DEBATE: Ahhhhh!!!! My Eyes!! My Eyes!!! [Archive] - The DIS Discussion Forums

WDWHound

07-30-2002, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by YoHo
The Sad part is that I can see some really nice work hidden amongst the tackiness.
I agree, if they had only backed off just a little, this was a concept that could have worked. Where did Disney get the idea that anything oversized is good?

My wife and I will be returning to CBR (hopefully in the Jamaica section) in about 6 weeks. We found our first stay there (1 and 1/2 years ago) to be very magical. I hope the view of this new "resort" will not ruin the magical atmosphere there. It would be a pity if something so contrived was allowed to ruin something so nice.

Mooobooks

07-30-2002, 11:05 PM

I can see that DVC Landbaron is still in a jolly mood :) by the tenor of his post.

SPAGo 98

07-30-2002, 11:06 PM

i kinda like it. it's cute. :D

WDWHound

07-30-2002, 11:19 PM

Cute? Spago, please see an optometrist at the soonest opportunity. Your comment leads me to beleive that you are unable to see the amazing clash of colors found in this resort.

DVC-Landbaron

07-30-2002, 11:46 PM

Cute? Spago, please see an optometrist at the soonest opportunity. Your comment leads me to believe that you are unable to see the amazing clash of colors found in this resort.WDWHound!! I think you might be too hard on our friend Spago. I too think it’s cute too. And I also agree with that bad motor scooter rider, YoHo, that some good things may be there. But the real question is: IS IT DISNEY??

Is this the type of thing you’d expect from the company that brought us Adventureland, Pirates, The Polynesian Resort, The American Adventure, and so on and so forth?

I don’t think so!! It’s more suited to the garish and tacky buildings you might find in an upscale shopping mall hawking a kids game room!! Is that really what Disney is all about? Giant bowling pins!!??? What in the hell happened to THEME??

And yes!! I can still feel the pixie dust flowing in the old veins!! Too bad the feeling stops at 10:00, instead of midnight!!! ;)

WDWHound

07-30-2002, 11:59 PM

My appologies to Spago and to anyone else who may have found my comments offensive. My comments were intended to be more humorous than anything else. I didn't intend them to come of as harsh as they apparently did.

SPAGo 98

07-31-2002, 12:04 AM

well in either case, i think that the picture looks a lot better than the art i've seen before, and what i'd been led to expect. certainly it's not their best work, but i don't think it's a bust.

i really like the bowling pins though. :)

WDWHound

07-31-2002, 12:13 AM

I agree, the bowling pins are cool. I also like the stonework in the lower right hand corner of the photo. It's the 60's buildings (the ones with the Funnky Chicken sign) that I don't like. They just seem way to loud for a Disney resort.

PKS44

07-31-2002, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by WDWHound
It's the 60's buildings (the ones with the Funnky Chicken sign) that I don't like.

Maybe it's just the 60's in general that you don't like---it was an ugly decade.

Paul;)

Mish19

07-31-2002, 10:59 AM

Pop Century seems simply a fun place to stay. This is obviously NOT a deluxe or romantic resort but for some people value resorts
are one of the only ways they can take yearly (or many a year) trips to WDW. If you have children, if you are trapped in a century
that you just can't seem to want to leave (I have a friend who bought a Delorean a couple years ago and I can guarantee he would make ressies in the 80's building!) then I don't see it being a problem. Yes, some of these signs are gaudy but it's all in fun, I personally like that "big bike" and I'm hoping to see a huge "sit 'n' spin soon :crazy:

As my mom says, "that's why there is vanilla and chocolate". Different people like different things.

Tik Tok

07-31-2002, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by WDWHound
Where did Disney get the idea that anything oversized is good?

Thank YOU for pointing this out - what is Disney's deal with Giant Icons lately? We've got the All Stars, Pop, Giant Mickey hands and hats...anything I'm missing?? Yuck!

To me, they just look like a cheap excuse to not actually have to theme something well. :mad:

DisneyKidds

07-31-2002, 11:24 AM

To me Pop looks no better or worse than the All Stars - just a different inspiration (not implying good or bad inspiration - just different).

As soon as Baron gets back he will certainly point out that the All Stars are no more 'Disney' than Pop and not anything we should have expected from Disney back when they opened. OK - he doesn't have to say it now ;).

I do believe that the value resorts opened the on-site experience to a whole new world of travellers. While I know the good Baron believes they created a caste system (still haven't heard that diatribe), I can't necessarily see how the value resorts are a bad thing.

Mooobooks

07-31-2002, 12:00 PM

Value resorts are a great thing, but THIS value resort is ugly as hell. They COULD just as easily build something attractive and tasteful for the same money--good taste doesn't cost more than bad taste. I think we should start calling it:
POOP Century :bounce:

Hnymoon@Dixie

07-31-2002, 01:07 PM

Thanks, now I know which resort NOT to stay at!

Lesley

07-31-2002, 05:11 PM

As my dh is threatening to make me stay there (I said I'd spend the night at Pleasure Island instead....hmmm, maybe after a long night there the place might look a little better....or it'll just make me vomit for real) in the room right under the word Funky....I'm glad we'll have a lake view.

My dh has a rather bizarre sense of humor.....and he's been warned that he's going to have to be the one to make the ressies because there's no way I'll do it voluntarily.

(shuddering with revulsion)

Jeff in BigD

07-31-2002, 08:18 PM

That's a special kind of ugly! :eek:

About the giant icons everywhere, I agree. Originally they build things smaller than scale to make you feel (psychologically) bigger, but maybe this new trend is to let you know how insignificant you are. ;)

LAinSEA

07-31-2002, 10:34 PM

Sugar and Caffeine for the eyes...Disney must not think that the "budget-minded" guest wants anything to do with a restful and relaxing vacation. The only thing that picture of Pop Century inspires is "Theme-Park Commando" mode - stay away from the resort for as long as possible!

LOL

I'll be saving my pennies for something more resort-like.

-LA

King Triton

08-01-2002, 12:05 AM

Oh my God....That is the ugliest hotel I have ever seen in my life.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

One word...."tacky"

What was Disney thinking?:confused: This has nothing to do with Disney. :rolleyes:

It just hurts my eyes just to look at it. Come on Disney....stay with the Disney themes. Don't punish people for staying there.

King Triton

SPAGo 98

08-01-2002, 12:40 AM

disney is not forcing anyone to stay there... if you think it's ugly, don't stay there. simple as that.

what do the contemporary, the grand floridian, the wilderness lodge, the polynesian, the dolphin, the swan, the yacht club, the beach club, the boardwalk, the coronado springs, the caribbean beach, the dixie landings, etc., have to do with disney?? i don't see any disney themes in these hotels... the only one that "has to do with disney" is the all stars because they have giant disney things all over it....

DVC-Landbaron

08-01-2002, 12:47 AM

I can't necessarily see how the value resorts are a bad thing.I will not go into it now, Mr. Kidds, but I will leave you with the one underlying principle that applies equally to the Sports & Music as well as the Floridian.

Their concept and mere existence drastically altered the Disney Standard.

Please don't cavalierly ignore this idea or skim too quickly over it. It is at the very root of the philosophical differences between "Walt's" Disney and Disney®. And the funny thing is it works up the scale the same way it works down.

Please think about it for a while. Mull it over and see if it doesn't make just a little bit of sense. Especially if you're reading one of those Walt bios you promised to brush up on. Keep it in the back of your mind as you read and I think you'll get the concept. You may not agree, but at least you'll understand what I'm trying to say!!

EUROPA

08-01-2002, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by SPAGo 98
disney is not forcing anyone to stay there... if you think it's ugly, don't stay there. simple as that.

what do the contemporary, the grand floridian, the wilderness lodge, the polynesian, the dolphin, the swan, the yacht club, the beach club, the boardwalk, the coronado springs, the caribbean beach, the dixie landings, etc., have to do with disney?? i don't see any disney themes in these hotels... the only one that "has to do with disney" is the all stars because they have giant disney things all over it....

I'm not a huge fan of the All-Stars nore the New Pop Century....but why does Disney have to be limited to only Themeing Hotels and such after Movies? If that were the case we would have a whole bunch more crappy movies about Space Mt, Big Thunder, The Tea Cups, It's a Small World, Alien Encounter, Astro Jets...and so on.

Magickndm

08-01-2002, 10:17 AM

I don't think I can stay in a place that actually has the words "PHAT" and "WAZZUP?" actually on it.

Walt's Frozen Head

08-01-2002, 10:42 AM

what do the contemporary, the grand floridian, the wilderness lodge, the polynesian, the dolphin, the swan, the yacht club, the beach club, the boardwalk, the coronado springs, the caribbean beach, the dixie landings, etc., have to do with disney?? i don't see any disney themes in these hotels The Disney Touch had a lot to do with theming being in service of a story. The Contemporary was themed as the hotel of Tomorrow, the backdrop for Tomorrowland; the Poly, GF, Y&BC and Boardwalk all have backstories that put you in a different place or time. The Swan and Dolphin don't count, they aren't even Disney hotels, and were never themed, only decorated.

I think there is a big difference between the kind of immersive theming that puts you in the story, on the set, as it were; and the merely decorative theming that does nothing beyond providing a gigantic saxophone for your photo-op enjoyment.

When you're the Wilderness Lodge, you detect an obvious effort and intent to "take you away" from Central Florida in the year 2002. When you're in the All-Stars, you are fully aware that you are in a hotel in Central Florida in the year 2002.

The story-based theming used to be a unique hallmark of Disney. If pasting up huge icons is all "Disney" means, then there's a pizza place down the road from me that has better "Disney" theming than any of the on-site resorts.

-WFH

WDWHound

08-01-2002, 10:43 AM

Spago: The theme of contemporary was the future. They implemented it by creating a futuristic (at the time) environment in which to stay. They did not do it by putting up a fifty foot tall astronaut and huge futuristic sayings like "Beam Me Up". The Poly's them was implemeted by creating a tropical village, not a fifty foot tall hula dancer and a giant "ALOHA".

The Disney parks used to be all about emersion. Every park, every resort was designed to sweep you away to another world. These worlds were a Disneyfied version of reality. They were worlds where magic was the norm and the sharp edges were all buffed off. Visiting a Disney resort used to be about being emersed in a magical world that one could not normally experience. You stayed in a hotel of the future, a remote Polynesian village, a Wilderness Resort from the 30s, a small town on the bayou, a carribean island... you get the idea. The theming was meant to create another world. What world is Pop century supposed to create? The Land of the Giants from the seventies?

If they wanted to do a pop culture hotel, why did it have to be themed with huge icons and clashing paint jobs. Why couldnt the seventies hotel had been themed like a seventies hotel? The staff could wear tie dyed shirts and faded jeans. The rooms could have lava lamps. You could put old pong and space invaders games in the lobby. American Bandstand would be available on your TV. The resort could feature a disco themed restauant. The possiblilies are endless. The fifties area would be even easier, poodle skirts, drive ins, coonskin caps, fifties music everywhere. Wouldn't it be great to stay to in a economy resort like these?

You see the difference. The goal would be to transport you back to the pop culture of another time. You would spend your stay living in a Disneyfied version of the 50's,60's, or 70's, rather than worrying if that giant yoyo is going to fall over and crush you. When I finish my stay at a resort, I want to be able to say more than "Gee, that was a really big bowling pin". In fact, giant Icons, because they are so unreal, distract from theming, rather than add to it.

I know kids love the giant icon resorts, but we already have 3 of them in the All Stars. Did we really need another one? I am just afraid that Disney has decided imersive theming is too expensive, so from now on they will just throw up a giant icon and call it theming. There are some newer resorts that give me hope, the AK Lodge in WDW and The Grand Californian in the DLR). Resorts like these should be the rule, but I fear they are becoming the exception.

DisneyKidds

08-01-2002, 11:40 AM

WFH - If I knew how to copy a whole post I would. It is not often I can agree with each and every word and the underlying sentiment of one of your posts - but bravo. You very eloquently hit the nail on the frozen head. Ditto Mr. Hound on the mental picture of the differences between what the values give us and all the others.

That being said - I think there is a place for the value resorts and there is a reason why you can get them for less than $75 bucks a night. To create the 70's hotel that Hound describes would not have allowed Disney to go cheap - whatever their motivation for cheap was. I quess the question becomes - was Disney trying to create great resorts and ultimately created horrible resorts because they were cheap, or did they specifically go cheap to give the WDW going public, some who might never have been able to come, more options for being able to stay on site? I could only guess here, but could Disney have realized the same revenue stream with better resorts that had less rooms available at a higher price? Or did they decide to open things up to more people. I wonder what the operating numbers look like for CSR vs. All Stars. Anyone know?

BTW Mr. von Baron - I will get around to reading one of those books so I might be a more worthy adversary when we discuss the merits, or lack there of, of less than deluxe WDW hotels ;).

Walt's Frozen Head

08-01-2002, 01:37 PM

Scoop,

"Mr Headsicle" is also acceptable...

I don't mean to get into semantics, but I would say that Graves' concept of what "theming" means has more in common with what I'm calling "decoration."

Technically, I think I remember that even the All-Stars do have a back-story (or maybe it was _had_ a backstory... my memory's kinda fuzzy right now), but the implementation was tactically different from the way it was done at the earlier resorts.

I apologize for the hand-waving going on in this conversation... we're in an area where we're all using some generic terms that have become personally loaded, and mean slightly different things to the poster and to the reader.

However we want to make the "theme style" distinction; story-theming/iconic-theming, immersive theming/decorative theming, or even simply theming/decoration, when it comes to the theming, the Swan and Dolphin are more like the Value Resorts than they are the Deluxe Resorts.

I guess that would be the follow-up question I had for you... did you bring up this point because you disagree with the underlying premise that the S/D and the Values exhibit theming that is markedly different in style and scope from the other resorts we're talking about, or is it that you see a difference and are simply pointing out that this particular attempt to quantify that difference fails semantically?

-WFH

SPAGo 98

08-01-2002, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by WDWHound
Spago: The theme of contemporary was the future. They implemented it by creating a futuristic (at the time) environment in which to stay. They did not do it by putting up a fifty foot tall astronaut and huge futuristic sayings like "Beam Me Up". The Poly's them was implemeted by creating a tropical village, not a fifty foot tall hula dancer and a giant "ALOHA".
i know they're THEMED, but they are not themed to anything DISNEY, unless disney has some sort of copyright on the future, the tropics, the national parks or the beach...

YoHo

08-01-2002, 07:58 PM

Spago, I don't think anyone was Questioning the lack of Disney related theme.
In fact when WDW was built, they purposely avoided a DIsney theme. A Disney theme was not to ever happen at Walt Disney World.

The problem people have with Pop Century is that it doesn't tell a story. It's a bunch of props randomly placed around some clashing colored buildings.

Now, I have to take issue with a previous poster who suggested that the Theming for Pop Century or AS was less expensive to build. I must respectfully disagree. Aside from the greenery, the planting etc. which may not even be a large cost to absorb given how Large WDW's full time gardening staff must be. It would not have cost significantly more to Create a budget hotel around lets s say a Meditarranian Theme (we have plenty of existing hotels to compare to, but I want to stay theoretical here.) Spend the money used to build the giant Icons on some fountains and stucco and perhaps decorative Tile. (they make lovely low cost high ware Ceramics that can mimic just about anything)

Construction costs would be largly the same I'm sure.

The only realy differences between deluxe moderate and Value resorts are
Exterior Hallways vs. Interior
Sit down eateries/number of food options
Porximity of NON-Bus transportation/Theme Park Access
Number of Services and Amenities.

With the Exception of the exterior hallways and possibly the Eateries, those difference don't affect construction costs at all and the eatery costs are covered by the extra money from food service.

I am all for Value resorts (I question the need for moderates and the 3 tiers), but I really don't think that the construction costs would be much different for a more traditionally Disney Themed value resort (a concession for my good friend Mr. Curling) of the same size.

DisneyKidds

08-02-2002, 01:50 AM

Construction costs would be largly the same I'm sure.

The 'cheapness' (we should probably use 'economical construction') is evident in much more than the decoration. To say the main difference between CSR and AS/PC is a fountain, some stucco and tile does no justice to CSR, or gives way too much credit to AS/PC. Granted, some of the icons at AS/PC probably cost a pretty penny. However, at AS the courtyards and walkways are basic, the pools are basic - everything is basic. At CSR you have lots of nice walkways, elaborate fountains around every corner, nice courtyards with sitting areas, all built around a lake. There is a great themed pool, in addition to quiet pools that are nicer than the feature pools at AS. Each of the moderates is similar in this regard. Then you have the buildings themselves. Yes, CSR and AS/PC have exterior hallways in common - but that is the extent of the similarity. Each of the moderates have buildings that have some interesting architechture that fits a theme - the southwest structures of CSR with many elevated walkways, staircases, and details. The bayous and mansions of PO, the different countries of CBR. AS/PC are boxes with a railing and some decoration thrown on. All this represents a big difference in cost I'm sure. The large scale and amount of detail in the deluxes comes at even greater expense. I can buy a drafting program that would likely give me adequate plans to build the AS/PC. Something like the GF required a talented architect. The mods are somewhere in the middle. I'm not sure how many of the deluxes or mods you have stayed at - but there are many more differences than the ones you note.

DVC-Landbaron

08-02-2002, 02:23 AM

OH MY GOD!!!! I GOT TO GET HOOKED UP AT WORK AGAIN!!!!!!!!Again, very abstract, but also very much a detailed story...next time anyone is at WDW, I'd recommend taking the tour or reading Glo's description and then view the S/D in that context. You still might think it looks ugly but I think you'll at least understand more than simply decorating was going on here.Yeah!! There sure was. And not one brick, nail or lick of paint was Disney in style or substance!!!!!

I haven’t read every word of every thread, but I think you guys have lost your heads (even the frozen one)!!! It has nothing to do with story, or background or any such thing. And while I like my motorcycle friend: The only really differences between deluxe moderate and Value resorts are
Exterior Hallways vs. Interior
Sit down eateries/number of food options
Proximity of NON-Bus transportation/Theme Park Access
Number of Services and Amenities.That’s all BS too!! That’s the “stuff” that Disney had to do in order to get the public to buy into the caste system! THEY HAD TO SHOW A DIFFERENCE!!!

The real answer lies in Walt’s original intent for Disneyland, which was carried over to the Marvin Davis's original master plan (number 11). It has to do with what Walt knew and loved! The movies!! He wanted to create 3-dimensional movies!! That’s really it. Just go see the One Man’s Dream exhibit in MGM. It says it all. The places they created in Disneyland and later in WDW (pre-Ei$ner) were MOVIE SETS!!!! Three-dimensional places that were supposed to transport you to another time or another place!!! It’s that simple. The Poly does that, hands down! The Contemporary used to do that, hands down!! The Floridian could do that, but for it’s opulence. The moderates, with some rose-colored glasses do that (but not hands downs). But the All Stars don’t even come close!!! There is nothing ‘movie set” about them. Unless, of course you’re making a movie about a giant icon motel!! ;)

d-r

08-02-2002, 09:59 AM

You know, the thing is, if they are going to charge less for value hotels then they can't be as nice as the deluxes or the moderates, or why would anybody pay more to stay at the deluxes or moderates?

Like a lot of people, the thing that really bugs me about the appearance of this place is the big words and catch phrases. They are just cheesy and dumb.

Besides that, it should be fun enough for the folks who like it - I don't have a problem with disney building it. I still believe that the "decades" concept was a way to put in icons from disney movies because all star movies was the most requested of the all stars. People like the big icons of disney characters - this was a way to put in more of that (I just wish that they hadn't gotten so crazy with the wording). Actually, the interior shots that I saw looked sort of cool - the furniture was all retro and sort of neat.

I stayed at all stars once to see what it was like, and it wasn't my favorite, but it makes a lot of sense, too. I can see that. For families who want to spend most of their time in the parks or out doing stuff, why not. And for groups of kids and stuff, sports and movies makes a lot of sense (I see this as adding on to the all star movies concept by adding more character icons).

Anyway, what I'm surprised about from this picture is that there are value rooms with a water view - I wonder how they will handle that? Will people pay more to stay in a value with a water view? It seems sort of weird to me.

DR

d-r

08-02-2002, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by SPAGo 98

i know they're THEMED, but they are not themed to anything DISNEY, unless disney has some sort of copyright on the future, the tropics, the national parks or the beach...

Tomorrowland, Adventureland, Frontierland, Fantasyland/Main St. USA.

DisneyKidds

08-02-2002, 10:06 AM

but I now find S/D just about the most immersive resort at all of WDW when it comes to "living in a story".

I'll join in the off topic S/D banter ;).

Now Scoop, I like the S/D as well. We stayed there and enjoyed it. The location is great. The hotels are very nice. It is interesting to hear about some of the abstract architectural design meant to paint a picture of sorts. However, 99.9999% of those that stay there probably don't see or get it, most likely including yourself until Glo pointed it out. This, in and of itself, shows that the resort is not all that 'immersive' when it comes to the story. Even if the architecture itself invoked in everybody what it was intended to, the themeing seems to end at the architectural detail. Where are the sights, sounds, and smells outside of the structures themselves that keep the theme going, the kind you can find at the WL or Poly? I can appreciate great architecture and I agree that the S/D deserve much more credit than being big ole non Disney hotels with some decorations. Viewing them as such is an insult to the very well respected achitects that designed them. However, in regard to your statement, I have to say.......

Man Overboard!!

DisneyKidds

08-02-2002, 10:09 AM

d-r, AS has a tiered pricing structure with preferred locations costing more. I'm sure that PC will be the same. Yes, even in a value resort people will pay more for a better view or location.

DisneyKidds

08-02-2002, 10:49 AM

No problem Scoop - I see what you are saying and I do agree with you about the S/D. At the WL you are transported to a 1930's pac NW park services lodge - but you are still in a lodge. At the S/D the architecture is supposed to evoke the feeling that you are not in a hotel, rather you are on an island, under the stars, next to a rushing waterfall. Different 'immersion' and intended experience. I find the Disney themed hotel experience to be a bit more real and a bit more immersive.

To try and keep this on topic - at the AS and PC you are transported........... nowhere. They evoke the feeling that you are in......... nothing. While the decorations represent a sport, a movie, a song, a decade - they don't actually put you on the field, in the movie, at the recording studio, or in the 70's.

Perhaps you just got a little carried away with a generalization in that particular quote ;). I just wanted to make sure that you didn't pick up one of those brain eating amoebas when you went swimming in the lake last time you were at the S/D. :crazy:

MineeBaby

08-02-2002, 11:36 AM

Ive just been reading along, and I saw the original picture and think that it may not be exactly what some people would prefer to stay in..and i looked around on the net for more pictures of what the place actually looks like before I make my opinion, and I came across this site...

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

If you THINK there is no theming, maybe this pictures will change your attitude just a bit..no one says you have to like it, but you cant say that they arent themed. As far as the disney touch, it appears that disney movie characters are placed in the area of the hotel that refects the same era that they were released, which i think is a pretty neat idea. Finally..just out of curiosity..how would you have themed the OUTSIDE of the building since that seems to be the major controvery?

King Triton

08-02-2002, 12:45 PM

My thoughts: Other non themed Disney hotels offer an escape, and adventure of travel. Each of which has the old Disney magic and quality. This hotel is just an eye sore. Come on...huge bowling pins and lime green hippie flower sticker signs. It's horrible!:mad: For a few bucks more, you can stay at the Port Orleans - Riverside. It's not about the money - it's about the lack of imagination when Disney designed this. Shame on you Michael Eisner for approving this!:mad:

I love Disney and I want to see the Disney magic and quality live on forever! Oh man...where's Walt when you need him??

King Triton

YoHo

08-02-2002, 01:04 PM

Landbaron, DisneyKidds, I think you both missed my point.
Baron, I was not trying to suggest that Architecturally or themeatically there was no difference, I simply mean that from a Construction cost there was no difference and in fact the only differences that you PAY for are those that I listed.

DisneyKidds, I didn't mean to belittle the emense themeing involved in the other resorts, I merely think that there was little construction cost difference. After all, The Polynesian's Row houses have fundimentally the same construction as the Allstars. There are plenty of examples in the Pop Century pictures of where the money went and my opinion is that they didn't save a dime over the cost of say a CSR or CBR. HEck, Pop Century sits on a lake even. Unless it has a Waterfall or water slide, I don't see the pool cost being much different, odd shapes aren't expensive, however decorative tile in the shape of a keyboard is. I still maintain that the cost of every plant at any resort is now negligeble in the total scheme of WDW's Gardening department, so topiery and the like is nearly free.

Therefore I still conclude that Disney saved no money with Pop Century's design versus a more unique design.

More to the point, I'm not trying to suggest that they spend more money, but certainly they could have spent the money more wisely.

DisneyKidds

08-02-2002, 02:38 PM

I merely think that there was little construction cost difference. After all, The Polynesian's Row houses have fundimentally the same construction as the Allstars.

I still maintain that there are more differences that you pay for other than the ones you listed. Forget all the other stuff I mentioned (which I still believe cost more than AS/PC) and look at the actual buildings and not just their theme elements. AS and Poly row houses are not the same, IMHO. AS are simple boxes with tiny rooms and paper thin walls. Minimalist bathroom fixtures, second class furniture, wall paper, carpeting, curtains...... The poly is more involved in its construction with interior hallways and lobbies, exterior balconies with sliders, and the rooms are much larger with better fixtures and materials. The mods are somewhere in the middle. While I haven't built any buildings, per se, I have built decks and other structures and can see the myriad of differences in the framing and construction of these resorts. Just look at all the turrets and other architechtural elements at the GF, the individual free standing buildings at PO Riverside, and the variety of building types at CSR. I do believe that all those things add complexity and cost to the construction. Even if they spent equal amounts on the theme elements (which I don't agree) the construction cost is more due to better materials, etc.

To maintain that they could have spent the same and delivered better doesn't make sense. Disney knows what they are doing and there is a reason a room as AS/PC costs much less than the mods/deluxes - and not just proximity to parks and a restaurant.

Anyone out there actually have any info on what it cost to put up any of the various WDW hotels?

MineeBaby

08-02-2002, 03:50 PM

I had posted in a differnet thread about what the costs were for the RENOVATION of the YC/BC area is as described below by the company providing the renovation services

The Southeast District Office continues its success with Disney. Through a competitive fee and general conditions proposal, we were selected to renovate 1200 hotel rooms at Disney's Yacht and Beach Club Resort. Preconstruction services begin immediately, with renovation starting in July and running through March 2003. The anticipated contract value will be in excess of $6 million.

SIX MILLION DOLLARS just for a renovaton..imagine how much money it costs to build the entire resort area. I still see that no one has tackled the idea of how THEY would have themed the outside of the PC resort. Is everyone going to just criticize without taking the time to put yourself in the designers shoes? Im not saying if the design was great or not, but it seems like everyone is complaining without even taking the time to think about the situation.

YoHo

08-02-2002, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by DisneyKidds

Disney knows what they are doing.

Well here lies the fundimental difference. IMHO Disney is stupid and doesn't know what they are doing. (I would say from 1992 onward) Disney the company has forgotten how to do what they are best at. So to me, any statement that includes Disney knows what they are doing is NOT going to draw my attention.

If Disney knew what they were doing, they wouldn't have had to put off opening Pop Century in the first place and it's theme wouldn't be such a big issue. (yes even people that don't post at internet message boards have a negative opinion of PC)

I'm not going to get into a Scoop style debate about who specifically doesn't know what they are doing, because it really doesn't matter. whoever it is, they are the ones with the purse strings, so they in the end must represent Disney in this.

DisneyKidds

08-02-2002, 04:18 PM

So to me, any statement that includes Disney knows what they are doing is NOT going to draw my attention.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Yes - they have made mistakes and I'm not saying Disney knows what they are doing in all respects on all subjects. You are smart enough to know that. Need I remind you that this poarticular discussion has to do with the construction cost of hotels?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

When it comes to building a hotel that will make sense to operate with rooms going for less than $100 a night Disney isn't stupid. They know what the construction costs are and what they must charge for the rooms. They built the AS and PC as they are because that is what you can build for less than $100 a night. The fiasco with PC doesn't necessarily have to do with Disney's knowledge of constructing hotels - it has more to do with overestimating demand.

Ignore what you like - that is the good thing about these boards.

YoHo

08-02-2002, 04:31 PM

Overestimating Demand and or overestimating how much tacky junk the guests are willing to put up with.

Here's a real question to be answered. what is Disney's Profit Margin on a Deluxe Vs. a Value room?

There was speculation a Year ago that in Fact Disney's per guest day to day costs are relativly the same between a Plynesian Style Deluxe and an All Stars. that about 90% of the different costs to the guests in these rooms is Profit. If that is even remotly true, then I am offended. And it likely is true. Even if a Deluxe costs more to build, Disney has more then recooped the costs on most of them by now and the CM staffing levels are probably the same. So more then likely Diseny could charge near $100 for any of their Hotels and make significant profits.

I would however like to digress to the idea of overestimating the demand for a minute, because you're right, this is a great example of Disney foolishness.

We have two dynamics going on in the 90s. The internet boom and Disney expansion. Now as I love to harp on, in the late 80s early 90s when we as a country were going through a recession, Disney was able to Maintain 90% occupancy in its hotels accross the board. The vast wealth of the Internet boom meant that demand for onsite hotels grew.

I put it to you, that if the Disney Corp had had any common sense at all, they would have perhaps built half the number of resorts they did.
Port Orleans, but not DxL, All Star Movies, but not Sports or music. Perhaps CSR would be half the size it is or smaller.

I realize it's 20/20 hindsight, but wouldn't it have made more sense both as an investor and from a creative angle to build fewer hotels of higher quality and maintain you're booking levels?

Heck it would have made even more snese to keep only two tiers and keep the prices high, because then when the lean years hit, you cut prices and still maintain a profit.

It was Ironically an example of Disney investing in a future it could not predict instead of proceeding with cautiousness.

MineeBaby

08-02-2002, 04:40 PM

I was searching the net for the cost to build the PC and i found good info from the wall street journal real estate journal online with the main point being the following

"Disney previously shelved the scheduled March opening of the two-building, $460 million, 5,760-room Pop Century Resort next to the 350-acre Wide World of Sports stadium."

http://homes.wsj.com/regionalnews/southeast/20011204-globest.html

Compare this cost to the over 100 million dollar cost of the Animal Kingdom lodge, as seen on this page. (the construction company is Centex Rooney)

http://www.abccentralflorida.com/eic_2001_winners_by_company.htm

Food for thought..

Walt's Frozen Head

08-02-2002, 05:08 PM

When it comes to building a hotel that will make sense to operate with rooms going for less than $100 a night Disney isn't stupid. Some of us would say it's Disney's insistence on courting the "less than $100 a night" market that's the stupid part.

The main reason they bought all those orange groves was to create a buffer from the cheap hotels and such that sprang up around Disneyland, an aesthetic choice that Walt felt was central to the company's identity. Reversing that kind of decision just because you're the one cashing the checks, well, that sounds a lot like "selling out," to me.

I honestly believe the parks and animation would still be carrying the company if those kinds of choices, subtle but important changes of focus from the product to the cash flow, had been made in the other direction. Investing in creativity would have been better than out-sourcing it.

Ignore what you like - that is the good thing about these boards. Ignore what you don't like - that is the productive thing about these boards.

-WFH

PS: I don't mean to be knocking Graves or his style... only to suggest that Graves' architecture is of a "straighter" nature than the high-end Disney resorts that preceded the S/D... and that the more subtle building flow theming doesn't fit a "Disney standard" as defined by those hotels, any more than does one decorated with with giant bowling pins. To revisit something I said about the All-Stars, when you're in the S/D, you know you're in a hotel in Central Florida in 2002, even if you appreciate the subtleties of Graves' archetectural themes.

I mean, consider the WL and the AKL, two resorts that a lot of folks would say epitomize Disney Magic. The lobbies are near archetectural dopplegangers, but it is the detail of the story-oriented art- and artifact-based theming that defines them differently (and, I think most folks would say, in a classically Disney fashion). Graves' buildings may be cool, but they represent a dilution of the resorts' previously strong brand identity.

The fact that the S/D munged up the World Showcase sightlines just adds insult to injury.

All Aboard

08-02-2002, 05:09 PM

Mineebaby, The 1200 room renovation comes in at just $5,000 a key at YC/BC. Carpet, paint, potentially some furnishings and work on the common areas can eat that budget up fast.

If the number for PC is good, that's about $80,000 a key, which is a healthy budget if land is already excluded.

YoHo is right. They've gotten a lot of mileage out of the real estate at PC. Sticking with the 4 story buildings and 260 foot rooms, there's alot of money left on the table when the total budget is $80k a key. Standard motels come out of the ground at less than $40k a key these days.

YoHo

08-02-2002, 05:18 PM

So Animal Kingdom Lodge has about 1300 rooms and cost around $100,000,000

PC has 5760 rooms and cost $460,000,000

Breaking out the nifty calc.exe program we find that
AKL cost $76,923/room whereas
PC cost $79,861/room.

Of course AKL has to factor in animal costs, but that was a seperate construction project.

So, we can see that in fact my Hypothesis is supported by the facts available. It costs Disney the same Room for room to build a Deluxe as it does to build a Value.

MineeBaby

08-02-2002, 05:23 PM

gcurling, what is a key? heheheh sorry....is it a room? I pulled that dollar amount for the homepage of the construction company responsible for the renovation..if that statistic is correct, and a key is a room, doesnt that mean that the average cost of renovation for a room would be around 60k not 5k. Not trying to argue, :) just trying to understand. I did the math for the PC one too, and that does come out to just about 80k a room....

since the YC/BC is JUST for renovation, and not infrastructure, lighting, plumbing, electric, etc. it is easy to see that to build a resort as detailed and themed as something like the YC/BC area is MUCH more expensive than the 80k a room budgeted for the actual construction and decoration of the entire PC resort...with the end result being very simple...less money is being put into the PC. To get the grand ideas that people are suggesting for a themed resort would be VERY ex*****ve compared to the current "theme".

MineeBaby

08-02-2002, 05:31 PM

OKAY! I stand corrected :) Sorry everyone..it looked like my math on on the YC/BC renovation was bad..so i went back and did it again, and boy i sure messed that one up somehow. hahah! you are right, it is 5k a room, which does make my argument a bit more wobbly. I apologize to everyone...hope no one is going to come hunt me down now. :) heheheh

All Aboard

08-02-2002, 05:37 PM

Yep, key=room. Sorry, harkening back to my resort development days.

$6million divided by 1200 rooms is $5,000 a room( I'm fairly sure.)

YoHo, no way AKL could have cost $100m. The website shows the job as $100m+ (which is aparently the highest category it lists.) It could have cost a billion for all we know.

Bottom line, though, you can get quite a bit for $80k a key, I mean room :).

YoHo

08-02-2002, 05:46 PM

Drat, I can't find any info on AKL's actual costs. Either way PC does cost a pretty penny.

YoHo

08-02-2002, 06:05 PM

AH HA!!!

Found it.
http://southeast.construction.com/SECN/SEBestProjects/SEBstPrj-2001judges.htm

Disney's Animal Kingdom Lodge
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: Centex Rooney Construction Co., Orlando
LOCATION: Walt Disney World
COST: $140 million
ARCHITECT: Glover Smith Bode Inc., Oklahoma City

So, $140 Mil instead of 100. Let me just get the Calculator back out

$107,692/room for animal Kingdom Lodge. so the difference between a Delux and a Value is about $20,000 a room.

Probably all of that is in the grand Atrium area too.

DVC-Landbaron

08-02-2002, 11:12 PM

Scoop!!!!!! YOU ARE SO FRUSTRATING!!!!!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, I’m better now.

Mr. Scoop,

Please tell me you can see the difference between “Disney” theme and the S/D theme (if there is one). If not (and you got Scoop to blame folks) please see:

DEBATE: Disney for Dummies!! One man’s opinion!! (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=242205)

Which I wrote mainly for you. Since it seems you don’t get what I get and I certainly don’t get your concepts AT ALL!!!!

DisneyKidds

08-03-2002, 01:43 AM

YoHo - good searching, but I'm not putting any stock in the current numbers game we are playing. What is in the 460 mil for PC and what is in the 140 mil for AKL? Is it apples to apples? The AKL number is from construction company sources and might just be construction cost - not full up resort cost. The jury is still out......

DVC-Landbaron

08-03-2002, 10:54 AM

Whatever. :confused:

airlarry!

08-03-2002, 11:34 AM

Before you two duke it out here, could Scoop elaborate on his earlier post?

Scoop, you are intimating that the Swalphin has a different but equal claim to theming and immersion. And you talked about Graves 'story'.

I read extensively about the process during the time that the hotels were being built. The articles I read showcased Eisner's desire to have what he would call as an architectually stunning new development, close to Epcot to capitalize on the eateries in WS. I don't remember anything about a story.

Could you elaborate?

DVC-Landbaron

08-03-2002, 12:08 PM

OK Greg!! You asked for it!! ;) Baron, duh! I think you opinions are totally off base and you think mine are...I can't believe that is still frustrating to you. Geesh!You don’t know how frustrating it really is.

Regardless, while certainly missplaced, I think S/D is anything but a box hotel. Agreed.
It is a carefully detailed "story" which is told through architecture. Scoop!!! I shouldn’t need an Architectural guide to explain the theme of a Disney hotel!!

It is a unique approach to telling a story which, I again admit, may be too abstract for some if not more.Well!! How nice of you to point out to the peons what a cultured eye sees! How patronizing!! How condescending!!

But, I love to see Disney try unique approaches whether its modular hotel rooms to monorails to, yes, even this approach.And this is the basic disagreement!! Which lead to my thread. Which I assume you read. And you came away with no substantive change in position or more importantly argument. You just spit the same stuff back again, without taking one, NOT ONE, of my thoughts into consideration for agreement or debate!!

The whole premise of the argument was “Walt’s” concepts of ‘theme’. And you ignored not only that point, but every other point made in that essay.

And that’s why I gave it a “Whatever”.

There. Is that a better response? (Somehow, I don’t think so)

WDW could have simply ordered another "time period" or geographic location based hotel but those aren't really that unique anymore at Disney or even non-Disney locations.They may not be unique, but they are DISNEY!! Those two are not!! Plain and simple. You did read the thing, didn’t you? You’re going on about S/D “theme” was the main motivation for the many, many words there. And yet… Still no reference, points or arguments taken or made. In other words, whatever!
but I find that type of unique approach to be much more promising or interesting or whatever than simply plopping down a Venetian themed hotel Do you see how fundamentally different our philosophies are? I couldn’t think of this sentence if I were offered a million! It is totally alien to my way of thinking. Yet you have no problem at all, happily typing in, “simply plopping down a Venetian themed hotel”! And that’s another reason for the “Whatever”.Disney and Graves were going for artistic merit with this resort. Again, not part of the Disney Standard. Or did I really have to say that after writing the referred to thread? Evidently you didn’t read it, or chose to ignore it or you’d know that this type of post didn’t at all further the dialogue, but just restated what you had said before.

I’m all for talking, but I really need something to talk about. And when I pose an argument, fairly well thought out (at least lengthy) and not one single point was brought up, well…

Whatever!! :confused:

DVC-Landbaron

08-03-2002, 12:46 PM

Explained and restated very well mind you, but what good would it be for me to respond? You and I will just debate the same points we have debated ad nauseum
I agree, Mr. Scoop!! Which is I responded the way I did in the first place. I think I may have pushed the envelope a bit with the :confused: icon. For that I apologize.
I've tried to stick to sharing rumors and news lately and was able to do so until you returned.It must be my magnetic personality!! ;)
I hope this helped. I'm just going to try and stick to info and the occassional gcurling-type responses to specific statements or questions. It keeps gcurling out of too much trouble, maybe it will work for me.It helped a lot. THANKS!!

As for me, I’m here for the debate only!! I’ve been burned too many times (yes even back in the day) by hoping the rumors I hear were going to come true. Sadly, 99 times out of one hundred, they have come to NOTHING! So, while you provide the rumors, I’ll continue the debate and try to fight the good fight for “One Man’s Dream”.

I think we may have finally come to terms!! (Although your words may come back to haunt you, my friend!! ;) )

Jeff