I've figured out what Baron's favorite song must be........"If I could save time in a bottle, the first thing that I'd like to do............."
You know I luv ya Baron, and you have some great Philosophical ponderings and points at times, but (as I've said before) you seem to expect the clock to have stopped at 'back in the day' and oft avoid the economic realities of a destination the size of WDW. To be fair, it's not just you.
Yes, things could have been done differently, some better, but even if were it wouldn't change some of the inevitable realities that were detined to come with growth. If you want to argue there shouldn't have been so much growth fine. Another discussion that's sure to go past 100 posts. However, if you accept the growth, even if it was done differently some things were bound to change from what you did back in the day. Playing ostrich won't change that. For instance..........
Believe me if all 500 camping unit families of 5 or more encroached upon these pools in the 70's there'd be a problem.
I do believe that guests of the campground were allowed to have their run of the resorts. To what extent the CM's advertised it I don't know. Probably less than you say and more than Crusader says, but it was allowed nonetheless. So back in the day it was fine and, to address Crusaders point, I'm sure Disney knew that only a small portion of those 500 families would actually avail themselves of the opportunity. That was destined to change with growth. In time 500 families turned into 5,000 families.....10,000 families......15,000, so even the same small overall percentage taking advantage now became problematic for limited facilities that could not be expanded and were never intended to accomodate that many visitors. If you can't see that it's not because it isn't true, it's because you are so focused on making a point you refuse to.
Sure, the added resorts could have each had pool complexes as good as or better than the Poly, CR, Stormalong Bay, etc. Perhaps that would have alleviated the pool hopping issue as people would have been more content to stay put, but the CR Observation Deck issue surely couldn't have been eliminated in similar fashion. There are certain added benefits that come with proximity to the MK (fireworks view being one, parking close to the park being another) that just couldn't be replicated at resorts without that proximity. So with that growth these facilities were bound to be stretched beyond their capacity to maintain that 'back in the day' operation. Then you factor in that that small percentage that knew and took advantage back in the day has grown due to things like the internet, guidebooks and Travel Channel specials and you now have 3% of 20,000 families instead of 1% of 500. How can you not see how that is at the crux of the problem with something like the Observation Deck? Yes, squeezing in a few more tables in the old lounge area exacerbated the problem, but it didn't create it. People failing to use the loubge for it's intended purpose probably was a bigger factor anyway.
Back on that pool hopping issue, that too is more complex than your "Time Stand Still" (great Rush toon) crowd acknowledges........and where those economic realities creep in. I know you don't think the values should exist, but they do. I struggle with them as well. I think there could have been a way to do them better, but it wouldn't change the fact that the goal was to make resorts that (along with making Disney money) would open the on-site experience to guests who never would have had the opportunity before. Heck, I'm one such person. The values didn't exist when we embarked on our love of WDW, but the moderates did and they served the same purpose at the time. Without them we wouldn't have been able to afford the trips that left us so enamoured with the place. Now we've logged over 50 visits by WDW's computer and are twice a year visitors with a $30,000 DVC investment in future vacations. Attracting new visitors is crucial to the company and the value resorts help to do that. So while there could have been different or better ways, I think in concept they are worthwhile. Now with these resorts price is a key, and those nasty economic realities just don't provide for a Stormalong Bay complex at the All Stars, not at $60 a night. It isn't just the cost of building the pool, or operating it, or staffing the lifeguards.....it's insurance and other behind the scenes considerations. No, even if done better, done right, Brian makes good points about guests utilizing the facilities they actually paid for. Back in the day there weren't enough people that it was a problem if this wasn't the case........but times have changed, for good reason, and that has to be acknowledged.
