1) I agree, BCV and VWL were made too small. I think it was a knee-jerk reaction by Disney to the popularity of DVC (OKW and BWV). Easy and quick to build with existing infrastructure, location, amenities, and theme. They should have been bigger if room had allowed.
Exactly my point...but like you, I can't really take issue with DVD for doing what they did. I don't think, when those resorts were conceptualized, they had really predicted that the popularity would explode.
However, I think they did make SSR too large, regardless. They exacerbated their mistake with the smaller resorts by making a behemoth sized resort in SSR. SSR should have been limited to Congress Park, The Springs, and The Grandstand (and maybe the south portion of the Paddock). These areas all have something to offer - proximity to the central resort area and/or DTD and views of DTD or the golf course. The Carousel and the northern Paddock are just too far from everything and have nothing for views. SSR should have topped out at about 500 units max (as should all future DVC resorts). DVC still would have been out of balance because of the smaller resorts and the more limited draw of SSR, but it would have been manageable IMHO.
I think, in the current system, that SSR is too large. Add 2 or 3 more 500 unit options...and it's not anymore. OKW "overburdened" the system early on, too, in much the same way SSR is now. As more options are added, much of that burden is lifted.
BCV and VWL are likley to always be a tough ticket...they were a tough ticket before, and with the new behemoth they're moreso. Hopefully that burden will ease when AKV is complete and DVD adds another on site resort (CRV maybe). But it's never going to go away. They will always be "too small".
2) I also agree, SSR is a nice resort, and I think it is maturing well. It still needs some additional draw, however, due to its size and its location (DTD is only so much of a draw).
In your opinion. Again, I think easy access to Golf, access to a world class spa, upscale accomodations, and walking distance to DTD are "enough". Maybe not "enough" to appeal to EVERYONE, but no DVC resort has a broad, complete spectrum of amenities.
3) I have no problem with a more "traditional" timeshare. But this is still Disney, and SSR I think is a little bland for what is expected of a Disney Resort. Maybe bland is the wrong word, because nobody wants over-the-top theming everywhere, but I would much rather have seen an resort more like OKW than the large and sprawling condo/apartment building setup of SSR. I think OKW works because despite its size and understated theme, it still has an intimate and relaxing feel to it.
Right. YOU prefer it. But you and I and the OP are not everyone. The question is: Is there a market for this type of resort? I think (and looking at Florida Timeshare development and sales bears this out....SSR is EXACTLY the type of timeshare development going up all over Orlando) there is.
4) Nick is fun, if you have kids, but only for a few days. It is not DVC or Disney equivalent. No reason to stay there unless you are going to their pool area.
I agree. My point was that even the Nick Hotel is not bulletproof...not from an adult standpoint, and not even from a kid standpoint. The pool is obviously the main attraction....I'm not sure SSR "needs" a Nick pool anymore than it "needs" to have some other amenitee added to it simply because some people aren't enamored with what they DO offer,which, FYI, are unique to SSR in the case of the spa, and unique to the anchor resorts (SSR and OKW) in the case of golf access and DTD access.
5) The argument is that before SSR, the 7/11 window system still allowed some variability and options outside of the home resort after 7 months. With the balance being thrown off, whether you blame the small resorts or SSR, the options have become more limited. Its not an argument that an owner can't reserve their own resort (they can pretty easily with the 4 months), but it has reduced the variety of options within 7-months at your home of other resorts. Yes those are the rules we all play by, but people have come to expect certain things and do not like the changes that have been occurring, whether they are justified for feeling that way or not
.
First up, the OP was looking a month out or so. Not 7, not 6, not even 4 or 5. I don't know how you could reasonably expect much availability ANYWHERE on that kind of short notice. I certainly wouldn't.
As an owner, as the membership grows, what you describe above is what's going to happen. That's not SSR's fault. That's adding 800 units worth of new members "fault". At the 7 month, you're competing with DVC membership, not SSR members. See the differnence? My question is: Why, just because you were members earlier, should you expect to have more options than all the other membership. We're all competing at the 7 month window. Are there more SSR members in the "pool"? Probably, becasuse there are more, numerically, than at any other single resort. But at the 7 month window, they go from being SSR members simply to "DVC members". Everyone is in the same pool. As new options come online (like a fully built out AKV and whatever DVD has in store on proprety next), you'll notice more options being available. Same as with OKW when it was the 600lb gorrilla.
What a read!
SSR good! SSR bad!
