4 Season's Resort, Not Disney?

[Goofy45]

I recently read online that The Four Seasons Company bought about 298 acres of land next to the Magic Kingdom to set up the resort they are buliding. When I read that, it kind of made me think for a minute. Four Season's bought the land? I'm guessing that means Disney doesn't own the resort, just like the Bonnet Creek Resort. When I read that, I thought it was a bad idea for Disney to sell that land to Four Seasons. Because what if the company decides to sell the hotel to some, wierd company and that new company makes the hotel look bad and everything? Disney wouldn't like that. But they couldn't do anything since it's not their land. Does anyone else know anything about Disney selling the land to Four Seasons? Or am I just mistaking something. Because I think that Disney ownes the Swan and Dolphin, the regular hotel companies just like, lease it or something.

 

[PatriciaH]

Yep-done deal

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/business_tourism_aviation/2008/08/walt-disney-w-1.html

There was a rumor posted on here that the sheik that owns the Four Seasons helped bail out Disneyland Paris so the WD Company owed him.

Also, Weston and Sheraton do not own the Swan and Dolphin hotels they lease the hotels from another company (not Disney.)

 

[CanadianGuy]

I recently read online that The Four Seasons Company bought about 298 acres of land next to the Magic Kingdom to set up the resort they are buliding. When I read that, it kind of made me think for a minute. Four Season's bought the land? I'm guessing that means Disney doesn't own the resort, just like the Bonnet Creek Resort. When I read that, I thought it was a bad idea for Disney to sell that land to Four Seasons. Because what if the company decides to sell the hotel to some, wierd company and that new company makes the hotel look bad and everything? Disney wouldn't like that. But they couldn't do anything since it's not their land. Does anyone else know anything about Disney selling the land to Four Seasons? Or am I just mistaking something. Because I think that Disney ownes the Swan and Dolphin, the regular hotel companies just like, lease it or something.

Disney indeed sold these 298 acres to the Four Seasons ppl and some of it will become hotel, some of it upscale time share, some of it 'fractional ownership and some individual homes, all at an astronomical price.

There are many on the boards who see this is as yet another, in this case literal, example of Disney "selling out" for short term gain but long term pain.

However, Disney has done this before. The hotels that exist on the strip exiting the Downtown Disney area all stand on land that was once owned by Disney.

The Swan and the Dolphin while not owned, operated or even leased by Disney... MAY stand on land that is under a 99 year lease. I'm not sure what the deal is with that land.

Add to that, Disney buys and sells.. adds and subtracts small parcels of land at the edges of the border of the Reedy Creek Development area that comprises the Florida resort area ... every year.

But since they aren't as big as this.. none of that gets the attention this did.

All that said, I do think think this is -- overall -- a bad idea.

But then.. I would have said that about a number of things Disney has done in the past and they turned out fine.

Meh.

Knox

 

[doconeill]

I have no information to base this on, but it is possible that there was language in the contracts to sell the land that Disney might have right of first refusal if Four Seasons would elect to sell the property again. But it probably wouldn't matter much regardless - its not like its property smack in the center of WDW or anything. It's between Fort Wilderness and other non-Disney property, where there were two golf courses (Osprey Ridge and Eagle Pines), and it probably wouldn't be visible from FW.

 

[Goofy45]

Well, I also think it's a bad idea for Disney to sell the land. I mean, at first, I thought it would be like the Swan and Dolphin, like it's leased or something, but then I read that Disney sold it to Four Seasons. So I just find it strange that Disney would allow that. Just like Bonnet Creek. Since it's not Disney's land, the Bonnet Creek company can do whatever they want with it. So what really scares me is that what if the Four Seasons doesn't do well (which it probably will) then the company could sell it to some other company that could turn that land and hotel into some, weird and creepy, run-down motel. Disney wouldn't approve of that. Which makes me wonder why Disney would do that. Are they aware of what could happen in the future?

 

[KINGBOBOFTHENORTH]

I don't believe the land around Bonnet Creek Resort was ever owned by Disney. It's on an enclave of land on the Disney side of I-4 but was not part of the land parcels they put together at the very beginning. One must travel on Disney roads to get to the enclave. A new Hilton and Waldorf Astoria is going up on the parcel.

The Four Seasons land is very secluded at the extreme north end of Disney World and it has been de-annexed from the Reedy Creek Improvement District. It will be interesting to see how Disney routes traffic to it since it is north of the MK toll plaza on World Drive. It will also be accessible from CR 535 (Winter Garden-Vineland Road).

Let's not forget the Flamingo Crossings development at the west end of Disney World along the TOLL 429 Western Beltway. That was a large parcel as well that was de-annexed and will be full of outsourced restaurants, motels and gift shops.

BobK/Orlando

 

[doconeill]

The Four Seasons land is very secluded at the extreme north end of Disney World and it has been de-annexed from the Reedy Creek Improvement District. It will be interesting to see how Disney routes traffic to it since it is north of the MK toll plaza on World Drive. It will also be accessible from CR 535 (Winter Garden-Vineland Road).

It may be passed the parking plaza, but you can't route into the parking lot (except via emergency outlets which are normally closed). Otherwise it would be easy to bypass the parking plaza from anyplace else via Vista Blvd.

 

[TheRustyScupper]

. . . All that said, I do think think this is -- overall -- a bad idea . . .

1) I usually agree with you, but here I disagree.
2) I feel the Four Seasons will bring a level of service not experienced at WDW.
3) The attention to detail will greatly overshadow all WDW "Deluxe" resorts.
4) I look forward to staying at an upscale hotel like Four Seasons.
5) WDW will have to raise their performance & service levels or get a bad rap.

NOTE: I prefer that the upscale housing and fractional ownership parts of the development were not there, but one has to take the unfavored with the favored.

 

[CanadianGuy]

1) I usually agree with you, but here I disagree.
2) I feel the Four Seasons will bring a level of service not experienced at WDW.
3) The attention to detail will greatly overshadow all WDW "Deluxe" resorts.
4) I look forward to staying at an upscale hotel like Four Seasons.
5) WDW will have to raise their performance & service levels or get a bad rap.

NOTE: I prefer that the upscale housing and fractional ownership parts of the development were not there, but one has to take the unfavored with the favored.

Perhaps we do not disagree as much as you might think.

I would have much preferred Disney to structure this deal with :
a) no fractional and full timeownership homes
b) either a 99 year lease on the underlying ground or the ROFR to purchase it back should business needs dictate the purchaser must sell

Those are primarily my sticking points. Of course, we don't know that (b) isn't true as has been noted by another poster in this thread.

And if you read historically on this board, you'll see that a little over a year ago when a thread popped up that this was the end of Disney as we know it ... ie: more outsourced brands, less owned property etc. I stood up for the Disney side and still would because at the end of the day, the amount of land involved is a tiny in comparison to what's 'left' for development and growth.

I'm not a huge fan of the selling of their primarily and most vaunted asset - the land. That said, there are times it makes sense and this may be one of them.

Knox

 

[minnie61650]

When WDW sold the land to Four Season's there were a lot of restrictions that were part of the deal. That info was posted on an old thread. I will see if I can find it later this week.

Here is the artwork of the new Four Seasons Resort.

 

[Mouseaholic!!!]

Perhaps we do not disagree as much as you might think.

I would have much preferred Disney to structure this deal with :
a) no fractional and full timeownership homes
b) either a 99 year lease on the underlying ground or the ROFR to purchase it back should business needs dictate the purchaser must sell

Those are primarily my sticking points. Of course, we don't know that (b) isn't true as has been noted by another poster in this thread.

And if you read historically on this board, you'll see that a little over a year ago when a thread popped up that this was the end of Disney as we know it ... ie: more outsourced brands, less owned property etc. I stood up for the Disney side and still would because at the end of the day, the amount of land involved is a tiny in comparison to what's 'left' for development and growth.

I'm not a huge fan of the selling of their primarily and most vaunted asset - the land. That said, there are times it makes sense and this may be one of them.

Knox

I suspect this resort will not be great news for the Grand Floridian. Disney has always been frustrated it never received it's "5th star" when it opened....and they tried VERY hard...in Disney's way for that 5th star.

Now there will truly be an honest deluxe resort on property and finally the Beach Club, Boardwalks and other so-called Deluxe resorts will have to be satisfied with their honest "3 star" ratings they are now receiving.

I'm not sure in the long run Disney will be thrilled with the comparison to the 4 seasons.



.....and as I recall, the threads about doom and gloom at Disney were about the reduction in services and service. That certainly has come true towards the end of 2008. Attendance down 8% in the last quarter accompanied by very large budget cuts throughout all Disney cost centers.

Hey, ask the animators in Anaheim how successful things are for them right now - or the 1,000 castmembers who were laid off on January 27th....or the 600 managers in Florida who were given the buyout option or the possible 4,000 who could be laid off in March if things do not turnaround.

Today Disney releases it's 4th quarter talley.....lets see how successful they were at being ......... successful. After all, now a'days the House of the Mouse is all about $$$$$$.