Regarding timing of announcing new DVC properties...

[WoodysRoundup]

Since we are relativley new to DVC, I have a question. For the other DVC properties that were built, how far along were they before they were announced as a DVC property? Was it different for each resort? I, like many others, am awaiting some announcement of CRV. Thanks to those who keep posting construction updates, we can see that it's really moving along. I'm just trying to speculate on when an announcement might be made - so I was wondering when the other properties were announced. I realize there are those who believe that DVD might be waiting until the last minute b/c they don't want an announcement to affect sales at SSR and AKV. I'm curious though......how LONG can they wait?? :confused3

[tjkraz]

I can't speak to some of the older properties, but *IF* the Contemporary is DVC, waiting this long to make any sort of statement appears to be completely unprecedented.

All recent resorts (SSR, AKV, Grand Californian, Hawaii) were announced either before construction began or just as the work started. SSR was announced in January '02 and it didn't open until May '04. AKV was announced around October '06 just as the room conversions were beginning and they had not yet broken ground for Kidani Village. GCV was announced as construction began and work still hasn't even started on Hawaii.

There have even been properties that were announced yet cancelled. The two that come to mind are the proposed resort near the Eagle Pines golf course (announced September '01 and cancelled a couple months later) and Grande Vista (?) in California (announced about 10 years ago only to be cancelled and the land sold to Marriott.)

The Contemporary remains a huge mystery. IIRC, the North Garden Wing closed to guests back in September '06 so we're going on 15 months of work without any real comment from Disney.

The main justification people are using now for the lack of an announcement is that it would cannibalize sales elsewhere. But that same logic could apply to all of the other scenarios here, yet that didn't stop Disney from making the projects public knowledge.

Guess we'll all just have to stay tuned. popcorn::

[Caskbill]

We first purchased in 1993 when OKW was the only DVC resort. As far as I can recall, EVERY subsequent DVC resort was announced before any construction actually took place.

Besides Eagle Pines and California, DVC also announced New York City. All three of those were cancelled. There was also Colorado, but I don't recall if that was ever officially announced.

If you just look at the three most recent resorts, AKV, GC at DL, Hawaii Ko Olina, all three were announced well ahead of time. In fact, I'm not sure if any construction has even started yet in Hawaii.

[1000th happy haunt]

The Contemporary remains a huge mystery. IIRC, the North Garden Wing closed to guests back in September '06 so we're going on 15 months of work without any real comment from Disney.

Now, Tim. We know the North Garden Wing was closed for asbestos removal.

[WoodysRoundup]

The Contemporary remains a huge mystery. IIRC, the North Garden Wing closed to guests back in September '06 so we're going on 15 months of work without any real comment from Disney.

The main justification people are using now for the lack of an announcement is that it would cannibalize sales elsewhere. But that same logic could apply to all of the other scenarios here, yet that didn't stop Disney from making the projects public knowledge.

Guess we'll all just have to stay tuned. popcorn::

True about that same logic could apply to all the other scenarios as well....unless, of course, they really think this is the "be all and end all" DVC property. Still, it puzzles me and makes me wonder :scared1: if it won't be DVC at all..............I'm looking for answers I know I just can't get right now. It's just so strange to have this huge bldg. developing along with this huge mystery. We will not be buying any points anywhere until this thing is announced. As a matter of fact, we really don't think we'll add on period unless the CR bldg. is a DVC property!

[Diznut84]

The Contemporary is not going to be DVC. It's going to be the first of the Disney fractionals. Spend 3 months with 1 ownership interest! :thumbsup2

[tjkraz]

The Contemporary is not going to be DVC. It's going to be the first of the Disney fractionals. Spend 3 months with 1 ownership interest! :thumbsup2

Interesting suggestion. That's what Four Seasons is doing over on the old Eagle Pines land.

So, is this just your speculation or did you actually her that from someone who would be in a position to know?

[spiceycat]

the bcv was half way build before it was announced I think. was so wrong about that one....

anyway do believe it will be a CRV - maybe DVC fears that SSR and AKV will stop when it is announced. but considering how different both SSR and AKV are from CRV - I don't believe that - so having a problem with DVC believing that.

just don't think the top management has made up its mind. It should be a DVC - the plans we saw here - was for a DVC. but the CR is the first of the wdw resorts. It opened on opening day. I think the Polyn opened a few days later.

some management may not want to allow even a fraction to DVC. even here - again why? DVC is definitely a good money earner for Disney and even helps the parks.

so my guess is it will be a dvc and announced next May - (that is per the frog) - but they can't start selling it until 70% is done. that won't be until 2009.

so there is no really rush to announce something that may not go to sales for over a year.

It may not go to sales until 2010. (that would work much, much better for me - but really believe it will be 2009)

[tjkraz]

the bcv was half way build before it was announced I think. was so wrong about that one....

I don't believe that is accurate.

The BCV press release is dated May 25, 2000. According to a story on Laughingplace.com dated November 2000, groundbreaking was scheduled for "last month" or roughly October 2000.

http://www.laughingplace.com/News-PID501440-501462.asp

Even if the LP article is not entirely accurate, it shouldn't be off by much. BCV opened in July 2002 which means there was about 26 months from the press release to opening. It shouldn't have taken much longer than that to build from start to finish. Kidani Village, a much larger project, is only looking to take about 30 months from announcement to opening.

[WoodysRoundup]

The Contemporary is not going to be DVC. It's going to be the first of the Disney fractionals. Spend 3 months with 1 ownership interest! :thumbsup2


Can you explain about this further? Not sure how this works? And, is this pure speculation or based on something you've already heard?

[tjkraz]

Fractionals normally have about 4 owners per unit with each owner getting roughly 1/4 of the year. Costs can range from $100,000 to more than a quarter million.

Four Seasons is building fractionals as part of their forthcoming WDW development. If memory serves, the Eagle Pines and Osprey Ridge golf courses are being combined into a single 18-hole course and the excess land in that area will be the site of the Four Seasons hotel / fractional TS. No pricing has been announced but, well, you do the math. Buying enough points for 1/4 year in a Two Bedroom Villa at SSR would cost nearly $400,000 at current DVC prices.

[John VN]

CRV is a DVC.

Take a deep breath and just be patient for the announcement.

They are building it and the masses will come.

[Olaf]

The Contemporary is not going to be DVC. It's going to be the first of the Disney fractionals. Spend 3 months with 1 ownership interest! :thumbsup2

If that's the case, there will be some wailing around here. :rolleyes:

[pilferk]

On the flip side:

Has any hotel expansion/massive renovation/addition taken place on WDW property without an announcement?

[sjdisneywedding]

On the flip side:

Has any hotel expansion/massive renovation/addition taken place on WDW property without an announcement?

exactly, you might as well throw your logic out the window, this project has not followed any typical rules or timelines

[tjkraz]

On the flip side:

Has any hotel expansion/massive renovation/addition taken place on WDW property without an announcement?

I don't recall there being any other hotel construction since Iger / Jobs took over and clamped down on the rumor mill. When it comes to attractions, they have been VERY tight-lipped in recent years. Things like the new Nemo ride at Epcot, the subs at DL and even Toy Story Mania were well underway before an announcement was made.

But that didn't keep them from making a big deal out of the recent DVC expansions.

[50 years Too!]

Has anyone heard anything about when Grand California DVC will be for sale, or when the initial stays will begin?

Deb

[sjdisneywedding]

I don't recall there being any other hotel construction since Iger / Jobs took over and clamped down on the rumor mill. When it comes to attractions, they have been VERY tight-lipped in recent years. Things like the new Nemo ride at Epcot, the subs at DL and even Toy Story Mania were well underway before an announcement was made.

But that didn't keep them from making a big deal out of the recent DVC expansions.

since Iger/Jobs? your talking about dvc construction rumors from Eisners time
but limiting the hotel rumors to the Iger/Jobs era?

and actually the DL and Hawaii projects both include non dvc portions so doesnt look like they had problems announcing that

as for new rides--Soarin & Everst come to mind--so dont see any tight lipped actions going on there either

[WoodysRoundup]

Fractionals normally have about 4 owners per unit with each owner getting roughly 1/4 of the year. Costs can range from $100,000 to more than a quarter million.

Four Seasons is building fractionals as part of their forthcoming WDW development. If memory serves, the Eagle Pines and Osprey Ridge golf courses are being combined into a single 18-hole course and the excess land in that area will be the site of the Four Seasons hotel / fractional TS. No pricing has been announced but, well, you do the math. Buying enough points for 1/4 year in a Two Bedroom Villa at SSR would cost nearly $400,000 at current DVC prices.

Thanks for the explanation. I have to say that if CR was one of these "fractionals", I'd be flaming mad. Disney would alienate many loyal guests in creating this grand property that only corporations or the elite wealthy could afford comfortably.

[tjkraz]

since Iger/Jobs? your talking about dvc construction rumors from Eisners time
but limiting the hotel rumors to the Iger/Jobs era?

and actually the DL and Hawaii projects both include non dvc portions so doesnt look like they had problems announcing that

as for new rides--Soarin & Everst come to mind--so dont see any tight lipped actions going on there either

Soarin and Everest were both projects approved by Michael Eisner. His SOP was to have a big announcement before such projects had even begun, with countless pieces of concept art, attraction details and such leaked throughout development.

By comparison, "Millionaire" closed at MGM last August and it wasn't until January '07 that Toy Story Mania was revealed. The same was true of the new Nemo ride-thru, DL subs and others.

We could keep going round and round with "except-buts" on the Contemporary, but it's clear Disney management is treating it much differently than other recent DVC resorts. AKV was announced before work had even begun (including Kidani), they haven't even completed concept work on the Hawaii resort, and ground clearing had just begun in California for the GC expansion.

Whether these variations have anything to do with the intended use of the resort or if they are simply tied to DVC marketing strategy remains to be seen.

[crisi]

Whether these variations have anything to do with the intended use of the resort or if they are simply tied to DVC marketing strategy remains to be seen.

It remains possible that Disney itself has not decided. DVC type units not sold as DVC would make wonderful "family suites" - a market Disney is lacking in. The Pop family suites are OK, but for the family with a lot of cash Disney would like to bring down (customers with lots of cash tend to spend on things with margin) - they aren't preferred. Then you have the connecting room Deluxes or putting five in a Deluxe using the daybed with one bathroom. However, I'd think if Disney wants to be successful in that market, they are going to have to figure out a way to limit DVC members renting out their points. Not announcing gives them flexibility to sell what they have, think about future options and change their mind later. They could be building something that could be shared use - some DVC suites, some fractionals, and some family suites held by CRO.

If Disney is going to have a Deluxe family suites option, they may want to keep it quiet on purpose from DVC owners and potential owners. For potential owners, it gives them an option that doesn't involve a huge up front investment - it will cut into DVCs market (but poach into another Disney business). For current owners, they may be disappointed not to have CRV as an option, it will almost certainly make people who do rent frequently mad.

(I think it will be DVC Villas, myself, but without an announcement - there are options.)

[tjkraz]

It remains possible that Disney itself has not decided.

(snip)

(I think it will be DVC Villas, myself, but without an announcement - there are options.)

I agree with both of these sentiments. :)

However, I'd think if Disney wants to be successful in that market, they are going to have to figure out a way to limit DVC members renting out their points. Not announcing gives them flexibility to sell what they have, think about future options and change their mind later. They could be building something that could be shared use - some DVC suites, some fractionals, and some family suites held by CRO.

The point renting is one reason why I tend to think that dual use would be difficult to pull off. I know that not everybody knows about renting, but the volume of people who do isn't getting any smaller.

[keishashadow]

Thanks for the explanation. I have to say that if CR was one of these "fractionals", I'd be flaming mad. Disney would alienate many loyal guests in creating this grand property that only corporations or the elite wealthy could afford comfortably.

certainly would create a caste/class system among members...where's the luv for the current family (the pitch of prepaying your vacations, etc in all the promos) in this scenario?:sad2:

[wdw4life]

Has anyone heard anything about when Grand California DVC will be for sale, or when the initial stays will begin?

Deb

Opening is projected to be Nov '09. As far as sales, I was told sometime around May '09 but no official date has ben given yet.

[tjkraz]

Thanks for the explanation. I have to say that if CR was one of these "fractionals", I'd be flaming mad. Disney would alienate many loyal guests in creating this grand property that only corporations or the elite wealthy could afford comfortably.

Many would say they've already done that. With Deluxe rooms over $300 most nights, they are well out of the price range of many, many Americans. But that's why Moderate and Value rooms are also available.

If you want to talk about classes, how about the benefits extended to DVC members or Passholders that are not available to the general public. Do you think that non-DVC members / non-AP holders have a right to be "flaming mad" because they are locked out of new attraction previews? Do you think it's unfair that most guests have to buy a package (tickets + room) in order to get the dining plan? Or that they have to pay full price for many meals that are discounted to AP or DVC groups?

Walt Disney World is filled with experiences that are only accessible--for financial or other reasons--to one group our another. I suspect the level of outrage largely depends on which side of the coin one happens to be on.

[WoodysRoundup]

Many would say they've already done that. With Deluxe rooms over $300 most nights, they are well out of the price range of many, many Americans. But that's why Moderate and Value rooms are also available.

If you want to talk about classes, how about the benefits extended to DVC members or Passholders that are not available to the general public. Do you think that non-DVC members / non-AP holders have a right to be "flaming mad" because they are locked out of new attraction previews? Do you think it's unfair that most guests have to buy a package (tickets + room) in order to get the dining plan? Or that they have to pay full price for many meals that are discounted to AP or DVC groups?

Walt Disney World is filled with experiences that are only accessible--for financial or other reasons--to one group our another. I suspect the level of outrage largely depends on which side of the coin one happens to be on.


Of course, everything in life is relative. No need for an argument here. My "anger" would be based on the fact that if CR did become a fractional, that is a type of timeshare.....as is DVC. When we bought into DVC, we believed that we'd have the ability to by points at any existing or future Disney timeshare....that they would all be structured the way they are presently. If a fractional was created, I believe Disney would anger many loyal DVC members who were promised a monorail DVC property years ago.

I'm not sure how my comment turned into a whole comparison about fairness in prices at Disney in general? :confused3 I think most people just realize you stay where you can afford and eat where you can afford. I know we do. I don't sit around thinking I'm slighted b/c someone else has a better experience. Everyone would like a better car, house, etc. but we all get things we can afford. I was speaking specifically about the CR property and if it was turned into a timeshare different than the DVC program that is already in place. And no, I don't think it's unfair that some people get discounts while others don't, or that passholders get attraction previews, etc. That's life!:confused3

[DVCPAT]

exactly, you might as well throw your logic out the window, this project has not followed any typical rules or timelines

I think Disney’s logic is, why announce CRV early? The announcement would only have a negative impact on current AKV sales. Disney property is no different than offsite property…..location has a major impact for most buyers. I haven’t seen any promotions on Disney suites being the best kept secret.

[JimMIA]

I think Disney’s logic is, why announce CRV early? The announcement would only have a negative impact on current AKV sales. Disney property is no different than offsite property…..location has a major impact for most buyers. I haven’t seen any promotions on Disney suites being the best kept secret.
I agree with Pat. I think CRV will be all-DVC, but I don't think they'll announce it until pretty late in the process for a couple of reasons.

One obvious reason is it will adversely affect AKV...unless there is something very different about CRV (much higher price, for example). GCV and Hawaii don't affect sales at WDW at all -- if anything, they help because they offer additional options to prospective buyers. But CRV will definitely affect AKV sales.

The other reason I think they'll delay somewhat longer than usual is that this entire project will all come online essentially at the same time. SSR and AKV were built in stages, so they had some early units to sell. This is not a situation where one building gets a CO and closings can take place, but the bulk of the project comes online one building at a time over a period of years. CRV won't be like that. The whole tower will finish and open at once.

[tjkraz]

Of course, everything in life is relative. No need for an argument here. My "anger" would be based on the fact that if CR did become a fractional, that is a type of timeshare.....as is DVC. When we bought into DVC, we believed that we'd have the ability to by points at any existing or future Disney timeshare....that they would all be structured the way they are presently.

I think that's a poor assumption to begin with.

DVC could easily create different tiers in the system as future resorts are developed. We could easily see different booking priorities at different locations. The only guarantee is that we each will have at least one month's priority (not even the current four months--just one month) at our Home resort.

That said this is the first I've heard of fractionals being linked to Disney-owned sites. My gut feeling is that there's not much to this rumor. But be careful in making assumptions as time goes on. DVC doesn't owe us nearly as much some seem to think that they do.

If a fractional was created, I believe Disney would anger many loyal DVC members who were promised a monorail DVC property years ago.

DVC has never made such a promise.

I'm not sure how my comment turned into a whole comparison about fairness in prices at Disney in general? :confused3 I think most people just realize you stay where you can afford and eat where you can afford. I know we do. I don't sit around thinking I'm slighted b/c someone else has a better experience. [/quote]

Then I guess I missed the point of your condemning the idea of fractionals on the asumption that "only corporations or the elite wealthy could afford [them] comfortably." :confused3

I have no desire to start an argument but after reading your follow-up post, I do think you are giving DVC waaaay to much credit in assuming that they owe anything to DVC members beyond the current 8 resorts and the regs published in the POS. Even "goodwill" doesn't carry as much weight as some may think--recent changes to the program (transfer rules, banking rules, waitlist) have definitely caused hard to longtime members. But that harm didn't keep DVC from implementing the changes.

If Disney decides there is money to be made in fractionals, so be it. They wouldn't be taking anything away from members that was previously promised. DVC villas at the CR is--and always has been--filed purely under the heading of rumor and speculation.

[tjkraz]

GCV and Hawaii don't affect sales at WDW at all -- if anything, they help because they offer additional options to prospective buyers.

I have to disagree with Jim. Disneyland has had a DVC sales center for 2-3 years now and they have been responsible for selling thousands of SSR and AKV points. And that was with no promise of a DVC resort in Anaheim.

The Grand Californian addition was announced 2 years before the villas will open and (in all likelihood) more than a year before sales will begin. That announcement will undeniably impact their ability to sell SSR and AKV points over the next 12-18 months.

[Chuck S]

DVC has never made such a promise.

If Disney decides there is money to be made in fractionals, so be it. They wouldn't be taking anything away from members that was previously promised. DVC villas at the CR is--and always has been--filed purely under the heading of rumor and speculation.


Contractually, Disney/DVC is not obligated to provide anything, except the ability, based upon availability, to book stays at our HOME resort. Not even the option of trading intra-DVC to other resorts is set in stone. So certainly no "promise" of a monorail resort was ever made.

[WoodysRoundup]

Contractually, Disney/DVC is not obligated to provide anything, except the ability, based upon availability, to book stays at our HOME resort. Not even the option of trading intra-DVC to other resorts is set in stone. So certainly no "promise" of a monorail resort was ever made.


Newer member here, but I'm sure I remember reading a thread or two on these boards a while back saying that early on, DVD had said they'd hoped to build a future DVC resort on the monorail? I realize that DVC is not obligated to provide anything to it's members about future resorts. When the idea of CR being fractionals was brought up, I just stated my displeasure should that happen. I realize it probably won't be that type of property.

[WoodysRoundup]

Then I guess I missed the point of your condemning the idea of fractionals on the asumption that "only corporations or the elite wealthy could afford [them] comfortably." :confused3

I have no desire to start an argument

.

Yes, I think you did miss the point I was trying to make and it's apparent to me that you DO just want to argue back and forth about this.

Merry Christmas! :santa:

[JimMIA]

I have to disagree with Jim. Disneyland has had a DVC sales center for 2-3 years now and they have been responsible for selling thousands of SSR and AKV points. And that was with no promise of a DVC resort in Anaheim.

The Grand Californian addition was announced 2 years before the villas will open and (in all likelihood) more than a year before sales will begin. That announcement will undeniably impact their ability to sell SSR and AKV points over the next 12-18 months.
I know they've had a DVC sales function at DL for several years, but I think their early customers were people who had no previous ability to purchase DVC in California (because DVC wasn't licensed there). Even if they knew about DVC, they didn't want to make the trek to WDW just to buy, and most probably didn't know about the resale market.

Some folks who live on the West Coast might now purchase GCV rather than AKV, but others will be drawn to GCV and discover AKV as another option. Since GCV is so small, I think it might actually increase interest in SSR/AKV in the long run.

[sjdisneywedding]

I think Disney’s logic is, why announce CRV early? The announcement would only have a negative impact on current AKV sales. Disney property is no different than offsite property…..location has a major impact for most buyers. I haven’t seen any promotions on Disney suites being the best kept secret.

not sure why you are quoting me

this isthe whole point of what I already agreed to from another poster.

it was being argued that it wasnt dvc because it wasnt announced yet

Im saying you could reverse that and say its not non dvc because it hasnt been announced

[tjkraz]

Yes, I think you did miss the point I was trying to make and it's apparent to me that you DO just want to argue back and forth about this.

Not arguing at all...just trying to clear up a number of incorrect assumptions.

The bottom line is that nothing is set in stone until...well...pretty much until DVC begins selling. DVC has announced resorts previously and changed its plans. The CR building could have any number of intended uses, of which DVC is only one. Members have been hoping for DVC villas there for years and years, but DVC has never promised anything. Disney's general silence on the subject could be meaningful or meaningless.

If it does end up having some other use, I'm sure you are just one of many who will be disappointed. But the reality is Disney isn't going to let a fear of upsetting people play any big role in its decision.

Merry Christmas! :santa:

Same to you!

[crisi]

The bottom line is that nothing is set in stone until...well...pretty much until DVC begins selling. DVC has announced resorts previously and changed its plans. The CR building could have any number of intended uses, of which DVC is only one. Members have been hoping for DVC villas there for years and years, but DVC has never promised anything. Disney's general silence on the subject could be meaningful or meaningless.



Buy what you are contracted for, not what you currently get as perks or what may happen in the future. And even if you merely buy what you are contracted for, there is a risk involved - that WDW will continue to be a vacation destination that appeals to you, that Disney will continue to maintain DVC to your standards.

People here have made the bet that both those things will happen - and I think its a good bet. But if you buy DVC betting that we will always have access to the Dining Plan, that we will get park pass discounts, that you'll always be able to book a non-home resort, that trading options will still be there, that DVC will continue to expand and provide a monorail resort - even something as simple as banking and borrowing will always be allowed, you are setting yourself up for being disappointed.

[rinkwide]

...Disney's general silence on the subject could be meaningful or meaningless...Yep, it's just your average, run-of-the-mill, large-scale, extremely indescreet construction project with absolutely no official announcement regarding it's intended purpose. I say, not a big deal. Disney probably just forgot to hold the press conference or something.

[DebbieB]

Even after a DVC resort has been announced, there's no guarantee it will be finished, as happened with Eagle Pines.

When I bought BWV in 1999, VWL was announced and under construction (but not yet for sale), there was a clause in my contract saying there was no guarantee that VWL would be completed or be part of DVC.

I do think it's kind of strange that they are this far along in construction and nothing has been announced at all, no matter what the use. Disney usually announces new construction projects before they start. Something is definitely going up there and pretty fast, it's not a mirage ;) . I was surprised they were up to 4 floors when I was there at the beginning of the month. Looks like it should be completed sometime in 2009.

[DVCPAT]

Im saying you could reverse that and say its not non dvc because it hasnt been announced

If it was non DVC, why keep it a secret? Future growth and expansion is great news to announce. The only reason not to announce expansion would be if the timing had a negative impact. Kind of like an automaker unveiling a 2008 and 2009 model at the same time. Sell the 2008 model and then unveil the 2009 model.

[sjdisneywedding]

If it was non DVC, why keep it a secret? Future growth and expansion is great news to announce. The only reason not to announce expansion would be if the timing had a negative impact. Kind of like an automaker unveiling a 2008 and 2009 model at the same time. Sell the 2008 model and then unveil the 2009 model.



no kidding!!! thats what I have been saying :confused3

[SFLTIGGER]

I have to agree with sjdisneywedding!

I can also add proof! We just got back from VWL and when we checked in, our bell hop (_ _ _) to remain nameless told us about the unannounced construction at the CR (with out any prompting) and that is WAS going to be DVC! :thumbsup2 And we all know where bell hops stand on the rumor (I mean 'info') totem pole! :lmao:
But seriously, the DVC rep. in Tommorowland (when questioned about it) said, "It could be convention facilities." Yeah, Right!:rotfl:

This then, is my point about why I think sjdisneywedding is right. If it is not at least partially DVC, why would they not make some kind of announcement! :rolleyes1 The least they could do would be to give DVC reps. a script of believable responses!

[tjkraz]

If it is not at least partially DVC, why would they not make some kind of announcement!

Many possibilities:

1. Even Disney hasn't figured out exactly what they are going to do with it. Could be all DVC...could be all suites...could be part of each. The construction specs could be identical for each option, with the use all that is left open for debate.

Let's not forget that if they open the new facility as suites, they can always change to DVC later without missing a beat. If the economy (or at least tourism) holds strong in the short term, there is a lot more money to be made if they can fill 300 suites per night with cash-paying guests.

If the economy goes south and/or the suites just aren't a big hit, THEN it's pretty easy to turn over to DVC. On the other hand, giving the rooms to DVC is a one-way ticket.

2. If they announce it as non-DVC suites, DVC loses all of this wonderful buzz. You can't tell me there aren't people out there buying AKV or SSR points thinking "I can't wait to use my points to stay at the CR like that busboy at Chef Mickey's said I could!" :thumbsup2

I'm sure there are others waiting to see what happens with the CR before making a decision, but those people aren't going anywhere.

3. For the same reason that they don't hype future attractions like they used to--Disney wants to focus primarily on the here-and-now rather than confusing people with what is yet to come.

(Of course that didn't stop them from discussing the CA and HI DVCs, so who knows what they are thinking! :rotfl2: )

There's no magical formula to making sense of this project. :teacher: This is definitely a wait-and-see situation.

[WDRabbit]

We just returned from WDW and while we were there booked 2 different trips over to the preview center so of course I mentioned CRV to every DVC CM I could find :) To me it was obvious that they all know that CRV is DVC. None of them would comment on it but they all gave me the smirk and something along the lines of "You're gonna get me in trouble!".

My guess is the following timeline:
2007/Early 2008 - Finish SSR sales
2008 - Concentrate on AKV sales
2009 - DL GCV sales
Late 2009/2010 - CRV sales
2011 - HI sales

Those dates are just based on the information I was able to get out of the DVC staff. I don't know how far along the DL resort add-on is, but was told that it was already in the construction phase. Since that one has been announced and is under construction I would expect them to sell it first. The CRV tower is definitely coming along, but the overall pace makes me think it will still be 2 years before they have it completely finished. It has taken them over a year to demolish the old building and just frame the first few floors of the new building.

[pilferk]

I don't recall there being any other hotel construction since Iger / Jobs took over and clamped down on the rumor mill.

Hawaii

The expansion of GC.

The building of "themed hotels", outside of the parks, was talked about as a concept at the shareholders meeting.

The discussions between the hoteliers at Gardenwalk and Disney was recently disclosed.

The Disneyland Hotel Tower remodels has been disclosed.

Not that any of it means anything, one way or the other (which is rather my point).

[pilferk]

I agree with Pat. I think CRV will be all-DVC, but I don't think they'll announce it until pretty late in the process for a couple of reasons.

One obvious reason is it will adversely affect AKV...unless there is something very different about CRV (much higher price, for example). GCV and Hawaii don't affect sales at WDW at all -- if anything, they help because they offer additional options to prospective buyers. But CRV will definitely affect AKV sales.

The other reason I think they'll delay somewhat longer than usual is that this entire project will all come online essentially at the same time. SSR and AKV were built in stages, so they had some early units to sell. This is not a situation where one building gets a CO and closings can take place, but the bulk of the project comes online one building at a time over a period of years. CRV won't be like that. The whole tower will finish and open at once.

That's pretty much the direction I'm leaning in, too.

[pilferk]

I have to disagree with Jim. Disneyland has had a DVC sales center for 2-3 years now and they have been responsible for selling thousands of SSR and AKV points. And that was with no promise of a DVC resort in Anaheim.

The Grand Californian addition was announced 2 years before the villas will open and (in all likelihood) more than a year before sales will begin. That announcement will undeniably impact their ability to sell SSR and AKV points over the next 12-18 months.

Volume (50-ish 2BR units) and location (CA) will likely limit it's impact. Will there be impact? Of course.....but logically categorize the impact of GCV, with 50-ish West Coast Units compared to CRV, with 300+ WDW "monorail" units.

I don't think anyone would argue that CRV would canibalize a WHOLE lot more of AKV's/SSR's potential market than GCV will.

[tjkraz]

Hawaii

The expansion of GC.

That pretty much illustrates my point. Both DVCs. Both announced well before physical construction began. Why not CR?

The building of "themed hotels", outside of the parks, was talked about as a concept at the shareholders meeting.

Concept only.

The discussions between the hoteliers at Gardenwalk and Disney was recently disclosed.

Rumor. No acknowledgment by TWDC either way (again, that's my point--nothing official.)

The Disneyland Hotel Tower remodels has been disclosed.

A fair example.

[tjkraz]

Volume (50-ish 2BR units) and location (CA) will likely limit it's impact. Will there be impact? Of course.....but logically categorize the impact of GCV, with 50-ish West Coast Units compared to CRV, with 300+ WDW "monorail" units.

I don't think anyone would argue that CRV would canibalize a WHOLE lot more of AKV's/SSR's potential market than GCV will.


But it's still a very, VERY muddy argument.

If cannibalism was so important, why not wait until SSR was closer to being gone to start selling AKV? At least two DIS sources have posted DVC sales information within recent years and there was no noticable decline in SSR sales. (Of course, that's assuming that AKV is viewed as a superior property by the buying public, which may be far from the truth. Perhaps they felt that AKV needed a boost from SSR. :thumbsup2 )

The other assumption being made is that the Contemporary will be considered the crown jewel of the DVC empire. While I'm sure many people will be very excited about it, I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that it will eclipse all others in the minds of the buying public. :confused3

I still don't buy the arguments belittling the impact of GC's announcement on other locations. Regardless of the reasoning behind the sales centers in CA, they have brought in a LOT of revenue for DVD in recent years. Their sales are going to take a major hit until GC is officially available.

In my mind, the explanation that makes the most sense is that Disney still hasn't made a firm decision on what to do with the CR tower. They've still got well over a year to hedge their bets, weighing the economy, hotel occupancy and customer trends to decide which route will maximize the revenue generated by the new structure.

[tomandrobin]

I agree that Disney has time on its side to decide what to do with that "new building" at the Contemporary. The floor construction seems to be moving along at a good clip now, but there is a lot of work to be done. It takes a lot of time to finish each room, on each floor.

Who knows, Disney might not finish off all the floors. Look at Pop Century, there is a whole section just sitting there waiting to be completed. It seems to me there is at least 15 to 18 months of construction left.

[pilferk]

That pretty much illustrates my point. Both DVCs. Both announced well before physical construction began. Why not CR?


Um, no...it's hotel expansion, too. So it goes to BOTH points. The rooms are not 100% DVC.....



Concept only.


You're arguing semantics, not anything of any real merit. It is proposed hotel construction "announced" long before anything is being built.


Rumor. No acknowledgment by TWDC either way (again, that's my point--nothing official.)


On the contrary, there was an official statement recently.

http://ocresort.freedomblogging.com/2007/12/10/disney-plans-hotels-in-gardenwalk/

By late Friday, though, Disney confirmed that it may go in the mall

“Disney is in negotiations with Prospera Hotels, Inc, the developer of the GardenWalk hotels, in the areas in which we have expertise — family-oriented lodging and the conventions and meeting business. At this point, it is premature to unveil specifics,” said Rob Doughty, a Disneyland spokesman."

[pilferk]

But it's still a very, VERY muddy argument.


On the contrary, it's a very logical and very clear argument. It might not be reality, I'll grant you....but it's an easy argument to see and understand.


If cannibalism was so important, why not wait until SSR was closer to being gone to start selling AKV? At least two DIS sources have posted DVC sales information within recent years and there was no noticable decline in SSR sales. (Of course, that's assuming that AKV is viewed as a superior property by the buying public, which may be far from the truth. Perhaps they felt that AKV needed a boost from SSR. :thumbsup2 )


Closer than what?

By all reports, they are pretty close to selling out SSR. It seems they started selling AKV WELL after 2/3 of SSR was sold...and current projections I've seen mentioned peg it to sell out relatively soon. At the point AKV came into the pipeline, canibalism could probably be viewed as a necessary "evil" in order to have something to sell AFTER SSR was sold out. I'm relatively sure, eventually, if CRV were to happen, you'd see a like situation, simply to ensure you have something on the table that's compelling to the majority of your prospective "audience".

AKV has sold less than 1/3 of their units, because less than 1/3 are open.


The other assumption being made is that the Contemporary will be considered the crown jewel of the DVC empire. While I'm sure many people will be very excited about it, I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that it will eclipse all others in the minds of the buying public. :confused3


So you're assuming that a DVC, in prime location next to the MK, with monorail access to MK and Epcot, will NOT have great demand? Sorry, given everything we see on these boards, all the preference for the Epcot resorts due to location, and all the "bagging" on SSR and AKV for being "remote", I just can't agree. The Dis may be a homogonized, closed, biased sample set that's not completely reflective of the public, or DVC owners, I'll grant you. But the anecdotals are at least worthy of consideration.

Do we have proof? No, of course not. Do we have at least a compelling amount of anecdotal evidence? I think we do. If that's our disconnect, so be it. I'm not arguing it's a definitive. I'm arguing it's certainly a wel reasoned possibility. Given I don't have access to Disney's volumes of customer research (and I doubt you do, either), we can agree to disagree on that one.


I still don't buy the arguments belittling the impact of GC's announcement on other locations. Regardless of the reasoning behind the sales centers in CA, they have brought in a LOT of revenue for DVD in recent years. Their sales are going to take a major hit until GC is officially available.


Unless YOU have proof, I'm not sure how you can take issue with the assumptions above, but still latch on to your own and hold them up as evidence.

I'm sure the CA sales centers have brought in a ton of revenue for DVC. The question is, compared to the total bottom line, will they be a "blip" on the radar for WDW's DVC sales in total? If every prospective customer buying in CA were to opt for GCV, would it really "dent" the sales at SSR or AKV to any measureable extent? Now add in there are only 50-ish 2BR equivalents to sell points for, or roughly 8% of the size of AKV. I'm not even going to consider the effect on SSR because, by many reports, units will be sold out before GCV goes on sale. So, once GCV is sold out (and I think it will quickly do that), all the pent up demand will be released back into the market.

You explain how the economic impact of a timeshare 8% of the size and roughly 4500 miles away would impact, in any large scale way, sales of AKV because I just fail to see how that cannibalization would be any more than marginal in nature. It will exist.....yes. I can't see HOW it could be much of a factor.


In my mind, the explanation that makes the most sense is that Disney still hasn't made a firm decision on what to do with the CR tower. They've still got well over a year to hedge their bets, weighing the economy, hotel occupancy and customer trends to decide which route will maximize the revenue generated by the new structure.

How long they have to decide would largely depend on their construction menthods, plans, and the specifics in the design difference between cash suites and DVC villas...if any. Sure, they could just build DVC style suites, with full kitchens, etc, and rent them out. That's assuming the real issue that CRO has with renting those style of accomodations is because they can be had cheaper by renting from DVC owners, and not simply because their price tag is more than the average vacationer wants to pay...and they'll STILL be competing with DVC owners, though granted with the benefit of the location and some increased amenities.

I find it difficult to swallow that a company would commission a large scale construction project without knowing pretty much EXACTLY what it's going to use it for. I grant the possibility that it's what's happening, but...having been involved in this type of project planning here at work in just a relatively small way, it would be well out of the ordinary to do It would likely cost a good amount of money to hold the contractors/architects/designers on "spec" for the final 3rd of the job. I'm not sure shareholders would be too keen if they found out that's what was occuring either.

The fact is, nobody knows what's going on. And one opinion, really, isn't any better founded or grounded than anyone else's. We can all sit here and poke holes in the theories, and argue just to argue, but at the end of the day, there's really nothing concretely compelling to substantiate either of the 3 or 4 different "theories" out there.

Which, really, was the point of my original post.

[pilferk]

I agree that Disney has time on its side to decide what to do with that "new building" at the Contemporary. The floor construction seems to be moving along at a good clip now, but there is a lot of work to be done. It takes a lot of time to finish each room, on each floor.



The issue is one of utilites, wiring, and other infrastructure.

If they are simply going to build a DVC style suite, no matter what they decide to do with it, then none of the construction stuff matters because, obviously, there's no difference.

IF they're building WDW's traditional version of suites, which is very different than a DVC style villa, then there are some dramatic infrastructure differences, from plumbing to electrical and on down the line that need to be made during construction...especially when construction is concrete and steel. Structural elements would need to be placed such that you could work BOTH scenarios in, etc. It would be a pain in the keister from an engineering standpoint. Not impossible, but likely expensive and certainly headache inducing.

I'm not going to tell anyone they're wrong, because, obviously, I don't know that. But the theory that they're waiting to decide has it's own whole HOST of obstacles to overcome......

[salmoneous]

The issue is one of utilites, wiring, and other infrastructure.

If they are simply going to build a DVC style suite, no matter what they decide to do with it, then none of the construction stuff matters because, obviously, there's no difference.

IF they're building WDW's traditional version of suites. They are building DVC-style suites. We've seen enough in filed plans and architectuaral drawing to be reasonable sure of that.

[tjkraz]

At the point AKV came into the pipeline, canibalism could probably be viewed as a necessary "evil" in order to have something to sell AFTER SSR was sold out.

Maybe, maybe not. AKV was announced fifteen months ago. That timeline strikes me as excessive if the only goal were to have something in the pipeline.

More likely, AKV was announced when it was because offering multiple locations has helped augment the program rather than diminish it. The same could be said of the CR, yet we're still waiting.

So you're assuming that a DVC, in prime location next to the MK, with monorail access to MK and Epcot, will NOT have great demand? Sorry, given everything we see on these boards, all the preference for the Epcot resorts due to location, and all the "bagging" on SSR and AKV for being "remote", I just can't agree.

They we disagree.

The Contemporary still has rack rates that trail the Poly and Grand Floridian by a considerable margin. The rates are comparable to the BoardWalk and Yacht / Beach Clubs, yet still trail in certain regards.

In fact, there are still Contemporary rooms that are cheaper than Studios at Old Key West or Saratoga Springs. Relevant? Who knows. :confused3(Although it seems to me that Disney is generally pretty good at pricing their products to meet demand.)

Perhaps if Disney had chosen to put a DVC at a more highly-regarded MK-area, monorail resort...

I tend to think that the "bagging" of SSR and AKV witnessed here does not reflect the attitude of the general public. (SSR has actually sold at a pace twice that of the beloved Beach Club.) Likewise I question whether the public would consider the CR to be the be-all, end-all of DVC accommodations.

Unless YOU have proof, I'm not sure how you can take issue with the assumptions above, but still latch on to your own and hold them up as evidence.

When did I hold up any of my comments as evidence? :confused3 We're just discussing possibilities. Just because I poke a hole in someone else's theory, or offer a different POV, doesn't mean that I believe my comments to be anymore accurate than others.

You explain how the economic impact of a timeshare 8% of the size and roughly 4500 miles away would impact, in any large scale way, sales of AKV because I just fail to see how that cannibalization would be any more than marginal in nature.

The vast majority of people walking into the DisneyLAND sales center over the next 18 months would be foolish to buy into SSR or AKV rather than wait for the GC.

If you're going to suggest that the Florida sales centers WOULD be negatively impacted by a Contemporary announcement, I don't see how you could suggest California sales WOULD NOT impacted by a Grand Calfornian announcement. The supposed appeal of the CR to Florida vacationers is a more dubious assertion than the appeal of the GC to California vacationers, IMO.

I find it difficult to swallow that a company would commission a large scale construction project without knowing pretty much EXACTLY what it's going to use it for.

The alternative is to suggest that this is the worst cover-up in the history of TWDC. Let's see...we've got construction permits that say "DVC villas" and others that say "Contemporary Suites." We've got "inside sources" that say it is DVC and others that adamantly deny any DVC involvement.

I grant the possibility that it's what's happening...

Then you're in the same boat as the rest of us...trying to make sense out of a situation that makes no sense.

The fact is, nobody knows what's going on.

Agreed.

And one opinion, really, isn't any better founded or grounded than anyone else's.

I agree regarding the opinions. The thread began with a poster asking for historical precedent, which requires no opinion. Of course, the application of precedent to this situation are merely opinion.

We can all sit here and poke holes in the theories, and argue just to argue, but at the end of the day, there's really nothing concretely compelling to substantiate either of the 3 or 4 different "theories" out there.

And yet you wrote 1000 words attempting to poke holes in my posts, so welcome to the club. :thumbsup2

[tomandrobin]

The issue is one of utilites, wiring, and other infrastructure.

It would be a pain in the keister from an engineering standpoint. Not impossible, but likely expensive and certainly headache inducing.

I'm not going to tell anyone they're wrong, because, obviously, I don't know that. But the theory that they're waiting to decide has it's own whole HOST of obstacles to overcome......

All true, but at this point only the floor to floor shells are going up. Still plenty of time to go with interior "A", interior "B" or interiors "A & B". Based at the rate of construction of the floor to floor shells....about 3-4 months.

I am in the engineering business, and yes its nice to plans all nice and tidy. But in a building like this, floors 2 thru 14 (or what ever the next to last floor will be) can be identical. Which makes building and design very easy. The first floor, the top floor and any utility or specialty floors, require the extra design and thought process. The electrical, plumbing and HVAC risers would not change very much. The "engineered" room uses would be similar wether it was suites or DVC. The biggest change would be the electric. Our firm has done mutli-design floors for buildings under constuction. With proper planning, its very doable.

I still think its going to be a mix use building. The new building will have at least the number of rooms lost from demolition of the wing, for hotel and suite stays. The rest of the rooms are going to be divided between suites and DVC, this is my guess.

Oh, just another thought, is there a chance of anything similar happening to the remaining wing?

[tjkraz]

Oh, just another thought, is there a chance of anything similar happening to the remaining wing?

This is just my OPINION, but I think that's a foregone conclusion. I can't see the long-term solution for the resort being the round tower / A-frame / garden wing arrangement that we'll be left with in about 2 years. That's going to be rather unsightly, IMO. Flanking the A-frame with two identical round towers will be much more aesthetically pleasing--and represent better use for the land.

Of course the south tower wouldn't have as appealing views as the north tower.

[Sammie]

In my mind, the explanation that makes the most sense is that Disney still hasn't made a firm decision on what to do with the CR tower. They've still got well over a year to hedge their bets, weighing the economy, hotel occupancy and customer trends to decide which route will maximize the revenue generated by the new structure

I think that is an accurate statement of what is going on. BCV did not come online in stages, nor did VWL or BW for that matter, but there was no huge secret as to what it was when it was being built.

VWL and BCV did not have the secrecy issue this building has, and that is because at this point I don't think a definite decision has been made.

[nuts]

I hope to have lunch with my friend next week during my travels. Maybe she will enlighten me. She hasn't said much since last spring...which was that it was probably a mixed use. The ace that resorts has over DVC right now is the demand is high. Resorts, when nearly booked, makes more money than DVC. DVC is a large cash infusion with some trickle profits coming in from our dues (resorts makes a profit off the fee they charge DVC for mousekeeping, etc). If they setup the mix correctly, DVC purchases will pay for all construction costs (including the hotel portion). That means little depreciation for resorts which equals greater profits in the future.

[pilferk]

Maybe, maybe not.* AKV was announced fifteen months ago.* That timeline strikes me as excessive if the only goal were to have something in the pipeline.* Well after 2/3 of SSR was built and sold...and it went on sale, to existing members at least, about 3 1/2 months later.More likely, AKV was announced when it was because offering multiple locations has helped augment the program rather than diminish it.* The same could be said of the CR, yet we're still waiting.It could.* But one could easily see the logical difference between adding a different themed, equally remote resort and adding something that offers the best location in the system, by far.* In a system that sells itself largely on location.They we disagree.The Contemporary still has rack rates that trail the Poly and Grand Floridian by a considerable margin.* The rates are comparable to the BoardWalk and Yacht / Beach Clubs, yet still trail in certain regards.In fact, there are still Contemporary rooms that are cheaper than Studios at Old Key West or Saratoga Springs.* Relevant?* Who knows.* :confused3(Although it seems to me that Disney is generally pretty good at pricing their products to meet demand.)* I think it's safe to assume that rack rates are completely irrespective of DVC and DVC appeal to prospective buyers.* I don't think it's valid to try to connect those dots. Witness the sales of AKV,which have been so brisk, outpacing projections, that they've had to speed up the construction timetable considerably. And yet the resort rates still languish at the bottom of the deluxe spectrum. Perhaps if Disney had chosen to put a DVC at a more highly-regarded MK-area, monorail resort...I tend to think that the "bagging" of SSR and AKV witnessed here does not reflect the attitude of the general public.* (SSR has actually sold at a pace twice that of the beloved Beach Club.)* Likewise I question whether the public would consider the CR to be the be-all, end-all of DVC accommodations.* Again, the anecdotal evidence at least makes the point compelling.* If you want to discount it....that's fine.* But I don't think you can take issue with those that DO find it at least thought provoking.When did I hold up any of my comments as evidence?* :confused3* We're just discussing possibilities.* Just because I poke a hole in someone else's theory, or offer a different POV, doesn't mean that I believe my comments to be anymore accurate than others.* So long as you're aware that your theory looks just as much like swiss cheese as the ones you decide to nit pick apart.The vast majority of people walking into the DisneyLAND sales center over the next 18 months would be foolish to buy into SSR or AKV rather than wait for the GC.* Yes, and then when GCV sells out so quickly that a good portion of them get butkiss, equilibrium will occur and the Florida system will get their business, as they buy hoping to possibly book at GCV at the 7 month window.* Again, given GCV is simply 50 units, it's not likely to have a LARGE impact, at the end of the day.* It's simple math.If you're going to suggest that the Florida sales centers WOULD be negatively impacted by a Contemporary announcement, I don't see how you could suggest California sales WOULD NOT impacted by a Grand Calfornian announcement.* The supposed appeal of the CR to Florida vacationers is a more dubious assertion than the appeal of the GC to California vacationers, IMO.* No, I'm suggesting that the majority of the units, and thus, the business, is done selling the Florida properties.* Thus, both the proposed size, and the market, are more largely effected by the goings on in Florida, especially one the size of the rumored CRV, than the goings on in CA.* Again, simple math.* Do you, perhaps, know the "split" between CA and FLA?* My guess is it's somewhere around 75/25 in favor of Fla, but that's an unfounded guess.* I'd love to see any hard numbers that are out there.The alternative is to suggest that this is the worst cover-up in the history of TWDC.* Let's see...we've got construction permits that say "DVC villas" and others that say "Contemporary Suites."* We've got "inside sources" that say it is DVC and others that adamantly deny any DVC involvement.* See, here's where we agree on something: I don't think the DIS is representative of the general public, here.* To us, it seems like the worst kept secret, ever (which, FYI, is what I think it is, in part...it's likely mixed use, something Disney has been doing a lot of late).* To the general public it's nothing....maybe to vacationers it's something they wonder about as they pass it on the monorail...and then promptly forget about.Then you're in the same boat as the rest of us...trying to make sense out of a situation that makes no sense.* Admittedly. I agree regarding the opinions.* The thread began with a poster asking for historical precedent, which requires no opinion.* Of course, the application of precedent to this situation are merely opinion.* Which, of course, is where we started.* I simply pointed out the OTHER historical precedent on the hotel side....showing that the lack of announcement really isn't indicative of DVC vs Hotel, because it's out of the ordinary for both.And yet you wrote 1000 words attempting to poke holes in my posts, so welcome to the club.* :thumbsup2Your posts mostly questioning others theories...and then putting the shoe on the other foot, so to speak, to present the counter point that YOUR theories are just as full of holes as those you continue to try to tear down.* In other words, trying to get us all to the point we can agree that a) there are many theories, b) they all have some merit and c) they all have some "holes".* And maybe we should all recognize that and stop trying to shred them just for the fun of it....

See the point?

And with that, I'll move on.

[pilferk]

This is just my OPINION, but I think that's a foregone conclusion. I can't see the long-term solution for the resort being the round tower / A-frame / garden wing arrangement that we'll be left with in about 2 years. That's going to be rather unsightly, IMO. Flanking the A-frame with two identical round towers will be much more aesthetically pleasing--and represent better use for the land.

Of course the south tower wouldn't have as appealing views as the north tower.

I would actually agree, to some extent. I do wonder, though, if we're looking at 10 years or so before that happens. Considering the expense on the refurb of those rooms, I see them trying to get as much from that investment as they can before they gut the place.

[crisi]

One thing that I'm almost certain of in these discussions - no one who actually knows (if they know) has let the bellman, bus driver, or even the guy at the DVC kiosks know what the construction is - and I'd be willing to place a bet that they won't tell DVC guides until they are ready to print promotion materials. A few folks have some halfway decent sources, but until Disney is ready to go public with the purpose of the CR construction, they aren't telling staff level cast members. Disney CMs have a great gossip network, but the majority of the gossip that goes through is not completely accurate.

[rinkwide]

This is such a stimulating debate that I just can't help but join in. Unfortunately, I don't have an opponent so I'm going to use this little book that my two-year-old niece got for Christmas.

Hickory Dickory Dock

While the new Contemporary tower might someday feature it's own ferry dock the likelihood of it being made out of hickory instead of concrete is remote at best.

The mouse ran up the clock

Another unfounded rumor. The expense of putting a giant Mickey clockface at the top of the structure would be prohibitive. Plus, if the building should become DVC, the membership will balk at the increased maintenance fees that would result from it's need for constant winding

The clock struck one

No doubt that's a snarky reference to the fact that Disney is "past midnight" when it comes to announcing the purpose of this project. Personally, I think they're doing the prudent thing and keeping all their options open. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

The mouse ran down

I wouldn't say run-down, that's a bit strong, but I do think Disney would do well to make sure that all of their existing resorts were properly refurbished (or at least well maintained) before starting ambitious new projects like the one we're discussing.

Hickory Dickory DockYeah, we're talking about "Magic Kingdom" Resorts here but this is still reality pal; Saying something over and over again won't make it come true.

[pilferk]

This is such a stimulating debate that I just can't help but join in. Unfortunately, I don't have an opponent so I'm going to use this little book that my two-year-old niece got for Christmas.



While the new Contemporary tower might someday feature it's own ferry dock the likelihood of it being made out of hickory instead of concrete is remote at best.



Another unfounded rumor. The expense of putting a giant Mickey clockface at the top of the structure would be prohibitive. Plus, if the building should become DVC, the membership will balk at the increased maintenance fees that would result from it's need for constant winding



No doubt that's a snarky reference to the fact that Disney is "past midnight" when it comes to announcing the purpose of this project. Personally, I think they're doing the prudent thing and keeping all their options open. We'll just have to agree to disagree.



I wouldn't say run-down, that's a bit strong, but I do think Disney would do well to make sure that all of their existing resorts were properly refurbished (or at least well maintained) before starting ambitious new projects like the one we're discussing.

Yeah, we're talking about "Magic Kingdom" Resorts here but this is still reality pal; Saying something over and over again won't make it come true.

Amusing, witty, and the perfect dose of humor to bring us all back to the table.

Thanks rinkwide. :)

[DVC Mike]

While the new Contemporary tower might someday feature it's own ferry dock the likelihood of it being made out of hickory instead of concrete is remote at best.


Do you have any anecdotal evidence to support your hypothesis?


Another unfounded rumor. The expense of putting a giant Mickey clockface at the top of the structure would be prohibitive. Plus, if the building should become DVC, the membership will balk at the increased maintenance fees that would result from it's need for constant winding


You're arguing semantics.


No doubt that's a snarky reference to the fact that Disney is "past midnight" when it comes to announcing the purpose of this project. Personally, I think they're doing the prudent thing and keeping all their options open. We'll just have to agree to disagree.


Yes, we must agree to disagree.


I wouldn't say run-down, that's a bit strong, but I do think Disney would do well to make sure that all of their existing resorts were properly refurbished (or at least well maintained) before starting ambitious new projects like the one we're discussing.


Very muddy argument based upon poor assumptions.


Yeah, we're talking about "Magic Kingdom" Resorts here but this is still reality pal; Saying something over and over again won't make it come true.


You never know..

:rotfl2:

[pilferk]

Do you have any anecdotal evidence to support your hypothesis?



You're arguing semantics.



Yes, we must agree to disagree.



Very muddy argument based upon poor assumptions.



You never know..

:rotfl2:

:rotfl: :rotfl2:

OK, OK, I give...uncle, uncle.

I'll cease and desist my half of the discussion and move along to happier, friendly stuff....like concentrating on the fact I leave in 7 DAYS!!!

:) :banana:

[Mickey'sApprentice]

Do you have any anecdotal evidence to support your hypothesis?

You're arguing semantics.

Very muddy argument based upon poor assumptions.

:rotfl2:


Mike, you sound like my dissertation chair!