Attack of the Lakeshore Lodge

[BrianLo]

Most people here seem to think yes.

I think it’s unlikely.

But Disney has given us zero bread crumbs so

I’m also now siding on no, but @Jlo85 does present a good argument.

https://disneyconnect.com/dse-press...isney-vacation-club-to-debut-new-experiences/

On the flip side, the lack of language connecting lakeside lodge in any way to the cabins or fort wilderness and referring to it (Lakeside Lodge) as a new resort and the official completion of the 17th resort (cabins) are all not the language I’m seeking to affirm a strong intent to blend the two.

 

[eticketplease]

On the flip side, the lack of language connecting lakeside lodge in any way to the cabins or fort wilderness and referring to it (Lakeside Lodge) as a new resort and the official completion of the 17th resort (cabins) are all not the language I’m seeking to affirm a strong intent to blend the two

Actually I would think it is more of a reason for them to be blended.

Poly Island tower was never announced as #xx resort of DVC as it was part of another association.

Lakeshore Lodge was not announced with any numbering like VDH #16 and CFW #17 has to my knowledge

 

[BrianLo]

Actually I would think it is more of a reason for them to be blended.

Poly Island tower was never announced as #xx resort of DVC as it was part of another association.

Lakeshore Lodge was not announced with any numbering like VDH #16 and CFW #17 has to my knowledge

I know what you are saying, but nor was Poly Island Tower announced as "Disney's nature lodge, a new resort property". Grand Floridian and Polynesian were unambiguously part of their resort(s) and the association was up for debate.

I would have expected Disney's Lakeside Lodge at the Fort Wilderness Resort. I think the only reason we even think there is a chance for blending, is that the resorts are neighbours. Or the trust plan, potentially.

 

[Hubalorian]

I know what you are saying, but nor was Poly Island Tower announced as "Disney's nature lodge, a new resort property". Grand Floridian and Polynesian were unambiguously part of their resort(s) and the association was up for debate.

I would have expected Disney's Lakeside Lodge at the Fort Wilderness Resort. I think the only reason we even think there is a chance for blending, is that the resorts are neighbours. Or the trust plan, potentially.

If I’m not mistaken, it doesn’t matter for trust. It can be a “new resort” but still housed within the trust.

 

[Cfabar1]

The cabins are an abject and total failure if the goal was to sell points for the cabins (I am still not convinced of that).

Whether they lean into this failure and put the cabins in the lakeside lodge or whether they lean out and have a separate association, we shall see.
I agree with @CastAStone that they will be separate if I had to guess….

A high end nature retreat coupled with a trailer park makes no sense to me. But we shall see.

 

[Electron_si]

I know what you are saying, but nor was Poly Island Tower announced as "Disney's nature lodge, a new resort property". Grand Floridian and Polynesian were unambiguously part of their resort(s) and the association was up for debate.

I would have expected Disney's Lakeside Lodge at the Fort Wilderness Resort. I think the only reason we even think there is a chance for blending, is that the resorts are neighbours. Or the trust plan, potentially.

I think the CFW high dues cost also add to the speculation that the high rise will be rolled in to bring dues down to a more modest level. The assumption was this might have been planned from the beginning.

 

[eticketplease]

I know what you are saying, but nor was Poly Island Tower announced as "Disney's nature lodge, a new resort property". Grand Floridian and Polynesian were unambiguously part of their resort(s) and the association was up for debate.

I would have expected Disney's Lakeside Lodge at the Fort Wilderness Resort. I think the only reason we even think there is a chance for blending, is that the resorts are neighbours. Or the trust plan, potentially.

True it wasn’t announced as such but my money is still on the same association/trust.

Let’s remember Poly started out with limited room choices much like CFW.

We now have a new tower with different accommodations to complement the studios and bungalows.

I suspect the same will come true with the lodge to add more choice to the laundry-less one bedrooms that are the only option at that moment.

As you pointed out they are also close by similar to PIT and the original PVB

Again DVC does like to announce the # of the resort in their announcements which did not happen with the lodge.

 

[Sandisw]

I know what you are saying, but nor was Poly Island Tower announced as "Disney's nature lodge, a new resort property". Grand Floridian and Polynesian were unambiguously part of their resort(s) and the association was up for debate.

I would have expected Disney's Lakeside Lodge at the Fort Wilderness Resort. I think the only reason we even think there is a chance for blending, is that the resorts are neighbours. Or the trust plan, potentially.

I think when you look at the trust, they can consider it a new resort, but still add it under the same resort use plan.

The cabins were added as inventory as The Cabins at Ft Wilderness. And then those were activated for use in the “Cabins Resort Use Plan….that name can be updated

So, it can add DLL inventory to the trust, as a brand new component site and then activate that into that same RTU plan as the cabins, which means what you buy is RTU either as your home resort.

That is what makes the trust concept DVC set up different than the leasehold condo set up of the others.

 

[Kailunkat]

They can’t do that with current resorts. …they have to add full units to the trust and at sold out resorts, they don’t have full ownership of any full unit.

So, the only inventory that can go into this trust are units that DVD completely owns. For example, they could add undeclared PVB tower units if they wanted to…but they can’t RofR a contract and then add that partial ownership interest into the trust because its not a whole unit.

When inventory is added, it has to be defined and then points attached. If DVd doesn’t own it all, they can’t move inventory to the trust to sell RTU plans.

So, it can add DLL inventory to the trust, as a brand new component site and then activate that into that same RTU plan as the cabins, which means what you buy is RTU either as your home resort.

That is what makes the trust concept DVC set up different than the leasehold condo set up of the others.

So I understand that they need a full unit to add to any RTU plan - but can they do this even at OG resorts if full units become available? Do the existing documents for the current DVC associations prohibit this?

Also, is there anything preventing them (besides needing at least one full unit) from setting up tiers or different pricing for different RTU plan options? For example could they set up plans where you have multiple pricing/flexibility options like the following:
A) buy RTU only for the Cabins
B) RTU plan for Cabins PLUS Lakeside
C) RTU for Lakeside plus Riviera (using this since it isn't sold out yet)
D) RTU for all currently selling DVC

If it's based on needing current units then they could potentially tailor the options so that all of the possible configurations get included correct? I don't know anything about other companies who use RTU based systems so I'm curious how they typically handle it.

 

[Lorana]

If I’m remembering correctly - and maybe I’m not — When Disney originally announced Reflections, they indicated it would have many unique accommodations, including A-frames, treehouses, and cabins.

The A-frames and Treehouses were shown as in the main resort area, but there was a presumption the FW Cabins would convert to DVC and become part of Reflections. Then Reflections got cancelled, but Disney still needed to replace the cabins, and hence CFW was born. A lot of the speculation of CFW becoming part of Lakeside Lodge is because this seemed to be the original intent and that the wording of the POS for CFW seems to purposefully allow for that to happen.

I’m not convinced DVC intends to move fully to a trust model, but I am in the camp thinking they wrote the CFW POS the way they did to allow it to become part of Reflections/Lakeside when it was finally built.

 

[jennypenny]

I find it amusing how many people are referring to it as Lakeside Lodge. If they'd changed the name to River Country Lodge we'd all be saying it correctly, but they managed to tweak it just enough that we're all (myself included) saying the wrong name.

I'm starting to feel bad for whoever is in charge of the cabins and new lodge. They can't win for losing.

 

[bakerworld]

To my way of thinking a 'shore' is something you can access so 'side' is more descriptive. JMO

 

[Sandisw]

So I understand that they need a full unit to add to any RTU plan - but can they do this even at OG resorts if full units become available? Do the existing documents for the current DVC associations prohibit this?

Also, is there anything preventing them (besides needing at least one full unit) from setting up tiers or different pricing for different RTU plan options? For example could they set up plans where you have multiple pricing/flexibility options like the following:
A) buy RTU only for the Cabins
B) RTU plan for Cabins PLUS Lakeside
C) RTU for Lakeside plus Riviera (using this since it isn't sold out yet)
D) RTU for all currently selling DVC

If it's based on needing current units then they could potentially tailor the options so that all of the possible configurations get included correct? I don't know anything about other companies who use RTU based systems so I'm curious how they typically handle it.

Once units are declared into a condo assocation for sale, they would need to remove them before adding them to the trust.....so, first they would have to try to take back ownership of one....which they can only do via ROFR, foreclosure, etc. and then once that full unit was owned by them, remove it...which, I don't even think they legally can. Plus, when DVD sells units, they keep their share of ownership in each one, which means they sell around 98% of every single one to others...

The way the trust is set up is that they can have as many RTU plans as they want and the units can be at different component sites....they add inventory to the trust and then that inventory gets activated for use in a speicfic plan...right now, there is only one plan....the Cabins Resort Use plan...

Now, if DVD wanted to sell a resort different ways, it would not have added PVB tower to PVB or they would have put undeclared units from RIV into the trust....since they did not, it tells you that creating a complicated situation like you suggest is not something they want or even can do.

The key with the way this trust is set up is that they have options that they didn't with a strict leashold condo distinction.....it allows them to keep each resort as its own like now, but sell as a RTU vs. leashold....system would function though just like now.

Or, they can activate different component sites into the same RTU plan...like making DLL and CFW one resort complex....and sell togheter...

I could see down the road them doing the same with say, BWV/BCV, when it expires...now one resort complex that you buy with access to both as home resorts.

While they could put everything all in one big RTU plan, I honestly do not see that happening...but who knows what and how they will use this in the future....until something else is added, its all just speculation but I think that with DLL back on the table as a project, it does seem that it will follow the CFW model, especially since CFW is selling so poorly and they don't seem to be increasing incentives to pull up those numbers.

 

[ehh]

CFW points literally aren't gonna sell themselves and rolling them into a more attractive offering might be the only way Disney can sell out those points.

I think this reason alone outweighs all the other factors for or against combining Lakeshore Lodge into CFW's association/trust/whatever.

Said another way: they might be able to sell an additional 1-2mil points in the next 10-15 years if they combine vs. if they don't.

 

[disneylandtour]

Once units are declared into a condo assocation for sale, they would need to remove them before adding them to the trust.....so, first they would have to try to take back ownership of one....which they can only do via ROFR, foreclosure, etc. and then once that full unit was owned by them, remove it...which, I don't even think they legally can. Plus, when DVD sells units, they keep their share of ownership in each one, which means they sell around 98% of every single one to others...

The way the trust is set up is that they can have as many RTU plans as they want and the units can be at different component sites....they add inventory to the trust and then that inventory gets activated for use in a speicfic plan...right now, there is only one plan....the Cabins Resort Use plan...

Now, if DVD wanted to sell a resort different ways, it would not have added PVB tower to PVB or they would have put undeclared units from RIV into the trust....since they did not, it tells you that creating a complicated situation like you suggest is not something they want or even can do.

The key with the way this trust is set up is that they have options that they didn't with a strict leashold condo distinction.....it allows them to keep each resort as its own like now, but sell as a RTU vs. leashold....system would function though just like now.

Or, they can activate different component sites into the same RTU plan...like making DLL and CFW one resort complex....and sell togheter...

I could see down the road them doing the same with say, BWV/BCV, when it expires...now one resort complex that you buy with access to both as home resorts.

While they could put everything all in one big RTU plan, I honestly do not see that happening...but who knows what and how they will use this in the future....until something else is added, its all just speculation but I think that with DLL back on the table as a project, it does seem that it will follow the CFW model, especially since CFW is selling so poorly and they don't seem to be increasing incentives to pull up those numbers.

The downside to a large trust is that the more resorts are rolled into it the less meaningful the 11 month option will be. All the good rooms will be booked quickly. In that scenario, it may be nearly as good to have less expensive SSR points and simply cross your fingers at 7 months.

 

[Sandisw]

The downside to a large trust is that the more resorts are rolled into it the less meaningful the 11 month option will be. All the good rooms will be booked quickly. In that scenario, it may be nearly as good to have less expensive SSR points and simply cross your fingers at 7 months.

That only happens if they put everything into just one RTU plan. The great piece of the way Disney did it is that it doesn’t have to be that way.

They could sell DLL and CFW together and in 2042, combine BWV and BCV together as a new RTU plan, thst does not give those owners home resort owners to the DLL/CFW plan.

It’s not that all inventory added to the trust automatically becomes someone’s home resort.

 

[GADisneyDad14]

I just spent a week in a cabin (loved it, BTW)...frankly to me the design elements of the cabins have some similar elements to the original Reflections renderings if I study them closely. Mainly thinking about angles, materials/textures, and general look. Certainly not identical, but directionally similar, in my opinion. Put me down as team combined.

Also put me on team will never get the name right. Going to need to focus to get it right for the foreseeable future.

 

[patm95]

I find it amusing how many people are referring to it as Lakeside Lodge. If they'd changed the name to River Country Lodge we'd all be saying it correctly, but they managed to tweak it just enough that we're all (myself included) saying the wrong name.

I'm starting to feel bad for whoever is in charge of the cabins and new lodge. They can't win for losing.

I do this all the time! lol. I guess in my mind it makes more sense.

 

[Mikey15]

The downside to a large trust is that the more resorts are rolled into it the less meaningful the 11 month option will be. All the good rooms will be booked quickly. In that scenario, it may be nearly as good to have less expensive SSR points and simply cross your fingers at 7 months.

Only if you’re talking SSR you’ve had since 2018 or direct you bought at one of the sales though. If I buy resale SSR now I can’t use those points at Riv, VDH, or CFW.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

Nearly two weeks until the Poly tower opens and we have our new(ish) speculation thread already fired up. I do miss the intense back and forth about what association the tower was going to be part of….can’t believe that was a year ago…ah good times.