Dear Eisner

[airlarry!]

Greg, I hate to disagree with you, but every resort already has this in some for m or another. When we stayed at the Grand Floridian, we knew that we would not be in the main building. We knew we would be in one of the further out rooms (which really weren't that far away). We knew that other people were staying only a short hop out of their room to the monorail. We knew that there was a concierge services somewhere with giant rooms that cost 10 times what I was paying.

Didn't matter. We were still *on* or should I say *near* the monorail...couldn't see a parking lot from our room...had a beautiful view of the castle as I walked over to see the pool.

On a side note, we stayed there on a super AP rate--otherwise I would never *before* have blown the money to stay on the monorail--course all week I was walking around to myself thinking how the heck could I ever go back to staying at the Mods or below--I'd rather go to Disney every third or fourth year to stay on the monorail then to come back every year and stay at the PoopCentury.

And, yes, I used to be one of those 'its just a hotel room, you only sleep there.' Sure...that is until I actually stayed on a monorail line hotel.

It doesn't amaze me that Baron would return to the World every year. What amazes me is that he doesn't regret giving up his beloved Poly experiences.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Holy Moley!!! True progress for the first time in a long time...................perhaps ever!!!!! Unfortunately, as I sit here in the office on a Sunday I am supposed to be doing work so I better not get going. I do have the train ride home to explore my feelings regarding Baron's revelation. At first glance I have to agree and disagree with Greg. It seems a more covert caste system when you look at it property wide, cleverly hidden and such, but within the resorts themselves it would be a much more visible "caste" system. Heck, I think the Garden Wings already reek of second class CR citizen, imagine if there were yet another grouping of cheaper rooms beyond that. I'm also surprised that Baron has gotten past the "slippery slope" concept and agreed that something could give, be "less", with respect to resorts and still have them be "Disney". But I am encouraged and I'll play along in the latest incarnation of this old game. I'll be back...................

 

[DisneyKidds]

Question. Back in the day, did the Poly and CR have concierge level rooms and suites, or were ALL rooms equal. I don't think I'm buying what Larry is selling (re: his GF example and how it equates to the concept we are exploring), but I need some more facts and research.

 

[crusader]

I just finished catching up here and wanted to quickly say that I'll be back later (yes, Baron the wheels are spinning on this end as well)

but.................

Today's game day.

Go Eagles!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Question. Back in the day, did the Poly and CR have concierge level rooms and suites,

I do not believe so, but I couldn't swear to it. You see the stripping away of the "Disney Experience" (i.e. the economies and to a lesser extent the Mods) is only half of the problem. The other half is the up-scaling (for an obscene rise in cost). Without the double (up-down) spread, the caste system would hardly be noticeable.

If you eliminate the very, very high end (the Ei$ner elite). And you eliminate the low end (All-stars, Pop Century). You are left with a much more manageable scope. Now all you have to do is bring those prices back into the 'reasonable' range (maybe somewhere between rack rate and the “bargain-basement-secret-code-in-conjunction-with-Florida-residency-and-AP-rate" (not good with any other promotional offer)!!) and you've got yourself one heck of a Disney "MAGICAL" resort!!!! And with Mods included!!!

WOW!!! Now that’s a Disney “EXPERIENCE”!!!!

 

[Another Voice]

Let's bring some facts and some history into this.

The oldest rendering of the Contemporary that I have is an overview of the entire (now called ) Magic Kingdom area from a brochure copyrighted 1969 (A Complete Edition About Walt Disney World, © 1969 Walt Disney World Co.). The brochure is not a tourist "come visit us!" piece of advertising, but appears to be aimed at local governments, "public interest" groups, convention planners and corporations. It describes the concept of the project in some detail; but it is much more about business than about luring visitors to WDW.

The cover of the pamphlet shows the entire Seven Seas Lagoon, complete with the Magic Kingdom, the Contemporary and Polynesian resorts – but also the Persian, Venetian and Asian resorts as well. It is very similar to the concept painting of the same area that's published on page 25 of Since the World Began (&copy 1996 by Disney Enterprises, ISBN 0-7868-8219-0, paperback version).

The drawing clearly show the Contemporary Tower surrounded by a cluster of three low rise building courtyards. The cluster in what is now the parking lot even has a swimming pool and tennis courts. Inside is a photograph of a model looking at the resort from Bay Lake. It too clearly shows a pair of two-story buildings in exactly the same location as the current Garden Wings. It also shows a very large boating pavilion over the lake where the current pools are located.

The text reads as follows:

"Flagship and major convention hotel in Walt Disney World will be the streamlined 'Contemporary' theme resort. Its main building[emphasis added] is a 10-story high rise, featuring a spectacular open-mall lobby longer than a football field, with an 80-foot high ceiling. Walt Disney World-Alweg Monorail trains on the way to the theme park and other hotels will travel directly through the lobby to the station located inside. Shops, boutiques, cafes and restaurants will ring the open mall."

So clearly the non-tower accommodations have been part of the hotel since the very first stages of planning. The idea that the Garden Wings are an after-the-fact, cheap addition to gouge the public is wrong.

It should also be noted that the "high raise" and "lower raise" concept was extremely common for vacation hotels of the era. The old Vegas resorts were built like that, the old Hawaiian resorts were built like that. And even the Polynesian started out life like that. Again, quoting from the brochure, "The atmosphere of Pacific Islands will be created in a graceful high-raise structure and two-story "out-buildings" of the 700 room Polynesian-style hotel."*

My memory is that the Contemporary has always had suites (essentially rooms with separate bedrooms), but the concierge level is the product of the mid 1990's "the rich deserve more" mentality. The same applies to the Polynesian as well. WDW never catered to the monied-elite clientele looking for all the special perks that other hotels provided (since WDW was never seen as an up-scale destination). Before, price difference were always based on the room itself – the thought of different levels of service wasn't even considered. The Grand Floridian was the first hotel to attempt complete segregation between the "haves" and the "have nots" – even in the same resort complex.

And let me state again my position – non-deluxe accommodations have always been part of the master plan for WDW. But I think they were intended to be created with the same talent and care as everything else on property. The current manifestations (Stars and Pop), however, are not created that way – nor was there any attempt to do so. They are cheaply thrown together without thought or effort. That's why they're not "Disney", not because they cost less.

 

[donald@home]

I have not read this entire thread, but after reading AVs above response it appears that some people are under the false impression that the Garden Wings were added to the Contemporary after the Tower was designed and built. The Garden Wings were built at the same time as the Tower. In the book "The Story of Walt Disney Wold" (the book that is shaped like a capital letter D) is shows the Contemporary under construction, and it shows the Garden Wings under construction at the same time. They have been there since "the world began".

 

[Another Voice]

Ah Mr. Scoop – such a lawyer way to twist meanings…

"I'll buy into Another Voice's argument that they were intentionally "unthemed" for the guest that wanted an unthemed lodging experience."

I never said they were unthemed; in fact I've said they are an explicit extension of the futuristic theme of the entire resort. Granted, it was "futuristic" as designed in the late 1960's and that's probably causing your "confusion".

Since you made me delve in to the achieves, here a quote from Designing Disney's Theme Parks: The Archeitecture of Reassurance (edited by Karal Ann Marling, ©1997, ISBN 2-08013-639-9), page 154-156:

"The hotels were, in a way, the last vestige of Walt's plan for a true residential community. Families stayed for days at a time in environments designed to foster a collective fantasy of being shipwrecked on a sunny Polynesian island, for instance. Or a fantasy of stopping for the night in a city that looked exactly like up-to-the-minute cities ought to look — clean, fresh, brightly lit, and perky, decorated in brilliant, modern primaries set off against stark white surfaces — and hopping off a monorail in the soaring atrium lobby of one's hotel."

I'm sure there are a lot of people who remember the hotel's "perky" turquoise and pink chairs in the rooms, or the abundance of bright oranges that can tell you this was "the future" at the time. The clean, smooth white concrete, the slope of the exterior "struts" that mimic the structural elements of the tower – the Garden Wings were as "themed" to the Tower. Just because the monorail didn't swing by each and every room of the resort doesn't make then "unthemed" – anymore than those rooms not facing the water are less "Polyneasian" than the others.

The thing about the future is that it's always different than you thought it would be. Because a place isn't "futuristic" forty years after it was designed doesn't diminish the intent of the original architects (although it says volumes about the recent owner's efforts to keep things "bright and fresh". Trust me, you own children are going to look back on your tastes with same utter and complete contempt you show this place.

Some things do change.

The garden wings were necessary simply to build a resort the size required by WDW. The early renderings completely contradict your friend's claims. There was only one Tower and in the 1969 plan it was four stories smaller than the one shown. In fact the same Designing Disney Theme Parks book contains a full page reproduction of "Monorail emerging from the lobby of the Contemporary Hotel" also from 1969. It looks all but identical to the same view you can see in real life today – there were no "extensions through which the monorail would also travel."

There was also the engineering aspect of it. The open air "A" frame design of the hotel was extremely new at the time and no one thought it would be possible to put 1,000 rooms in the same building (especially on built on Florida swampland). All of the rooms were also built using a prefabrication method (again, unique for the time) which required the units to be lifted into place using cranes. Ten stories could have simply been the highest they could reach at the time.

The only question remaining is why do people feel that the Garden Wings justify Pop Century?

Even if one was to say "The Garden Wings are a blight upon all mankind and we this world is a lessor place for there existence" – it's still a massive jump to claim that a twenty foot fiberglass Yo-Yo glued onto the side of the crappest backroads Interstate rent-by-the-hour motel is "a wonder example of Disney spreading charitable magic® to those of lesser means".

Rationally, it doesn't. The All Stars and Pop are defended only because they are cheap places for the frequent Disney set. Put either hotel on I-Drive and you'd be using then as the exact reason why Disney is so magical® and off property is a tacky tourist cesspool.

Those motels are the ultimate example of "branding". They have no value beyond the sticker slapped on the overpriced hotel bill. They are counter to everything that WDW is supposed to be – but are brilliant symbols of everything that Disney has become:

A marketing gimmick.

Please forgive us old foggies who remember when Disney actually built things worth seeing, rather than something we had to tolerate for the price.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Another Voice
Please forgive us old foggies who remember when Disney actually built things worth seeing, rather than something we had to tolerate for the price.

Yes, the Contemporary and Poly were "worth seeing," but my middle-middle class family could never afford to stay there. We regularly stayed on 192 during the 1970s and 1980s because both of the Disney resorts were out of our league, price-wise. We would go to the Contemporary to see the "Grand Canyon Concourse" and then stop by the Poly to look at the theming, but we never ate or stayed in either one. It was one of my mom's dreams to stay at the Poly, but we could never manage it.

However, had a Caribbean Beach or a Port Orleans been around -- with the appropriate price point based on how much the Contemp and Poly cost at the time -- we'd have probably been able to talk dad into one of those. I'm not sure about the All-Star or Pop Century level resorts. My dad would have probably considered them to have too MUCH theming. We'd have visited them, though, and taken our pictures next to the big footballs and the giant musical notes.

 

[crusader]

WDSearcher's points are very relevant to several of the subtopics in this thread and here's why:

It's being argued that the values have no place on-site because they are glorified motels with a cheap brainless design and obscene, gargantuan fiberglass icons glued all over the exterior of the properties.

and

That under the Walt philosophy we can't possibly accomodate this tier in any caste scenario under any circumstances. (which I'm absolutely not convinced of)

So who are the guests we're talking about?

They're what my family from 1970 would be today.
They're also many school groups and other youth organizations travelling in large volumes.

Back then, the median household size was over 3 children. That means the average family (particularly ours) could not afford to fly or be accomodated in a single hotel room and had to travel accordingly. In my case, we drove and camped.

Here are some stats:

Household size in the 70's

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabHH-4.pdf

But that only tells us half the story, you also need to consider the affordability factor.

Household income in 1971

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/P60-84.pdf

Now fast forward to today and what I'm seeing is that the average family size has dropped almost twice as fast as the median household income has risen over the past 30 years. That means we still need to travel economically but our families are small enough to share one room.

This is the group we are considering dropping off on I-4 under our proposed resort design because they aren't going to pay the minimum rates we're charging - which won't be able to be offered below $125.00/night according to my visual.

So in posing my question to Baron, what I am trying to establish is two-fold:

What is this idea actually going to encompass? (costs/infrastructure/size vs rate recoveries)

and

Will it have the ability to incorporate the guests who typically stay in the value resorts today?

 

[Another Voice]

Yes, and when my family went to Disneyland we always wanted to eat in the Blue Bayou, the fancy restaurant inside the 'Pirates of the Caribbean'. But we simply couldn't afford the price of a sit down restaurant for everyone.

So - is the only solution an unthemed McDonalds? Is the only soultion to plop a massive Del Taco inplace of Tomorrowland. How much neon should the Burger King string down Main Street?

The "All Stars are charity for the poor vs. Walt and his evil money-grubbling elite scam" line is rather a fraud. Even Walt himself used term "motel hotels" to indicate that a wide variety of accomidations would be built.

The question remains are Stars and Pop in the "Disney" spirit of imgination, quality and workmanship - or are they just half brained money grabs made to maximize the profit margin from those blinded by branding?

Disney already showed with Dixie Landings/Port Orleans that it was capable of building a Disney style resort with a modest price tag. Why did they stop?

And far from gracing those of limited means the honor of staying on property - the vast majority of people around here say they stay at the "Values" becasue it allows them to afford several trips to WDW every year. It allows them to escape the company's "your wallet or your life" attitude toward pricing at the other resorts.

And there sure hasn't been a major movement of people off US 192 or I-Drive into the magical® on property resorts. If the huddled masses yearn for to breathe Disney - why was Pop closed more than a year for lack of business?

Perhaps even the "values" are overpriced.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Just a few miscellaneous items before we explore the latest “concept”…………….

It was all those torch lined walkways in the Poly, when streetlights would have been easier and cheaper (BTW they don’t have those anymore. That is very sad!!).

When is the last time you stayed at the Poly my friend? There are indeed torch lined walkways throughout the Poly. Not sure if they were different in the past (they are gas now, but real fire I assure you) but the torches are burning today. Actually, our 2 yo commented on them every time we walked the grounds at night on our trip in December.

The idea that the Garden Wings are an after-the-fact, cheap addition to gouge the public is wrong.

Thanks for clearing that up AV. I can dispense with the response I was going to give Sir Larry about better ways to add to the CR A-Frame (which was DON”T add to the resort if you can’t keep with the original plans/style). You provide further evidence to make Baron feel better about accepting his latest revelation. He doesn’t have to feel bad about abandoning his requirement for no parking lot views and access to rooms via interior corridors because the CR Garden Wings didn’t deliver on those counts (they were situated right on the parking lot and you had to go outside to access them). Indeed, it seems (Hope – can you dig out any evidence of Tower vs. GW pricing from the early days?) from the very beginning that a “pay less and get less” situation existed (because I assure you, while we paid much less for the GW when we stayed there, the GW just seemed lacking when you left the tower to get to your room). Although, as Baron points out the distinction didn’t slap you in the face. Of course the “pay less and get less” concept isn’t a bad thing, as I’ve been saying all along, the GW being a case on point. Baron is right in that even the lesser Garden Wings share the same proximity to parks, Magical transportation, and full service amenities as the Tower. That does make a difference. My better half agrees with me that the idea that “moderate” accommodation don’t belong in “Disney” is ridiculous. She also agrees with me that POR is much nicer in the way of themeing and aesthetics than the Garden Wings. However, the location and the transportation would make her take the GW over POR (I’ll still take POR thank you as I want to be immersed and not just “close” to the main event).

concierge level is the product of the mid 1990's "the rich deserve more" mentality. The same applies to the Polynesian as well. WDW never catered to the monied-elite clientele looking for all the special perks that other hotels provided.

I’m glad you didn’t try to pawn the concierge concept off as an Ei$ner invention to grab cash. Yes, most other hotels were offering this level of service even though Disney may not have. I’m not sure it was unreasonable for Disney to offer something that had become standard in the industry – actually it was wise to do so. Doing so didn’t “exclude” anybody, it just offered those with money to burn something to burn it on. As for the GF being the first hotel to separate the “haves” and “have nots” by virtue of the main building being all suites and concierge, without knowing more about the resort the GF was modeled after I can’t really comment.

We’ve already stipulated that there really isn’t place at all in the grand scheme of things for the ‘economies’. At least I think that’s what we’ve said.

I wouldn’t exactly say we agree on that. I readily admit that I don’t care for the “values”. I try not to talk about them much (and on the flip side that is all Larry and AV can talk about when we are on the resort subject ). In my mind they are the black sheep……………………but no place for economy accommodations? Nah…………I’m sure we could find a place and a way*.

And now onto the new “concept”……………………………….(oh, and thanks for the good battle my good Baron, no codfish necessary )

So, Disney “moderate” accommodations as extensions to “deluxe” resorts? Disney “moderate” (or even value) accommodations being extensions of “deluxe” resorts. Hmmmm………………………..Yes, Baron, on the surface that would seem to be preferable to the current setup. I’m still thinking on it though and my train ride is almost over. I would imagine there would be some logistical issues given the size the resorts would have to grow to with the varying accommodations in one complex. How much can you tax the transportation system in one area, would amenities be stretched too thin, etc. You also may have issues with having the adequate land mass in close proximity to parks and Magical transportation required for such resorts. While I know a lot of us aren’t big on nuts and bolts business stuff, there could be concern with how this new resort structure translated into occupancy rates for the varying room types within the resort and how that would play out on the financial end. Yes, there are things that could be stumbling blocks, or real barriers, but it’s definitely a concept worthy of exploring.

* ie. The Medievil Resort where the prime accomodations go to the Land Baron, you have mid level accomodations for the commoners, and value type accomodations for the surfs. Everyone can play out a role in this fully emmersive themed resort.

Or perhaps the Gone With the Wind Resort (as un-PC as it would be ). The prime accomodations are Tara, mid level accomodations for all the everyday Yanks and Johnny Rebs, and the value type accomodations for the servants.

 

[Another Voice]

Because, Mr. Scoop, with your return you seem to have fallen into the old "yesterday bad, today good" syndrome.

You know the one. The one where you said a monorail crusiing past the Polynesian Resort so destroys the atmosphere and themeing of the place that the entire resort is nothing but a fraud, a shame, and you wanted it shut --- while clean, pristine white busses pulling up in front of the Animal Kingdom Lodge was such impecable themeing that you thought you need a malaria shot because smellig the deseil fumes conjured thoughts of Kenya.

Everything in life outside of the courtroom requires compromise. While you are eager to justify today's sorry motels through any means possible - you refuse to grant the better resorts even a hint of the same latitude to "the old dead guy's places". Not because you want to maintain a consistent position, but simply to bash the past the make the present seem better.

So, building a forty story A-frame tower was impractical back in 1970. But the Garden Wings were themed to the rest of the resort - they fit. They continued the story. They were part. No one said "we need rooms, lets build a box and we'll decorate it somehow." Yet that's the exact approach taken with the "value" resorts.

If you want to try and argue that just as much care and effort went into Pop Century as the original resorts, or that "living the fantasy of being shipwrecked on a South Seas island" is the same level of ambition as "shiny objects for toddlers" - please so.

It should be very amusing.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Another Voice
So, building a forty story A-frame tower was impractical back in 1970. But the Garden Wings were themed to the rest of the resort - they fit. They continued the story. They were part. No one said "we need rooms, lets build a box and we'll decorate it somehow." Yet that's the exact approach taken with the "value" resorts.

But HOW -- for the unenlightened among us -- do the garden wings "continue the story?" If the story of the Contemporary is that it is a modern A-frame building that is the 1960s version of contemporary, then how do the garden wings showcase that? They are neither modern nor A-frame. If the story of the Contemporary is that there is an architecturally remarkable building with a monorail going through it (which is, of course, the big hook to how contemporary the resort is), then how do the garden wings showcase that? They are not architecturally remarkable in any way, really. The garden wings have none of the modern sensibilities of the tower -- they don't have monorail access, there are no other elements of this modern space. They are simply rooms in wings that are attached to a main structure. They don't even have carry-over elements from the Grand Canyon Concourse murals or any of the artistic "wow" of the tower. How do they "continue the story?"

Originally posted by Another Voice If you want to try and argue that just as much care and effort went into Pop Century as the original resorts, or that "living the fantasy of being shipwrecked on a South Seas island" is the same level of ambition as "shiny objects for toddlers" - please so.

It should be very amusing.

Of course more time had to go into the Contemporary and the Poly -- they were the first of their kind. People didn't do stuff like that anywhere, except on Route 66, with its tee-pee hotels and dinosaur gift shops. But it's not like the Imagineering staff who were charged to come up with the icons, landscaping and other themed elements for Pop Centrury just sat around for a couple of days and tossed some ideas down on paper and > poof! < a resort was designed. They were given a task -- to theme a new resort to decades of the century and to do it for X amount of dollars -- and that's what they did. The fact that the parameters they got weren't the same blue sky ones afforded to the folks who developed the Poly isn't their fault. The budgets and the amount of theme affordable via the budgets were different for the Poly than the Pop, but I would argue that the "care and effort" afforded them by the people who designed them was the same.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Because, Mr. Scoop, with your return you seem to have fallen into the old "yesterday bad, today good" syndrome.

Boy AV, the only people who communicate worse with one another than you and Scoop are me and that Jewell guy .

I don't think Scoop is saying that the Garden Wings "justify" the values. Scoop made an observation, perhaps in response to a comment. That observation was that.........................including rooms at a Disney resort that are cheaper than the true "deluxe" rooms and are "less" than the Poly and CR (Tower, which everyone thinks of when they think CR), primarily for the purpose of increasing resort capacity, is NOT a concept that was born of 1984. That's all. Is that true or false? I say it's true. Scoop doesn't go on to say that that is justification for the values. You imply that that is what he is trying to say..........an implication born of thinking that any comment Scoop makes is aimed at proving...

the old "yesterday bad, today good" syndrome.

That's quite a barrier you guys have when you both make pretty good points. If you'd stop making it about that you might be able to communicate better.

Just so as things are clear though, please answer the following:

Do (and did) the GW rooms cost "less" than the Tower rooms?
Are the GW rooms "less" convenient than the Tower rooms?
Is the experience of staying in a GW room somehow "less" than staying in a Tower room?

Any reasonable person discussing this stuff objectively would have to answer "yes" to all three. So yes, the GW rooms are "less", they are cheaper, and (as you say) they were put there to provide required capacity. It is what it is..............and Scoop is right on his point. However, that doesn't mean the GWs are no better than the Values, or that the values are justified as they are. I'll give you that the GWs extend the theme by being modern structures with similar lines to the Tower. While they are "less" than the Tower, I agree they "fit" the resort (but you have to admit - they are nothing special. Come on, you can admit it ). That is the potential beauty that Baron has seen with his latest epiphany. You can have "less" within a deluxe resort so long as it "fits"..................................but how far can you extend that concept, and can you even extend it to the point of value priced rooms within the same resort?

You seem to be agreeing that resort rooms at varying price levels is not only a good concept, but one that was always anticipated. Heck, I think you said that Dixie Landings proved that they could do it and do it well. If all the mods and the values were done with Dixie Landings type care would we even have an issue?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Crusader:

So who are the guests we're talking about?

I guess it comes down to where you draw the line. I really think that it has to be drawn somewhere. Don’t you? I mean Disney is NOT a communistic endeavor. They have to maintain at least a modicum of a profit, if for no other reason than to stay solvent. With that in mind, the only question remaining is how far can the standards be stretched while still maintaining a Disney “EXPERIENCE”?

It is indeed sad that our society is built on the concept of ‘money’. It takes bucks to build things and it takes bucks to see or “experience” those things. Not everyone in the world has the means to do it all, all the time. Heck, there are some that cannot even make it down to Florida in the first place, never mind our esoteric talk about the “value” of the All-Stars!! Even that is ‘pie-in-the-sky’ for some. And to others a three week stay at a Floridian suite comes out of their pocket change. Being ‘exclusionary’ is NOT under discussion. The minute we stipulate that Disney MUST charge something, we begin to exclude.

Now. Once we agree to that, the only question that remains is where we draw the line. I contend that economics (of the public) has very, very little to do with that decision. A passing glance at most, just to be sure you are not being overly elitist. I also maintain that market share, revenues and potential profits has very little to do with the question at hand. Again, only a quick look to insure some degree of profitability. Therefore, the only remaining and highly relevant question is one of quality, concept and Disney standards (or philosophy, if you prefer).

They're what my family from 1970 would be today.

I’m sorry for you. But, hey! I was in the same boat! We spent my formative years in Disney frequenting Fort Wilderness. But it turns out that it wasn’t so out of reach as you might have thought. You linked a site to a 1972 index. I can’t make heads or tails of it (but to tell the truth I really didn’t study it much. I have a day off today and I really don’t want to think much.)

But I do know that I was surprised at the time that I was able to easily afford a four night stay at the poly in their Lagoon View room (the most expensive at the time) for my honeymoon! This was in 1979 and the most expensive room on the entire property only cost about 70 buck a night (I believe tax was included)!! I will admit that as a young married guy, making fairly good money (even with most trades I suppose) and no other commitments other than my Trans Am (no kids, mortgage, etc.) it may have been a little easier for me than a guy with six kids and a house he could barely afford. But I don’t think it was that far out of line. In other words, nothing even close to today’s prices.

A little retrospective research led to the discovery that a Poly room, in 1972, cost only 32 bucks a night! (Now I’m not sure what category that fell under, so there’s probably a five buck swing either way.) But that doesn’t seem all that outrageous, does it?

This is the group we are considering dropping off on I-4 under our proposed resort design because they aren't going to pay the minimum rates we're charging - which won't be able to be offered below $125.00/night according to my visual.

You’re still too worried about COST!! And you’re still thinking in terms of demographics. They have very little place in this discussion. Cursory at best!! If this type of thinking was carried out to the next level you could actually argue that a scaled down version of the MK be built, in order to ‘capture’ the market that can’t really afford the $50.00 + cost of a ticket!! It is a road that goes nowhere, in the Disney concept. Either the “Something” is built to Disney standards, and most people will come and see it (and be able and willing to pay for it thereby making it ‘profitable’) or the “Something”, while still a good concept, is simply too extravagant to be Disney and therefore should NOT be built. (It is the only time that cost, market and profit is even considered within the “Disney philosophy”.)

What is this idea actually going to encompass? (costs/infrastructure/size vs rate recoveries)

I’m afraid I don’t quite understand what you’re asking here. Please elaborate!

Will it have the ability to incorporate the guests who typically stay in the value resorts today?

It may not! It depends on where you put the price. I could certainly see a concept where those folks would be taken into account, but given the current thinking, I doubt it.

But even in the current set-up, what about all those people who just can’t seem to make the cut for the All-Stars? My sister-in-law falls into that category. She is as big a Disney nut as there is. She would LOVE to accompany her sister Disney every year. Or at least every other year. But sadly, she cannot! She is only able to afford the trip every five to seven years, even staying in the All-Stars. What do we say to her? Now, if Disney could only drop the price by ten or fifteen bucks a night… Well, who knows… It would certainly go a long way to making the trip more affordable for her. Should Disney build a resort to capture that market as well? Say a true Motel 6, with only one Giant Icon!! Or maybe just Mickey Mouse sheets on the twin beds!

In other words, where do you draw the line on what is “Disney” and what is not!?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. Kidds:

When is the last time you stayed at the Poly my friend? There are indeed torch lined walkways throughout the Poly. Not sure if they were different in the past

Oh!! They were very much different!! In the original version EVERY walkway was lined with these torches. It was a thing of beauty! Now, there is just a couple left. Sad!

Yes, most other hotels were offering this level of service even though Disney may not have. I’m not sure it was unreasonable for Disney to offer something that had become standard in the industry – actually it was wise to do so.

I disagree. I strongly disagree!! That was part of the simplicity of a Disney resort. It was also part of the charm. As much as I detest the ‘take-aways’, the ‘downsizing’ of the experience, I hate the other end just as much. Case in point: the Floridian!!

It was what set Disney apart form all other resorts. By doing it ‘their way’ with no special interest to the rest of the industry, they set themselves apart. They didn’t advertise. They didn’t use travel agents. They didn’t promote specials. They didn’t have varying prices for varying ‘seasons’.

What they did was set up a resort that they considered affordable AND luxurious! With Disney standards. Nothing too outrageous. And nothing skimpy. Just Disney. The themes may be different. The lay out may be different. But the service and the treatment was the same. If you were able to acquire the minimum price of admission (a night’s stay) you were treated the same as Disney treated all its guests. Just like a VIP. You couldn’t get special treatment because that was the treatment you were getting already. I think, at the end o\f the day that is bothers me the most about the “other” accommodations Disney has come up with lately. It is not only different, but it is decidedly ‘less’. You are NOT a VIP. You are a ‘guest’ at best, but most of the time, only a customer. The room size and giant icons only illustrates that point in brick a mortar.

As for the GF being the first hotel to separate the “haves” and “have nots” by virtue of the main building being all suites and concierge, without knowing more about the resort the GF was modeled after I can’t really comment.

What does that have to do with Disney!!?!?! What possible difference does it make if the original resort did things that way. The question is: Should Disney??!!

Doing so didn’t “exclude” anybody, it just offered those with money to burn something to burn it on.

Yes!! It did!! Now the treatment, that VIP treatment that EVERYONE received would be even more VIPish, if you put down some extra bucks! That STINKS!!!

I readily admit that I don’t care for the “values”. I try not to talk about them much (and on the flip side that is all Larry and AV can talk about when we are on the resort subject )

It is because on that slippery slope they are as low as you can go. And nearly everyone can see that Disney didn’t do it right. It’s an easy argument to win. All you need to do is point your finger in their general direction and you’ve won!! It is far harder trying to raise that bar and argue that the Floridian is NOT Disney. Or worse (gasp!) Riverside is NOT Disney! And I could certainly see the merits of that argument. As I told Crusader, it all depends on where you draw the line.

In my mind they are the black sheep……………………but no place for economy accommodations? Nah…………I’m sure we could find a place and a way

Then show me how it could possibly work!! No one has done it so far, least of all Disney!!!

 

[Another Voice]

The argument is going that since the Garden Wings are just unthemed additions to increase capacity, that such a practice is "Disney" - therefore adding unthemed resorts like "All Stars" at a lower price just to increase capacity is just as Disney.

In other words - shut up about "the good old days" and stop complaining about today's practices.

But think about what the "unthemed" Garden Wings for a second. Forty years ago some guy set out to build a place that represented the future. So he built sleek, white buildings filled with bright colors. And the press of the day maverelled over the futuristic aspects of the hotel.

Now, forty years later, in the 21st Century, in the future - you're complaining that the buildings are commonplace and without theme.

My answer - you're kicking a guy for getting it right.

At the same time you have to wonder about a company that we sit on its cash and let a thirty year old building represent "the future". They gleefully bash the people who made it yet are unwilling to either fix the problem or come up with something better.

As for the monorail - so any room not on the beach at the Poly isn't really part of the Polyneisan? Any room not directly under the butt of a twenty foot Buzz Lightyear isn't part of the All Stars Movie'? Any room not overlooking the animals isn't part of the Animal Kingdom Lodge?

But back to the Garden Wings and Mr Scoop's claim I haven't discussed them. Funny, but I've sighted several sources that say the Gardern Wings were original parts of the resort. Designed from the very beginning in almost exactly the same way they appear today. I wrote out the names of the books and even the page numbers of the illustartions - all so Mr. Scoop could see for himself.

Yet all the response is " save possibly the garden wings which were simply added for extra capacity".

Mr. Scoop - if you would care to sight your sources and your reference points for saying those elements were unthemed addtions added simply for extra capacity I would gladly look them up and read them for my education.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I’ve tried to stay out of the fray…

… But Scoop!! You are unbelievable!!

Let me remind the masses just who said what and where.

wtg2000 and I (with some commentary from Mr. Kidds and Crusader) were talking about the “LandBaron Caste System of Resorts”. I was on about how lousy the economies were and I believe it was wtg2000 that wanted to compare Walker/Miller with the current administration. That led to my post (rather eloquent, if I do say so myself) regarding all the good thing that went on during Walker/Miller. Within my post I said:

I do know this much for sure. Under [Ron's] leadership Walt's ideals and philosophies were very well maintained.

You chose that line to quote in your first post in this thread, indeed your first post in a good long time. In fact you named it “A Cameo”.

It was in this first post of yours that those darn Garden Wings (a favorite subject of yours) was first mention in this thread and probably the first time since you mentioned them in our last discussion. Do you remember the post? No? Well, here it is. It’s on page ten, in case you want to research it yourself.

I've never heard someone ever take this position beyond suggesting that a few particular items (such as the ones listed) were well done.

The trend toward a new approach to WDW lodging did not begin with the Grand Floridian or Caribbean Beach Resort. It started with the garden wings located at the Contemporary Resort--where more than a few families were sadly surprised to find that their stay at the Contemporary Resort was not at the "resort with the monorail going through" but at either Appendix A or Appendix B to the same.

Please, let's not act as if the Grand Floridian or Caribbean Beach Resort represented a dramatic change in philosophy. At worst, they were the continuation of the philosophy which decided to build the two garden wings.

And from this we are to assume what? Please explain. Because to me (and I would assume AV) you are justifying the existence of the Caribbean and Floridian (and by extension the economies) because of what you consider to be a chink in the Walt philosophy. If there is another explanation please tell it!! I’d LOVE to know where I misinterpreted your post. (and every other post that you harp on the garden wings!!)

it sure sounds to me as though:

The argument is going that since the Garden Wings are just unthemed additions to increase capacity, that such a practice is "Disney" - therefore adding unthemed resorts like "All Stars" at a lower price just to increase capacity is just as Disney.

I really don't see how AV is very far off the mark!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

As I stated (and you cleverly omitted)

You know, I tried to be as kind as possible in the last post and then you go and pull something like this.

I DIDN’T OMIT ANYTHING!!!

Stating it as such, positioned where you placed it makes it seem as though I edited your post or left out some key statement to further my argument.

HOW DARE YOU INFER THAT I’M NOT PLAYING FAIR!!!

That is the reason I quoted your entire first part and NOT just a sentence or a paragraph. Stop doing this Scoop!! It just gets under my skin and makes you look like a whiny weasel. STOP IT!!!

No substandard garden wing resort justifies a terrible Disney resort today.

I agree with that.

FINALLY!! So, let’s get back on track. Before you sidetracked us with those Garden Wings in that “cameo” post of yours we were talking about how rotten the All-Stars and Pop Century are.

Now, since we don’t need to discuss Garden Wings, they should have no bearing whatsoever on the answer to the following:

Is there a place, within the Disney Philosophy, for the All-Stars or Pop Century, as they are today?