CRV ain't in the cards

[Anewman]

Well, who knows...my source has proved somewhat reliable in the past...but not 100%.

Can you share examples of your sources reliablity??

 

[JimC]

This all makes a lot of sense.

The former STOL area would be a great location, but isn't the only monorail close to that the Epcot-MK monorail? So would a STOL area resort only be on that monorail and not on the resorts monorail?

For those who don't know what STOL is, it's a strip of land for the Short Takeoff and Landing airplane landing strip that's near the MK area.

I am not sure how they would connect a resort at the STOL site to the Epcot monorail. My recollection is that they are some distance apart. Certainly it would not be what the MK monorail has provided.

 

[isyt]

If you ask me DVC is watching us and laughing !!! Lets see what this rumor brings !!! I hope their listening.....we want CRV..we want CRV...we want CRV.... ...I'll just keep dreaming!

 

[salmoneous]

I am not sure how they would connect a resort at the STOL site to the Epcot monorail. My recollection is that they are some distance apart. Certainly it would not be what the MK monorail has provided.

The monorail track is about 150-200 yds from the STOL runway.

 

[nuts]

Can you share examples of your sources reliablity??

Where she was right:
1. Death of Eagle Pines
2. CRV was not the next DVC
3. AKV would start with top floors of AKL
4. Pleasure Island redo
5. BWV construction issues

Where she was wrong:
1. DVC would cancel phase III of SSR
2. Colorado DVC was "soon"

 

[Anewman]

Where she was right:
1. Death of Eagle Pines
2. CRV was not the next DVC
3. AKV would start with top floors of AKL
4. Pleasure Island redo
5. BWV construction issues

Where she was wrong:
1. DVC would cancel phase III of SSR
2. Colorado DVC was "soon"

Thank you, I couldnt find any of those in your post history. that is why I asked.

Also wanted to see how seriously to take this thread...

 

[CarolA]

By the way for those of you wondering

STOL

Short Take Off & Landing

(In other words little planes like Walt's jet used to land there)

 

[nuts]

Thank you, I couldnt find any of those in your post history. that is why I asked.

Also wanted to see how seriously to take this thread...

Well, I wouldn't take things too seriously
Rumors and speculations are always fun. She has been pretty good with her track record...but she usually just grins at me when I challenge her.

 

[DVCPAT]

Folks, just returned from a wonderful week at SSR. I had the opportunity to go explore the west wing of CR (well, walked around the fence). The fence is up. I talked to some folks working it. Just another rehab. This makes sense if you look at how the fence was put up. Doesn't even go all the way around. Only blocks off entrance and exits. Also keeps junk from going into the lake. In discussion with my "source" (yeah, I know...we all have "sources")...she said:
1. Too expensive. Yes, there was a design floating around, but it was rejected because of cost to build.
2. Couldn't build in phases...entire facility would have to be near completion before they could begin sales (Florida timeshare laws). So the cash flow didn't work out.
3. Reedy Creek (did I spell that correctly?) has tight regulations around development near the water.
4. Don't want to exploit the magic kingdom area yet. Making too much off the hotels
5. CR occupancy has really increased this year. What was once a dieing hotel is turning around into a money maker (WD hotel team not eager to sell the west wing to DVC).

CRV could happen sometime way down the line, but their are better options (read: cheaper alternatives, thus better profits) than CRV. STOL is still very much in the running. It was a top runner for the next DVC, but with SSR selling faster than planned, they needed to move quickly (hence AK). There is a contingent of DVC and WDW resort folks that want to build a combination hotel/DVC resort at the STOL. Would be the first Epcot monorail resort. Plenty of land, and plenty opportunity for future growth.

Who knows.

I guess time will tell, but the photos Doc posted on another thread are making me believe CRV will be next. The monorail really won’t have any effect on construction costs…….

1) Construction costs will be inline with any other resort location.
2) Disney built BWV, VWL and BCV resorts without phases. Cash flow is not a problem for Disney.
3) Disney purposely builds resorts on the water. Reedy Creek is Disney.
4) CR has the lowest rack rates of any monorail resort.
5) CR low rack rates reflect occupancy rates.


Interesting clip from an article states Orlando hotel growth was only 2% from 2001-2005. The same 5-year period timeshares grew 26%. Maybe Disney is going to invest where the profits are?


Sara K. Clarke | Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted October 12, 2006


“Time shares have long been popular in Central Florida, but more so in recent years. In 2001, 10 percent of Orlando visitors stayed in time-shares. Last year, that number had increased to 15 percent.

From 2001 to 2005, the number of time-share units jumped 26 percent, from 15,157 to 19,099, according to the Orlando/Orange County Convention & Visitors Bureau. Hotel-room growth, on the other hand, grew only 2 percent during the same five-year period

 

[Sammie]

Not sure what a water boom is...but I do know they are going to do extensive roofing work. Would that apply?

Yes if they are removing roofing materials or bringing in asphalt to do repairs they would put up a water boom. A boom is simply a flotation device to prevent erosion. Any heavy equipment brought near the wing would require one and roofing could do that.

 

[castleri]

As to the water booms do we know they did not put them in during the rehab of the South Wing.

There were booms in the water around the south wing when my DH and I took the boat to FW a year ago. I think that is when some of the rehab was going on. They were quite close to shore but they were there.

 

[Caskbill]

By the way for those of you wondering

STOL

Short Take Off & Landing

(In other words little planes like Walt's jet used to land there)

Actually it would be too short for a jet. that runway is less than 2000 feet.

But Walt didn't fly around in a jet, he flew around in a twin Gruman G-159 Gulfstream, which I believe is still on display and you can still see when you take the Back-Stage tour at MGM. It has tail number N123MM. The N designates a North American registered aircraft. The normal call sign for his plane would have been "november one two three mike mike", but he was given a special from the FAA, and their I.D. was "november one two three mickey mouse."...

Only 201 airplanes of that model were produced, between 1958 and 1969. It cruised at 350 mph, much slower than a jet today.

Actually, I'm not sure even that plane could land there on that strip. Larger STOL aircraft have special feataures not found on regular aircraft, that's why they're called STOL aircraft.

 

[tjkraz]

2) Disney built BWV, VWL and BCV resorts without phases. Cash flow is not a problem for Disney.

Yes, but it's worth noting that BWV was approved over a decade ago. Philosophies change. And after the 400+ rooms at BWV were given the green light, the followup was 130+ at VWL and 200+ at BCV. Not exactly a sign that they were getting looser with the purse strings, is it?

VWL is smaller any single "phase" of either SSR or AKV, and BCV is only a tiny bit larger than some.

3) Disney purposely builds resorts on the water. Reedy Creek is Disney.

I don't claim to know a single thing about zoning regulations, protected wetlands, etc. But it seems to be an accepted fact that Disney cannot demolish and rebuild on the site of the DI treehouse villas. Why is the CR site any different?

4) CR has the lowest rack rates of any monorail resort.
5) CR low rack rates reflect occupancy rates.

True, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are willing to abandon that real estate and revenue stream to DVC. According to figures posted here on the DIS, SSR sold at a pace consistently double that of BCV and VWL. While there are certainly economic reasons for the upturn in sales, I think it does demonstrate that there is still considerable demand for what many would call a "B" grade location like SSR. I see no great need to follow-up an "A" project like AKV with another "A".

The announced rooms at AKV plus what is left at SSR should give DVC adequate inventory at least through 2009 (depends a lot on the unpublished point charts for AKV.) If they build at DL or offsite during that period, it will add more points to the inventory. An additional location would generate some additional sales, but it will also siphon some off of WDW resorts (i.e., how many SSR / AKV points would they be selling at DL if they build DVC rooms at DL?)

I'm about 50/50 on these CR rumors at this point. On one hand, the photos posted do seem to indicate that something is happening at North Garden Wing. And, if DVC does not build outside of WDW, the timing seems right since a 15-story tower would have to take about 3 years to build.

Still, I think every single point in "nuts" post makes a great deal of sense. It's also worth pointing out that the plans for AKV have introduced a new element to the DVC world--conversion of existing cash rooms. If Disney proceeds with a simple refurbishment of the garden wing now, there's no reason that they couldn't turn those rooms over to DVC in 5 or 10 years when other factors fall into place.

 

[Olaf]

Has DVC ever begun two projects at the same time? I dunno. That's what makes it seem unlikely any time soon to me.

 

[RobDoc]

Has DVC ever begun two projects at the same time? I dunno. That's what makes it seem unlikely any time soon to me.

Sure- while OKW was still in it's early sales stage, construction began on VB, HH and BWV and all three were under construction at the same time. VB opened in 1995 and HH and then BWV followed in 1996.

Since BWV, there has never been multiple sites under construction at once - but there is a past history of that happening.

 

[keishashadow]

Unless they keep the North Building sitting empty (or demolish it) it should become apparent quickly if they are doing a rehab as in the case of the South bldg...shouldn't have long to wait for this to resolve.

BTW, they had 2 different types of fencing up around the North Bldg.

1) a high chain link (probably arond 8-10 feet) on front & side of building to marina area, then

2) smaller 6 foot fence, covered in green privacy tarp in area by beach/bay lake/"booms".

As for CR being the "cheapest" monorail resort, I'd have to disagree based on pricing out our last trip. Although the standard rooms (parking lot view) are less expensive than the Poly; the MK facing Tower Rooms cost slightly more than the Polys...had a better view too. CR has a strange system of pricing on the Stand rooms...water view, deluxe, suites.

Can only imagine the different categories a DVC could have along w/accompanying point structures.

 

[JimVL]

Reedy Creek is Disney.

That's the first thing I thought of.

 

[manning]

I knew that the possibility of problems with wetlands might be an issue. Because I know when the Villas went in at WL there was talk of enlarging the main pool and they couldn't due to wetlands protection.

Expanding the pool could be done if they wanted to spend the money. They would have to mitigate the wetlands, that is replace it somewhere else. That would be costly as it has to be larger (I think 1.5 times) than the original site.

 

[minnie61650]

Expanding the pool could be done if they wanted to spend the money. They would have to mitigate the wetlands, that is replace it somewhere else. That would be costly as it has to be larger (I think 1.5 times) than the original site.

Also if the water table is too high they would need to find an area suitable for building a pool. One way to do that would be to build the land up an additional 6 or 8 feet and then dig the pool on the raised land.

 

[DVCPAT]

Yes, but it's worth noting that BWV was approved over a decade ago. Philosophies change. And after the 400+ rooms at BWV were given the green light, the followup was 130+ at VWL and 200+ at BCV. Not exactly a sign that they were getting looser with the purse strings, is it?.

In the past decade, Orlando timeshare growth has skyrocketed compared to hotels. Disney also recoups construction costs for DVC resorts much faster than hotels. I would think growth would dictate Disney’s philosophy.

I don't claim to know a single thing about zoning regulations, protected wetlands, etc. But it seems to be an accepted fact that Disney cannot demolish and rebuild on the site of the DI treehouse villas. Why is the CR site any different?

CR is different because it already has the infrastructure to support a new resort with hundreds of rooms. The tree house villas are a few small individual units that are inefficient at every level.

True, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are willing to abandon that real estate and revenue stream to DVC. According to figures posted here on the DIS, SSR sold at a pace consistently double that of BCV and VWL. While there are certainly economic reasons for the upturn in sales, I think it does demonstrate that there is still considerable demand for what many would call a "B" grade location like SSR. I see no great need to follow-up an "A" project like AKV with another "A".

I see the same issues with AKL and CR. Both resorts are at the low end of the deluxe category (grade A ?) Disney must see more profit converting AKL to DVC. The same issues could be solved converting CR to DVC.

It’s fun to speculate but as another poster pointed out, we should find out very soon.