Attack of the Lakeshore Lodge

[BrianLo]

My guess is that if that is the way they want to go…being the same RTU plan….its been figured out on how to work it logistics wise.

And, if they go with the trust for the DVC part of this project, they have a way to rebalance amongst component sites too

I still think, given the lack of push to sell CFW, that there is a plan to incorporate them together.

But do you think those staying at the cabins would have pool access? That’s the big sticking point I foresee.

 

[BrianLo]

So I think a good guide would be able to hook you with a sexy points chart that shows you only need 150 points for a full week in accommodations that sleep 6 with a "full" kitchen, while at the same time talking to you about all opportunities you'll have to stay elsewhere in the system.

I too think it’s a combination of everything. While the maintenance fees are top of mind here, the cabins get a little too much disdain. They are a very generous points chart for the system… and that contributes in a massive way to why their maintenance fees are so high.

I also think you have a nice tower with multiple villa choices and a Skyliner. Or a nice tower with multiple villa choices and a monorail. Or the cabins… and it’s very hard for guides to be motivated to push the latter unless the circumstances are right. Unless the price screamed differently, even the developer has never really offered them at a good price.

Controversially, I think they should have more of a moderate-adjacent version of DVC and they should be priced upfront accordingly. It’s where SSR and OKW eventually would also fall.

 

[Tatebeck]

But again, you're putting yourself in the mindset of a well-informed member of the online fan/message board community who already has stronger opinions than the average buyer. Some random family currently staying at Port Orleans Riverside getting pitched DVC isn't going to know all of the logistics of the internal bus system at Fort Wilderness. They're also not going to view Fort Wilderness as some remote middle-of-nowhere thing, they're going to view it as a Magic Kingdom resort (albeit not a monorail resort).

As a side point, I disagree that the carts are necessary. I think you need a golf cart *or* a rental car, but not necessarily both. I also think it would be awesome if DVC could figure out some kind of legal structure where you could rent a golf cart using DVC points, but I imagine there are all sorts of legal issues that would prevent that.

I would hope anyone being asked to drop $30-35k or more would do at least a little bit of research first lol. I know it took me 3 times looking into DVC after the initial sticker shock, discovering the resale market, and doing a lot more research, etc. before pulling the trigger. But I suppose there are suckers that get caught up in the moment or have more money than sense.

 

[WinterSolider]

I too think it’s a combination of everything. While the maintenance fees are top of mind here, the cabins get a little too much disdain. They are a very generous points chart for the system… and that contributes in a massive way to why their maintenance fees are so high.

I also think you have a nice tower with multiple villa choices and a Skyliner. Or a nice tower with multiple villa choices and a monorail. Or the cabins… and it’s very hard for guides to be motivated to push the latter unless the circumstances are right. Unless the price screamed differently, even the developer has never really offered them at a good price.

Controversially, I think they should have more of a moderate-adjacent version of DVC and they should be priced upfront accordingly. It’s where SSR and OKW eventually would also fall.

A lower points chart is de facto the same thing as "priced upfront accordingly." If you have a lower price-per-point AND a lower point-per-night, you're double-dipping. And it's important for the lower-demand resorts to have more favorable points charts in order to keep 7 month availability relatively in balance.

Though you could definitely make the case that Old Key West's points chart is an anomaly and that the rooms are too cheap (in points). Old Key West studios are the best redemption value in terms of dollar-of-rack-rate-value-per-point. I believe Boardwalk Standard View is similar.

 

[Brian Noble]

But do you think those staying at the cabins would have pool access? That’s the big sticking point I foresee.

I suspect they will be in the same association, and so they will have the same access as the tower does. And, the rest of the Fort will not.

Just because the cabins and the Fort used to be considered the same thing, that doesn't mean they still have to be. It is already the case that Cabin guests have access to evening hours, while the rest of the Fort does not. And it is Disney that does the considering, not long-time Fort guests.

 

[Brian Noble]

Though you could definitely make the case that Old Key West's points chart is an anomaly and that the rooms are too cheap (in points).

The collective Membership, voting with their feet, does not think so.

 

[TheDailyMoo]

I just want to stay in one of those A-frame cabins. I bet they're going to do them up real nice.

 

[WinterSolider]

The collective Membership, voting with their feet, does not think so.

The collective Guest, voting with their wallet, does.

I trust the market wisdom that emerges from supply-and-demand, as reflected by the rates Disney charges their cash guests.

If Room X costs 20% more than Room Y (in dollars) for a cash guest, then that same room should cost 20% more (in points) for a DVC guest. Any deviation from this is a market inefficiency caused by a distortion of DVC members miscalculating the value of their own points.

 

[Brian Noble]

I am 100% on board with you about that. So the question is: Why do DVC Members and the general public value them so differently?

I have no answer to that question, by the way.

 

[Tatebeck]

Would OKW being one of the few resorts that is 100% DVC with no hotel component with rooms that are always rented out for cash cause some cash price inflation there? So maybe it's not that that the point chart is too cheap there, it could be that the cash price is inflated.

If the only rooms that come available are due to DVC members trading out, banking, and borrowing, they may have a smaller number of rooms to rent out for cash compared to most other resorts that have a hotel component. The cash side of the resorts guarantee a large amount of rooms to be available for cash bookings every year, unlike the resorts that are completely DVC

 

[jolynne28]

Well, they were pet friendly before, so I suppose the old ones held up pretty well.

Sure, but they weren’t DVC. I’d say the crossover of people like us that are campers and DVC owners is fairly small. And plenty of people complained about the wear in the cabins regularly. Not sure how much of that can be equated to pets, but I can say that pet friendly is a slight turn off for me when booking stays, as I’m sure it is for others, snd we have pets.

 

[hhisc16]

Will Disney flip part of another moderate resort to DVC?

I think CFW was the first trial.

 

[pzw90]

Will Disney flip part of another moderate resort to DVC?

I think CFW was the first trial.

Coronado Springs? Throw in a tower or hotel conversion, a sky liner, and call it a HS/AK resort.

 

[BrianLo]

A lower points chart is de facto the same thing as "priced upfront accordingly." If you have a lower price-per-point AND a lower point-per-night, you're double-dipping. And it's important for the lower-demand resorts to have more favorable points charts in order to keep 7 month availability relatively in balance.

Though you could definitely make the case that Old Key West's points chart is an anomaly and that the rooms are too cheap (in points). Old Key West studios are the best redemption value in terms of dollar-of-rack-rate-value-per-point. I believe Boardwalk Standard View is similar.

For what it is worth, I agree with you in a sense. However, there's a difference between how you and I think the market should act and how it actually acts. That's what I meant by the cabins receiving more disdain than they should.

Psychologically, if the points chart was 25% higher and the maintenance fees were 25% lower, it would probably be selling better. Which is somewhat illogical because Disney could also sell more points and make even more money. The developer made a mistake by making the chart so low and yet no one really thinks of it that way in the aggregate.

The other issue with the cabins is that you can always trade into it. Those members are the ones who are really "double dipping". I do think that it's only one unit sub type though and is still attached to a moderate resort, required Disney to make a second overall concession for sales - or a double dip. Or tying it into an actual deluxe forthcoming as most but me think is occurring.

YMMV, but it's overtly selling poorly. I've learned to accept that there is some irrationality to the market that's inexplicable, but it is what it is.

 

[BrianLo]

Just because the cabins and the Fort used to be considered the same thing, that doesn't mean they still have to be. It is already the case that Cabin guests have access to evening hours, while the rest of the Fort does not. And it is Disney that does the considering, not long-time Fort guests.

Definitely get that aspect. But now if the cabins are contributing maintenance fees towards some of the broader Fort complex and transportation system, are they also going to be partially responsible for the new VLL Pool? And will the new Lakeshore units be also pseudo responsible for maintenance of the Fort and the Fort's transport? etc. etc.

I'm certain it's navigable, but it strikes me as an interesting dilemma. Maybe solved by a blended RTU plan I guess.

I just find it interesting that all language still focuses on separate resorts in other aspects. Let's be frank, the only reason everyone's brain is going there is because it's selling so poorly. No one really expected Poly and VGF blending, despite being next door. So there's some presumption of "a master plan" and my bet is that this company poorly plans.

My very upfront bias is that I don't want them to blend, I think it's a mistake.

 

[Brian Noble]

But now if the cabins are contributing maintenance fees towards some of the broader Fort complex and transportation system, are they also going to be partially responsible for the new VLL Pool?

My guess is that the Cabin transportation will be shifted to Lakeshore once that opens, which reportedly has its own boat dock, and its own bus depot. I also suspect that the interior FtW bus routes will be split: a single route that serves only Lakeshore and the cabins, and one or two separate, non-overlapping route(s) that serve the rest of the Fort campsites plus Fort amenities, Settlement/Outpost, etc.

In other words, I suspect it will be set up much as CBR and RIV are now.

 

[Brian Noble]

My very upfront bias is that I don't want them to blend, I think it's a mistake.

I am willing to bet, and give good odds, that the Cabins and Lakeshore will be "one thing." In fact, I'm fairly sure that the original plan was to get Lakeshore online, and after it was operating start the Cabin conversions, because they were nearing end-of-life. But, the pandemic inverted the plan, the cabins needed to (and could easily/cheaply) be replaced when they were replaced, and the tower got pushed back to be after instead of before.

I even half-suspect that Big Pine Key was not on the DVD roadmap in 2019, but ended up happening because the tower was delayed. It was a cheap flip, and they've never done that before---not even during the other two hotel conversions at AKL/WL.

 

[Sandisw]

But do you think those staying at the cabins would have pool access? That’s the big sticking point I foresee.

It all depends on how they do it…the way the trust can be constructed, based on an all I have read , they have options that may not exist.

If VLL is a mixed resort, they could make the pool part of the hotel and not DVC at all….like they did with PVB tower pool and then DVC owners only get RTU…

So, I don’t see the pool situation any different than PVB…and that having VLL and CFW being part of the same RTU plan and both be home resorts, with access to the pool could work as it does elsewhere.

 

[mamaofsix]

It all depends on how they do it…the way the trust can be constructed, based on an all I have read , they have options that may not exist.

If VLL is a mixed resort, they could make the pool part of the hotel and not DVC at all….like they did with PVB tower pool and then DVC owners only get RTU…

So, I don’t see the pool situation any different than PVB…and that having VLL and CFW being part of the same RTU plan and both be home resorts, with access to the pool could work as it does elsewhere.

Agreed. The pool will be room key / magic band access only with VLL and CFW having access.

No need for anyone to worry that general Fort guests will overwhelm the pool if CFW has privileges. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[Sandisw]

Agreed. The pool will be room key / magic band access only with VLL and CFW having access.

No need for anyone to worry that general Fort guests will overwhelm the pool if CFW has privileges. Ain't gonna happen.

And my guess is that if it’s including the lazy river, etc that a wristband with CMs at the gates will be implemented like at SAB.

So, it’s definitely doable for DVC to do it. And, making VLL and CFW part of the same RTU plan, they get to sell it all as one.

Just like PVB, and the bungalows, or CCV and their cabins…people didn’t buy for them, but it gave DVD lots of points to sell.

And, the cabins get added to DVC as a whole for booking…which seem to be popular with current owners as they do get booked at 7 months..

IMO, it’s a win win!