembered and that is that the riders of car #1 are way closer to the truth than the #2 riders & the Screemin three-mees!:D :D :D
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Eeyore2U]

Lol, does this mean I qualify for the Rumor Board Clique/Snobs?:D :smooth: :D

[DisDuck]

Just remember guys/gals, beauty is in the eye of the beholder (my daughter,16, likes the just icons of AllStar and would rather stay at AS than Coronado).

This from a guy who thinks he is a duck (my first bathtub toy, quack quack).

Hey scoops, ask you kid what he thinks about ducks.

[Peter Pirate]

Eyore2U, you're officially NOT A SNOB! Remember, most people didn't really like that thread!!!:D :D :D

But if you follow the Landbaron mindset, you will be labeled WRONG!:D :D :D
:jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester:

DisDuck, we tried to arrange a quick trip to DL/DCA this week, but couldn't get it put together. So it's up to you my friend, to tell me what I really think of DCA! Can you handle the stress of carrying us car # 1er's on your shoulders???

:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[YoHo]

First of all Peter err Captain, I don't think they should have never been built. I do think they should have used better taste when building them. of course that is a personal opinion.

I will Disagree with Jeffjewell and dscoop about the themeing in the contemporary, but at the same time, I can't bring myself to praise it the way landbaron does. It just rings hollow. My first impression is that he's saying because Roy built it, it must have good themeing, yes that must be it.

(everyone remember the Simpsons episode where Mr. Skinner turns out to really be Arman Tamzarian and the real Mr. Skinner comes back? They show the flashback where Mrs. Skinner (mom) greets Tamzarian at the front door and convinces herself that this must be her son? That's the way landbaron sounds. Well, Roy built it, so it must be good.)

Also, Dscoop, you keep missing my point. a room themed like
Toystory is NOT expensive. I'm not talking exteriors here, I'm talking interiors. Trust me, it could be done on the cheap and would look much better to my eyes.



I've been thinking about this all weekend, and I'd really like to expand on a suggestion I made to Landbaron.

Is it possible that we the Guests have over the years Changed the way we visit Disneyworld?

Let me expand. Many DIS regulars list their visits in their signature. Take a good look. Ever notice how there's maybe one trip in the 70's, one maybe 2 in the eighties, then BABAM (kickin it up a notch:D) in the 90's there is like 4 or 5 trips.

Is it just me or does that denote a changing pattern?

And don't blame a 3rd or 4th park, that doesn't explain it.
Something happened.


Now, before anyone objects, I know the likes of Landbaron went often starting in the seventies, but Somehow I can't imagine they were the norm. I'm willing to bet That I am more like the norm, so lets look into it.

I went sometime between 1976 and 1979 (don't know, was a little kid) Stayed off site
Went in 1986 Drove, stayed offsite.
Went in 1989 stayed at the polynesian
Went in 1990 (mother had medical conference at Contemporary, stayed there real real cheap)
Went 1996 (with college friends, stayed at OKW)
went in 1999 with college friends stayed at Poly. Very expensive trip.
Went jan 2000 with now fiancee, stayed at Contemp.
(went to DL sometime in 70's also went to DL in Dec 2000 which cost as much as a trip to WDW)

My family was not poor in the 80's, yet we only went twice. Couldn't even afford the Poly with its cheaper rates.

Conclusion, even at $75 rack rate, the poly was too expensive for many guests.


Now lets fast forward. My family spent YEARS saving for that 89 WDW trip. I'll bet most of us can remember the scrimping and saving for the big WDW trip. That's the way things were. you saved your money for a couple years and then you went.
Then all of a sudden, People start going more often. it seemed to pick up momentum in the early 90's. Maybe the 3rd gate spurred this. maybe the general increase in wealth and the ability to drop this much money did this. the results were trips every two years instead of twice a decade. Disney is swamped, they can fill every room without trying. Yet there are thousands of guests that want in on this that still can't afford it. Bam, they build the Allstars and everyone is happy.


The way we visit WDW has drastically changed and WDW has accomidated us and we are all happy they have done so. Were we to gather the entire population of the DIS together in one room and asked

ARE YOU HAPPY THAT DISNEY BUILT VALUE HOTELS WITH A RACK RATE OF $79 A NIGHT WHICH BY THE WAY WOULD HAVE BEEN $34.54 IN 1980?

The Deafining responses of Yes would drown out the meek no.


All of which doesn't change the fact that I THINK they are ugly!

[hopemax]

my only concern (and yes this is a retread topic) but would be whether Disney could create this type of incredible resort but only charge the current AllStars rates...

I don't understand the jumping to the other end of the extreme. I don't think anyone is asking that Disney create this incredible resort at All Stars pricing, just that they had choices that would have less people saying "That's ugly."

And I'm still waiting to hear about these $75 Contemporary rooms that the average Disney guest would know are available for their vacation instead of the All-Stars.

[YoHo]

hopemax, your misreading thedscoop's post, he's saying that they SHOULD charge $75 for the contemp, not that they do.

[Eeyore2U]

I agree that there is a need for value resorts. We stayed at All Star Sports. I was not impressed. We had a bad visit due to the Pop Warner people staying there. I thoughth the figures were tacky and as I remember so did my then 10 year old son. I saw pics today for As Movies in a post and the Woody figure made me shiver. We would not be able to travel as often as we do to WDW if we didn't join DVC. The other option would have been All Stars or Pop Century 8cringe*.

Do I notice the themeing when I'm there, sometimes. Do I notice tacky things, YES! Whether it is structure or inappropriately dressed people.

My feeling is Disney needs to do things right. IMHO they missed the boat with Pop Century and to a lesser degree All Stars.

[hopemax]

Thanks for clarifying the point.

Unfortunately I spent the latter half of the 70's in diapers and can't comment on how effective the futuristic theme of the Contemporary was back then. My first trip wasn't until 1995, and at that point I decided the Contemporary was on the lame side. Maybe the 70's management team screwed up, but Eisner's team has had almost 20 years to make changes, which they didn't, so in my mind both teams bear fault.

My point is that there are new generations of Disney fans who never had an opportunity to revoke the Contemporary's "free pass," plus we have a new communication medium at our disposal that previous generations didn't have the luxury of having. I would hate for these new generations to be stuck with the All-stars because their parents didn't complain loud enough about the addition of the Contemporary Garden Wings in the 70's.


The ONLY reason the Contemp Red Roof Garden Wings cost anything more than a $59.95 Hampton Inn is their location

Well, the Contemporary does have additional amenities than the Hampton...not $200 worth of amenities, but I'm not sure $75 would be an appropriate price either.

[Another Voice]

Oh, how quickly you young kids forget. When the hotel opened in 1971 – the Contemporary was extremely futuristic, exciting and amazing. It was the one of the very first buildings with a massive atrium and a monorail ran right through it! Slick concrete walls, minimal décor, stainless steel and a color palate of turquoise & fuchsia was the cutting edge of design! If you have any doubts, look at the clothes people were wearing at the time. It was an ugly decade, but therapy has helped me get over it.

The hotel suffers from a problem well known to Disney – the future just ain’t what it used to be.

[JeffJewell]

we give Card & Ron & friends the "free pass" for leaving Eisner with an outdated Contemporary resort and abhorrently unthemed "Garden wings" because those were the "glory days"... ...I give Card & Ron & friends a "free pass" because history has already settled their collective hash. The damage they can do Disney is all in the past.Let's not lay the Contemporary's failure to be re-futurized soley at the feet of Eisner and Co. Again, the problem here is that it's only the guy currently wearing the hat with the propellor on it that counts for anything.

Really, it would be kind of silly for us to rally the troops for demanding that the board get rid of Card and Ron...

Jeff

[YoHo]

Don't the Garden wings have the same modified A frame construction? Don't they have the same basic interior? (There's a summer cottage down the road from my PParent's in Wisconsin that is a modified A built in the 70's VERY CONTEMPORARY for the time.


The trick with contemporary is that the cost to fix it is abhorant. There is simply no reasonable way to keep it contemporary.

For all that, I must say that I like it and its garden wings. It just fits.

[Another Voice]

The Contemporary you see today is very much a product of the Eisner era. The interior of the hotel was completely remodeled, all of the restaurants were rebuilt, all the rooms where changed and the convention center was added in a massive rehab in the early ‘90s. There were plans to change the exterior as well, but those were cut to save money. The only bit of the original hotel that remains is the ‘Grand Canyon’ mural in the elevator core in the tower.

[CDavid]

Originally posted by Another Voice
The interior of the hotel was completely remodeled, all of the restaurants were rebuilt, all the rooms where changed and the convention center was added in a massive rehab in the early ?90s. There were plans to change the exterior as well, but those were cut to save money. The only bit of the original hotel that remains is the ?Grand Canyon? mural in the elevator core in the tower.

The styling of today's Contemporary Resort rooms is at least as well-themed ("contemporary" themeing) as it was when I first stayed there back in 1981. In fact, it's probably more modern looking today. There is a theme to the Contemporary (including the Garden Wings), though perhaps more subtle than some other Disney resorts. Besides, who would want a "contemporary" theme as garish as the All-Stars?

Even back in the 1980's, I saw guidebooks stating the Contemporary wasn't for everyone's tastes - but it's my personal favorite.

Originally posted by Yoho
The trick with contemporary is that the cost to fix it is abhorant. There is simply no reasonable way to keep it contemporary.

This is the same problem found in Tommorrowland. When the theme is "contemporary", by definition, the rest of the world will constantly be catching up to it. Any style (theme) may eventually go out of fashion. Look at the Polynesian - the geographic theme remains wonderful, but there are also parts of the resort which look and feel dated.

[d-r]

if you think that the contemporary doesn't have a theme. The contemporary resort <strong>is</strong> Walt Disney World. To me, the only two resorts that are as Disney as the cont. are the polly and ft. wilderness. (I love the polly, I love the lush and immersive theme and the campy feel of adventureland, and on our last stay we made it over to ft. wilderness where I hadn't been in a few years, and the place still just dripped disney and fronteirland).

The contemporary makes me feel like I did when I was four in 1972. It is like getting to stay right in tomorrowland. The monorail runs right through your resort. The view is amazing. The theme really isn't "a bustling lakeside resort with a contemporary flair" to the initiated; it is WALT DISNEY WORLD. Our last stay in cont. tower was last May, and the renovated rooms are well done, I think.

Beyond those three, to me, no other resort just feels as much "DISNEY." There is no way that even my beloved and the incredibly themed wilderness lodge is as "Disney World" as the cont. And it comes closest. And while I love staying at the boardwalk, that new fangled epcot resort area will never feel as "Disney World" as the resorts around the lagoon and bay lake.

Now I have to admit I've never stayed in a garden view room at the cont., only the tower. But I was looking at them as we took the boat from wilderness lodge in Sept. thinking about how the view of the lake and discovery island must be great. Plus, it is still a great location. And the rooms are huge. My wife's family stayed in the wings once when she was a kid and vowed to only stay in the tower from then on, because of the convenience, but I'm sure the walk from there to transportation isn't any worse than say the walk to the bus from the country music section of all stars, or from one of the more distand trails in AKL to the bus either for that matter. The walk to the pool or the marina at contemporary is nothing from the garden wings, and some of the first floor ones open right up to a lake side patio. Again, I haven't stayed in the wings, but I think they would be a heck of a lot better (heck yeah $200) than the all stars or the groovy platform shoes.

Truthfully, it isn't even my favorite resort, but it would probably be in my top 3. I'm sure that there are many people who just don't get the contemporary, especially if their trip is all about getting a mug filled up quickly in order to catch the first bus to the parks and spending little time at the resort. But if you want to be immersed in classic walt disney world the cont. is awesome, and because of the proximity to the pool, lake and marina I think the garden wings would be fine. It is hardly a red roof inn.

DR

[YoHo]

I've stayed in the Garden wings twice. While I share a certain amount of love for the Disneyness with d-r. I have to say that the garden wings are NOT anything like staying in the tower. The view of Discovery Island is hardly special. The only cool part was that I could watch the Water pageant from my little patio (I was on the first floor)

I think the poly has better transportation access since you can walk directly to the TTC and hop on any of those busses.

Definatly not number one for me.

[d-r]

yeah, I haven't stayed in the garden wings. We did stay once at all star music, and I'd rather have the view of the lake over the view of the parking lot and all star sports we had there. But then the real truth is I'd be wishing I was in the tower if I stayed in the garden rooms - back to $. I'd like to say that it would be worth it to spend $200 over $49, but I do admit that staying at all stars is better than working.
DR

[All Aboard]

Here is the result of my poll, infer what you will.

Poll (http://www.disboards.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=107963)

[daannzzz]

Okay. I am mixed inbetween all these opinions. I am in car... I don't remember what car I am in... oh yeah I am in car 2 1/2!!!! I didn't get to WDW until 1996. Haveing been borne in 1956 and loving Disneyland I watched with anticipation when WDW opened and was enthralled at the futuristic Contemporary resort and the beautiful appearing Polynesian. I knew it would be a long time before I got to visit. Because I wasn't planning on going I didn't keep track of what was going on at WDW much so by the time I made the first investigative overatures into a trip I certainly was surprised. I was vaguely aware of a really nice hotel other than the original two but when I read the Unofficial Guide ( purchased for me as a surprise, by a friend) I found out there were alot more Disney owned motels than I was aware of. This was to be a cheap trip and I had decided I would stay at the Sun Motel in Kissimee but the Disney resorts were calling to me and I finally booked a room at the All Star music. From descriptions and pictures I thought there would be to tacky so I upgraded to CBR and my cheap trip got lots more expensive. We loved the CBR and paid a visit to the All Star and found it to have a fun and fantastic appeal. Since that first trip I have stayed at MOst of the resorts except for the BC, Boardwalk, Villas at the Institute and any Vacation Club property... and The Contemporary.
I personally had as good a time at the All Star Music as I did at the Grand Floridian. They are worlds apart in atmosphere but equally Disney to me. And the poor old Contemporary would be one of my last picks. As we sailed by the garden wings from the WL to the MK my Uncle pointed out that it looked like a jail!!! Yes. Other than the location I would rather stay at the All Stars!!! I do however notice the built in Class system Disney has going on. Don't you imagine a fairly inexpensive ( for Disney standards) restaurant would do well at the All Stars? Yet they can't in order to keep the aminities and classes of resorts seperate.
As far as the Pop Century goes I will agree that it is rather ugly at this point. I think the chosen "themes" are not very attractive. I think part of it has to do with color choices. I think the least attractive of the All Stars is the Movies!!!! The colors on most of the buildings are ...ugly while the icons are mostly okay. Never the less I will attempt a stay at the Pop Century (should they ever open) and give it a chance.

[YoHo]

Much as I suspected.


For comparison, my results

I honestly think the Themeing as top notch and would stay here even if the the price was higher (as long as services increased) 21 13.91%
I honestly think it is a better resort then off property, but if money weren't an object, I'd stay elsewhere 67 44.37%
It no better then off property, EXCEPT I get EE, transportation...etc 6 3.97%
Money, And only money 28 18.54%
I don't like them And would never stay in them. 29 19.21%
Total: 151 votes 100%



I think the All Stars are Disney Quality resorts and would return in the future 80 69.57%
I think the All Stars are Disney Quality resorts but likely will not return in the future 16 13.91%
I think the All Stars are less than Disney Quality, but will stay there again 7 6.09%
I don't think the All Stars are Disney Quality, and will not stay there again 12 10.43%
Total: 115 votes 100%


In my poll a full 128 people nearly 82% would stay there for various reasons 29 people or 19.21% have no use for them

You polled people who have actually stayed there which changes the parameters. about 16.5% think that the place is beneath Disney.

Personally there Are two variables that our polls just don't measure.
1: neither of us asked if you've stayed or at least spent time wandering around other Disney resorts. I think that would effect results.
2: Disney Quality is an elusive definition. We here on the debate board don't even always agree on its strict definition, but when one of us discusses something in terms of Disney quality, we all understand what that is. The Resorts board may not have the same collective understanding.

What both polls say is that there are a lot of people that take advantage of what Disney offers in that price range and a good number of people who dislike the looks of the place.

[hopemax]

I agree with Yoho that gcurling's poll may not be specific enough.

If a person finds the themeing and just the theming (which is what I thought we were talking about) to not be of Disney quality but things llike the service, cleanliness, transportation, perks, food court, etc. to be of Disney quality which choice are they supposed to choose, and which one do we think they chose?

[DVC-Landbaron]

daannzzz - my kind of guy!!
I do however notice the built in Class system Disney has going on. Don't you imagine a fairly inexpensive ( for Disney standards) restaurant would do well at the All Stars? Yet they can't in order to keep the amenities and classes of resorts separate.Just don't tell YoHo you noticed it!! ;)

And YoHo, my friend!! You say:Disney Quality is an elusive definition. We here on the debate board don't even always agree on its strict definitionThere's nothing elusive about it! Just ask me!!! I'll be glad to tell you!! ;)

[YoHo]

Again I say, Is Disney defining what we want or are we defining what Disney provides?

[Janet2k]

See what you folks did? I nicely asked you (a page or two ago) for a link to some photos of the upcoming Pop Century Resort and you ignored my plea. Now Disney has gone and done the following: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-asec-hotels17.story?coll=orl%2Dhome%2Dheadlines

Maybe Disney was afraid that you were actually going to get around to posting a photo link and thus squashed the whole resort in an attempt to thwart you. I guess I'll just have to wait until the next century pops before I ever get a look at the resort that has become so infamous in this thread. * Sigh * You folks sure are powerful. I bow down to you.

[Eeyore2U]

I feel bad for those with ressies....although their eyesight will be saved. I hope during the delay they review the design, knock this one down and build something more Disneylike.

[DVCDAVE]

That is a great article on the Orlando Sent.. Now if we can get the to take a wrecking ball to it, bulldoze the site clear, and build either another theme park, or water park, we can call this thread a home run. I can't believe how ugly this resort is (was). Reedy Creek Development planning and zoning commission must of been smoking some funny weed in order to allow this to be built.

[d-r]

Originally posted by thedscoop
But, d-r, your birdy little avatar almost distracted me from the content of your post;)

One day hopefully we can walk through the Contemp and you can point out to me everything that fits the theme "Contemporary". Not everything nice or spacious or with a good view because the Hyatt Grand Cypress and Marriott World Congress Center have all of those...no, we can send in a DIS Rumor's scout team to identify everything Contemporary about the Contemporary...and then after the 5 minutes it takes to do this, we can enjoy a drink and the view from CG:cool: ;)


As Lee Corso says, "Not so fast, my friend."

What I said was "the theme of the contemporary isn't really 'a bustling contemporary lakeside resort,' the theme is <strong> Walt Disney World.</strong> " I'm sure that this is 100% a matter of nostalgia and location, but that doesn't matter; my point was that the contemporary was not equal to a red roof inn (or the hyatt grand cypress, or the marriott world congress center, or for that matter the Grand, or the Four Seasons, or the Hotel Dell Coronado) in the theming department. It has a theme. I guess it is a lot like the theme of the disneyland hotel in ca. It <strong>IS</strong> the contemporary and it belongs right there by the magic kingdon and the theme <strongt>is</strong> walt disney world. I'll gladly join you at the outer rim, but I'll be talking about the Disney-ness of the place, not the contemporary-ness, and I can't point it out to you because it is everywhere (and you won't find it at the grand cypress or marriott world congress). It isn't the greatest resort in the world, but it <is> the contemporary</strong>.

But this is all sort of silly because it is just opinion stuff anyway -

FWIW, in the wee hours of this morning on one of the vault disney short segments about the "Disney Legends" an imagineer (was it Claude Coats? I wasn't really watching) was discussing insisting that the monorail should go through the cont., because without the monorail the cont. wasn't much of a big deal.

DR

[CDavid]

Originally posted by Eeyore2U
I feel bad for those with ressies....although their eyesight will be saved. I hope during the delay they review the design, knock this one down and build something more Disneylike.

I actually wish I would have had reservations made next summer for Pop Century. I might have had the reservation transferred to a moderate for Pop Century prices. Right now, I'm wondering if All-Stars will sell-out much earlier than usual for the busy seasons, since it will have to absorb all the off-property guests who otherwise would stay at Pop Century.

Also, in thinking about the basic Pop/All-Star design, it looks like this would be an almost simple hotel to "re-theme", should Disney ever wish (need) to do so. Take down the oversize icons and letters, change details in the rooms, and remove the stairwells at each building, and you have a nice, plain hotel building - ready for whatever new "decorations" (themeing) you wish to apply. This wouldn't be so easy at Port Orleans (iron railings, Mansion building columns) or the Polynesian (roofs, wood-design exteriors). At Pop Century, you could theoritically build something "more Disneylike" by simply redecorating.

[JeffJewell]

...the thread on the Resort Board called "If Money Wasn't An Object," or something like that?

I believe there is data there (or actually, the absence of certain data points) that is germaine to this thread.

Jeff

[d-r]

Originally posted by thedscoop
...we may disagree, but at least we both watch College Gameday!:D

Have a great day and Go Vols!

scoop.;)

Oh good lord do we ever disagree. Have a great a day and War Eagle,

DR

[All Aboard]

JJ, (in response to your note to the "money no object thread") I think what you are hinting at is that nobody has mentioned the All Stars. Why should that come as a surprise?

I suspect that if Disney were to build a hotel with standard guest rooms that are 1,500 square feet with giant indoor hot tubs in each room, personal massuesse/massuere (pardon my spelling) in each room, etc. etc. etc. Let's include limosuine service anywhere on site, let's include front of line access any time, any where, let's throw in reserved seating at everything for kicks. Let's call it Kingdom Suites.

Do you honestly think that anyone would respond with an answer other than "Kingdom Suites"?

I don't believe that anyone here is arguing that the All Stars are as nice as the Grand Floridian or the Boardwalk. Clearly, that's why they cost Much Much less.

That thread doesn't sway my opinion that the All Stars fill a much needed purpose at WDW and do it with Disney flair and imagination. Chalk it up to "agree to disagree" cause I ain't budgin' on this one.

[DVC-Landbaron]

That thread doesn't sway my opinion that the All Stars fill a much needed purpose at WDW and do it with Disney flair and imagination. Chalk it up to "agree to disagree" cause I ain't budgin' on this one.I do chalk it up to "agree to disagree". Which is why I dropped out of this thread a while ago (although I pull it up every hour or so, just to see the latest).

And I'll go along with your "ain't budgin'" point of view. But just so everyone is clear on 'personal' feeling towards 'Disney standards', I ain't budging' either. The All Stars could have and should have been done with those standards in mind. They could have and should have themed them instead of decorating them. And they certainly could have and should have upgraded some of those 'amenities' (such as a table service restaurant) and thus made the caste system they instituted a little less obvious. But as YoHo pointed out, they need some easily definable 'reasons' (differences) to justify the inappropriate costs of the moderates and especially the deluxes. Without the All Stars, in their stripped down, decorated state, they'd be hard pressed to show that difference.

They're on Disney property. That's about all they've got going for them. And with talk about EE going away, that ain't much!! :(

[JeffJewell]

JJ, (in response to your note to the "money no object thread") I think what you are hinting at is that nobody has mentioned the All Stars. Why should that come as a surprise? ...I didn't draw attention to it because of the surprise of it all; to be honest I think I could have pretty accurately predicted the approximate outcomes of both the polls and this thread I mentioned. It was more interesting to me under the heading of "how you ask the question affects the answer you'll get." YoHo's poll was skewed toward the two ends because of the nature of our underlying debate: either you see the All Stars style of theming to be of the same category as the non-Values, or you see it as a different direction entirely. Your poll was skewed in favor of the All Stars because, by putting the condition "have stayed there" on participation, your sample could not possibly include the opinions of those who feel so strongly about the All Stars that they've avoided them entirely.

When the question was phrased this way, no one, not even the folks with the kids who adore the All Stars, has thus far put forth the opinion that they'd stay at the All Stars, if they weren't considering the money.

When it comes down to it, the reason to stay at the All Stars is because it's a cheap hotel room. It will be interesting to see what happens to bookings if EE mornings are cancelled; that's a big factor in the All Stars/off-site decision.Chalk it up to "agree to disagree" cause I ain't budgin' on this one I can do that.

It's all a part of the same discussion we're all having continually. A certain percentage of us, for whatever reason, came to view Disney as synonymous with achingly high quality: I don't have three copies of Pinocchio (VHS, LD, and now DVD, as technology has improved) because it was the cheapest entertainment available, I have them because Pinocchio is a stunning achievement and historical landmark in animation (I do not, and will not, own any copies of The Tigger Movie for the inverse reason: it's the same kind of off-shore sweatshop produced animation I don't care to watch on tv every afternoon. It's a cheap movie, in the most malevolent sense of the word "cheap" I can muster).

The other percentage of us seems to believe that everything upon which Disney stamps a copyright notice is therefore "Disney Quality." With an "agree to disagree" attitude, I reject that position categorically.the All Stars fill a much needed purpose at WDW and do it with Disney flair and imagination Go ahead and call me a snob, but "cheap enough so everybody can afford it" is _not_ one of the criteria for Disney Magic. If fact, it's just silly: not everybody can afford it even now. The assertion that the All Stars fill a much needed purpose by being cheaper implies that an even larger purpose could be filled with even _cheaper_ beds. Where does it end? Wouldn't the SuperValue with the mausoleum style sleeping drawers (all with Disney Magic proudly displayed in the Mouse Ear drawer pulls) do a better job of meeting that purpose than do the Values? I'll even bet some kids would think it was cool to sleep in a drawer... You're just a Disney snob fatcat who can afford to stay at the All Stars if you think the tent city on the Walk Around the World isn't "Disney Quality." (I fully intended that to come off as thigh-slappingly hilarious... I'm quite sure it'll come back to bite my @$$ as a quote in some far-flung thread...)I don't believe that anyone here is arguing that the All Stars are as nice as the Grand Floridian or the Boardwalk. Clearly, that's why they cost Much Much less What's clear to me is that the All Stars don't offer the immersive vacation World that was the whole point of Disney World in the first place, and that they offer very little (even if some of the "very little" happens to itself be "very big") that is different from every other TraveLodge in the world. The All Stars are a Disney resort in the same way as the Power Rangers are a Disney television show, something cheap and easy to fill up some space.

The main attraction of the All Stars is how cheap they are. We can agree to disagree, but that simply doesn't describe a traditional Disney product to me.

Jeff

[YoHo]

I'll posit again, and maybe this time someone will answer.
What's clear to me is that the All Stars don't offer the immersive vacation World that was the whole point of Disney World in the first place,

You say that's a bad thing, and I admit to preferring the vacation world WDW was first buit as, BUT do the Allstars exist as some sort of dumbing down? or do they exist, because the all encompassing vacation world is not what the vast public wanted?

After all, those off-site rooms always filled up before All-stars existed, Disney is simply providing a new albeit less unique vacation expireance. One that many people still want.

Why is it wrong for them to provide this expireance?
Why is indicative of a caste system to provide something people want?


Why couldn't they be less disgustingly, offensivly, Ugly?

(:D :D :D Okay, I just had to throw the last bit in there :D :D :D)

[JeffJewell]

Why is it wrong for them to provide this expireance? ...I think it's wrong on two bases: first, because it is a rejection of the principles and tenets under which the company created its fan base and reputation, therefore contributing to the dilution of the brand name, and second, because to compete on the field of "what product is cheapest" is to subject yourself to untenable variability in the market.

More on the first: You got your customers by stuffing as much into the product as possible, even if was going to be expensive (this is where Landbaron and I will take hits from friendly fire: my only problem with rising prices is the quality of what they're offering is sinking while prices rise. Disney was never cheap; I was damn lucky to get to go as much as I did in the seventies [and my grandfather worked damn hard in the forties, fifties, and sixties to bestow upon me that luck]). What happens when you _stop_ stuffing the quality, but make the product cheaper? If the quality was important, you've already lost that customer. If the price was important, you've set yourself up to lose that customer to someone else's fire sale. Either way, "losing customers," sooner or later, is the ultimate result.

More on the second: Vacations are a luxury item, a likely target for customer spending cuts should tough times hit. If your rooms are all $300 a night, you're selling to a market segment that is less affected by economic ups and downs. Why is the Pop Century delayed while the Beach Club Villas are not? Because in harder times, it's the folks staying in the $80 rooms who are most likely to be affected to the point of changing vacation plans.

Putting up cheap hotels was a fine way for Disney's leadership to show an immediate surge during a booming economy. Now that the boom has busted, that market segment is staying home, and Disney has a white (or, in this case, day-glo purple) elephant on their hands.

The DVC properties are another place where Disney's short-term focus is going to end up strangling them at some future point, but I realize there is no way of convincing anyone of that for another ten or so years.

Jeff

[DVC-Landbaron]

You're just a Disney snob fatcat who can afford to stay at the All Stars if you think the tent city on the Walk Around the World isn't "Disney Quality." (I fully intended that to come off as thigh-slappingly hilarious...It was. I actually laughed out loud!!

http://www.wdwinfo.com/sites/family/biggrinyoyoa.gifhttp://www.wdwinfo.com/sites/family/jumpinggreens.gifhttp://www.wdwinfo.com/sites/family/biggrinyoyoa.gif

[All Aboard]

But JJ,

You make it sound like the presence of the All Stars cheapens your experience at WDW! We are talking about the addition of an amenity that is great for some folks. You don't really even have to look at it or see it. I'd say it's pretty darn transparent to folks like you and Landbaron. Heck, I haven't seen the Disney Institute Resort offerings in ages. I can't even remember what they look like. Although I recall it to be pretty darn bland with the exception of the unique treehouses.

Certainly I disagree with your conjecture about lower quality "supervalue" resorts. For one, I would hate to see YoHo's unthemed (or undecorated for that matter) Day's Inn onsite resort. Even if it were $29 a night.

Here's what I think some of you are missing from me. I LIKE the All Stars. I think they are great. The first time I saw artwork for them, I thought it was a great idea. It's not just that they are inexpensive - I really enjoy staying there. I don't think they are ugly.

I do, however, think Pop Century is ugly.

[Eeyore2U]

Originally posted by gcurling

I do, however, think Pop Century is ugly.

Thanks for getting to my original point. Could it be that All Stars and Pop Century are over themed? Boardwalk, Yacht Club and the like are themed but not overtly or grotesquely. They are subtle. Could All Stars and Pop Century be done this way? My guess is yes. Should they build resorts like the Values. ABSOLUTELY!!!!! They serve a purpose. When we started going, there were no Values and we stayed at CBR. Made it hard to go do the lower category and once we went to Deluxe there was no going back. Disney needs something for everyone. DVC is perfect for those that choose to go often and prefer a bigger room. Magic is what WE make it. Disney just gives us the surrounding, where ever we choose to find it.

[YoHo]

it is a rejection of the principles and tenets under which the company created its fan base and reputation


Define this.
Its not that I completely Disagree, but I think we may have different Ideas on what those principles are.




because to compete on the field of "what product is cheapest" is to subject yourself to untenable variability in the market.

This is true, but is it relevent?



Walt Disney the man. Had a singular Genious. He knew what the public wanted before they did. In 1954 there were
NOT millions of people clamouring for a spinner using Dumbo Cars or a simple ride throough of Snow White.
Disney created these and remarkably he was right on in what the public wanted.

Walt Disney World was created so that Disney himself had complete control over what went in and Where it went. He and only He defined what the Disney expireance would be within the bounds of the property.

Lets combine these two. Disney Knows what the people want, Disney has full creative control on delivering expireances to the people.



Enter the assumption, the vast majority of the people in the World today want a Disney Vacation that consists of an inexpensive hotel room combined with reasonably convient access (defined not just by transportation, but by ticketing and EE and so forth).

I contend that it is the over-riding tenent of the Disney Franchise to provide the entertainment that people want and to do so on its own terms. Thus the Value resorts are completely within the bounds of the guiding principles of Disney.


I have previously attempted to illustrate that gate attendence was being driven up by these kinds of guests regardless of the onsite hotels.


Our good friend Landbaron talks of relaxing and enjoying the atmosphere of the park while most guests scury around like Lemmings to the ocean. Those lemmings are now Normal.

Disney has provided what its guests want.


I'll agree it pts them in a less stable position, BUT their growth would have been stagnant otherwise and THAT would have doomed the company further.

Plus, Gate receits would have been unaffected meaning they would have dropped like a rock either way.

[YoHo]

New Poll

http://www.disboards.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=110955

[All Aboard]

New poll:

Do you think the Fire Engine is red?
Do you think the Fire Engine is blue?

:)

YoHo, what do you intend to accomplish with that poll other than verify the obvious? I don't think that anyone here believes that the experience is the same at the All Stars. Again - hence the price differential.

Still, I'm really interested to see if anyone chooses that they are the same. I voted that they were different - even though it's been ages since I stayed in a Deluxe.

[YoHo]

Perhaps I was not clear enough, I meant the fundimental expireance. Is it the same type of vacation.
The first respondent indicated it was not.

[All Aboard]

Actully YoHo, so far all the respondents have indicated that it is not fundamentaly the same. But, I do think that some will expand on the definition of "fundamental." You can sit on your balcony at a deluxe, you can't do that at a Value - it's a different experience. But, no matter how someone defines "fundamentally", I'd still be shocked if anyone responds that it is the same.

YoHo, just to refresh my memory I skimmed through the Car thread. You didn't respond. Did you vote? Remind me, what car are you in?

[Eeyore2U]

DS,

I agree about DVC. Money better spent for a regualr deluxe environment. We may have been able to moderates about every 18 months. Now we can do one or two trips a year with above average accomodations. If I had to stay at a Value it would not be worth it to me. Never heard of discounts or annual passes until I found these boards.

[YoHo]

I refused to be pidgeonholed. I ridea Harley and veer around cutting you all off.

[hopemax]

So I posted my own poll cause I didn't like your polls :D :D :D

http://www.disboards.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=110971

[YoHo]

Hopemax, I think all the polls have merit, but you got right to the bottom of the issue. Are they ugly or aren't they. :D :D :D :D

[hopemax]

Well, like Disney executives I think sometimes we can't see the forest through the trees, and I felt sorry for poor Eeyore2U who just wanted to know what others felt about a hotel and expected a simple yes or no answer, instead we're on what...page 10?

I guess my post bumped us up to page 11!

[YoHo]

Well We aren't on page 20 yet, I'll be darned If I'll let the debate board hogg all that glory.

Onward.


At Least Eeyore2U still follows this. Most would have dumped the thread by now. :D:D:D

[YoHo]

I just had to share this little nugget from WDWnut on my latest poll. I think it sums up what some of us have been trying to say


that's what is so great about wdw-CHOICES!

[Eeyore2U]

I'm here for the duration. It's nice to see my thread get some steam and have more post than the "kids on leashes" post.

[JeffJewell]

Greg...You make it sound like the presence of the All Stars cheapens your experience at WDW! ...well, it's at least a fuzzy area. I still maintain that there are differences to the experience due to the Values now. I mentioned a couple infrastructure issues in some thread around here recently. Plus, even if I stay at a Deluxe (including the Animal Kingdom Lodge), I have to take a bus to Animal Kingdom; to take part in that area of the world, I have to leave the world for awhile. Perhaps not the fault of the All Stars per se, but another result of that trend or tendency I keep going on about.

And I honestly believe there's a dilution of the brand name as a result of this re-definition of "Disney theming" to a less immersive/story-oriented level, a dilution that will have long term financial consequences.Disney Institute Resort offerings A couple folks have mentioned DI and the Golf Resort as pre-Eisner examples of the non-story immersive style theming. Well, DI and the Golf Resort didn't exactly work out the way they originally intended, and have been largely "re-purposed." I believe they are actually good examples of why Disney should avoid the non-story immersive style of theming (even though I personally miss DI day classes).I really enjoy staying there That's cool, I honestly never meant to begrudge you that.

YoHo...we may have different Ideas on what those principles are ... I wouldn't think they should be so different. At the heart of everything was the desire to tell a good story, and the commitment to "plussing" whatever story was being told in whatever medium.I contend that it is the over-riding tenent of the Disney Franchise to provide the entertainment that people want and to do so on its own terms I contend that, if it fails to tell a good story, it is ultimately bereft of an integral part of Disney Magic.their growth would have been stagnant otherwise and THAT would have doomed the company further They could have provided a lower cost alternative to what know as the Deluxes without sacrificing the cohesive vacation world and story-immersive theming. And again to commoditization: why does Disney have to compete with every possible price point, particularly if it means sacrificing huge hunks of plussing, pieces of what makes the company's products special and different?

thedscoop...IMHO, DVC broadens access rather than restricts it ...well, what I said was "Disney's short-term focus is going to end up strangling them at some future point," which I believe is true because I believe the financial construct of the DVC pulls much of the cash flow that the resort would normally pull in over 40 years, largely into the next ten or so years. Looks good on the books today, but I think DVC will end up draining the company in the long term. Like I said, no one's going to believe me about this for at least a decade.

I'd be curious how any car twobers or threesers who are also DVC members react to this less humorous quote Again, I'm not for or against any particular family's vacation plans. I'm steering well clear of that. They can agree or disagree with my assessment of the business decision without needing to defend their participation in DVC.

Jeff

[Janet2k]

What’s a girl gotta do to get some service around here? I’m still waiting to see if any of you folks will post a link to some photos of the newly put-out-of-its-misery resort (previously known as the Pop Century Resort). Surely someone around here has a link to where some photos reside? I would love to be able to tell Eeyore2U, the starter of this thread, whether or not I agreed with the “thumb’s down” sign. Oh, woe is me.

[dmfuru]

Janet2K

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/photo/2001-10/890590.jpg

[Janet2k]

Dmfuru, thanks. I saw that one shown with the Orlando article. Do you know of any others? It's really hard for me to get the "full" feel of what the ex-resort was going to look like.

By the way, would anyone mind if I called the ex-resort the "Fizzle" Resort since it's lost its pop?

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary ( http://www.m-w.com/home.htm ):

- - - - - - -
Main Entry: 1fiz·zle
Pronunciation: 'fi-z&l
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): fiz·zled; fiz·zling /-z(&-)li[ng]/
Etymology: probably alteration of fist (to break wind)
Date: circa 1841
1 : FIZZ
2 : to fail or end feebly especially after a promising start -- often used with out
- - - - - - -

[lrodk]

Since the construction site is closed off we really only have pictures from a distance of some of the buildings. WDWMagic.com has a couple of pics on their site, as well as a publicity photo. here's the link to the site:

http://www.wdwmagic.com/pop_century.htm

[d-r]

Originally posted by YoHo
I'll posit again, and maybe this time someone will answer.


You say that's a bad thing, and I admit to preferring the vacation world WDW was first buit as, BUT do the Allstars exist as some sort of dumbing down? or do they exist, because the all encompassing vacation world is not what the vast public wanted?

After all, those off-site rooms always filled up before All-stars existed, Disney is simply providing a new albeit less unique vacation expireance. One that many people still want.

Why is it wrong for them to provide this expireance?
Why is indicative of a caste system to provide something people want?

Nothing- I think it is wonderful to allow as many families (of all types) to stay on property as possible. I also think it makes Disney money by offering resorts at different price levels.


Why couldn't they be less disgustingly, offensivly, Ugly?


Because if they were, everyone would pay less to stay there rather than pay more to stay at a deluxe. You get what you pay for, (and so they have to offer something ugly for people who want to pay less)-

DR

[d-r]

when I just said "Families of all types" I meant families with young children, families of older children, couples without children, empty nesters, etc. I didn't mean anything about economics.

DR

[YoHo]

I agree that transportation really affects the magic, BUT I don't think that needs to relate to the presence of a different TYPE of vacation.

I'll agree also that the Value resorts should have been done differently, but Ultimatly, you can't give them the same exact expireance as the deluxes due to location, size and purpose.

I maintain that the Value resorts are meant to appeal to Different type of vacationer and that they may have been executed poorly, but that there existance is perfectly reasonable. the purpose of their existance is perfectly valid in Disney Terms.

Disney doesn't have to go after every market, but It isn't inherantly undisney to be in this market. It is a different vacation then the original Disney one, that doesn't make it invalide or undisney. WDW is a babe in the Disney woods. A man that would be 100 years old and a 46 year old theme park buisness. are the basis, not a particular style of vacation.

[All Aboard]

d-r

You get what you pay for, (and so they have to offer something ugly for people who want to pay less)

I don't see any smilie, so I assume that you seriously believe this.

You have to be joking, right!?!?!?

[DVC-Landbaron]

DR Quote:
You get what you pay for, (and so they have to offer something ugly for people who want to pay less)
End quote:

I don't see any smilie, so I assume that you seriously believe this.

You have to be joking, right!?!?!?

I don't know about DR, but I am serious about it. It is just that type of distinction that is needed to justify the cost difference. If the rooms were smaller, the beds doubles instead of queens and no mini-bar included, but it had a table service restaurant and theme was just as rich as the moderates or deluxes, that would not be enough to justify the cost differential between the different classes of resorts. They needed to create a substantial difference, one that was readily apparent, yet somehow stay within a 'Disney' concept.

So what did they do? Easy. They decorated instead of themed and decreed that a food-court was all they'd ever get!! This would insure that there was one heck of a class distinction between the three groups.

Let's face it. Half the talk here is how 'ugly' they are, how un-themed they are and how they have no table service restaurants. If the theme were as rich as even the moderates are and a half way decent restaurant was installed, do you think the moderates would enjoy the success they have. Heck, even I'd stay at the 'economies' in a heartbeat!!

No! He's quite right, you know. They needed to create a difference. And boy-oh-boy, did they do a good job of it. There certainly is one heck of a difference!!

[HorizonsFan]

If the theme were as rich as even the moderates are and a half way decent restaurant was installed, do you think the moderates would enjoy the success they have. Heck, even I'd stay at the 'economies' in a heartbeat!!
If the theme were as rich and a restraunt installed, the resort would cost more to maintain and therefore rooms would cost more defeating the purpose of building them in the first place. I know it's hard for you to believe, but some people actually LIKE the All Stars and I'm sure some people will actually LIKE Pop Century. It's a matter of taste. I'm convinced that there aren't any Disney execs snikering behind their hands saying, "Have you SEEN the place we built for the poor people?"
:)

[DVC-Landbaron]

If the theme were as rich and a restaurant installed, the resort would cost more to maintainI absolutely, positively, without-a-doubt, DISAGREE!!! A table service restaurant would be self sustaining or it would close. Period!! And richer theming would cost no more to maintain, but it might (and I stress the word 'might') require a slightly increased capital expenditure. I personally think it would have been worth it just to keep the "Disney Standards" where they should be (theme vs. decorating).

But then, what reason would someone have to spend the extra money to stay in a moderate?
Answer: NONE - Hence the built in difference!!!

I'm convinced that there aren't any Disney execs snickering behind their hands saying, "Have you SEEN the place we built for the poor people?"Again I disagree! I think they all are!! :(

[YoHo]

Landbaron, you really think that?


That's low, I mean that's an entirely different level of mismanagment and evilness then we've ever attributed to Eisner.

I personally find it hard to believe that anyone involved with that company, EVEN Presslar is that heartless and evil.

Misguided, mistaken, a moron. We can discuss whether those apply, but I will not lend credence nor discuss the notion that any of them ACTIVLY and intentionally tried to "Screw" the poor people

[All Aboard]

Dispelling the "intentionally unappealing" theory.

There's a finite number of All Star rooms - 5,760 (or something like that). Once filled, folks don't have a choice but to stay somewhere else (and pay more.) Disney controls the number of guests who pay the Value rates by controlling the number of value rooms, not by making them unappealing.

The size of the room makes the double bed a necessity, and the return on investment makes the size of the room a necessity.

If a full-service restaurant were an automatically self sufficient, every hotel in America would have one, but they do not. I suspect that the resort full-service restaurants don't really do that well. At DxL/Port Orleans they eliminated one. Did they do it in order to cut profits? They must have, because both must have been self sustaining, right? Have you ever been to CBR? Have you seen how few diners there are at the Captains Tavern? Have you seen how few folks dine at the Grand Floridian Cafe?

I would postulate that full service resort dining options that are self sufficient are not the norm, rather that many of them take a hit on their own. Instead, it's that list of amenities that is aided by their existence.

You guys have it backwards. Disney did not make the All Stars unappealing to insure that guests would stay at the Deluxes ... Disney made the All Stars APPEALING to insure that guests would not stay off-site. I can't believe that isn't clear.

[daannzzz]

You all seem to be assuming that everyone that stays at the All Stars has to stay there and can not stay anywhere else. I have read right hear on the DIS how many people choose the All Star OR Off Site accomodations so that they have more money for food and souveniers. My impression of the full service restaurants at the Moderates were that they were overpriced and not what I was looking for. I think if they put in one full service "Denny's" style sit down restaurant that it would do well. I am talking No prime rib here. It would be slightly more expensive than the food court and themed...decorated to appropriatly match the All Stars. I did not stay at the All Stars because I couldn't afford any of the other Disney Resorts. I stayed because I wanted to. And I enjoyed it very much. While I don't think they are Beautiful, I certainly don't think they are ugly and I found it quite fun there.

[DVC-Landbaron]

… Either they've got them or they don't!

Misguided, mistaken, a moron. We can discuss whether those apply, but I will not lend credence nor discuss the notion that any of them ACTIVELY and intentionally tried to "Screw" the poor peopleWell!! I seemed to have struck a chord! OK. I'll give you that they don't sit around gleefully thinking how they screwed the populace. Instead consider it 'collateral damage'.

tell me how a table service restaurant would be "self-sustaining" and why its such a big deal after all I haven't made it a big deal. This thread has. More than a few times this aspect was considered one of the big 'differences' between an economy and a moderate. I will point out again the case of the Caribbean Beach Resort. When it first opened it had no table service restaurant. It was one of the things that clearly marked it as a 'value' resort. Remember, this was the first one that broke the mold of the Poly/Contemporary type resort.

But wait!! What happened next!!?? The All Stars are built and they charge less than the Caribbean!!! This can't be!! What to do??? Around that time what do you think happened to the dining choices at the Caribbean? You guessed it!! A table service restaurant!! What a coincidence!!

You gave a hypothetical and asked: So what about this realistically hypothetical family?
Well, you missed my point. I firmly belive that there should be one standard for Disney!! Period! Nothing at the bottom end and much more importantly nothing at the top end!! Hard to understand? Not really. I may be terribly naive but I don't think the Poly, in either design or pricing structure, when it first opened, had any peers. There were hotels that had amenities that you couldn't get at the Poly. And there were other hotels/motels that offered much less. What impressed me was that the Disney Standard was applied to everything they did. And at a somewhat reasonable rate. Same could be said of their campgrounds. Probably one of the most expensive campgrounds in existence, but by far the nicest!!

A very radical change in thinking came about with the development of the Caribbean Beach and the Floridian. Here were places that defined the ends of the Disney spectrum. One was almost obscenely opulent. Clear to everyone that walked through the door that it was a 'money' resort. And the 'new' prices reflected that fact. Quite a different feel than the Poly or the Contemporary. And the other was not quite as nice as the original two. Off the monorail run, a little less theme, food courts, long walks to the bus, etc. But, as if to make up for it, was also a bit less expensive. Now to me, they should have stopped there!! But they were not content. They felt they had to grab EVERY market that was out there. And to do that, they had to lower their standards quite a bit.

I think the best way to put it was the JeffJewell did:They could have provided a lower cost alternative to what know as the Deluxes without sacrificing the cohesive vacation world and story-immersive theming. And again to commoditization: why does Disney have to compete with every possible price point, particularly if it means sacrificing huge hunks of plussing, pieces of what makes the company's products special and different?I don't think anyone would argue that Disney is one of the most expensive Theme Parks in the world. Yet no one is screaming that a certain segment is excluded from participating because of economic concerns. No one is clamoring for a 'less-themed' theme park, run by Disney, in order to allow a particular demographic to afford a day's pass to a toned down version of 'Disney Magic". Tell me, Scoop (and everyone else). What's the difference?

[HorizonsFan]

No one is clamoring for a 'less-themed' theme park, run by Disney, in order to allow a particular demographic to afford a day's pass to a toned down version of 'Disney Magic".
But here you are assuming that we all agree that the value resorts are 'less themed'. I don't think that they are. They are themed differently than the other resorts and have less landscaping (hence a lower maintainance price) but I see Disney everywhere in those resorts. The CMs are just as friendly and helpful, the food is pretty much the same food as in the parks, the pools are fun, the busses (mostly) run on time and people have magical vacations there. I think the real, underlying disagreement is just what are "Disney Standards". Since they've never been defined by the company, I think we all have to make that judgment call for ourselves. I'm sure you can come up with some compelling evidence to support your version of "Disney Standards" but at the end of the day, I have to look at it with my own eyes and experience and ask, "does it look out of place?" Looking at the value resorts, I would say no, it doesn't look out of place TO ME.
Your milage may (and certainly will) vary...

[hopemax]

It's just a matter of who you want to upset. And I apologize in advance for going into areas beyond the All-stars. Whom do you upset:

The family who can't afford the higher prices. Or the family who expects the Company to maintain the level of "show" that the company uses to sell their products in the first place.

I would have no problem telling the family that in order to protect the integrity of our product we can't make visually unappealing structures. We owe that to the customers who have been loyal to us this far.

However, before I went out and said that, I would look at the balance sheets and ask myself, "Is it really not feasible for us to create a $80 hotel that doesn't look ugly?" I would be willing to accept a lower profit margin to accomplish that, so that both families could be happy. I wouldn't offer the full-service restaurant, larger rooms, elaborate swimming facilites, exercise rooms, extensive recreation options though. I do think there should be differnces between the classifications. But the thought of someone thinking they only deserve UGLY because they can't afford more really bothers me.

But if it were not possible, then I would feel obligated to change my marketing campaign so that your hypothetical family wouldn't be told that "this is the place for average middle-class families." And if Disney feels that they have to compromise their traditional level of quality so that more people can afford it, they should come out and say that instead of saying the quality hasn't changed.

but there is a demographic segment that could not stay on WDW property without the values and still visit WDW more than once every half-decade

And I agree, but my gut reaction is to look at the profit margins as much as cutting the quality. I'm just afraid that over the last decade or so we've gotten to used to the loyal customers being the only ones asked to make all the sacrifices (the look of the values is only the tip of the iceberg) and change their expectations and that the Company and the Shareholders shouldn't have to change their expectations one bit. I know shareholders have a right to make money, yada, yada, yada...

But when it comes right down to it who's got a better chance at survival: us without Disney or Disney and its shareholders without customers? And I hope we, as customers, remember that everytime Disney asks us to take less. If we stand our ground, they have to change because their survival depends on it. And that's true for any company or industry. And I also have a feeling that this year people are starting to realize that there are great vacation values that aren't Disney and are choosing them. 9/11 just exacerbated a festering problem, and one of the worst things imaginable for Disney is for people to get out of the habit of choosing Disney. But the last place I expect to see this in practice is on message boards on a fan-based site like the DIS where we joke about going to Disney like it's some kind of disease or addiction.

[HorizonsFan]

Hopemax:
Much like Landbaron, your argument relies on all of us agreeing that the value resorts are ugly. That's a matter of individual taste and not everyone feels as you do. I think they look fun and I had a great time staying there.

[hopemax]

It is an individual choice, however using the All-Stars as an example and they were mine to do with what I want...If 75% of people think they look fine, but 25% think they're ugly, my reaction would be to ask "What can I do to get 80% or 85% or more people to think they look fine."

That's just my philosophy in life. I got it from my parents, my teachers and what I knew about a guy named Walt Disney. And maybe it was all just "spin" but I took it to heart.

[YoHo]

hopemax hits the nail on the head. Does anyone think that the Polynesian is Ugly?

Does anyone think cinderella's castle is ugly?


Yes, its all opinions, but Shouldn't disney try to get as many differing opinions as possible with one shot?

If 100 people are asked "Do you like the "themeing" of the allstars?" and 75 say yes, 25 say no, but then you ask the same 100 "Do you like the themeing of the Polynesian?" and 85 say yes, and you can only build 1 of those resorts. Which would you build.



My contention has been from Page 1 that Disney could have built a hotel with the same capital costs, the same maintainence costs and the same number of rooms as the Allstars (well, Pop century was the focus, but so what) and done so with a different theme that would have appealed to a larger percentage of people.

Its not that people's opinions are wrong, but a hotel that only 15% of people think is ugly instead of 25% will probably generate more revenue and hence more profit.



There have been a couple other arguments floating around here, but that is my core belief, Disney could have done it MORE right! It could have been even better and yet sacrificed nothing.

[JeffJewell]

thedscoop...So, without the AllStars, what are their options? Go every three years and spend 150 dollars a nite to stay at a non-value resort or stay offsite ...I still don't understand when, why, or how "available at the lowest possible price" became a Disney Standard. Particularly when its implementation requires noticeable cutbacks in other, more traditionally accepted "Disney Standards" like story-telling and plussing.Without the AllStars, they cannot do this and VISIT AS OFTEN AS THEY WANT TO It's too bad, but no, maybe they don't get to VISIT AS OFTEN AS THEY WANT TO. Such is life.casualties of the Disney standard If someone can't afford the new Acura, and they have to buy the used Honda instead, are they casualties of the Acura standard? Some things cost more, and sometimes, they cost more for a reason.the economics of making a deluxe resort and charging value rates does not work I've mentioned a couple of times that I could see a lower cost yet still "Disney" alternative to what we now call Deluxes, but I simply don't think the immersive story and different World should have been sacrificed. Monorail all the parks, ensure alternative transportation (launch or light rail are both okay by me, although I'd be really gigged about a high capacity version of the WEDway principle) from each resort to a park... it really wouldn't even be that hard to retro-fit, in a lot of cases. And maintain a sense of story, even if it's a kid-friendly, low budget story. The little tricycle motors seem to be nutty for Pooh these days, where's the 100 Acre Wood resort?

I still feel the iconic, as opposed to immersive story-telling style, theming, is an unfortunate turn away from one of Disney's principles.

Greg...I would postulate that full service resort dining options that are self sufficient are not the norm, rather that many of them take a hit on their own. Instead, it's that list of amenities that is aided by their existence ...I suggest that the restaurants that are doing the best for themselves are the high-end restaurants at the Deluxes. I believe that is because each of those restaurants has a unique character. They are the restaurants that you make PS for even when you're staying at another resort. The restaurants at the moderates are fairly generic, family-style in whatever theme is appropriate. Nothing wrong with them, some will strike particular chords with some families, but little outstanding about the restaurants themselves. There are fewer off-resort guests coming to the Cotton Mill thingy than to Artist Point.

Another example of how being less than outstanding can hurt your business, even if you reach more price points.Disney made the All Stars APPEALING to insure that guests would not stay off-site. I can't believe that isn't clear. I'm still distressed by the angle they took. It seems to me they were trying to hit a price point, and make it just appealing enough that guests would not go off-site (I'm wet-my-pants curious to see how the rumored cancellation of EE might affect Value bookings). I wish they'd kept more of the cohesive, immersive parts of Disney Magic, and made that as affordable as possible.

hopemax...And I hope we, as customers, remember that everytime Disney asks us to take less. If we stand our ground, they have to change because their survival depends on it ...well said.

Jeff

[YoHo]

Jeffjewell, you make a number of excellent points.
For one I like


It's too bad, but no, maybe they don't get to VISIT AS OFTEN AS THEY WANT TO. Such is life.


I agree, and as you've indicated, they've put themselves in a position where they may Have to lower prices to fill enough rooms where not more the 15 years ago they could keep ticket prices high enough that very few people were left out.

[hopemax]

While the conversation is still on the doing things "more right" just some things I've thought about in relation to the All-Stars, in this case All-Star Movies. And lets say that they had to do "oversize icons"

Disney chose themes: Herbie, Mighty Ducks, 101 Dalmatians, Toy Story, Fantasia.

What if they had built something like Alice in Wonderland, the scene where Alice is small. Or Honey I Shrunk the Audience, like the playground in MGM or the giant's castle from Mickey & the Beanstalk or maybe even Babes in Toyland? In those cases the "oversize icons" would be performing a function other than just being a really big whatever, they're there to help you feel like you are in the "movie."

[Eeyore2U]

DS,

Your forgot my position form the original thread.

That Pop Century is UGLY!!!

[DC7800]

Originally posted by thedscoop
tell me how a table service restaurant would be "self-sustaining" and why its such a big deal after all...Disney table service restaurants are pretty expensive. Even at boatwrights or olivia's a family of four can easily spend 60-70 dollars on a meal...so why in the name of sam hill would it make sense to put a table service restaurant in a resort which would cost that same family of four as much to eat at as to stay in...no, no, no...if Port Orleans could not keep one open, an AllStar table service would be a negligent front end waste of capital...


I'm guessing, but I'd bet the closing of Bonfamille's at Port Oreans had more to do with the smaller size of the resort (approximately 1,000 rooms, or a little more than half that found at just one All-Star Resorts) than it did with hotel guests being willing - or able - to spend enough to eat there. There just wasn't a big enough "market" to support the restaurant, and it apparently didn't attract sufficient off-site guests to make up the difference. Or, its also possible Bonfamille's really was a success, but with the Dixie consolidation only one "full-service" restaurant was "needed", and Boatright's had a bigger profit margin (larger hotel).

That said, I see no reason why a full-service restaurant would not be successful at the All-Stars or Pop Century. Plenty of All-Star guests travel to other resorts for dinner reservations - they have to, with only a food court available otherwise. One nice, full-service restaurant serving all three All-Star resorts might be an option, drawing on the population of almost 6,000 rooms. Done right (in other words, much nicer than the resort itself) it could even attract other Disney guests to the All-Stars for meals.

Just because someone is staying at a value resort doesn't necessairily mean they are spending less money on their vacation than someone staying at a moderate (or deluxe). Indeed, it could be argued persons at the All-Stars have more "disposable" money to spend on character meals (bound to be a hit at All-Stars with all the children around) since they are spending less on lodging. Those staying in All-Star on a budget (and many are, of course), and lacking park passes for every day, might be more likely to eat in their own resort than those in a deluxe, who with full activities every day only sleep in their expensive rooms. Again, this doesn't describe everyone, maybe not even a large group.

As for the $40,000 a year hypothetical family; I know people who make a lot more than that, go every year, but consider All-Stars too expensive (they have unlimited passes, do an "expensive" meal every day, etc). On the other hand, I know families who don't make half that who go 1-2 times a year and stay in moderates, All-Stars, or a split with deluxe properties (but spend less on food and shopping). I'm wondering if both families don't wind up spending about the same amount.

In any case, I'm glad the All-Stars (or any inexpensive Disney resort) is there. It's not the theming or amenities, though, that dictate the price. Supply and demand drives the price - whatever the market will pay is where the price will be set. This summer demand was soft, so deluxe rooms could be had for moderate prices. In a few years, with inflation, a booming economy, and strong demand, we'll pay the same thing for Pop Century.

[Janet2k]

Lrodk, thanks for the links to the photos of the Fizzle Resort. I really appreciated seeing them. For a while there I was worried that I was never going to see more than one photo of that place. I can now breathe a sigh of relief. And once I view those photos a little closer, I’ll cast my “ugly” or “not ugly” vote for Eeyore2U’s benefit. Stay tuned (as if any of you folks ever pay any attention to what I say in this thread).

[I <3 Eeyore]

I've been following this thread since the beginning and some of the underlying sentiment disturbs me. How did this go from rating the visual appeal of Pop Century to a dissertation on whether or not families of moderate means should be allowed to take up space on site at Disney? Forgive me if I'm oversimplifying, but that's what I'm hearing. When WDW first opened, my parents drove 4 kids and a grandpa down to spend 3 days in the most magical place on earth. We crammed into 2 motel rooms (offsite cuz that's all there was back then. Oh God, am I dating myself here! :-) We had a wonderful time because we made the magic, not because our accommodations were luxurious.

I've taken my DD twice in the past two years and will again in Feb. thanks to my mom, who purchased DVC so her children could afford to bring their families to Disney. I can't comment on the standards of the value resorts because I've been fortunate to be able to stay at OKW and BWV, courtesy of mom. But as a single mom with 5 kids, I have to say I resent the premise that I shouldn't be allowed to visit WDW frequently and stay onsite at a value resort because someone thinks they're not up to standard. There are many advantages to staying onsite, especially with children. And my economic status shouldn't preclude my staying in a Disney resort. WDW has made an enormous effort to ensure that everyone feels welcome and it seems elitist to me that those of moderate means should be told, 'Too bad, you'll just have to come less often then. ' If I've misinterpreted the sentiments here then I apologize in advance for that. But I don't think I have and that bothers me. A lot!

:(

[HorizonsFan]

Your forgot my position form the original thread.
No we didn't. We just restated it. Pop Century is ugly TO YOU.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

[JeffJewell]

WDW has made an enormous effort to ensure that everyone feels welcome and it seems elitist to me that those of moderate means should be told, 'Too bad, you'll just have to come less often then. ' ...saying "those of moderate means" are less desirable human beings is clearly inappropriate, but that's not what people are doing.

Saying that no, not everyone is guaranteed that the vacation they hope for will be within their budget every year, that's simply a statement of a fact of life in a capitalist society. Personally, this is what I've been saying.

Despite the fact that the Values let more people afford to stay on-site, there are still millions who can't afford it at all. Labelling those who can afford more than you as "elitist" just defines you an "elitist" to anyone who can't afford even what you can. Calling the position "elistist" is an arbitrary determination based on drawing economic lines where it suits your argument.

If the question is "how can we make the Disney style of vacation resort cheaper," then I'm all in favor of finding the answer and offering the same product for less. If the question is "how much of the Disney style of vacation can we leave out and still have people pay us for it," then I say the question is fundamentally flawed and any answer is going to be a disappointing one.
my economic status shouldn't preclude my staying in a Disney resort I'm afraid that life may hold a series of similar disappointments for you: your economic status determines whether or not you can do certain things in this society. My economic status precludes me from owning a Ferrari. That does not mean that those who can afford Ferraris are "elitists," and it does not mean that Ferrari is in any way obligated to stick their nameplate on a Ford Escort just so I can afford to run around saying "I drive a Ferrari."

Jeff

[I <3 Eeyore]

Jeff;

I appreciate your argument although I still disagree with it. I believe you and I have a difference of opinion as to where the lines should be drawn. In that respect, your argument is as arbitrary as mine. However, this being a free nation, we're both equally entitled to them. And I find it interesting that you should comment on how I will be disappointed in my life because my economic status will limit my ability to obtain desired material things.

A little insight: I am not driven by materialism. I have had to adjust my goals and my priorities many times in my life, both as a result of economics and the result of bearing several children with disabilities. I am aware of the limitations in my life and I adjust accordingly (I enjoy driving my Honda Civic and have no desire to own a Ferrari). I don't expect my autistic son to be the president of GM, but I do expect him to be the best he can be given his limitations. I also expect Disney to accommodate families of moderate means so they can enjoy onsite accommodations. I don't believe that's too much to ask. Perhaps I look for something different at Disney. As I said before, I/we make the magic, not the luxury of our accommodations.

[airlarry!]

I'm with Yoho on this one. This question is not really about whether people of moderate means should or should not be able to stay on-site.

I liken this to the question of table service and counter service in the Parks. Obviously, the greatest Disney vacation would have all wonderful character meals inside stunning surroundings like Cinderella's castle or the Crystal Palace. But not everyone can afford to eat table dinners for every meal.

So Disney has counter service...fast food...relatively (in Disney terms) cheaper ways of eating a lunch or dinner.

There is nothing wrong with that. Just like there is nothing wrong (sorry Baron...for once I disagree with you) with having various levels of hotels on property. Because if we take that argument to the logical extreme, only the Grand Floridian type of hotel should be allowed on property. But that would be silly. It is okay to have one hotel that has Concierge, one hotel that has moderate service but still Disney theming, and one hotel that has value but still Disney theming.

All I ask, and I think Yoho has said this all along, is make the hotel the best you can make it for the price point you are delivering. I don't think I have read anyone's comment that the All-Stars couldn't be better than they are...and hence the Pop Century too...and more Disneyfied. There were loads of wonderful suggestions on how to improve the theming/decoration without breaking the bank. Our beloved Imagineers could do it in a heartbeat...but I would bet that AV would confirm for us that the All Stars were not Imagineered! They were design by that infamouse Real Estate development arm of Disney. I would bet a Roll and a coffee from Starring Rolls on that one.

Another Voice? Anyone else? Confirmation?

[JeffJewell]

I appreciate your argument although I still disagree with it ...we have to say stuff like that a lot on this board. ;)I believe you and I have a difference of opinion as to where the lines should be drawn. In that respect, your argument is as arbitrary as mine. I understand what you mean, although I've tried to make my line less dependent on an arbitrary income level of guest. Currently, I'm using "immersive story-oriented theming" and "feeling of being in a different World" to describe the basic aspects of traditional Disney theming that I feel are missing in the Values, and missing solely because the intent was to make the resorts as cheap as possible. I think those aspects were important in making the Disney hotels more desirable in the first place, and their loss lowers the bar for what the term "Disney resort" implies (I certainly recognize that this is arbitrary in a whole 'nother way, but the conversation "what does Disney stand for" should theoretically be less perilous and hurtful than "how poor a family should get to stay on-site every year").

That's my real lamentation: not that the po' white trash (hey, I was born in a four-room house in a backwards little town called Easley, South Carolina. When I talk about the po' white trash, I'm mostly talking about family) is cluttering up Disney, but that Disney is sacrificing pieces of what made it great _only_ in order to meet a price point. I think that's an unfortunate change in the way Disney designs resorts.And I find it interesting that you should comment on how I will be disappointed in my life because my economic status will limit my ability to obtain desired material things Yeah, I have a right gift for turning an inflammatory phrase. I was just commenting that I didn't think the "my economic status shouldn't preclude my staying in a Disney resort" line represented a realistic approach to life. If one is to get agitated that their "economic status shouldn't preclude X," where X is anything that costs money in our society, it seems one is going to end up agitated quite a bit.

I intended no comment on your personality, just on the one quote.I/we make the magic, not the luxury of our accommodations. If that's true, then what's the big deal about staying on-site? If the magic is in you to begin with, what are we paying extra for with the Disney hotels? The fact that it says "Disney" on the side?

That's kinda the point I've been trying to make: the All Stars don't do much to distinguish themselves from non-Disney hotels (and the possibility of the end of EE could make that distinction even more fine), and in particular, they turned away from some of the very things that made so many of their other resorts unique from non-Disney hotels.

It's not disappointing to me that the "less economically fortunate" can now stay at a Disney hotel. What's disappointing to me is that, in order to hit the price that allows those stays, the definition of a "Disney hotel" suffers. I'm not mad they made a less expensive hotel, I'm mad they made a less expensive hotel that feels so similar to "normal," non-Disney hotels.

It's upsetting that Disney, to a certain way of thinking, is _cheating_ the Value customers (whether they're happy to spend the money or not) with the product they're offering at that price, not that the Value customers simply exist.

Jeff

PS: None of this is to say we can't agree to disagree, or that folks can't enjoy their All Star vacation without my blessing; consider them blessed, go, have fun.

[d-r]

Originally posted by gcurling
d-r



I don't see any smilie, so I assume that you seriously believe this.

You have to be joking, right!?!?!?

Actually, gcurling, "ugly" was a really, really poor choice of words right there. I think I was using the word because the post that I was thinking about while I was responding used the term ugly.

However, to be clear, I do believe the idea that Disney purposefully made the all stars at a lower value point (amenities, theming, etc.) than the moderates, and the moderates at a lower point than the deluxes, in order to justify the price differentials. The car examples are good ones. If you can by a car that has the amenities and is as comfortable and as dependable and looks as good as a more expensive one, why wouldn't you buy the more expensive one?

I really do believe that the cost isn't driven by the cost of the resort / the amenities, but by what people are willing to pay. This is basic economics here - simple as supply and demand. Whatever product you may be selling, you do not price it based upon what it cost you to acquire / produce, you price it based on what people are willing to pay for it. For examples of this, look at the price of gasoline on Sept. 11, of generators the day before a hurricane or blizzard, the baseball that Mark McGuire set the record with a couple of years ago the day after Bonds broke it, or of things on e-bay.

It is in Disney's best interest to get as many people to spend their entire vacation at disney as possible, including staying at a disney resort. And there are many people - whether they could afford it or not - who will choose to stay at a less expensive accomodation than the deluxes or even moderates. It is better for disney to keep them on-site rather than off-site. But if the value resorts where themed as well as the others who would pay more to stay at the others? I really do believe this point of view.

Ugly though was a bad choice of words, that is pretty subjective, and truthfully, I don't find all stars as ugly as some folks do (1$ to my wife).

The pictures of pop century and what I saw last month were pretty ugly though :)


Here's the thing though - what does it bother you or your vacation for these places to exist? If you aren't staying there, why would you care? Crowded early entry and e-nights are the only reasons I can think of, and those aren't valid, because the argument here isn't why disney shouldn't add 6,000 new deluxe rooms.

DR

[d-r]

Originally posted by HorizonsFan

But here you are assuming that we all agree that the value resorts are 'less themed'. I don't think that they are. They are themed differently than the other resorts and have less landscaping (hence a lower maintainance price) but I see Disney everywhere in those resorts. The CMs are just as friendly and helpful, the food is pretty much the same food as in the parks, the pools are fun, the busses (mostly) run on time and people have magical vacations there. ...

Friendly cms, standardized food, fun pools, and on time busses aren't "theming." You could argue they are "amenities" but they don't make the resort any "more or less themed." And while I agree that people have magical vacations there, this doesn't mean it is more or less themed, either.

DR

[d-r]

Originally posted by DC7800


I'm guessing, but I'd bet the closing of Bonfamille's at Port Oreans had more to do with the smaller size of the resort (approximately 1,000 rooms, or a little more than half that found at just one All-Star Resorts) than it did with hotel guests being willing - or able - to spend enough to eat there. There just wasn't a big enough "market" to support the restaurant, and it apparently didn't attract sufficient off-site guests to make up the difference. Or, its also possible Bonfamille's really was a success, but with the Dixie consolidation only one "full-service" restaurant was "needed", and Boatright's had a bigger profit margin (larger hotel).

That said, I see no reason why a full-service restaurant would not be successful at the All-Stars or Pop Century. Plenty of All-Star guests travel to other resorts for dinner reservations - they have to, with only a food court available otherwise. One nice, full-service restaurant serving all three All-Star resorts might be an option, drawing on the population of almost 6,000 rooms. Done right (in other words, much nicer than the resort itself) it could even attract other Disney guests to the All-Stars for meals.

Just because someone is staying at a value resort doesn't necessairily mean they are spending less money on their vacation than someone staying at a moderate (or deluxe). Indeed, it could be argued persons at the All-Stars have more "disposable" money to spend on character meals (bound to be a hit at All-Stars with all the children around) since they are spending less on lodging. Those staying in All-Star on a budget (and many are, of course), and lacking park passes for every day, might be more likely to eat in their own resort than those in a deluxe, who with full activities every day only sleep in their expensive rooms. Again, this doesn't describe everyone, maybe not even a large group.
.\\\

In my opinion, Bonfamille's was the best restaurant I've tried at a moderate resort. I thought the menu was more interesting than the others, and I really, really liked the breakfast buffet. I agree with you though that 1,000 people in the resort probably wasn't enough to sustain it, but you know what? There are sit-down restaurants at other resorts that have around 1,000 people - artist point at wilderness lodge (smaller than 1,000 before dvc) and the polly, cont. and gf aren't that much bigger. The GF has narcooses, citricos, the gf cafe, and victoria and alberts, plus a fast food place. I don't think those are all kept in business by people staying at the gf. Those restaurants at deluxes are well known enough and well liked enough to attact people who do not stay at that resort - plus they are easy to get to. Unless I was staying at PO, or maybe dixie landings, there was no way I would go to the breakfast buffet at Bonfamille's, no matter how much I liked it. But I don't mind stopping in kona for some tonga toast, because it is convenient.

The all stars, on the other hand, are not exactly on the beat path (well, exept for the 6,000 families who are staying there). I don't think that anyone would go eat there if they weren't staying there. The only other place that is so remote is AKL, and boma and jiko are trying hard to establish themselves as places so unique that people will make the trio over from AK. But even then, I suspect that the traffic from off resort guests (besides disney-philes like on this site) is pretty low - the reason I say this is that there isn't a good way there. We went to join family staying there for breakfast and there wasn't an easy way there, and it was clear from CMs that not a lot of people are going there to breakfast from off-site, because they were a little surprised that we did. Also, originally they were concerned about limiting traffic to AKL from the curious, but that hasn't turned out be a problem.

Anyway, my point is that I don't think a sit down restaurant at the all stars would do so well, not because I don't think that people could afford it, but because there isn't much off-site traffic, plus I know that a lot of people staying at all stars are mostly interested in the parks and don't want to waste time eating at their resort. Plus, they have pretty extensive food courts that seem to fill the need for food. I don't think they'd stay in business. Not because people couldn't afford it, but because it isn't needed or convenient - just my opinion of course.


DR

PS Besides, if a sit down restaurant at the resort is an important amenity to you, why not choose a moderate resort :) Each moderate resort has a sit down restaurant ;) (This is my point about how Disney made the resorts with different levels of amenities at different price points - I'm sure that there are folks staying at all stars that would enjoy valet parking or turn down service, too, but those are amenities reserved for a different price point).

[JeffJewell]

what does it bother you or your vacation for these places to exist ...it bothers me from a business standpoint, in that what was once an obvious line of distinction between the Disney resorts and non-Disney resorts is becoming blurred.

I understand that the idea of the Value was to lure more guests, but the result was to make a Disney resort that was minimally differentiated from non-Disney resorts, instead of making a resort that still offered the unique, "Disney" aspects of the experience that was clearly differentiated from non-Disney.

Anyone can buy a big saxophone... what is it about the All Star Music that would tell you, should you wake up there not knowing where you are, that this is a "Disney" resort? Mickey wake-up calls and Early Entry. Absolutely nothing distinctive about the resort itself.

So it bothers me from a business perspective in that the All Stars (with copious help from minimal parks like AK and DCA, and minimal rides like lightly themed off-the-shelf jobs) are diluting the brand name "Disney."

Most of us know the story about the company who screened their animated movie to generally thumbs-down reviews, then screened it and referred to it as a "Disney" picture: the reviews were much better. The Disney brand name has carried a powerful wallop.

It is my belief that wallop exists because of the enormous Disney/non-Disney differential that once existed. Now that the differential is less (and calculatedly so: they lowered the standard on purpose just to make it cheap), I predict the wallop will do nothing but decrease into the future.

I think that's _bad_ business, business far more likely to lead to financial peril than the more expensive but more brandable Disney Quality type of business.

Jeff

PS:Crowded early entry and e-nights are the only reasons I can think of, and those aren't valid, because the argument here isn't why disney shouldn't add 6,000 new deluxe rooms Well, the resort simply wouldn't support that many new "Deluxe" (once called simply "Disney") rooms, that's the thing. They changed the product to fit the price they wanted to achieve. Building 6000 Deluxe rooms is a terrible business decision as well, for different reasons than 6000 Values, however.

But no matter what "level" of rooms you're building, if you aren't improving and expanding your parks and transportation infrastructure at at _least_ the same rate (and I believe they are not), then the extra rooms cannot help but have a direct and detrimental effect on others' vacations.

[JeffJewell]

I don't think a sit down restaurant at the all stars would do so well, not because I don't think that people could afford it, but because there isn't much off-site traffic ...cause or effect, here.

The Wilderness Lodge isn't exactly just off of Main Street, USA. And yet Artist Point attracts quite a few off-siters. Roaring Forks, of course, does not. It is not shocking to me that the Roaring Forks type facility at the All Stars ain't pulling crowds from multiple zip codes.

It doesn't have anything to do with where the traffic is at the moment: if you open a restaurant with a distinctive character and quality products, the traffic will come to you.

I think this is a point in favor of the plussing and immersive theming; if you don't put that in, you sell to the people who happen to walk past. If you _do_ put it in, you sell to the people who want those extras, and will make it a point to walk past, for the expressed purpose of buying the plussed product.

Jeff

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well, over night we added a couple pages to this. So, to keep things going a bit I'll add another post. I sort of need to anyway, because several of my points are a little misunderstood. I think that's because I take a hard line and tend to speak in terms of black and white, disregarding any shade of gray. I find this effective for explaining philosophical differences, but in reality I do accept shades of gray and compromise, however slight, is possible at times.

HorizonsFan writes:Much like Landbaron, your argument relies on all of us agreeing that the value resorts are ugly. That's a matter of individual taste and not everyone feels as you do. I think they look fun and I had a great time staying there.No!! You misunderstand my point completely. We don't all have to agree that they are ugly. I can imagine (although it's hard) that someone might think the Poly is ugly. But I think that 99.9% of the people would have to admit it is themed in a Disney style. The same goes for all the deluxe resorts and even the moderates. But there it stops. The All Stars (and future Pop Century) is not themed. At least not themed in the traditional 'Disney' style. It's more like theming for a high school dance! "Our homecoming theme this year will be Disney!!" And the seniors decorate the high school gym with twenty foot icons related to Disney. Not much of a theme when you think about it, is it?

YoHo writes:There have been a couple other arguments floating around here, but that is my core belief, Disney could have done it MORE right! It could have been even better and yet sacrificed nothing.I just wanted to say - Right on YoHo!!!

airlarry! Writes:
Just like there is nothing wrong (sorry Baron...for once I disagree with you) with having various levels of hotels on property. Well, I sort of agree. (See Captain. Even I can change my opinion once in while because of these boards!! ;) ) So now that I will (in my opinion) allow for a shade of gray within the "Disney Standards", the question is: "Where do we now draw the line?" (Boy, this type of argument in much, much easier when a firm "black & white" stance is taken!!)

Because if we take that argument to the logical extreme, only the Grand Floridian type of hotel should be allowed on property. Ahhh! I evidently wasn't clear enough before. I said that the 'slippery slope' started with the construction of both the Caribbean Beach and the Floridian! BOTH were a clear departure from the traditional Disney standard. On the one hand, Ei$ner wanted to cater to his peer group and on the other he wanted a resort for all the recently displaced souls he caused by the outrageous price increases he instituted at the Contemporary and Poly. In my perfect "black & white" world, neither of them would have been built and prices at the original two would have remained consistent. And in their place we would have seen the Persian, Asian and Venetian! Ahhhh! The glory of the original five year plan!!It is okay to have one hotel that has Concierge, one hotel that has moderate service but still Disney themingNot in my perfect "black & white" world. But I will agree that in reality it 'may' be possible. (YES that did hurt ;) )and one hotel that has value but still Disney theming.NOPE!!! This is where we part company, even with my newly found shades of gray. There is no theme in the Values!!

d-r asks:
what does it bother you or your vacation for these places to exist As usual JJ says it all and much better than I could (I suggest everyone re-read it often). But he left out one point. And for me it is very important. The construction of the All Star, complete with huge, primary colored, cartoonish looking icons, and their acceptance by the general public (more for price than for style) is the direct result of why they think that that hideous hat in the Studios and giant hand/wand in EPOCT is a piece of 'Disney Magic"!! Decorating is becoming acceptable in the Disney experience, rather than theme. Take a good look at the clashes going on in Adventureland lately with the addition of that spinning Aladdin ride. And I find that… well… DISTURBING!!!

[YoHo]

Thank You Airlarry....And DVC-Landbaron.

My Personal opinion is that in any job that must be done there is an element of fun.........No, Ugh, its still too early here on the Left coast :D I mean that Anything that Disney undertakes should be done to Disney standards. I don't feel that the Values live up to those standards. They could have been better. They should have been better.
I have no problem with their existance, I just wish they had tried for that 85% instead of 75%

Oh and dscoop, your completely forgetting my theory that the Values exist, not because Disney wanted to create a new market (ie on site cheap hotel rooms) but because Disney guests Demanded a new market. That the nature of the TYPICAL disney vacation has fundimentally and forever changed.

JeffJewell makes a good point about Artist Point. Although I persoanly defy that point, because I'm addicted to the poly (must be the pirate in me. Never Tried CBR though. :))
(How many times can I use the word point in a sentence?)
Wilderness lodge is not really easy to get to yet people go to that resturant.

[DisDuck]

I have been lurking on this one but now decided to throw myself into the fray. I have stayed at a Deluxe (Contempory - 1986), a moderate (Coronado - 1999) and a value (AllStar Movie -1999). I have visited for meals the Contemporary in 2000, Grand Floridian in 1997, Polynesian in 1986, Boardwalk several years.

I do not find the themeing very immersive at the Contemporary. Except for the Monorail running thru the lobby how does one consider sharp angles, straight lines, lots of glass and chrome Disney. I liked the Poly and I guess if staying there the Island theme is very nice. I liked the Boardwalk area as it reminders me of Coney Island of my youth and it is pretty to look out over the lagoon at night. Coronado was nice but somewhat of a disappoint to me. The buildings are so spread out that unless you are 'on top' of the lobby it is quite a hike to the main building and pool area. The sit-down restaurant was way to expensive while the food court did have a nice style to it. But the hotel decor was more decoration then theme to me. AllStar was nice, noisy (only complaint) but decorated just a nice as Coronado and had more 'color' than Contemporary. My daughter 14 at time (and me) agreed that when staying on-site the AllStar's were for us. The additions and decoration at Deluxe or Moderate did not justify FOR US the price defferential. She was thrilled with the Icons especially Perdie. I liked the Fantasia theme of the main pool and liked the Mighty Ducks decor of the quiet pool. Even the laundry building was designed to look like something other than a laundry building. Some may consider that minor but instead of skimping at looking like a Motel 6 laundry some imagination was applied.

If Disney had not built the Floridian & Caribbean and left the Contemp & Poly as the standard they still could not have kept the pricing 'stable'. Just the rising cost of doing business in the last 20 years would have necessitated price increases in room rates to the point where they are now. This would have left the World with just Deluxe resorts (except for the old Disney Inn/Institute/Shades of Green and Fort Wilderness). Now how is that 'good business'. Allow the off-site world to capture your audience by pricing the majority of the people out of your market. Instead they tiered there resorts so that all tastes and pocketbooks could be accomodated and did it in a better fashion then the off-site places did. In fact, if not for the fact that I bought first at Vistana, I would have bought a DVC. So even the rise of off-site timeshares were countered by Disney to grab that segment of the market.

Finally, ugliness or beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have seen only the pictures posted here on Pop and first hand viewing of AllStar's. I like AS and will await judgement until Pop completed and I can see it up close.

[JeffJewell]

...I don't really disagree with anything you said, but your comment about the Contemporary and immersive theming made me want to add a thought.

About thirty years ago, the Contemporary was a part of the story of Tomorrowland... you could easily see the C from Tomorrowland and it fit into the theme of that land (The Poly was the "backdrop" for Adventureland, although to be honest, I don't remember ever being able to see the Poly from the park, even in the early days. The stillborn Persian was to serve a similar function for Fantasyland). The then futuristic styling ("Contemporary" means "of the same time," not "of the future." Even the name of the place only made sense if it was to be considered as an extension of Tomorrowland) has not weathered the test of time particularly well, but the attempt at story-immersion is there.

I think those are two very different questions: asking "where, along the way, did the Contemporary fail at story-immersion" is one thing, but asking "why was story-immersion completely disregarded when planning the Values" is quite another.

Jeff

[JeffJewell]

...I seem to have rolled my post odometer.

Is there some kind of cash prize for which I should be checking my mailbox?

Jeff

[All Aboard]

Congrats JJ - welcome to "Club K"!

We got a long way to go. There's somebody named nativetxn with about 25,000 posts out there!

[Another Voice]

The hotels on property are developed by the Disney Development Company, not WDI (airlarry, please choose your croissant). DDC (by whatever name it goes by this week) is really nothing but “supervision” for the project –the majority of design, construction and interior work is created by outside companies. I do not know who is directly responsible for the ‘All Star’ and ‘Pop Century’ designs.

The Moderate and Value resorts were not created because the guests were “demanding” them directly from Disney, it was the fact that Disney saw a lot of money being spent on International Drive. Money that Disney thought should be theirs. The Company was reacting to the market, there was neither a noble goal of providing affordable accommodations so that more people could afford a “Disney” vacation, nor was there a sinister plot to justify huge price hikes at the “Deluxe” resorts.

Most people view a hotel as only a place to sleep. Themeing and amenities are nice but the typical guest is there to see Disney World, not lobby art. They make their choices appropriately.

Disney had expected the Value resorts to draw people from I-Drive exclusively. What it has found is that a significant number of guests have been “downgrading” from the Deluxe and Moderate resorts. The trade-off is that these guests are returning more often, but the demand for Deluxe rooms has fallen and several planned additional resorts have been cancelled. It’s also interesting to note the expected demand for very high-end rooms never materialized. Even the price difference between the Grand Floridian and the other Deluxe resorts is far less now than it was when the GF first opened. The impact of All Stars on off-property resorts has been very slight. In fact throughout the summer, the decline at WDW resorts was more than twice than the decline at off-property resorts.

As for the look of the All Stars and Pop Century, I always follow one basic law: Imagination is more important than Budget. Had the designers shown the same drive and creativity that the accountants had, I think the end result would have been pleasing to more people.

[YoHo]

So We're both wrong?
there was no malaice in the pricing scheme,
But they did want a bigger chunk of the profits.

I can accept that.

Are the Deluxes really seeing a significant loss of guests?

[d-r]

Originally posted by JeffJewell
...cause or effect, here.
....
I think this is a point in favor of the plussing and immersive theming; if you don't put that in, you sell to the people who happen to walk past. If you _do_ put it in, you sell to the people who want those extras, and will make it a point to walk past, for the expressed purpose of buying the plussed product.

Jeff

Jeff, I understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure I agree. I just don't know. I think the closest tests of this are Bonfamille's (because it had a more unique menu plus more unique breakfast buffet; Bonfamille's was famous for breakfast, but who is going to go all the way to PO for breakfast?), Maya grill (which is often noted for its innovative menu, but is off the beaten path at Coronado Springs) and Boma / Jiko (AKL is hard to get to).

I think that Artist Point isn't as off the beaten path as any of those four - it is easy access from ft. wilderness and contemporary, plus easy access to MK. Plus, many guests like to visit the WL just to check out the resor (and some of them are grabbing a burger at roaring forks for a picnic lunch, but not many). Honestly, I think that Artist Point may be struggling for that matter - last May it was empty at dinner, and they've canceled the pooh breakfast. I think AKL is similar to WL in that many guests just want to check it out - but I think it is more off the beaten path than WL. Time will tell how Boma and Jiko do (the fact that you can't get a meal at AK helps them).

I'm not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg, but I am really skeptical about how well a sit down would do at all stars - just my opinion of course.

DR

[d-r]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
d-r asks:
As usual JJ says it all and much better than I could (I suggest everyone re-read it often). But he left out one point. And for me it is very important. The construction of the All Star, complete with huge, primary colored, cartoonish looking icons, and their acceptance by the general public (more for price than for style) is the direct result of why they think that that hideous hat in the Studios and giant hand/wand in EPOCT is a piece of 'Disney Magic"!! Decorating is becoming acceptable in the Disney experience, rather than theme. Take a good look at the clashes going on in Adventureland lately with the addition of that spinning Aladdin ride. And I find that… well… DISTURBING!!!

I just wanted to say that I get what you two are saying. I'm not sure how I feel about it - in a lot of ways I agree, but I keep coming back to the idea that if the values were as well themed as the deluxes, why would anyone stay at the deluxes, and that reminds me that I'm glad that the values are there so that a.) families who prefer lower cost accomodations can stay on site, and b.) Disney can make money from them. So I'm caught in a circle on this one.

DR

[DVC-Landbaron]

DisDuck writes:I do not find the themeing very immersive at the Contemporary. Except for the Monorail running thru the lobby how does one consider sharp angles, straight lines, lots of glass and chrome Disney.I think you described a contemporary building perfectly (at least for the '70's). It's not supposed to be 'Disney'. It's supposed to be Disney's version of a Contemporary Resort. And to that end (the monorail alone does it) they succeeded!

In speaking about Coronado Springs:The buildings are so spread out that unless you are 'on top' of the lobby it is quite a hike to the main building and pool area.Yep! That's one of those little compromises that enter into a decidedly gray area, in my opinion. But one I am willing to put up with for the sake of 'economy'. I don't think it takes away from the Disney Standards a great deal.

If Disney had not built the Floridian & Caribbean and left the Contemp & Poly as the standard they still could not have kept the pricing 'stable'. Just the rising cost of doing business in the last 20 years would have necessitated price increases in room rates to the point where they are now.I did not say that prices today would be 'exactly' the same as 1972. But, adjusting for inflation, the could have been comparable. However, Ei$ner & crew decided early on that the pricing structure was all wrong for the their resorts. So the price hicks went into effect, thus raising the price to equal what they thought a 'luxury' resort should charge. This was the first step to the lowering of Disney Standards (building the moderates) and the caste system that we see today (augmented by the Floridian). Before it was one Disney experience. Period! Nothing more, but certainly nothing less. Today we have different Disney experiences for different amounts of dollars!

Now, on another thread, we can, and have, argued the merits of doing this from a guest experience perspective or a business perspective or a combination of both perspectives. But that's not what we're talking about here. I simply offer the history for what it's worth. It happened. It's a fact.

Note: The above was written before AV checked in. And while I am probably AV's biggest fan, on this little tidbit I really have take issue. There may not have been any malice, but there sure was a lot of opportunistic money grabbing practices employed. I found it very strange indeed that back around the time Ei$ner took over, one year had me staying in the Poly (stretching finances a little, I'll admit) and the next year finding that the Poly was way beyond my means but, low and behold(!) the Caribbean Beach fit quite nicely into my plans!! That's one heck of a coincidence!! In fact, if not for the fact that I bought first at Vistana, I would have bought a DVC.And if you had you would be immersed in a wonderful world of Disney, very, very reminiscent to the old Disney standard that I'm always on about. It is truly magical!!!!Finally, ugliness or beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have seen only the pictures posted here on Pop and first hand viewing of AllStar's.Ya see Dis. This is where the confusion sets in. We're not talking beauty vs. ugly. We're not talking about personal taste. We're talking about theme, story telling, and doing things right or not doing them at all. We're talking about Disney standards.

JJ:
...I seem to have rolled my post odometer. Congratulations!!Is there some kind of cash prize for which I should be checking my mailbox? No. It means you should get a life!! Just like I should. ;)

But it sure is a fun diversion, ain't it!!!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[All Aboard]

The Moderate and Value resorts were not created because the guests were "demanding" them directly from Disney, it was the fact that Disney saw a lot of money being spent on International Drive.
But, AV, that's "market demand." And the fact that WDW fills them every night proves that they were being demanded from Disney. Circular logic, but it takes you back to the same place.
I always follow one basic law: Imagination is more important than Budget.
Blasphemy to this sharp-pencil guy. Hey, can we agree that an "imaganitive budget" is ideal? :)

As always, thanks for your insight.

[JeffJewell]

But it sure is a fun diversion, ain't it ...yeah, it really is.

I thought it would be a good moment to mention how pleased I am with this thread. We've gone 'round in some circles, and we've found some places where some of us simply don't agree, but that's fine. I sometimes find it difficult to express some of the points I've made in this thread simply because some of them are difficult to articulate without my sounding snobbish; or as though I'm out to ruin some families' vacations. That can put people in a defensive mode, one where I never intended to corner them.

We seem to have had good luck all around in disagreeing while continuing to make points, and avoiding the all-too-familiar "is not, you fathead/is too, you yet-fatter-head" posts.

Jeff

PS: d-r, I know what you mean about being caught in a circle. Greg has occasionally displayed a talent for tipping me off my ledge and into that circle; just turn the question from "what went wrong" to "okay, smart guy, how do you suggest we fix it." My best plan for that involves horseplay with a time machine, and CEO shananigans that some people might narrowly view as "murder." Perhaps a less practical plan than I'd like to present, but that's what I've got. At this point, some of the missing Disney pieces I lament are simply irreparable without such violations of the laws of man and physics, so I circle around what should/could be done.

PPS: Jiko is _definitely_ worth the trip to AKL. Perhaps my view of how far off the beaten path lies restaurant X is skewed because I often have a car. Disney transportation between resorts and to Animal Kingdom is abysmal, sez I, and because one of my own favorite aspects of WDW is the choice of fine restaurants, I find the car to be a huge time- and aggravation-saver. I don't think of AKL being much farther than Wilderness Lodge (well, at least from my usual stomping grounds of one of the Boardwalk area hotels). Sometime after December 9th, I'll let you know if Boma's breakfast is worth the hike...

[DVC-Landbaron]

Blasphemy to this sharp-pencil guy. Hey, can we agree that an "imaganitive budget" is ideal?Hmmm. In Chicago an "imaganitive budget" is what puts most politicians in jail! ;)

I thought it would be a good moment to mention how pleased I am with this thread. I couldn't agree more!! I think it's GREAT!!!:bounce:

[All Aboard]

I see we are all at roughly the same level of "Friday productivity" today.

JJ, Boma's dinner is absolutely out of this world. The flavors were so unexpected, man was it outstanding.

Baron, it's not the imaginative budget that gets you in trouble, it's the imaginative financial statements. :)

JJ, agreed that we have done a fine job of "fat-head" free discussion. I'd chalk it up to the fact that all the folks in this thread are basically now drinking buddies. (although I need to officially lift one or two with the rest of youse.)

[airlarry!]

AV: Don't forget the Community Coffee while we are at it.

My family has stayed at the AS twice (for budget reasons) and we always agree that it is great to have the Disney experience instead of the I-drive experience, but at $79-109 a night (which is what it used to be) there must have been much imagination left on the table after they were created. They are just missing those tangibles and intangibles (except for table service ;) that are necessary to be Disneyfied.

Baron: I reread our posts...we actually seem to agree on everything except whether or not table service is a necessity to the Disney experience at a hotel...for your perfect world, it is (and rightly so in a perfect world) in my pragmatic world it isn't.

I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and one hotel that has value but still Disney theming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baron said:

--NOPE!!! This is where we part company, even with my newly found shades of gray. There is no theme in the Values!!

No, no. I agree with you. I mean that there *should* be Value hotels with Disney theming. I agree that the AS's do not have the same theming as you and I envision. Value in that the price is lower (not low by normal human standards) and the amenities are lesser, but with the same theming, customer-friendly service, complimentary transportation to the parks (but not water or monorail of course) that the other hotels have.

It is perfectly okay for Disney to classify their *hotel* guests into different levels -- not the park guests of course -- just the hotel guests who can be put into different levels of amenities depending on their budget. But that doesn't mean that you don't immerse them in the Disney Experience.

Huge metal boots and tennis balls and yo-yos and jukeboxes do not scream at me "DISNEY." A working water wheel or a Mayan pyramid or a Lighthouse? That is "DISNEY."


PS: The most important thing? Baron, notice that we have converted Yoho to the Dark Side? ;)

[All Aboard]

PS: The most important thing? Baron, notice that we have converted Yoho to the Dark Side?

I don't think that you have, but I'll let YoHo answer that himself. The "dark side" of this topic (in my opinion) is that the existence of "value" level accomodations should be "beneath" Disney standards. I think (like me) YoHo disagrees with that contention.

Anyhow Baron knows (and said it himself) that YoHo and I take rides in all 4 cars dependent on the subject.

[DVC-Landbaron]

No, no. I agree with you. I mean that there *should* be Value hotels with Disney theming.Ahhh! But now your on that same slippery slope that Disney found itself on when the mere concept of the Values was introduced. How do make the difference obvious to the paying customer? You've already taken away the refined "Disney" amenities. What can you possibly take away other than theme? PS: The most important thing? Baron, notice that we have converted Yoho to the Dark Side?Yes! (breathing noise) Check your feeling YoHo… (breathing noise) You know it's true… (breathing noise)… I am your…. (breathing noise) ….


Anyhow Baron knows (and said it himself) that YoHo and I take rides in all 4 cars dependent on the subject.You guys sure do!! My head spins sometimes with you two!!!:crazy:

[YoHo]

No fair using Favorite Character from Favorite Movie to entice me to Dark side.
DOH!


I'm on the gcurling+YoHo=0 side for what its worth. :D


I can really feel the love in this thread. :)

I think we're more aware of it, because of the disasterous results a couple month's ago.

Unfortunatly, Now that I'm on the Left coast I'll have to raise a glass of fine california vintage with AV and Sara at Hook's Wine Cellar.

(Although a Chicago meet some time when I'm back home (yes it is still home) is not out of the question. :))

[DC7800]

Originally posted by Another Voice
The hotels on property are developed by the Disney Development Company, not WDI (airlarry, please choose your croissant). DDC (by whatever name it goes by this week) is really nothing but ?supervision? for the project ?the majority of design, construction and interior work is created by outside companies. I do not know who is directly responsible for the ?All Star? and ?Pop Century? designs.

The All-Star Resorts were designed by the architectural team of Bernardo Fort-Brescia and Laurinda Hope Spear-Arquitectonica. The design of the All-Stars, along with selected other notable WDW developments, was displayed in a little book called "Walt Disney World Architecture" I picked up a few trips ago (maybe 2000). I was once told they also designed the Disney Cruise Line Terminal. I don't know if they are also responsible for Pop Century, but apparently they are a well respected, talented design team.

But, whose idea were the oversize "icons" and other "decorations" (or theming, depending on your viewpoint) instead of an "immersive" experience? This organization, or DDC's?

[DVC-Landbaron]

… Blame Ei$ner!!! ;)

The All-Star Resorts were designed by the architectural team of Bernardo Fort-Brescia and Laurinda Hope Spear-Arquitectonica.Thanks! Now I know who not to call when I take over the top mouse spot!!

But, whose idea were the oversize "icons" and other "decorations" (or theming, depending on your viewpoint) instead of an "immersive" experience? This organization, or DDC's?When I was in WDW over the summer, I approached many CMs about that stupid hat and giant hand/wand in EPCOT. More than a lot of them blamed Ei$ner for them. They said that he loved that kind of "theme". And since, ultimately, the buck stops with him, I was more than happy to accept that explanation.

So, a personal note to Ei$ner: STOP IT!!!!!

[YoHo]

Considering Wolfgang Puck is extremly Contemporary, I would suggest that the fact that you wondered as to his whereabouts proved that they are hitting their theme.
I think the food at the california grill (California style food is contemporary) and Concourse steakhouse etc is done with a contemporary nod. THAT'S why its contemporary.

I can understand a problem with the wings. I can even understand the notion that the hotel looks a bit outdated, but I'm not sure we're all on the same page about what "Contemporary" means. Everything about the observation deck is contemporary.

[Herbie]

I just dont understand why they had to put the thing beside CB. CB has such beautiful landscaping. I cant inagine walking around the lake and seeing PC in the background.

[DVC-Landbaron]

… You really hate the Contemporary, don't you?

So put the monorail 20 feet closer and the poly and GF are ContempHow absurd!! I may need some help pointing out the obvious to you. JJ - HELP!!!

OK. I'll try.

If you put the monorail in the lobby of either the Floridian or the Poly, you've effectively ruined whatever theme they had going. You don't make them a Contemporary!! But when you take a fairly nondescript, steel, concrete and glass structure and move a monorail though it, you've got something that closely resembles a modern day hotel, by virtue of transportation vehicles alone! Or, put another way, something 'contemporary'. That happens to be 30 years old, and yet, in the lobby at least, still smacks of that theme. Scoop. No one said it isn't showing it's age. And no one said that the theme hasn't been utterly destroyed in some places within it in recent years. Remember it used to be themed throughout, the Top-Of-The-World on floor 15, complete with modern (or contemporary if you will) entertainment.
no with the CG uniforms and menu and decor, I kept looking for Wolfgang... Well, what's more 'modern day' than Wolfgang!?!? such, IMHO, is not the case at the Contemp...because, if you can't see the monorail going through...what Contemporary is left to be immersed in???I quite agree. A perfect example of their utter disregard (and/or contempt) for theme!!! You really should have seen it back in 1972!! It packed a whole bunch of WOW!!! Lest, you think all the scoop does is think of new angles to slam the ContempThe thought had occurred to me!! ;)

[YoHo]

Don't Worry Landbaron, I'm on your side. I occasionally have problems with the contemporary, but It still is a fairly contemorary place. Correct me If I'm wrong, but the California grill was rethemed in the early ninties to keep it contemporary wasn't it?

[JeffJewell]

For me, here's the trick for figuring out if a resort is well-themed: No matter where you are in that resort, you know what the resort's theme is...such, IMHO, is not the case at the Contemp...because, if you can't see the monorail going through...what Contemporary is left to be immersed in??? I agree that the Contemporary's theming has not held up, but I honestly believe there was a story to the Contemporary: it was the Hotel of Tomorrowland. And I don't see any attempt at a story with the All Stars.

I'd have one fewer issue with the Values if they were "The Hotel of Agrabah" and the buildings were spackled with terra cotta and the landscaping was a 50 acre sandbox, instead of "the hotel with the Big Buzz Lightyear" with the paint and plants we got.

Call it rationalization, but it's not like someone wants to re-theme the C and I'm chaining myself to a garden wing in an attempt to preserve the past, or anything. I'm just trying to point out precisely where I think the design teams for the C and for the Values went decidedly different directions, even if, thirty years gone, the results might end up being considered similar flavors of ugly. I admit to being completely overwhelmed by the C in 1972, and having an unhealthy attachment to the place since then, but I agree that a well-done update or makeover is a desirable thing, at this point. "Re-story" the place.

Then "story" the All Stars. After that, I'll only gripe about the transportation system and the off-the-shelf rides with Value theming. ;)

Jeff

[hopemax]

I wanted to back up to d-r's point for a minute

but I keep coming back to the idea that if the values were as well themed as the deluxes, why would anyone stay at the deluxes,

I don't worry about this so much by looking at the Grand Floridian, Contemporary, etc. vs the Wilderness Lodge...even though they both are deluxes.

Wilderness Lodge is an incredibly well done theme and you can get a really great view of the Magic Kingdom by booking a Woods View room which will only be $244 regular season in 2002. Read enough trip reports from the vacationers and Wilderness Lodge is considered one of the best themed resorts, and even better at Christmas.

That doesn't seem to be stopping people from spending $450 for a Lodge Tower Room at the Grand Floridian or $360 for a Tower Room at the Contemporary for the same 2002 regular season. The location, the transporation, the additional recreation options, restaurant choices and just personal tastes will provide enough reasons for someone to choose a higher priced hotel.

And if it's not, I don't see why they can't lower the deluxe prices somewhat. Are they up that high, because that's what is necessary for the hotels to be profitable, or because up until now that's the price the market has been willing to bear? If it's the latter Disney can handle a little of the "Don't whine about the price going down, it's supply and demand" that all us guests have been told whenever they raise the price.

[Another Voice]

My “Imagination is more important than Budget” comment means that the success of a project depends more on the creativity put into it than the raw dollars. Given the money spent on All Stars, I think more imagination would have produced better results for the even at the same budget.

The price increases at the resorts were part of the overall price surge started by Eisner. It was felt that everything at WDW was grossly undervalued and Eisner guessed, correctly, that people were willing to pay a substantial premium for The Brand.

What’s really amusing about this entire discussion is that the exact same arguments where thrown against the Caribbean Beach for being an unthemed, cheap, exploitative pile of swamp rot. Staying there on business was considered a punishment from Corporate for those unfortunate souls. How times have changed…


P.S. – YoHo, it’s NOT the “Left Coast”, it’s the “Proper Coast”. Granted you are in the unfashionably damp northern reaches, but look at it this way. Monday Night Football is timed perfectly to leave the office and meet up with the guys at the bar on the way home.

[hopemax]

you are in the unfashionably damp northern reaches

If that's where YoHo lives, I wonder what AV would say about where I live! YoHo is at least a day's drive closer to DL, so count your blessings YoHo! :D :D :D

[I <3 Eeyore]

Geeeeez, go off to work for a few hours and you miss all the fun around here! :pinkbounc

lol Jeff, thanks for the additional clarification and humorous response. I think I finally get where you're coming from and I don't disagree completely. I absolutely believe that the value resorts should be the best they can be. I'm at a disadvantage because I've never stayed in one of them so I don't have an opinion as to whether they are themed appropriately, up to Disney standard, etc. I think I'll leave that discussion to the experts. :D I do however, reserve the right to judge their aesthetic value (guess I'll be making a special trip to check that out next February). :p

I think you asked the question (several pages back) "If that's true, then what's the big deal about staying on-site? If the magic is in you to begin with, what are we paying extra for with the Disney hotels? The fact that it says "Disney" on the side?"

Nah, that's not what the big deal is. If you're trucking the kids to Disney for a family vaca and you are watching the pennies, do you really want to have to pay extra for cab fare or rent a car for the week to get back and forth to the parks from your offsite hotel? I wouldn't. I would look for a Disney resort comparable to the cost of offsite so that I could take advantage of the amenities like package delivery to my room, free bus service, trips back to the room for quiet time/naps, etc. Granted these are small things but they'd allow my family and me to have a more relaxed and pleasureable vacation and to spend more time using my park pass(which is no small cost all by itself). I'm really grateful I get to stay in resorts like OKW or BWV, but if I didn't have that option, I'd choose an onsite value resort over off site in a heartbeat, theming or no theming.

[d-r]

Originally posted by JeffJewell
PPS: Jiko is _definitely_ worth the trip to AKL. Perhaps my view of how far off the beaten path lies restaurant X is skewed because I often have a car. Disney transportation between resorts and to Animal Kingdom is abysmal, sez I, and because one of my own favorite aspects of WDW is the choice of fine restaurants, I find the car to be a huge time- and aggravation-saver. I don't think of AKL being much farther than Wilderness Lodge (well, at least from my usual stomping grounds of one of the Boardwalk area hotels). Sometime after December 9th, I'll let you know if Boma's breakfast is worth the hike...


Breakfast at Boma is absolutely worth the trip, even on the Disney busses. We had family staying there, and we met them by bussing from bwv to AK, then catching the AKL bus from there; the palm pilot CM had to call an AKL bus for us. Anyway, it is a very worthy successor to Bonfamille's breakfast, and really worth the trip (and Melissa and I aren't really big breakfast people).

DR

[JeffJewell]

it is a very worthy successor to Bonfamille's breakfast ...we chose Boma when we discovered that Spoodle's was cancelling their breakfast buffet, about the best one we'd found on-site. From what I've seen and heard so far, Boma should indeed prove worth the trip.

Jeff

[YoHo]

A few Comments
1: The Current Design of the Contemporary resort fit 100% perfectly with the original Design for tomorrowland. Just because Tomorrowland was the world of the future doesn't mean the word contemporary has a different meaning. Contemporary means current. The way it was supposed to fit in with tomorrowland is really irrelevnet.


Truth be told (and I've said this before) I'd like to see contemp retheemed to match the retro future of the current tomorrowland. I LOVE that theme and would love a hotel themed as such.

The United Airlines terminal at O'Hare would make a great retro-future theme if they repainted it from gunmetal gray to a nice bronze color. It would be easy to make the contemp look like that.



As to living on the Proper Coast.

you know, They have a few Palm trees up here! My goal was to move somewhere with Palm trees. That's why I spent most of my time looking in San Diego, the Bay Area and Florida. I lucked out.


Monday Night football IS on a t a good time, BUT All I get is Shawks (I'd like the shawks if that Evil B**tard Holmgren weren't in charge(hey Chicago rivalrys die hard.)) and whatever the Fox main Game is. It wasn't too bad yesterday as I got to see Greenbay Lose to Minn. Putting the Bears in First, But at this rate I'm never gonna see the bears Play again. :( And they're good this year. (how typical)

[Another Voice]

Rumors are circulating that construction of the rest of Pop Century may be flat out cancelled, perhaps to be restarted in three to five years. It also was developing a reputation as a difficult motel to get bookings for – the All Stars have a loyal customer base and the theme for PC was a difficult sale. Most of the bookings Disney had gotten was nothing but overflow from All Stars, and they were on the waiting list to change back if rooms became available (which they have in the thousands).

On other subjects – the only true palm trees on the west coast grow south of Santa Barbara. The potted variety found in shopping mall food courts, office lobbies, and trendy Portland microbreweries do not count. As for not being able to see the Bears, a team has to play at a professional level to be shown on television. Perhaps one day they will make it on ESPN2 in between cheerleading competitions and professional women’s billards.

[YoHo]

Hey, being 4-1 and first place in the NFC central (The NFC central is where the big boys play) is playing at the professional level.

The closest team to LA (The Chargers) has in the recent past had a cavelcade of Bears rejects at Quarterback. (although they are good this year. Go figure) We shall see If the Wine and cheese bunch from The bay can handle the monsters of the midway.

Anyway, I KNOW at least one of the Bears/Packers games will be broadcast. John Madden (Oh how I hate him) Always takes the tour bus to at LEAST one of those games.

Bears vs. Packers is the heart and soul of the NFL, even when they both suck!


As for Palm Trees. Hey, I don't know about where "real" palm trees are, All I Know is that right outside my Apartment complex is a short palm style tree. Oh, And Winchester Drive in San Jose has a large number of true palms, so Me thinks you exxagerate. :)

[airlarry!]

AV:

Do these rumors mention anything about redecorating...err...retheming the Pop Centuries?

[DVC-Landbaron]

As for not being able to see the Bears, a team has to play at a professional level to be shown on televisionWHOA!!!! Careful there AV!!

Them's fightin' words!! http://www.wdwinfo.com/sites/family/burn.gifhttp://www.wdwinfo.com/sites/family/angryfire.gif

[All Aboard]

Rumors are circulating that construction of the rest of Pop Century may be flat out cancelled, perhaps to be restarted in three to five years.
I think the theme should be scrapped. The success of ASMo should have been continued. Perhaps there was a way to create an all-Disney movie themed resort (and still differentiate between ASMo). I'm not creative at all, so I have no clue how this would have worked. One thing I do know is that it would have been a home run with the guests. If WDW thought that there was enough demand to fill another 5760 Value rooms, why not go with a concept that was guaranteed to work?

the All Stars have a loyal customer base
Yes, otherwise known as the Society of Tasteless Misers Who Don't Know the Difference Between Theming and Decorating - of which I appear to be the President.

[JeffJewell]

Yes, otherwise known as the Society of Tasteless Misers Who Don't Know the Difference Between Theming and Decorating - of which I appear to be the President ...I definitely wrote you in on _my_ ballot... ;)

Jeff

[Another Voice]

It’s “rumored” that the whole concept for the Value resorts grew out of the movie-themed resorts that had been planned to be built near the Disney/MGM Studios way back when. At various times the themes would have been specific movies (‘The Wizard of Oz’, ‘Gone With the Wind’, ‘Dick Tracy’) or they would have been genres: (Musicals, Horror, Sci-Fi, Westerns). You can see where some of the creative lines lead.

I haven’t heard who came up with the Pop Century theme. It sounds like one of those ideas designers get at three in the morning when “it’s good enough” is all they’re after. No one knows about the future of the theme. My guess is that the current management won’t spend the money to change anything. We can only hope the icons rot as fast as the exterior wood paneling at the Grand Floridian and Disney is forced to replace them every two years.

We in Los Angeles have found a solution to our lack of an NFL team. We dislike them all. That way we’re never disappointed by the outcome of a game because a team we hate is bound to lose.

Real palm trees and frozen water do not mix. Obviously, whatever is outside of YoHo’s apartment is a genetic freak, mutated by all that unwholesome rain, ice and snow. Please contact the authorities before it eats any more small pets.

[YoHo]

Its convient then that it rarely if ever snows up here.
(I'm not exactly up on a mountain here.) Heck they have a pretty big wine country about 20 minutes from my Apt.

Back on topic.

Another Voice's List of the original Hotel concepts (especially the Genre idea) really intrigued me. I would stay in a resort with those themes.

[daannzzz]

I wanted them to do a fifties sci-fi themed All Stars with a "Kronos" building and a "Them " building and a "Tobonga" (From Hell it Came) building and a "Forbidden Planet" building and....

[Another Voice]

As I remember, the hotels based on specific movies were to be designed as “sets” from the film. You could have stayed at Tara from ‘Gone With the Wind’ (guess where this concept art was used later…), in the Emerald City from ‘Oz’, etc. The genre hotels would have been done up like a hotel found in one of those kind of movies – the Musical Hotel would have been a posh 5th Avenue classy hotel (think Fred and Ginger dancing down a sweeping staircase into the lobby), the Western would have been a Denver gold-strike hotel (think Titanic with cowboy boots), Sci-Fi would have been a retro-50’s “spaceport” hotel (find pictures of the Theme Building Restaurant at Los Angeles International Airport, designed by WDI). The resorts would have been what’s now called Moderate and each would have had the same level of themeing as the Resort Formally Known as Dixie Landings.

Yea, WDI came up with some really clever concepts to take advantage of the license from MGM. These all were rejected as too expensive and the projects were killed.

[d-r]

Today I had a thought along the lines of "If they keep postponing building the pop century, the 20th century will be so long ago that nobody will care." It would be like making an 19th century hotel with giant steam engines and cotton gins (wait, maybe that was dixie landings).

I think that the idea of the pop century was an excuse to sneak in more giant movie-related icons, because people loved all star movies the most of the all stars. Originally, the idea I heard was for giant icons of fads and slogans and MOVIES from each decade (e.g., the sixties would have the jungle book). So I thought that they were using the hoopla of the millinium to sneak in another all stars movies. But then from I saw of it driving past a few weeks ago didn't really deliver there.
<h1>Platform Shoes!</h1>
<italic><h1>Groovy!</h1></italic>

Anyway, we are enough past all the millinium stuff that it doesn't really make much sense any more, and it seems to me like this is a theme that won't hold up to time ("oh, man, I've got to stay in the 1940's. I wish I could have at least gotten the 1950's, but it is better than the 1930's").

My wife just said "as ugly as that was from the outside, I can't imagine how bad it would be on the inside."

DR

[airlarry!]

I nominate the LAX bar designer...Eddie Soto...as the guy who could pull off The Great Drain Robbery. First, to raise the money in this Disney-is-strapped-for-cash era, auction off spots in the wrecking ball crew. Heck, there are some on this board that would strap themselves to a D-9 as it rumbles across the wooden frames.

Then, let Eddie & his crew design the 'new' value hotels. I *love* the movie set theme!

[vickyBaby]

There is no right or wrong answer here. If you are used to staying in the Ritz Carlton or a Marriott -- you might find the All Stars lacking. If you are comfortable in a Red Roof Inn or Super 8 - you will be more than satisfied here.

I have no problem with the rooms at All Stars. My husband hates the place. He travels for business and is accustomed to certain items in a hotel (room service, valet parking). I don't like the food options. After two days of theme park and the all star food court food, I'm ready to go nuts! Yes, I can take a bus to somewhere else, but why should I have to? I want "non fast food" choices readily available.