An honest to God rumor that even Scoop may like!!!

[plutospup]

...Maybe you would prefer an urban type location...with tall buildings...and maybe an (elevated)train that circles the property? Hmmm...with that train extending to DTD, maybe TTC, and the other parks...I can dream can't I?
As for the "Catskills" theme...maybe a standup Buddy Hackett in the corner telling corny jokes?

 

[d-r]

About the pools-

The institute has the only pool on property deep enough to allow for diving (afaik), and I'm willing to bet the farm that this will be "fixed" with the new dvc.

 

[DisneyKidds]

I'm concerned about the announcement that the Saratoga Springs Resort & Spa will include 300 refurbished units -- not about the resort's theme. I assume these are the old 1-bedroom bungalow units -- there were 316 of them at the Villas at Disney Institute. Those units are 25-30 years old, and today they have bland, unthemed, 1970s architecture. I just hope these units will be brought up to DVC standards and can somehow be made to fit into the theme of the Saratoga Springs Resort & Spa properly.

The use of these old units does seem like it could be something to be concerned about. Will they be up to the DVC standard? When you are investing in 40+ years of a 'new' resort you are counting on that resort holding it's high standard for that period of time. Given that some of these buildings are 30 years old, will there be maintenance and upkeep issues as they become 70 years old?

Being from the Hudson Valley, upstate NY as a theme doesn't thrill me. Oh well, so be it - so long as it is done right. I can see using the town center buildings that were designed with that theme back in the 90's. I thought the original idea was to build DVC units to go with and compliment these existing structures. Taking the cheap way out and using the old Villas units could be a problem.

You know what, it could be an even bigger problem than anyone realizes (just conjecture here, no AV like cryptic hidden message ) and I'm surprised a certain someone hasn't gone off on this idea yet. You see, if this new DVC resort is done on the cheap (through use of existing structures) and incorporates old buildings that might not be up to the standard of the other DVC resorts - well, we have a DVC caste system in the making. The dumbing down of DVC. I can see it now. Want to stay in a 30 year old unit? OK, that will be 8 points in the offseason. Then management figures out, 'hey, we can sell a minimum contract of 75 points and people can still get a week + out of it'. Then they figure, 'hey, if the average DVC sucker is willing to use 8 points for a craqppy old unit at SSR&S, we can jack up the minimum points per night for the really good DVC resorts.' Before you know it, the increase in points per night for DVC has doubled the rate of point inflation for a cross section of timeshares. SSR&S will be the CBR of DVC. DVC will finally have the full Ei$ner stamp and legacy................

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

'hey, if the average DVC sucker is willing to use 8 points for a crappy old unit at SSR&S, we can jack up the minimum points per night for the really good DVC resorts.'

fortunately for DVC members this can never happen. There are a set number of points per resort per year and DVC can't raise that annual total (unless they add more rooms at that resort). They can shift points around, i.e. making the adventure season cost more points, but have to take away points from some other season. But why am I telling you folks this - you know this already, right?

 

[Another Voice]

Well Mr. DisneyKids, you stole my cryptic message for the day. There’s really nothing more I can add, other than to look for new “affordable options in DVC ownership” in the next year or so. You gotta keep the cash flow coming.

What’s really funny about all of this is that the Disney Village was built back in the 1970’s as a vacation home/time share development. Changes in the market caused Disney to reconsider after the construction began. In fact, the four Grand Villas were actually the model homes for the hosing tract section that never was started. Seems like all ideas come around full circle.

On the theme, I’d feel better if I thought the Catskills was chosen because the designers or the guests were really excited about it. But I have a feeling it was picked mostly because it was felt that it was the easiest to get approved by a certain aging career-challenged executive with a history of shoving recreations of his 5th Avenue fantasy childhood on every project whether it’s appropriate or not.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Sorry to step on your toes AV .

As for those 'affordable options', I really don't have a problem with them being offered so long as they don't de-value people's existing ownerships. Bottom line is that in the future I will still need my 300+ points to join the good Baron in the joy/pain that is a summer trip once my kids are school-age, even if they are selling 75 point memberships for $6,000.

mjstacey - thanks for the reminder on the points per year, zero sum DVC resort point game. Of course, the way they reshuffle the points doesn't have to make sense to anyone other than those who count the profits .

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

This is a bit dated, I’m afraid. But I’ll catch up with the thread in due time. For now let me say: Most troubling AV!! Most troubling indeed!!


Anyway, in answer to themes for resorts:

I think a key point is the American-themed resorts at have been built at WDW over the past 15 years don't just take you to an East Coast beach or some other US location. They take you back in time.

Time periods do make it a bit better, but I always ask why that couldn't be employed with the more exotic themes anyway. Take for instance that Greek Island theme that was mentioned earlier. OK, put it in Aristotle's time. Ahhhhh! There you go!! Now you've got something!!!! Or perhaps a medieval castle type or Mediterranean something in the 1600's. Instead we get everything from this continent and from no "time" more than a hundred years ago. Pretty limiting, when you think about it!!!

They have the capability to really dazzle us. All of the world and all of history to choose from. Talk about really put us in a different time and place!!! WOW!! If anyone could, Disney could!! Yet they opt for, in my opinion, rather mundane fare. You have this blank piece of land and you are about to create!!! Remember, you are Disney!!! You can build whatever you like!! And also keep in mind that the philosophy calls for erecting a movie set, carefully detailed and meticulously themed throughout!! PERFECT! The sky is literally the limit!! So do they take us to the sky? Do they dazzle us? Well, yes and no!! What they give us is very nice!! Very nice indeed!! Can't argue with that. But it really could be sooooo much more.

It's like having a blank canvass and unlimited art supplies and talent that oozes through every pore of your body. And you take those canvasses, art supplies and sheer talent and create the best damn charcoal rendering of fruit anyone has ever seen!!! WOW!!! Yeah! You WOWed them alright!!! Congratulations!!

So, it's on to the next. And again you create... well.... Another charcoal still life of fruit!! In fact, ten to fifteen years down the road we discover, that's all you do is fruit!! In charcoal!! Different fruit to be sure, apples, oranges, bananas and even a kumquat!! All beautiful works of art. Anyone would LOVE to be an owner of a "Disney original charcoal fruit picture"!! But let's face it, they are ALL fruit!! Done in relatively the same charcoal manner. No portraits. No landscapes. No impressionist. No avant-garde modern nonsense! Just fruit!! No oil paintings, no sketching, no pastels, no sculptures. Just charcoal fruit. Again, very nicely done fruit! Very captivating. But very much the same.

They got away from it a bit when they built Wilderness. And again with AKL. But to me those two are VERY similar. So we have ALL these fruit pictures in charcoal and two fruit paintings done in oil.

It's a matter of choice. And basically I'm not one to quibble about choice. Until I see a trend. And choices being made deliberately EXCLUDING other motifs. So I ask why. And to be honest, I can't think of one good reason!! Except perhaps lack of vision. Maybe someone can clue me in, cause I'm at a loss to explain it.

I know this is highly subjective, and I can't really argue with what's been built (except for the All-Stars and Pop Century of course. In the art analogy they'd be the Elvis on Velvet!). They're ALL very nice. They are even exciting, for what they are. I just see all the lost potential and lament.

 

[raidermatt]

Baron, I think you're right on about safe, but its not quite as simple as just taking the easy way out, though that's certainly a part of it.

I think it makes some sense that Disney looks for resort themes that instill comfort in its guests. That's one of the big appeals for many guests. That feeling of safety and comfort one gets from Disney. Resorts that take us back in time to different eras and locations in our country are inherently comfortable.

Medieval castles and such are not automatically so comfortable, if done with any kind of realism. Dungeons and beheadings are probably not what a lot of Disney guests want to be reminded of when they check into their resort.

Now, that said, just as the parks invoke that comfort with castles, jungles and outer space, the resorts could as well. It would just take a little more creativity and imagination (well, maybe a lot more), as well as an understanding of how much realism guests really want, and how much realism they are willing to sacrifice for comfort.

Disney should be able to achieve such goals. Disney, however, has become rather risk averse with respect to parks/resorts, and does not seem to have an idea of what its guests really want. Those two factors make it easier (and probably wiser) to stick with themes that make their guests comfortable before they even see the place, rather than themes they could more easily screw up.

So, yeah, it probably comes down to doing whats safe, but safety and comfort are actually part of what they should be trying to achieve. (As opposed to Vegas, which needs more glitz, daring, and exoticism (is that a word?)) Its just that Disney doesn't know how, or doesn't have the stones, to try to create safety and comfort from something that doesn't inherently ooze it...

 

[HB2K]

and now even secretly root for Belicheck's team

...you got some taste scoop!

 

[raidermatt]

"Grrrrrrrrrrr", Raidermatt growls his disapproval as flashbacks of snowblind officials dance in his head.

Realizing, however, that what's done is truly done, and that the new year may yet bring a chance for playoff revenge, he only let's out a muted "Tuck this", and bides his time.....

 

[larry_poppins]

As a DVC member I feel I have to put in my 2 cents. Saratoga feels pretty lackluster to me.
However, look at what it is replacing. Disney Institute and the WDW Villas were essentially themeless and nondescript apartment living. With the exception of the treehouse villas could anyone really be excited about staying there?

Saratoga Springs will be pretty to look at and have an upscale feel to it. Not much but an improvement over the boring 70's villas. OKW is pretty and upscale too. I like many others enjoy staying at OKW and I assume there will be members who will enjoy Saratoga once Disney educates us about the theme and the backstory.

I do think that WDW is in for a shock because I can not imagine that Saratoga will sale at the same fast clip that BWV, WLV, and BCV sold. These three have location as selling point. As pleasant as Saratoga will be the only thing separating it from a Marriott property will be the Disney transportation system. Non Disney vacation clubs have a draw that DVC doesn't have: namely locations outside of WDW, Vero and HH. Why committ to 40 years at WDW since WDW is no longer pushing the envelope on theme park design and innovation. Disney may find that without a substantial discount on tickets for new DVC members their ready pool of customers may be shrinking.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Scoop, you’re going to do it again. OK!! You asked for it. Let’s see now, where to begin? I know, how about an accurate count of the Disney OWNED and BUILT resorts!! Now, what did you say again? Why, here it is:

After all, the other resorts, namely, the Disneyland Hotel, the Disney Inn, and Fort Wilderness

The very first one out of the box and you got it WRONG! Check the history.

you mean the 1920 Catskills is a worse theme than a Widerness campground or purposely unthemed but really nice Inn?

Not worse at all, my good Scoop!! But certainly no better! Especially taken collectively. If this were the first resort ever built I’d be jumping for joy!!! What a wonderful idea!!! And even the next (pick one, Boardwalk, Floridian, Beach, Yacht, Old Key West, Caribbean, Port Orleans, Dixie, etc.) I’d still say it was wonderful!!! But after all this time and all those above named, relatively the same resorts, I expect something a little different!! Don’t you? Or is this another example of how we should settle for what Disney "gives" us?

Pre-Eisner, the only Disney resort that any other regime ever built with a "non-Western" hemisphere theme was the Poly.

What a doozie of a statement!!! SCOOP!!! There were only three and one of those was a campgrounds!! So of the “Hotel” Style, HALF(!!!) were “exotic”! And the other half, whether you like the style or not, was extremely captivating!!! The crowds, at that particular moment in time, LOVED it!! Why can’t you keep that concept in your head? We’ve been round and round on this several times. (The same with the Golf Resort concept, and yet you tried to bring it into these discussions again. Talk about clouding an issue!!)

And even if I grant you that there were four, that would leave one quarter “exotic” and one quarter mind blowing ‘futuristic’. So where are the one quarter to one half ‘exotic’ resorts today? Hmmmm. There aren’t any!!!!

Regardless, the quality of a new resort certainly should not rise and fall on its "theme". Alot of Vegas' best resorts have "exotic" themes, but some of the great ones also have less exotic (ex: New York, New York).

Good grieve!!! What in all the world does any of this paragraph have to do with Disney!?!?!

When I mentioned the Saratoga Springs rumor to Betsy she was thrilled.

Great! On a personal level, I’m THRILLED for you beyond belief!! But objectively - IT STINKS!!!

Now, if they just theme it 2002 Catskills, then you are absolutely right. But, this idea that Disney is not being "exotic" enough just doesn't hold water with me.

And this from the guy who spent pages dissing Fort Wilderness because it was Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett style instead of an Amazon rainforest!!!! Go figure!!




Mr. Matt (riding shotgun)

Its just that Disney doesn't know how, or doesn't have the stones, to try to create safety and comfort from something that doesn't inherently ooze it...

Right on the mark!!!

 

[Bstanley]

The position:

If it was built before this regime it is good (or at least had an excuse for stinking) or if it was built during this regime it is bad (or at least had an excuse for being good)

Scoop,

Not to be rude dear fellow, but the monochromatic nature of the 'loyal opposition' has been quite clear for some time.

It is why I've scaled back debating - the juice just ain't worth the squeeze.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Scoop, you are right. I did misspeak. It is certainly NOT objectively. It is my considered opinion only. (but to tell you the truth I don't know how anyone could disagree!! Not taste wise, but in seeing, and acknowledging, that those mentioned are all relatively the same!!)

Now! We can get to the good stuff. I remember well the conversation we had concerning the campgrounds. YOU were the one that didn't like the theme and ergo, didn't care for the campgrounds (or at least thought they were not themed "properly"). Am I mistaken?

I, on the other hand, normally would not consider quibbling about theme. I think it all boils down to taste. Some may not like the Poly and others may LOVE it. I really don't see how that fits in with the current conversation. When I do look at theme choices it becomes personal. To each his/her own. I find each resort (yes even the moderates, Mr. Kidds) to be themed rather nicely. Some more than others, but hey, you gotta justify the price differential somehow, don't you?

Anyway, theme is theme and Disney does it very well. I get a genuine kick out of just about every resort on the property. And if we study them individually I think we can agree that they are very well done and for the most part, to some varying degree, Disney through and through. I certainly hope this takes care of the 'current' regime vs. the 'old' regime (ps, Scoop. I LOVE the water parks, too. Current regime!). I LIKE all the resorts built to date (notable exceptions I think we all know )!! I even LOVE some of them.

HOWEVER!! I contend that there is trend growing inside the design of WDW that is disturbing. VERY disturbing. When examined COLLECTIVELY we can't help but notice that the region and time are all very similar. Again, two notable exceptions, AKL and Wilderness (although if you get right down to it, Wilderness isn't that far off the mark either!!)

Now, let's wrap this thing up and come full circle. I assert that the Campgrounds are wonderfully themed!! They are rich in detail, story, scope and everything else that makes it Disney. You disagreed. You wanted something more... ah... what would be the right word... well... EXOTIC comes to mind. I thought it was just fine.

In this thread I complained that the New York theme wasn't exotic enough and again you disagreed!! (picking up a pattern here?) But there is a world of difference in my complaint about the current COLLECTIVE state of the resorts and your complaint of one, single, solitary campgrounds!!

IF they ever chose to do another campgrounds, say at the south end of the property, and they themed it similarly to Fort Wilderness, I'd be screaming from the rooftops!!! I'd be right there with you, buddy, complaining to high heaven that Disney let us all down!! What they gave us, instead of a Daniel Boone frontier, was Buffalo Bill's western town!! Very nice. A little different, but not near enough!!! What happened to the African safari!! The Amazon or Indian or Asian Jungle!! Or even the Australian outback!! Come on guys!! Let's start THINKING!!!!

And if this New York theme had been the first of it's kind, I wouldn't be writing a word about it!! LOVE IT! Bring it on!!! Can't wait to try it out!!! Hope the points are the same as OKW!!!

But it isn't the first. Or the second. Or the third. Or the fourth. Or EVEN the fifth!!! It's just the most recent of a long line of 'similar' themes. What's next? San Francisco at the turn of the century? Right before the Earthquake? Not a bad idea, in and of itself (if I do say so myself )!! But a really rotten idea considering all the others that came before. How about a little stretch from 100 years ago, this continent? Let's move to Europe for just one resort. Or maybe --- well ---- ANYWHERE else!!! Don’t you get that, Scoop!!!??? Can’t you see the difference?






(SPECIAL NOTE: Not one quote! And you don't know how tempting it was to quote the good Mr. Stanley!!)

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Originally posted by Another Voice
There’s really nothing more I can add, other than to look for new “affordable options in DVC ownership” in the next year or so.

Over on the DVC board, I wrote a long note with facts, speculation and predictions. Please click here to take a look. (It's the 14th reply; I also have an earlier reply in that thread.)

 

[Another Voice]

Something just struck me funny. So many people defend the All Stars and Pop Century as if providing "affordable" motels room was a great noble cause of Disney. In reality it was nothing more than Disney trying go after a market segment in an attempt to generate more revenue.

Yet some of these people seem to have a problem with the same thinking could be applied to DVC.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Yet some of these people seem to have a problem with the same thinking could be applied to DVC.

Oh! I see it, my lord!! I've seen it for a while. But I'm afraid I'm rather stuck!! I bought with the understanding that Disney was... well... DISNEY!! I had the original rose-colored-glasses!! And when they finally fell off.....

"the horror. - the horror." *






*Obscure movie reference.

 

[raidermatt]

Yet some of these people seem to have a problem with the same thinking could be applied to DVC.

Not me. Go back awhile and I might argue the point, but I've learned my lesson.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me...

 

[Cricket2]

Take for instance that Greek Island theme......

I haven't finished reading this entire thread (shame on me) but if you have visited the Chautauqua Institute (which is what DI was supposed to be themed after?), you may realize that some of it, if not many of the public areas are very Greek or otherwise themed. Disney never got the theming right the first time through. I visited the DI 4 or so years ago and I couldn't understand how they thought it was based on the CI at all (other than the edu-tainment programs). It's not even close! Plain Jane lackluster architecture is the precise opposite of what the CI was (still is) trying to accomplish. There are no 2 houses exactly alike. In fact, they are drastically different.

Visit the website and view the 360 cameras (at the top):

http://www.chautauqua-inst.org/

You may be surprised at how wrong they got it.

I'm afraid that people will think that Disney defines the architecture of the theme and not the other way around.

Here are a few static images for the lazy (if they work)

Greek "Hall of Philosophy"

...again...

Ok, they got the bus stops right

 

[DisneyKidds]

Who let the Baron out of his daytime cage?

Anyway, theme is theme and Disney does it very well. I get a genuine kick out of just about every resort on the property. And if we study them individually I think we can agree that they are very well done and for the most part, to some varying degree, Disney through and through.

Didn't we arg.., um, discuss, for pages upon pages the fact that you thought the moderates were, in fact, NOT DISNEY AT ALL? Now they are 'Disney through and through'? Not Disney, Disney to some degree. One argument one day, one argument the next. Whatever am I going to do with you .

As to this......

Something just struck me funny. So many people defend the All Stars and Pop Century as if providing "affordable" motels room was a great noble cause of Disney. In reality it was nothing more than Disney trying go after a market segment in an attempt to generate more revenue.

Yet some of these people seem to have a problem with the same thinking could be applied to DVC.

...I will go on record. I have no problem with Disney making hotels that cater to a different market segment, so long as they are done 'Disney' and are a good Show. I have stated previously that the AS/PC don't meet this criteria. I have also stated that I have no problem with the 'affordable DVC options', so long as they don't de-value existing memberships.