Bonnet Creek has me questioning my DVC contract

[Brian Noble]

Regardless of your definition of on-site, I am surprised at Bonnet Creeks rental prices given its location.

Don't under-estimate the marketing power of The Mouse. Mickey spends huge sums of money each year reminding us that the only way to visit WDW properly is to stay in a Disney-owned resort. He also spends a good chunk reminding us that a "better" resort means a "better" vacation.

Conversely, Bonnet suffers a little bit from its size. It's so large, and there are so many owners trying to rent time there, that the competition just at that venue is fierce. There has been a growing interest in rentals there as more folks have discovered it, but the property has grown faster than the potential pool of rental guests. Now that the timeshare property is fully built-out, that might change going forward---there has been a *ton* of interest over on the offsite resort board just in the last six months or so.

But, there's an equally good chance that some other new location will displace it as the darling of the offsite crowd. Back in the day, the most popular place to stay close and get a good deal was Vistana. Then, as Vistana fell a little behind in upkeep and Windsor Hills was built out, the latter displaced the former. A year ago, maybe two, Bonnet took over for Windsor Hills as "the place to be". Someone else may well be next.

Finally, even at those prices, some owners are still making money. It depends on what weeks they are booking, how they are booking them, and what their cost basis is. I rented an '09 Easter week 2BR out for $950, but that was still an ROI of about 30%---in comparison, most DVC rentals at $10/pt have ROIs in the single digits. The cash-flow income is better with DVC, but the cost basis is just too high for it to pay off well.

 

[liznboys]

We're staying at Bonnet Creek for our next trip (1 week) and half of the trip after that (4 nights there and 5 at BLT). We're renting from an owner. We have Annual Passes so free parking and we rarely use EMH so no big deal there.

I love that Bonnet Creek is an option. It's a great way to get a 2 bedroom inside the Disney gates for a low price. Would I rather stay in a Disney resort? Yep. But you gotta do what you gotta do when it comes to the moolah (and you're out of your DVC points).

 

[Alexander]

Although it is actually closer to several WDW attractions than some Disney resorts, I consider Bonnet Creek offsite for several reasons:

1. It is not owned by Disney
2. Staying there does not give a guest the onsite benefits: DME, free theme park parking, room billing for merchandise and F&B outlets, purchase delivery to your resort, EMH, access to DDP if you want it, full access to Disney transportation, etc.
3. And obviously, the resort does not offer the heavy Disney theming that onsite resorts typically have.

I consider it one of the better, more convenient, offsite resorts and a good choice for anyone who doesn't want to stay onsite for whatever reason.

Then do you consider the Dolphin and Swan to be onsite? Just curious since they are not Disney owned, don't have DME, room charging, dining plans.

I'm with Jim. There are three things people could mean when they say "offsite". One: not physically within the boundaries of the "Welcome" arches. Two: not physically on land that is part of the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Three: not eligible for the full panoply of Disney resort perks.

Bonnet Creek only qualifies as "onsite" by definition one---you never have to drive past the "see you real soon" signs. But it's not within the borders of RCID, and none of the Disney perks apply. And, I think most people really mean definition three when they say "onsite".

It's a surprisingly subtle thing, though. For example, all of the DTD Area resorts *are* within the gates, *and* on RCID land, but except for the Hilton, they offer none of the perks. The Hilton is an odd case, with EMH access, but basically nothing else. Shades of Green likewise has EMH, and maybe parking, but nothing else (no ME, dining plan, and no Disney transportation). The Swolphin are *almost* Disney resorts---they have everything but ME and DDP.

I think the new Golden Oak development is going to be the most interesting example: it was de-annexed from RCID, (you can't have non-employees living in the District, else Disney could lose control of its private "government"), but I'm guessing that those properties will have access to most if not all of the Disney perk portfolio, funded by the HOA dues.

This is a great post! I was considering onsite to mean definition 1. Location. We don't use the dining plan very often, definately don't use DME, and avoid the EMH parks on their given day, and we have enough Mickey crap to decorate the entire Bonnet Creek resort! So when I think onsite, I am defining that as location.

 

[JimMIA]

Then do you consider the Dolphin and Swan to be onsite? Just curious since they are not Disney owned, don't have DME, room charging, dining plans.

No, I don't despite the fact that they are clearly located on Disney property. I guess we'd be more technically accurate if we said Disney resort rather than onsite.

 

[tidefan]

Then do you consider the Dolphin and Swan to be onsite? Just curious since they are not Disney owned, don't have DME, room charging, dining plans.

Actually, I would consider the Swan and Dolphin as somewhat on-site, mainly because they get Disney Transportation and the fact that it shares common ground with Disney Hotels.

BC on the other hand doesn't have that. It has a close location, but that is it. I don't consider the Hilton or Waldorf there on-site either. I think that I fall under the 3rd definition. There is a bit of escapism when you stay at a Disney resort that you don't feel at other resorts. It is a bit like you are continuing your park stay at your resort. I know that for many, that makes no difference, but for us, it makes a huge difference.

Many people told us when we went to Disneyland in CA that there was no need to stay on-site as so many hotels are right there on Harbor. So, the first year, we did stay offsite and it was fine. The next time we went (after joining DVC) we stayed at the Disneyland hotel and it was like a completely different experience. Strangely, we felt that the onsite in CA was even better than in FLA. Go figure...

 

[Alexander]

Actually, I would consider the Swan and Dolphin as somewhat on-site, mainly because they get Disney Transportation and the fact that it shares common ground with Disney Hotels.

BC on the other hand doesn't have that. It has a close location, but that is it. I don't consider the Hilton or Waldorf there on-site either. I think that I fall under the 3rd definition. There is a bit of escapism when you stay at a Disney resort that you don't feel at other resorts. It is a bit like you are continuing your park stay at your resort. I know that for many, that makes no difference, but for us, it makes a huge difference.

Many people told us when we went to Disneyland in CA that there was no need to stay on-site as so many hotels are right there on Harbor. So, the first year, we did stay offsite and it was fine. The next time we went (after joining DVC) we stayed at the Disneyland hotel and it was like a completely different experience. Strangely, we felt that the onsite in CA was even better than in FLA. Go figure...

I guess we'll find out how we feel about staying at a non-Disney resort in a couple of weeks. We have a week at Bonnet Creek booked and this will be the first stay at a non-Disney resort in over 40 WDW vacations. So while I don't think it will make a difference in how we feel about our vacation, I guess having the actual experience is the only way I'll know for sure.

 

[pjshaff]

We just stayed in Bonnet Creek for a week at the end of July in a 2 br. While it was nice, I missed being on-site with the non-stop buses, EMH (we had to work around that) and the overall atmosphere was different. Would I stay there again? Maybe, only if DH's sister didn't use her week again. DH & I agreed that we missed everything about being on-site.