CRV ain't in the cards

[DVCPAT]

They currently have a problem developing the area around the Tree Houses, which are occupied by the Epcot exchange students,

I haven’t heard this….can you post a link. What are they trying to develop?

 

[ralphd]

I haven’t heard this….can you post a link. What are they trying to develop?

It has been discussed several times in threads about SSR. The area is a wetlands area.

 

[Anewman]

But if I am not mistaken about the treehouses, the big point is to not clear out anymore of that area. So you can remodel(pretty much rebuild) each individual treehouse but you would not be able to build a LARGER building/resort).

The area in question at CR is already cleared out, so I do not see the same issues.

 

[dumbo71]

Then I guess we have a different interpretation of the same passage.

Obviously DVC can begin selling a resort in phases just as they did with SSR and will soon do with AKV. The way I interpreted "nuts"' comments was that since the proposed design is a 15-story tower, DVC has to build the entire structure at once and would thus be on the hook for years of operating costs while the points were actively selling.

Lets be clear, I agree with the vast majority of what you've posted in this thread.

I would like a clarification from Nuts about the Florida Timeshare law quoted by there source. Please clarify that whole statement. That is where I'm not folowing along. The money issues I agree. You go with the most profitable scenario.

 

[tjkraz]

Are you saying CR is sinking?? CR foundation is designed to carry a specific load. As long as the new structure doesn’t exceed the rated load…a new structure is good to go.

The current Garden wing is only 3 or 4 stories tall. Seems like they would have to do some sort of additional foundation work to put a 15 story tower on the same site--particularly since WDW is mostly swamp land.

Accessibility is not an issue.

Really? Having a construction staging area 2 miles away doesn't add any unique...challenges to this project, along with additional cost?

I might be wrong, but supply and demand usually dictates the rates. The CR room rates are the lowest on the monorail line and Epcot area.

The Poly MK view rates are lower than the Grand Floridian MK View. Are you suggesting that the beloved Poly has a lower occupancy than the GF?

Your argument suggests that the AKL has low occupancy due to the rooms being turned over to DVC. If so, then why are the AKL and Wilderness Lodge Standard View rates identical?

I think there are a few more factors to it than pure supply and demand. For instance, take the embarassment of a pool at the CR which certainly factors into lower rates.

Why wouldn’t they raise the rates….If demand exceeds supply, the prices go up, even in WDW (pontoon boats tours, CRT dinner, ect…)

Well, they DID raise the rates, but they were raised in proprotion with other resort increases.

You can't simply try to determine the absolute highest price that the market will bear and immediately leap to that level. CRT is still selling-out on a daily basis, right? Then per your argument, why aren't the prices higher? Why doesn't Disney keep raising it a few bucks every month until reach a point where they are no longer turning-away walkups?

Retrofitting DVC units into existing facilities seem to be the new trend. It reduces construction costs and eliminates low cost deluxe rooms.

But who says it needs to be the CR and who says it needs to happen in 2006 (or 2007, or 2008)?

One of the things that I'm reading into the comments here is the perception that TWDC is just one big happy family with decisions made to benefit all of the divisions equally. That's really not the case. Disney Vacation Development has to pay a price to another division in order to lease the land on which it wants to contruct a resort. More valuable land will carry a higher price tag. CRV may "sell like hotcakes" as some predict, but if DVD has to pay higher land lease costs and higher construction costs than another site, it will mitigate the premium price they can charge for the points.

Again, I'm not saying it won't happen, just that we've gone years and years and years with people convinced there will be an announcement "any day now." DVC now has its plans in place for the next 4+ years and still no CRV. The reasons for DVC not building at the CR seem to be increasing rather than decreasing, IMO.

 

[dumbo71]

Your premise is incorrect. DVC has already stated that SSR has sold at TWICE THE RATE OF BWV AND BCV. SSR demand remains at a record pace. AKV will continue that trend (if not increase it). Yes, there are people like you who won't purchase until a monorail site is built...however the demand for those who won't wait remains strong. Again...economics.

Now this I agree with. DVC has demand and really could sell out almost any location quickly. I credit DVC for this not SSR per say.

I, for one, could care less about a monorail resort DVC. I WOULD NOT buy CRV under any circumstances, I don't like the RESORT. For this family the resort plays as important a role as the location does. Contemporary doesn't do it for us. Put a DVC in Magic Kingdom and I still wouldn't buy unless I liked the pool, amnenties and the theme. I'd bet I'm not alone.

DVC will continue to develop resorts based on where they feel they can make the most money and I cannot fault them for that. ALL of the resorts are winners from where I sit, monorail or not.

 

[minnie61650]

But if I am not mistaken about the treehouses, the big point is to not clear out anymore of that area. So you can remodel(pretty much rebuild) each individual treehouse but you would not be able to build a LARGER building/resort).

The area in question at CR is already cleared out, so I do not see the same issues.

If Disney tears down the tree houses that area becomes protected wet lands.

If Disney wants to remodel the tree houses to rent to the general pubic then Disney will need to make a certain number of tree houses Handicapped Accessible.

That is the rub.

 

[Sammie]

One of the things that I'm reading into the comments here is the perception that TWDC is just one big happy family with decisions made to benefit all of the divisions equally. That's really not the case. Disney Vacation Development has to pay a price to another division in order to lease the land on which it wants to contruct a resort. More valuable land will carry a higher price tag. CRV may "sell like hotcakes" as some predict, but if DVD has to pay higher land lease costs and higher construction costs than another site, it will mitigate the premium price they can charge for the points

That is definitely true and something most forget or don't even realize. Not only are they not one big happy family at times from what my friends share they are in competition with each other.

Disney resort operations was interested in talking to DVC about the Contemporary prior to room and lobby renovations. Now they are not so interested. DVC can't just up and take over the acquistion of an exisiting resort, there has to be an agreement between the two departments.

I think the status at the Contemporary is wait and see and everything I get from friends that work for Disney, is rehab of the North Wing is not connected to DVC. The rehab is going to be somewhat more extensive than what the South Wing required, due to settling of the foundation and roof damage. Some of these problems are result of the previous active hurricane season.

But who knows, it all could change tomorrow.

 

[keishashadow]

In PA when locating a parcel for development if wetlands indicators are discovered (I've seen the plants found in areas that looked to be desert-like), the developers are usually able to "switch out" a nearby parcel to keep the % in balance & everyone is happy.

Does it work differently in FL?

WDW has a huge wetland/nature preserve located south of WDW...I had assumed it was it's "wetland" area???

Where is the wetland info coming from that is being quoted on this thread, pertaining to old treehouses?

 

[3DisneyKids]

Just subbing

 

[DVCPAT]

The current Garden wing is only 3 or 4 stories tall. Seems like they would have to do some sort of additional foundation work to put a 15 story tower on the same site--particularly since WDW is mostly swamp land..

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what the existing foundation can support. It might have a monolithic foundation which spreads the load out along the entire surface. The foundation might be able to support more than the existing building.

Really? Having a construction staging area 2 miles away doesn't add any unique...challenges to this project, along with additional cost? .

Disney could have truck loads of material dropped off in the CR parking lot if it desired. It would become an eye sore for resort guests, monorail and boat passengers. Disney is organized, it would have the material staged and delivered as needed.

The Poly MK view rates are lower than the Grand Floridian MK View. Are you suggesting that the beloved Poly has a lower occupancy than the GF?.

The Poly and GF are moneymakers. CR has the lowest rates, CR is at the bottom.

Your argument suggests that the AKL has low occupancy due to the rooms being turned over to DVC. If so, then why are the AKL and Wilderness Lodge Standard View rates identical?

Why else would Disney convert AKL rental rooms to DVC??

I think there are a few more factors to it than pure supply and demand. For instance, take the embarassment of a pool at the CR which certainly factors into lower rates.

CR needs more than a pool.

You can't simply try to determine the absolute highest price that the market will bear and immediately leap to that level. CRT is still selling-out on a daily basis, right? Then per your argument, why aren't the prices higher? Why doesn't Disney keep raising it a few bucks every month until reach a point where they are no longer turning-away walkups?

Again, CR is at the bottom. Things at the bottom get addressed first.

One of the things that I'm reading into the comments here is the perception that TWDC is just one big happy family with decisions made to benefit all of the divisions equally. That's really not the case. Disney Vacation Development has to pay a price to another division in order to lease the land on which it wants to contruct a resort. More valuable land will carry a higher price tag. CRV may "sell like hotcakes" as some predict, but if DVD has to pay higher land lease costs and higher construction costs than another site, it will mitigate the premium price they can charge for the points.

I think you’re over complicating revenue. Disney has one President and Chief Executive Officer. Accountants may find ways to lower the payment to uncle Sam, but in the end, The plan that generates the most profit will win.

 

[minnie61650]

Don't assume a new resort is after AKV. There are other retrofits available. CRV is just the most expensive one. She does feel STOL is still in the running. It does already have water and sewer under it. I don't know the details...can only repeat what I was told.

As to the individual who will not purchase until CRV is built...how often do you travel to Disney? Just on economics alone have you thought of buying now? Doesn't preclude you from doing an add-on in the future if they do a CRV.

DH and I travel several times a year and often stay at 4 star hotels.
We travel to Disney about once a year but I don't want to own a DVC for economic reasons.
We can well afford to stay at any of Disney's Deluxe resorts if we chose to.

None of the present DVC's appeal to me.
When I go to Disney I want a resort that makes me feel like I am at Disney.
I don't want a resort that reminds me of Africa, the Beach, New England, SS, or even Hawaii, or Mexico. At least in addition to the monorail the Contemporary has close access to the MK and an amazing view of the MK from some of the rooms.That is what appeals to me.

I have an inoperable spinal condition that will worsen and when the time comes that I will not be able to get around the parks as much in my EVC and /or WC as I wish I would love to be able to view the castle and the MK from my resort room.

Until Disney or DVC a builds a CRV or a Deluxe Disney themed resort I will
continue staying at the All Stars because that is where I feel closest to the Disney Magic at this time.

 

[nuts]

DH and I travel several times a year and often stay at 4 star hotels.
We travel to Disney about once a year but I don't want to own a DVC for economic reasons.
We can well afford to stay at any of Disney's Deluxe resorts if we chose to.

None of the present DVC's appeal to me.
When I go to Disney I want a resort that makes me feel like I am at Disney.
I don't want a resort that reminds me of Africa, the Beach, New England, SS, or even Hawaii, or Mexico. At least in addition to the monorail the Contemporary has close access to the MK and an amazing view of the MK from some of the rooms.That is what appeals to me.

I have an inoperable spinal condition that will worsen and when the time comes that I will not be able to get around the parks as much in my EVC and /or WC as I wish I would love to be able to view the castle and the MK from my resort room.

Until Disney or DVC a builds a CRV or a Deluxe Disney themed resort I will
continue staying at the All Stars because that is where I feel closest to the Disney Magic at this time.

Thanks for your explanation.

 

[LisaS]

Where is the wetland info coming from that is being quoted on this thread, pertaining to old treehouses?

There have been a few threads about it during the time I've been on these boards. Here is one from about a year or so ago that has a pretty good explanation of the wetlands issues: http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=885371

 

[vonpluto]

In PA when locating a parcel for development if wetlands indicators are discovered (I've seen the plants found in areas that looked to be desert-like), the developers are usually able to "switch out" a nearby parcel to keep the % in balance & everyone is happy.
Does it work differently in FL?

IIRC, Disney did a swap to enable developement of Celebration.

Where is the wetland info coming from that is being quoted on this thread, pertaining to old treehouses?

This info has been around for quite a while, and questioning it can sometimes bring harsh responses.

To steal and rephrase a line used earlier in this thread, “It may be accepted, but it ain’t fact”.

This info from the Reedy Creek 2008 Composite Plan from 1998, updated 2003. http://www.rcid.org/

The Treehouses are situated in an area designated “marginally suitable” for construction, and “resource management” as to future use. It is at best a Class 2 wetlands area. From the plan:
“Policies CONSERVATION ELEMENT
6A-4
The RCID Land Development Regulations shall ensure the protection and conservation of all wetlands within its jurisdiction not identified for impact by Long Term Permits (LTPs). Wetlands shall be designated as Class I areas or Class II areas based on the following criteria:
(1) Class I Criteria
(a) Any functional wetland currently protected by a conservation easement
within the Reedy Creek Improvement District.
(b) Any area included within the Wildlife Management/Conservation Area
(WMCA) as defined by SFWMD.
(c) Any wetland identified by the Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission or U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as providing critical and essential habitat for species on either the federal or state list of threatened or endangered species.
(2) Class II Criteria. All wetlands within the District which do not meet the criteria as a Class I wetland and which are not identified for impact by LTPs.”

All areas not now considered for future development are classified “Conservation”, and all Conservation areas fall under the Class One criteria.

The Treehouses are considered Class Two Wetlands and construction there would be governed by the following:
“ Marginally Suitable. Areas given a marginally suitable rating have identified or recognized constraints for development. This classification corresponds to wetlands that are above the 100-year flood elevation. Development in these areas is strongly discouraged and would require mitigation of wetland impacts above. “

So, according to this RCID plan, the Treehouses could be replaced, but that is “disouraged” (not prohibited).

Also, in section 6 (Open Space) of the plan, it is recommended to maintain marginally suitable/resource management areas as open space in the future.
The plan does allow for recreational use of resorce areas in the future. (golf courses, horse trails etc)

FWIW, the plan does identify areas for future development:
“The largest areas of suitable land are located west of Animal Kingdom, between World Drive and I-4 between Osceola Parkway and US 192, around Lake Mable, north of the Magnolia Golf Course, east of the Magic Kingdom parking lot, and west of Disney/ MGM Studios.”

The map below is from the Reedy Creek Plan. I cropped the Celebration area off. Note that the closest Conservation{Class One) areas to the CR are across Bay Lake. The closest to the Treehouses are across the Sassagoula River.

Longwinded , but HTH. The Plan is available on the RCID site in PDF format for download.

 

[keishashadow]

Exactly the info I was interested in...thanx.

I'll hug a tree with the best of them but, from the other side have seen many a commercial development get way-laid by the rules. I know they're in place to maintain the enviornment, quality of life. However, from my experience they seemed arbitarially enforced - at best.

At least there is a "master plan" in effect. Just so I've got this straight, WDW thru Reedy Creek has development regulations in place that are even more stringent that the Federal mandates????

JMHO - everytime we take the drive in from MCO on the southern route we see miles & miles of tract housing & commerical development, along with more large condos/resorts; hope they're being held to the same high standards as Disney.

 

[salmoneous]

Just so I've got this straight, WDW thru Reedy Creek has development regulations in place that are even more stringent that the Federal mandates

Think of RCID as the local zoning board. It's not so much that RCID is making the Federal mandates stricter. But just like everywhere else, there are federal rules and local rules. You have to obey both.

 

[tjkraz]

I think you’re over complicating revenue. Disney has one President and Chief Executive Officer. Accountants may find ways to lower the payment to uncle Sam, but in the end, The plan that generates the most profit will win.

I'm not even going to bother responding to every comment because you're missing my point on most of them.

But I will say that you're absolutely incorrect in the above statement. TWDC is a very large company with multiple divisions, each with their own turf to protect and financial goals to meet.

The land on which the CR North Wing sits is some of the most valuable property in all of WDW given its location right outside of the MK. The Parks and Resorts Division isn't just going to give it to DVD for the next 50 years without receiving proper compensation. If Disney were to consider leasing that land to an outside company (i.e. as they've done with the Dolphin, Swan, Shades of Green, etc.) the land alone is certainly worth millions, perhaps billions of dollars over such an extended time period. If you want to talk about the project that would have the highest profit...there you have it.

Not even Bob Iger or Al Weiss would be foolish enough to assign zero value to the land just because it's an asset that already falls under the Disney umbrella. There are limitless options available for that land, and the only way to compare them objectively is to assign a real value to the property.

Disney Vacation Development will have to pay to lease the land for their next resort and they will have to pay construction costs. Jim Lewis's performance will be judged based upon the finances of DVD/DVC, which absolutely includes the costs of constructing his resorts. Every site under consideration is going to be a balancing act between lease/construction costs and the proposed revenue stream it will generate.

And through all that, we still don't know the answer to perhaps the most significant question: What is the occupancy level at the CR since the refurb?

 

[erikthewise]

I think tjkraz is on the money with his analysis. But because this land is so valuable one also has to doubt that it will be allowed to lie idle for too long. Personally I think the North Wing is going down, but I have an open mind about what the land may be used for. Part of me hopes it won't be DVC, because then I can still dream about Polynesian Villas.

 

[Sammie]

Think of RCID as the local zoning board. It's not so much that RCID is making the Federal mandates stricter. But just like everywhere else, there are federal rules and local rules. You have to obey both.

True and everyone has to remember that Disney will always be held to a higher degree of scrutiny than anyone else. The media would be all over it, if Disney damaged one tree in a protected area, where someone else could take out a forrest and no one know.