BLT reconfiguration of room categories?

[Crystal_27]

I was writing to ask those more seasoned owners if DVC typically reconfigures the room categories after a new resort has been opened for a while to more accurately reflect the room's view. For example, would DVC ever recategorize those few BLT standard view rooms with partial MK views "MK view," or make those lake view rooms with no lake in sight "standard views"? Does it ever happen? Thanks in advance for any input.

 

[dizfan]

Not a DVC vet, but I have read that they did do something with BWV early on.

 

[tjkraz]

Since the nightly point values are vary by category, the very latest any changes could be made would be just before the resort is fully sold out...perhaps ever sooner than that, before individual units are declared into inventory.

If they took a Lake View room and reclassified it as Standard View after-the-fact, there would be fewer points in the system. The resort would then become oversold which violates FL timeshare law. It also gives DVC fewer points to sell, which hits them in the wallet.

I think BLT owners are just finding out what the rest of us already know--not all views are created equal. At VWL every single night of the week there are guests staying in a couple of rooms that have no balcony and others with the dreaded "dumpster view." At SSR people assigned to the distant Carousel section are paying the same number of points as those in Congress Park with a great view of Downtown Disney. At AKL there are Concierge rooms which overlook the Savanna and others which are above the main pool--same cost for both.

I'm sure DVC carefully considered its classification for each BLT room. Unless there is a clear cut situation where one room should be moved from MK view to Lake View and one other room moved in the other direction, I wouldn't count on any future changes. Folks just need to realize that not every "MK View" booking is going to be a 15th floor room looking directly down on the castle.

 

[TheRustyScupper]

1) No.
2) There are "x" amount of total points per resort.
3) To change categories and point values would throw off the totals.

 

[RobDoc]

The only time such a reservation category requiring a difference in points has been made was very early after BWV sales began when the Standard View category was created with a lower point requirement.

There have been other similar modifications (BW view at BWV, HH category at OKW) but no point requirements were changed for those categories.

As Tim noted, any such changes where points would be involved would need to be made in time for subsequent sales to allow for the appropriate number of points to be in the system for that resort. When this was done at BWV, there were several years left before the resort sold out, so there was no hardship to adjust the points in the BWV system to validate the change.

I suspect there may still be enough time remaining before BLT sells out to modify the views, but such change would need to occur pretty quickly. I think over half of the resort has already been declared into DVC inventory.

 

[Crystal_27]

I think BLT owners are just finding out what the rest of us already know--not all views are created equal. At VWL every single night of the week there are guests staying in a couple of rooms that have no balcony and others with the dreaded "dumpster view." At SSR people assigned to the distant Carousel section are paying the same number of points as those in Congress Park with a great view of Downtown Disney. At AKL there are Concierge rooms which overlook the Savanna and others which are above the main pool--same cost for both.

Thanks everyone for the replies - - that makes a lot of sense!! I did have to chuckle at Tim's comment above, though. I guess we BLT owners have officially arrived.

 

[spiceycat]

For example, would DVC ever recategorize those few BLT standard view rooms with partial MK views "MK view," or make those lake view rooms with no lake in sight "standard views"? Does it ever happen? Thanks in advance for any input.

there is a reason for the standard with partial MK views - those also have a nice view of the service building in that area.

what lake view without a lake?

you are not seeing any water?

 

[YourEveryDayAdam]

Actually, that's not entirely correct for the points and categories. That is correct if they didn't change the point values for the other categories, but at any time, including at sold out resorts, they can create/modify/remove room categories including the point costs for those categories.

It is certainly possible for DVC to re-categorize rooms... They can create new categories, eliminate existing ones, or pretty much whatever they want. The ONLY requirement is that they have to maintain the same number of points in the system for that resort... i.e. they can't create or destroy points. This is similar to the "seasons"...They can reallocate points between the seasons, weekends/weekdays, room sizes, and even booking categories. This is even after the resort is sold out. But if they were to re-categorize rooms, say they eliminate all the "MK View" rooms at BLT that are below the 7th floor and make them all standard view...they could just arbitrarily decide to do that. For them to do that, they would have to add the points that would be lost from those MK view rooms to other rooms... either by increasing the point cost of the MK view, increasing the cost of the standard view, increasing the cost of Lake View, or any combination.

Another thing they could do is create sub-categories of "MK view". They could create a "partial MK View" room, and designate that as "between floors 4 and 8. And then create a "premium MK view" room, and designate that as "floor 9 and higher." Then they could lower the point cost of the partial view and increase the cost of the premium view. That way, only the MK view room points are affected.

Technically, DVC COULD even make all rooms and all days all year round be the same number of points. Studio, 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, Grand Villa, Sun-Thur, Fri-Sat, or any time of year could all be the same point cost per night... so long as they don't add or remove points from the system.

It's all in the name of maintaining balance. DVC sold exactly enough points to ensure that all rooms are booked every single night, with a little wiggle room for maintenance. If they find that people are booking too many standard views, and they've got a wait list a mile long, but 1/2 of the MK view rooms sit empty, they would have to reallocate the points so that the MK view rooms were cheaper and the SV rooms would get a little more expensive.

Remember, at the contemporary resort, it used to be that the "Parking Lot View" (now know as the "magic kingdom view") side of the A frame tower used to be less expensive than the "Lake View" side. If they find that same situation again, too many people book lake view, and no one is booking MK view because they are disappointed with it, then they can (and likely will) re-allocate the points to make the MK view less expensive and the LV more expensive. Again, the only requirement is that the total number of points to book all rooms for all nights can not change. Everything else can change from year-to-year.

 

[tjkraz]

Actually, that's not entirely correct for the points and categories. That is correct if they didn't change the point values for the other categories, but at any time, including at sold out resorts, they can create/modify/remove room categories including the point costs for those categories.

It is certainly possible for DVC to re-categorize rooms... They can create new categories, eliminate existing ones, or pretty much whatever they want. The ONLY requirement is that they have to maintain the same number of points in the system for that resort...

It's a little more complicated than that.

Villas (or "vacation homes") are grouped into UNITS and declared into inventory via amendments to the POS. These Units become the basis for calculating the number of points offered in a particular development and they are also referenced on owner deeds when expressing the ownership interest of each member.

My understanding is that the number of points in a given Unit should not be altered by any point reallocation. My Saratoga Springs deed does not state that I own 150 Vacation Club points. Points are something of an arbitrary unit of measure created by DVC. What the deed DOES say is that I own .3284% of Unit 1B at Saratoga Springs. If DVC increases or decreases the number of points represented by a Unit, then .3284% ownership would no longer be equal to 150 vacation points.

That restriction still gives DVC the ability to increase weekday/weekend numbers as they did and they can even alter the seasons. There aren't any Views at SSR so that aspect is irrelevant. But if BLT Unit 1A includes Standard View rooms and Unit 1B Lake View, a reallocation should not increase (or decrease) the total annual Standard View cost while making an offsetting change to Lake View.

The only way to alter the yearly totals for an entire view (or room class) at the expense of another would be if each declared Unit contained representative villas from the MK, Lake and Standard view categories. And I don't believe that to be the case.

 

[yitbos96bb]

1) No.
2) There are "x" amount of total points per resort.
3) To change categories and point values would throw off the totals.

Theorectically though, if you say changed one Lake View to a STD and one STD to a Lake, then it would stay balanced. Not that this would happen, but in theory if you could balance the changes with no gains or losses, then you wouldn't be in violation of State Law.

 

[Slakk]

I think BLT owners are just finding out what the rest of us already know--not all views are created equal. At VWL every single night of the week there are guests staying in a couple of rooms that have no balcony and others with the dreaded "dumpster view." At SSR people assigned to the distant Carousel section are paying the same number of points as those in Congress Park with a great view of Downtown Disney. At AKL there are Concierge rooms which overlook the Savanna and others which are above the main pool--same cost for both.

I'm sure DVC carefully considered its classification for each BLT room. Unless there is a clear cut situation where one room should be moved from MK view to Lake View and one other room moved in the other direction, I wouldn't count on any future changes. Folks just need to realize that not every "MK View" booking is going to be a 15th floor room looking directly down on the castle.

But there is a difference - when I got the dumpster view at VWL ( oh yes 4:30 am wake up call EVERY morning) I did not pay EXTRA for it, same goes for the room on BWV right over the Big River Grille (yep mine again)

But the final straw for me was the worst MK View BLT had to offer that I reserved the minute BLT opened up. Even the people at the front desk were embarrassed it was that bad. I am talking, on my balcony I could talk to someone in the parking lot without raising my voice BAD

I just sold my BLT points I am that mad...bought a EOY MVCI where they at least give owners priority when doing room assignment. I used to own over 500 points and will be down to 50 soon.

The final straw was the gal next to me got a free upgraded from a LV Studio to a 1 BR MK - they tried to tell me that it was in a different block of rooms which all that tells me is they assume DVC people will take the crappy rooms and not say anything while they suck up to the non owners (oh yeah she mentioned she was going to take the tour - coincidence???)

If DVC was smart they would pull the 4th and 5th floor rooms from the MK inventory. I emailed my guide the view from my *MK View* and asked him is this worth 182 points????? I spoke to DIS Satisfaction as well everyone agreed the room sucked but no one offered a solution.

I asked why DVC members were not given priority when rooms were assigned. MVCI does, they do owners, then MVCI memebers, the TS owners, THEN the general public. I personally believe DVC does it the opposite.

I know they will not miss me - but DVC no longer seems like (Disneys Best Kept Secret* and more *Disney Best Money Maker* and I told the Satisfaction people and my guide the MK room was directly responsible for the BLT point sale - not because I think they care but MAYBE if enough people complain they will do something about this - no one deserves what we went through - it was embarassing.

 

[dizfan]

It's a little more complicated than that.

Villas (or "vacation homes") are grouped into UNITS and declared into inventory via amendments to the POS. These Units become the basis for calculating the number of points offered in a particular development and they are also referenced on owner deeds when expressing the ownership interest of each member.

My understanding is that the number of points in a given Unit should not be altered by any point reallocation. My Saratoga Springs deed does not state that I own 150 Vacation Club points. Points are something of an arbitrary unit of measure created by DVC. What the deed DOES say is that I own .3284% of Unit 1B at Saratoga Springs. If DVC increases or decreases the number of points represented by a Unit, then .3284% ownership would no longer be equal to 150 vacation points.

That restriction still gives DVC the ability to increase weekday/weekend numbers as they did and they can even alter the seasons. There aren't any Views at SSR so that aspect is irrelevant. But if BLT Unit 1A includes Standard View rooms and Unit 1B Lake View, a reallocation should not increase (or decrease) the total annual Standard View cost while making an offsetting change to Lake View.

The only way to alter the yearly totals for an entire view (or room class) at the expense of another would be if each declared Unit contained representative villas from the MK, Lake and Standard view categories. And I don't believe that to be the case.

I'm not sure I follow this. In the contracts for the OCC, the only units with differing number of points in a unit are the Grand Villa units. A single standard view, lake view, or MK view unit are all being assigned the same number of points in the contracts that I've been tracking for BLT sales.

It's approximately 19640 points for a single room unit regardless if it's a lake view, standard view, MK view unit. When a unit consists of two rooms the points have been running approximately 39280.

Link to the sales numbers for BLT based on contract info straight from the OCC contracts

Points in a unit only reflect a percentage of points for the total resort. Since the Grand Villas are the only units with a different number of points than the other units, it seems to me that Disney could redistribute points among the non-Grand Villas. They would just need to make sure they add up to the same number of points that they currently do.

 

[wdrl]

I agree with tjkraz on many things, but on this issue I have to side with dizfan and YourEveryDayAdam. A Unit's point allocation is directly related to square footage. At BLT, a Unit with one two-bedroom villa is assigned 19,640 points, a Unit with two two-bedroom villas is assigned 39,280 points, and a Unit with a Grand Villa is assigned 34,975 points. AKV's Kidani Units reflect the same relationship of size to points (16,290; 32,580; and 36,130 points, respectively). View category has nothing to do with the number of points allocated to a Unit. Thus, DVD can easily shift rooms from one category to another.

One reason why I pay close attention to Work2play's thread on BLT rooms and views is that I'd love to know exactly how many villas as assigned to each view category. Also, I'd like to know whether any rooms change view categories over time. When BLT opened in August, the consensus was that Standard views would be limited to the 1st and 2nd floors. However, work2play found out that there were some LV villas on the second floor, and Standard views as high as the 5th floor. BLT may still have the original proposed mix of 10% Standard, 20% MK, and 70% LV, but I'm not sure where all of these rooms are located.

BLT has about 5,825,540 points allocated to it. I agree with YourEveryDayAdam that Disney can redefine a villa's room view. I have to reread BLT's Declaration of Condominium, but I don't think the 10%-20%-70% split is set in stone. If it isn't, Disney could add or subtract villas from each category. The one thing that is set in stone is that BLT cannot exceed the 5,825,540 point limit for a Use Year.

 

[Sandisw]

I think that part of the problem, too, is that the definition of a "view" is subjective.

Someone at DVC decided that the MK view rooms on floors 3, 4 and 5 counted as an MK view but the ones on floors 1 and 2 did not and thus, categorized those as SV rooms.

Depending on what you paid in terms of points, you ended up either happy or mad.

I certainly think, given the different in price between MK view and SV, there should have been a more reasonable cut off (above 5th floor). But, at the very least, owners booking MK view should have been warned that lower floors were a possibility.

Based on everything that I have seen, there is no way that I am ever going to book an MK view room over a SV room for our summer trips. It is an additional 44 points. I will take my chances and hope for an even #'d room that faces MK. If I get one of those, I will be happy. If not, so be it and I will head to the TOWL (as long as it is open) to see the fireworks (the only reason I would want an MK view room anyway).

Now, could they adjust the points to fix this--yes, they could. Change the room types to SV, Preferred View (Lake or Partial MK), and MK view. Make the MK view rooms a few more points to compensate for the re-classification of those original MK view rooms down to the Preferred category but classify them at floors 6 or higher. This way, anyone paying the premium points for MK view, know they will be floor 6 or higher.

As long as they balance out the points, I think they could make it work.

But, then again, why should they? Most now know that the MK view rooms may not be worth the extra points (unless you get a higher floor). Either they will find that no one is booking these rooms, or people, overall, don't care.

 

[lark]

After reading this thread, I'm not seeing anything that would preclude DVC from reducing the number of points that it will sell in BLT in order to accomodate a change in allocation of rooms resulting in a downgrade. I can't imagine they would sell fewer points than they have said they are going to sell. They are, after all, in the business of making money. Those of us who bought bought subject to the allocations they have declared.

I guess what I don't really understand is what would prevent DVC from, next year, or the year after, or whatever, from creating a new room category -- call it "preferred lake" for rooms in the north part of the C that have a partial MK view. They could increase the points required for these rooms to something in between lake and mk, sufficient to permit a corresponding downgrade of some MK rooms to standard. Or maybe they do it in tandem with raising standard room point values slightly.

What would prevent them from doing that?

 

[Sandisw]

After reading this thread, I'm not seeing anything that would preclude DVC from reducing the number of points that it will sell in BLT in order to accomodate a change in allocation of rooms resulting in a downgrade. I can't imagine they would sell fewer points than they have said they are going to sell. They are, after all, in the business of making money. Those of us who bought bought subject to the allocations they have declared.

I guess what I don't really understand is what would prevent DVC from, next year, or the year after, or whatever, from creating a new room category -- call it "preferred lake" for rooms in the north part of the C that have a partial MK view. They could increase the points required for these rooms to something in between lake and mk, sufficient to permit a corresponding downgrade of some MK rooms to standard. Or maybe they do it in tandem with raising standard room point values slightly.

What would prevent them from doing that?

I don't think anything would prevent them from doing that. It could be like it is at BWV. You pay the same points for a Boardwalk view or a preferred/garden view, but get to pick based on availability. When the boardwalk view rooms are gone, then you just get the preferred ones.

Its the same at BLT. Just change the LV category to Preferred and include both LV and partial MK view as part of that charge. When people call and book, they get to choose. When the parital MK views are gone, then you know you are getting only LV.

 

[tjkraz]

But there is a difference - when I got the dumpster view at VWL ( oh yes 4:30 am wake up call EVERY morning) I did not pay EXTRA for it, same goes for the room on BWV right over the Big River Grille (yep mine again)

I disagree. Whether you pay 9 points per night for an OKW studio, 15 points for AKV Concierge or 17 points for BLT Magic Kingdom view, it's common sense that not all rooms are created equal. The existence of different booking categories shouldn't lead one to conclude that every single MK view room is "better" (a subjective measure) than every single Lake View room. I'm quite certain there are LV and perhaps even Standard View rooms which many would consider preferable to some MK villas.

In the contracts for the OCC, the only units with differing number of points in a unit are the Grand Villa units. A single standard view, lake view, or MK view unit are all being assigned the same number of points in the contracts that I've been tracking for BLT sales.

It's approximately 19640 points for a single room unit regardless if it's a lake view, standard view, MK view unit.

Interesting. I was lead to believe that there was a closer relationship between the number of points represented by a unit and its classification within the DVC system.

Nevertheless, I would still question whether DVC would go to the extent of reclassifying a small number of rooms based upon member feedback. Moving a single villa from Lake View to Standard View would create an imbalance of -25 points per week in Adventure Season. It could be challenging to spread those 25 points over an entire category which contains dozens of villas. Depends upon how much DVC wants to fiddle with the charts.

Perhaps "never say never" would apply, but I think folks are giving DVC a little too much credit for thinking they would make adjustments simply because a 3rd floor MK view isn't deemed quite as good as a 15th floor MK view. Throughout all of the resorts there are rooms that people don't care for--the dumpster view, The Carousel at SSR, rooms that overlook the main road at BCV, rooms over busy restaurants at BWV, etc. And Disney hasn't bent over backward to reclassify or create new categories for these units.

I guess what I don't really understand is what would prevent DVC from, next year, or the year after, or whatever, from creating a new room category -- call it "preferred lake" for rooms in the north part of the C that have a partial MK view. They could increase the points required for these rooms to something in between lake and mk, sufficient to permit a corresponding downgrade of some MK rooms to standard. Or maybe they do it in tandem with raising standard room point values slightly.

What would prevent them from doing that?

If what dizfan says is accurate, there probably is no legal impediment. The main reason against it is the negative impact it can have on the ability to secure reservations.

A member calls to book a week and is told that BLT has available 3 nights in "Preferred Lake View" and 4 nights in "Standard Lake View." With just a single "Lake View" category, all of the requested nights are available and booked. But with separate categories there will be increased instances of members not being able to get all of the nights they seek in a single category. If the member in this example accepts the reservation, administrative expenses increase due to two room cleanings and two check-ins, not to mention the inconvenience of the member having to switch villas.

There would also be an increase in waitlist activity for reasons similar to the above situation, plus the "I wanted Preferred Lake View and all they had was Standard Lake View" effect. People who previously would not have used the waitlist would begin to use it.

And with members being permitted only two active waitlist requests, it could become even more difficult to secure a room. A member books at AKV but wants BLT. Today they can go on the waitlist for 2 of 3 room categories at BLT. If it becomes 2 of 4 categories, the chances for success are diminished.

A greater number of categories can also create issues with setting rooms aside for maintenance purposes. The greater the number of categories--and the smaller each category becomes--the harder it is for the resort to maintain a small inventory of unbooked rooms for emergency maintenance situations.

 

[lark]

IIf what dizfan says is accurate, there probably is no legal impediment. The main reason against it is the negative impact it can have on the ability to secure reservations.

A member calls to book a week and is told that BLT has available 3 nights in "Preferred Lake View" and 4 nights in "Standard Lake View." With just a single "Lake View" category, all of the requested nights are available and booked. But with separate categories there will be increased instances of members not being able to get all of the nights they seek in a single category. If the member in this example accepts the reservation, administrative expenses increase due to two room cleanings and two check-ins, not to mention the inconvenience of the member having to switch villas.

There would also be an increase in waitlist activity for reasons similar to the above situation, plus the "I wanted Preferred Lake View and all they had was Standard Lake View" effect. People who previously would not have used the waitlist would begin to use it.

And with members being permitted only two active waitlist requests, it could become even more difficult to secure a room. A member books at AKV but wants BLT. Today they can go on the waitlist for 2 of 3 room categories at BLT. If it becomes 2 of 4 categories, the chances for success are diminished.

A greater number of categories can also create issues with setting rooms aside for maintenance purposes. The greater the number of categories--and the smaller each category becomes--the harder it is for the resort to maintain a small inventory of unbooked rooms for emergency maintenance situations.

All good points. 4 room categories seems a lot with a 280/470 or so room resort. Still, 80 percent of the rooms are LV, so even if you divided that in half, you'd still have 40 and 40 and the number of LV rooms in each category would greatly exceed the number of MK and SV rooms. You can probably tweak demand as necessary with the point charts, but I agree with your main point about added administrative hassle.

So, let's say we keep the 3 room categories as they are. What are we talking about there that's really necessary? It sounds like the chief annoyance is that about 4 studios, 4 1 BRs, and 8 2 BRs need either to be downgraded from MK to standard, or to some inbetween category that is roughly equivalent to LV points.

Let's say you downgrade them to standard so that everything below the 5th floor is now standard and there are no MK view below the 5th floor. And let's also assume that there are no rooms LV rooms that can legitimately be "upgraded" to MK view. By my calculations, this would require a ball park of making up 70,624 points. (I can show my math, but essentially, taking the difference between a standard studio and an MK studio for the year is 2188 points x 4 studios; 4282 per 1 BR x 4 1BRs; and 5593 points per 2 BR x 8 2 BRs.)

70k points is not negligible, but it's not much more than 3 points per room per week. You could raise the standard rooms one point per night and lake view rooms one point per week and make up that much.