Disney Information Station Logo

Go Back   The DIS Discussion Forums - DISboards.com > Universal Studios/Sea World > Universal Orlando Resorts & Hotels
Find Hotel Specials & DIScounts
 
facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS UpdatesDIS email updates
Register Chat FAQ Tickers Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 07-12-2012, 12:01 AM   #61
yankeepenny
YANKEE Sock Crocker
 
yankeepenny's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Far, Far, Away
Posts: 2,958

Quote:
Originally Posted by macraven View Post
i know a lot of peeps are excited about a third hotel onsite.
I would have preferred a third park at UO.



I get what you are saying. I too would have preferred a third park, or a dual expansion at each existing park. With the numbers tallied and the outcome of the HP area so far above expectations, it does make sense that Universal would NOW want Joe the Plumber and his family to not just visit for a day or two, but be able to spend a week, and plunk down some serious vacation cash. An affordable, albeit an ugly designed hotel in my opinion will get the ordinary masses who crunch and scrutinize more to be willing to give on site a try. Just think of it, a few thousand every month who stay way offsite now onsite and Universal runs all the way to the bank.

Maybe more extensive renovations at the parks will happen. and maybe, just maybe by 2025 we will have that third park. I hope so.
__________________
I see your true colors shining thru.


Gleeker in every sense.


Thing 1 & Thing 2
yankeepenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2012, 08:42 AM   #62
kdawg954
Earning My Ears
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 29

If pricing is truly at a "value" standpoint, this is a brilliant idea by Universal. I like the idea of throwing in the "Limited" Express pass as a perk instead of the "Unlimited", but it is not a deal breaker if they don't throw it in.

Not everybody has the cash to drop the money to stay at one of the 3 current onsite hotels, and to sleep up to 6 would be a great perk. Orlando is full of lodging competition at reasonable rates and if I can stay onsite with a nice pool area at a good cost, why wouldn't I if the price difference is compareable to offsite locations?

Should be interesting.
kdawg954 is offline   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 07-13-2012, 02:20 PM   #63
keishashadow
Proud Redhead
When you gotta go, you gotta go ... it's a girl thing
Hmmm, I lust
I TOLD YOU SO!
 
keishashadow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,812

Quote:
Originally Posted by damo View Post
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Let's just say it's very contemporary to point of being stark. BLT is a very small resort and there aren't very many people using the lobby so it's quiet and rather elegant. Not sure who's designing the lobby for the new hotel but if it's anything like the WDW values the noise just echos in the lobbies being so much hard space in the design. It's going to be such a big resort I hope they incorporate some soundproofing to muffle things or it's going to be a very lively environment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdawg954 View Post
If pricing is truly at a "value" standpoint, this is a brilliant idea by Universal. I like the idea of throwing in the "Limited" Express pass as a perk instead of the "Unlimited", but it is not a deal breaker if they don't throw it in.

Not everybody has the cash to drop the money to stay at one of the 3 current onsite hotels, and to sleep up to 6 would be a great perk. Orlando is full of lodging competition at reasonable rates and if I can stay onsite with a nice pool area at a good cost, why wouldn't I if the price difference is compareable to offsite locations?

Should be interesting.
indeed

If they follow WDW's pricing structure, any room that sleeps more than 4 people won't listed at what i consider to be reasonably priced.
__________________
Will trade 'nanners taken in trade by the Tag Fairy for your tag for tags!

keishashadow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2012, 05:22 PM   #64
Planogirl
I feel the nerd in me stirring already
Oh well, let's look on the bright side
If I hadn't been so wiped out I would have kissed my anesthesiologist
 
Planogirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Frisco,Texas
Posts: 45,361

I like the look myself but even if I didn't I wouldn't discount it based on a few drawings. Loew's is pretty good at designing nice looking hotels.

I like the idea of this myself. We usually stay offsite due to costs (I admit it) and this would be so much more convenient and fun for us. Plus it gives larger families somewhere to stay which can be difficult in many cases.

If you don't like, it's probably real easy to avoid...
__________________
PG
Planogirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2012, 09:29 PM   #65
GeorgiaPeach74
Earning My Ears
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 54

If you don't get the Express Pass with the new on-site hotel, definitely consider looking into the VIP Ticket. It offers the unlimited express pass.
GeorgiaPeach74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2012, 11:47 AM   #66
Karkor
Earning My Ears
 
Karkor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 67

I have not had a chance to read all the post's.
I have seen a lot of people saying it is a mistake not including the express pass and that they will end up having too.
If that is the case do you think it will end up being a budget hotel? They obviously having it cheaper to appeal to more but without express pass.
I would think it would make the lines terrible with another hotel offering express pass.
they could maybe include that new pass that you are given a time to come back for the ride?
Then the more expensive hotels could have the pure express pass.

This new pass they have just seems like the one they had a few years ago that gave you a time.
Karkor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2012, 11:19 AM   #67
Maytrix
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 168

I think the hotel looks nice - looks like a great pool area too!

Here's my take on some questions that were raised.

1. Pool hopping will probably happen because it will be a Loews hotel. If it wasn't, I'd say probably not, but seeing that all 4 are Loews, there's no reason or them to exclude this.

2. Pricing - If it is value, it needs to be in the $90-130 range. The can be a little higher than offsite since it is more convenient.

3. I had wondered about that land and it seems this could be a step towards a 3rd park in the future. Factor in all the recent changes, the new stuff coming (Amityville area redo, construction in Lost Continent..etc) - Seems like they are really gearing up and this gear up and hotel can help bring in more revenue which can push them closer to a 3rd park area.

I'd also stay there. If I could stay at RPR for $300 a night with express and stay at this other hotel for $120 a night I'd swap rooms between hotels.
Maytrix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2012, 06:01 PM   #68
DCTooTall
Thinks He Can Escape Boo Boo
 
DCTooTall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: York, PA
Posts: 5,957

No, I wouldn't mind at all. There are several reasons to stay onsite at Universal, And based off the level of accomodations and the cost, Universal (and Lowes) has always been pretty good about pricing the rooms at a level that is appropriate for the room and experience you get AT THE RESORT. The Free Express, early Entry, and transportation to the parks are just extra bonuses on top of what you are paying for IMHO.

This is in Direct contrast with Disney's onsite hotel philosophy where you appear to pay way above what a comparable room would be offsite, with the understanding that you are paying for the extra onsite perks like EMH and access to transportation to the parks.
DCTooTall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 08:43 PM   #69
SanFranciscan
DIS Veteran
 
SanFranciscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 1,124

[QUOTE=si-am;45439732]Ugh, I was excited at first, but once I saw the drawings... not so much anymore. It looks like a tacky Motel 6 from the early 1970s. Like a wood-paneled, shag-carpeted basement that hasn't been updated in decades.

I just don't know that this really has enough appeal to be successful. Plus, the main entrance does look like too much of a rip-off of Disney's values.[/QUO

I doubt that I would be bothered by a budget motel at Universal looking like a budget motel. The one thing that I would be bothered by is if Universal put up some of those big, ugly neon statues that one person on this site said cast so much light in her room that she put black tape on the windows so that her family could sleep in the Disney value resorts. I guess some people must like them, but I think that Disney should take those down and that Universal should avoid putting any of them up.

Last edited by SanFranciscan; 07-20-2012 at 08:46 PM. Reason: Spelled a word wrong.
SanFranciscan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2012, 04:31 AM   #70
Karkor
Earning My Ears
 
Karkor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 67

I do agree that this is a strange looking hotel. However in the flesh it may look far better.
Not wanting to sound mean or selfish here, but hoping they don't allow pool hopping.
You pay a LOT to stay in the 3 Uni hotels and I think only the delux hotels should be allowed to pool hop. I mean you are paying a premium for premium pools etc. Well that is how I see it but I could be looking at this wrong.
That said with the amount of rooms they are offering they probably will say go and enjoy our lovely delux hotels pools lol.

I have always wondered. As the hotels are run by Loews. Does that mean that Universals have nothing to do with the hotels at all? Is it like Disney Swan that is nothing directly to do with Disney. Never understood why Disney don't run the swan etc like the others.
I don't see why universal don't run these hotels themselves really.
Karkor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2012, 08:47 AM   #71
glocon
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,330

For us the #1 reason for staying on-site is the unlimited EP.
#2 reason is early entry
#3 proximity to parks

So if our #1 reason is not available at the new resort, we probably won't stay there.

That being said, our #1 reason for not staying on-site is usually $$$. So if $$ was our issue that year, we would still pick the new on-site resort because you would still get #2 and #3.

And you would get a slide in a value priced pool. Plenty of perks for staying on-site in the value resort in my opinion. And if the theming in the other Lowes resorts is any indication of what this one will end up like, it should be beautiful.

Guess we'll see in the not too distant future!
__________________
2002-WDW offsite and POR *2003-WDW/UO offsite *2007-UO/SW offsite *2010-WDW AKL/UO HRH *2012WDW BC/UO HRH *2014-UO RPR&CB
glocon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2012, 09:14 AM   #72
AlexandNessa
Proud Redhead
Does anyone know what I'm talking about?
Must sleep barefoot
HEY EVERYONE...THIS IS A SECRET...SHE HATED THE MUMMY MOVIE
 
AlexandNessa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 5,380

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karkor View Post
I do agree that this is a strange looking hotel. However in the flesh it may look far better.
Not wanting to sound mean or selfish here, but hoping they don't allow pool hopping.
You pay a LOT to stay in the 3 Uni hotels and I think only the delux hotels should be allowed to pool hop. I mean you are paying a premium for premium pools etc. Well that is how I see it but I could be looking at this wrong.
That said with the amount of rooms they are offering they probably will say go and enjoy our lovely delux hotels pools lol.

I have always wondered. As the hotels are run by Loews. Does that mean that Universals have nothing to do with the hotels at all? Is it like Disney Swan that is nothing directly to do with Disney. Never understood why Disney don't run the swan etc like the others.
I don't see why universal don't run these hotels themselves really.
I don't see it as selfish at all. I see it purely as a numbers game.

This new goliath of a hotel increases the number of rooms onsite by a whopping 75%. (RPR = 1000 rooms, PBH = 750 rooms, HRH = 650 rooms. New behemoth = 1800 rooms). The new hotel will now account for a total of 40+% of rooms available to book onsite. I'd be ticked if I couldn't get a spot at the HRH or RPR pool because pool hopping at the value resort was allowed. Not like I would go around asking for room keys or anything, but still. That's a huge increase in the number of onsite guests, and increases the number of potential pool hoppers significantly.

I believe Universal and Loews have a cooperative partnership. I actually think it's a good thing. Loews can let Universal concentrate on their theme parks, and Universal doesn't need to trouble itself with the ins and outs of the hospitality industry.
__________________
Alex Vanessa
AlexandNessa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2012, 01:49 PM   #73
SanFranciscan
DIS Veteran
 
SanFranciscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 1,124

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexandNessa View Post
I don't see it as selfish at all. I see it purely as a numbers game.

This new goliath of a hotel increases the number of rooms onsite by a whopping 75%. (RPR = 1000 rooms, PBH = 750 rooms, HRH = 650 rooms. New behemoth = 1800 rooms). The new hotel will now account for a total of 40+% of rooms available to book onsite. I'd be ticked if I couldn't get a spot at the HRH or RPR pool because pool hopping at the value resort was allowed. Not like I would go around asking for room keys or anything, but still. That's a huge increase in the number of onsite guests, and increases the number of potential pool hoppers significantly.

I believe Universal and Loews have a cooperative partnership. I actually think it's a good thing. Loews can let Universal concentrate on their theme parks, and Universal doesn't need to trouble itself with the ins and outs of the hospitality industry.
I can't imagine that Universal, Lowes, or, in the case of the Hard Rock, the Seminole tribe risking the liability. I'm no lawyer, but I did hear and transcribe a number of liability cases during my court stenographer's training and suspect that the risk is just too great to permit pool hopping. In the event of personal injury or a drowning, the ratio of lifeguards to swimmers and the total number of people in the pool or pool area at the time would be a problem I think. Of course, I am not a hotel manager either, but it sure sounds like a problem to me. What do y'al think?
SanFranciscan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2012, 04:26 PM   #74
2girlsmom
DIS Veteran
 
2girlsmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Tampa area
Posts: 4,425

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanFranciscan View Post
I can't imagine that Universal, Lowes, or, in the case of the Hard Rock, the Seminole tribe risking the liability. I'm no lawyer, but I did hear and transcribe a number of liability cases during my court stenographer's training and suspect that the risk is just too great to permit pool hopping. In the event of personal injury or a drowning, the ratio of lifeguards to swimmers and the total number of people in the pool or pool area at the time would be a problem I think. Of course, I am not a hotel manager either, but it sure sounds like a problem to me. What do y'al think?
But by this argument, they wouldn't allow pool hopping currently, which they do.
__________________
Kristi
me,dh Rick,Meag & Catie

& Lucky
2girlsmom is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2012, 11:41 AM   #75
DCTooTall
Thinks He Can Escape Boo Boo
 
DCTooTall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: York, PA
Posts: 5,957

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karkor View Post
I have always wondered. As the hotels are run by Loews. Does that mean that Universals have nothing to do with the hotels at all? Is it like Disney Swan that is nothing directly to do with Disney. Never understood why Disney don't run the swan etc like the others.
I don't see why universal don't run these hotels themselves really.
Just to answer your curiousity about the Swan and Dolphin and Disney's arrangement....

The Swan and Dolphin are the result of an agreement Disney made at one time to a 3rd party developer which allowed them to build additional hotels on the Disney property. It was after work on these hotels were started however, That new Disney Management realized it would be stupid to give up all the potential revenue generated by the onsite hotels to 3rd parties (similar to Hotel Row at DTD), so they worked their way out of that deal with the Developer, and the major Disney hotel/Resort buildout of the late 80's and 90's began. Since the Swan/Dolphin were already committed and under contract, They exist as Non-Disney hotels on Disney Property.
DCTooTall is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS Updates
GET OUR DIS UPDATES DELIVERED BY EMAIL



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright © 1997-2014, Werner Technologies, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

You Rated this Thread: