Debate: Tangible resort Differences

[YoHo]

I know there are some other threads on this and we always get bogged down in the nitty gritty, but I want to get a feel for something here.


What are the Tangible differences between a Value, a Moderate and a Deluxe Disney Resort?

I personally see the Value resort difference clearly. It is an entirely non traditional take on the concept of Disney Theming. It is Motel 6 with cardboard cutouts.
This is of course my opinion, and I don't wish to argue about the value resorts.

The meat of my curiosity is the Moderate resorts.

I put it to you that their are two fundimental differences between a moderate resort and a deluxe.
Location and type/number of eateries. Every other difference inherant in the resorts is completely at the whim of managment.

The reason I inquire is that we talk a lot about how the current resort system doesn't match up with what Walt would have done, but in reality, I have to wonder if some of these resorts actually come closer then others and if they do, what does that mean?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Pass.

 

[YoHo]

DRAT!

 

[hopemax]

How about the indoor vs. outdoor corridors. Hotel vs. Motel.

 

[WDWHound]

Many of the older Deluxes have larger rooms. Deluxes also offer consierge service and more room service options.

 

[TiggerFreak]

Although I have not stayed at many of the resorts, I have visited almost all of them and it seems that the polish on the deluxe resorts has just a little more Pixie dust added to it. The depth of the theme also seems to be greater at the deluxe.

What about the staff to guest ratio? No clue on this, but I feel the pampering level is somewhat higher at the deluxe resorts. Is this because ther is more staff at the deluxe resorts?
This may just be a self fullfilling expectation that I have been able to delude myself with to justify spending all that money

 

[YoHo]

But Conceirge and Room service aren't tangible, it would cost little money and no Capital expenditure to give both to the Moderates.


Do the moderates have exterior Corridors?

I don't really like interior corridors, so I don't personally consider that a reason to differentiate between deluxe and moderate.

 

[TiggerFreak]

What exactly is an "Exterior Corridor?"

From Websters: In architecture, a gallery or open communication around a building, leading to several chambers at a distance from each other.

Dontchajustluvenglish.

But seriously, the "Interior Corridors" act as noise buffer.
So I vote for "Hallways" on the inside
With Mickeys on the outside

 

[hopemax]

Do the moderates have exterior Corridors?

Yep, no nicely air-conditioned hallways, just open your room door and whoa...Florida humidity.

 

[wdw4us2]

Location, location, location!

Lisa

 

[Eeyore2U]

Square footage of room and size of bed.

 

[DisneyKidds]

I submit that some of the moderates have damned good Show. Show that Walt would approve of. POR is probably the best example - Riverside to be exact. The mansions and bayous - very well done, with story to boot. The central check in/restaurant area is very well done. River transportation to DTD. The grounds - impeccable and wonderfully decorated/themed. Where can we find fault? Because such a hotel wasn't in a Master Plan? I say no. Because you can see a parking lot from some rooms? Well, same at CR and the Poly. The CM's are wonderful. The rooms are good sized. Safety, Courtesy, Show, Efficiency - what is missing?

From a Magic standpoint, from an 'experience' standpoint, I submit there is little tangible difference.

I think there is a reason LB passed . Come to think of it, all he really drones on about is the caste system, but nary a word on the important stuff .

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I think there is a reason LB passed . Come to think of it, all he really drones on about is the caste system, but nary a word on the important stuff.

Every time I try to get out... They pull me back in!!

YoHo!! This is way too subjective!! And every fiber in my body SCREAMS STAY AWAY FROM THIS THREAD!!!! But what the hay!!

I submit that some of the moderates have damned good Show.

I agree!!

Show that Walt would approve of.

I disagree!!

Where can we find fault?

Almost everywhere you look! Nothing major, but enough!!

Safety, Courtesy, Show, Efficiency - what is missing?

The "Disney touch".

From a Magic standpoint, from an 'experience' standpoint, I submit there is little tangible difference.

Again, with no surprise to anyone, I disagree!!!


Now, this is somewhat opinion and somewhat not. I mean it is my opinion, but I really think if we take the time to delve very deep into the issue, we may not only find some common ground, we may also find what the Poly has that Port Orleans doesn't. And not the bricks and mortar stuff. But the elusive stuff. The intangible stuff. The "Disney Touch" stuff.

So if you want a 16 pager, I'm willing to discuss it. You see, it goes to the very heart of the philosophy. And I'll always talk about that!! If not, ignore the post. I won't be offended!!

 

[Mooobooks]

I'll take a different approach and say something that many may find shocking, particularly Landbaron, but the two hotels that were built with the official "Disney Touch," and which he may have been involved with at the planning stage (not sure about this) are The Polynesian and The Contemporary.
Frankly, these are the two LEAST interesting hotels among the deluxe and moderate, with the least amount of successful themeing (how do you spell that word, anyway?).
While I do understand that there are lots of people who seem to love these hotels, I see no reason why other than plain old nostalgia. The Contemporary is just hideous, and the ONLY interesting thing about it is that the monorail runs through the middle (though the allure of that has been minimized since in no longer stops in both directions). It looked tacky in the 1970s and it looks truly ugly now.
The Poly is a different story, but if you want to see this type of thing done much more successfully, visit the Mirage in Las Vegas. The Poly is like some gigantic tacky motel.
The only thing that I can imagine which people find attractive about these places (if they look at them NOW and objectively) is the fact that a) they're on the monorail, an b) they're on the large lake that faces the Magic Kingdom and can see the fireworks.
When you compare the elaborate architecture and themes of the Grand Floridian, Wilderness Lodge, Animal Kingdom Lodge, Boardwalk, Port Orleans, and Caribbean Beach, the Poly and Contemporary pale in comparision. Landbaron doesn't think these have the Disney touch? To me, the "Disney touch" means immersive themeing and show show show. You certainly get those at most of the deluxe and moderate hotels on property EXCEPT the Contemporay and Polynesian!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

See YoHo!! It starts already!

Frankly, these are the two LEAST interesting hotels among the deluxe and moderate, with the least amount of successful themeing (how do you spell that word, anyway?).

It always pops up on my spell checker as well. How about if we settle on “theming” and add it into our dictionaries!

As to the point of that sentence, well... I think... and I could be wrong... but isn’t it... well... SUBJECTIVE!! And I’m not talking specifically about taste in themes. I’m talking about liking or not liking the same things that Walt liked. He’s the guy that set the standards. Admittedly, they were HIS standards. Not everyone buys into them. That much is clear by how many people seem to like highly decorated, primary colored Motel 6 type places. They buy into that instead, lock, stock and barrel. And chief among them is the giant icon king himself, you guessed it, your friend and mine, Ei$ner! Just look at that hat!! Or that blight on the pristine spaceship earth.

I’ll bet there were some back in 1972 that HATED Disney resorts. But I didn’t. I totally bought into Walt’s concept of a resort experience. I found them exciting, exotic and captivating. And I also found the price... WONDERFUL!!! And for me, that played a very important part (more about this later). Now that doesn’t necessarily mean they are wrong and I am right or I am wrong and they are right, in what constitutes taste. But their taste (and my taste) does indeed have a “right” or “wrong” as far as Disney is concerned. After all, it’s Walt’s taste (standard) we’re talking about. And decorations is clearly NOT Walt’s taste. Ergo, NOT Disney!! And it just so happens that it’s not my taste either (that helps a lot when you’re trying to define the “taste” of his philosophy ).

Now, huge icons and primary colors are very easy to explain. Ei$ner has made it so easy, that for most, all you have to do is silently point to Pop Century, and the person you’re trying to convince slowly nods his head and say, “Oh! I see what you’re saying now!!” That’s the bottom end of the scale. But as I have always said, it’s the same thing going the opposite direction. It’s just very, very much harder to see because everything becomes much more upscale!!! And how could I possibly call the Floridian “non-Disney” when it clearly is so... so... so... opulent!! But to me, that’s the very point!! Disney isn’t supposed to be “opulent”!!

Now, that doesn’t mean that I think that everything they’ve built since the Poly has been ‘bad’. Far from it!! I wish they had different themes. I wish they would have taken us to a different continent. I wish they would have been more exotic (AKL comes very close though). But some of the stuff is very, very good! Some of it is truly Disney in style, theme and feel.

Now the conversation can go two way from here and I’m not sure which one is more important. YoHo’s original question or one of price? Hmmmm. I just don’t know.... Hmmmm.......

OK!! We go with price because that leaves YoHo’s question for the end!!!

As I said in the last paragraph, “Some of it is truly Disney in style, theme and feel.” But that doesn’t necessarily make it Disney!! There is one more very important consideration. Price!! Cost!! VALUE!!!

Maybe this issue is only important to my socio-economic class. If you happen to be better off than me, it really doesn’t make any difference and may in fact be counter productive because you wouldn’t mind paying for a few of the things that Disney didn’t usually provide. This is clearly Ei$ner’s thinking and it’s not surprising considering his wallet. And if you are lower than my income bracket there’s a good chance you still don’t care because you can’t afford it anyway!!! But for my middle class income group, price and value of a Disney stay was VERY important!! So, given their current pricing structure I might tend to agree with you. None of them are worth it. Or maybe they are worth it only in as much as other may be worth in the current market place and/or industry. But that was never what was intended at Disney and it was never what was implemented at Disney. It seemed that they didn’t care one whit what the “industry” was either doing or pricing. They marched alone creating magic for what they thought they could reasonably charge. And that, in and of itself, was a great deal of magic!! I’m sure I didn’t do a great job explaining “price/value/Disney resort”. That’s why I said it might take 16 or so pages!! This was just the first attempt!! I’ll get better!!

Now to YoHo’s question.

When you compare the elaborate architecture and themes of the Grand Floridian, Wilderness Lodge, Animal Kingdom Lodge, Boardwalk, Port Orleans, and Caribbean Beach, the Poly and Contemporary pale in comparison.

Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that everything in that sentence is absolutely true. Let’s take the Poly and the Contemporary out of the equation, labeling them ‘pale’ and mere shadows of a great Disney resort. So, now the question begs to be asked:

What, specifically is the difference between those you mentioned in context with the price they charge for each? You lump them all together and yet clearly they are of different classes. So, what are the distinctions? What are the differences? Say between Wilderness and Port Orleans? Is there something you can put your finger on? I think it would further the conversation.

 

[hulabird]

It's all a matter of personal taste, I have stayed everywhere but the AS resorts, I can go to anyone I want (not bragging) but I usually chose CBR, mostly because I just plain like it best....I enjoy the caribbean feel, its a clean and well kept resort, the staff have always added pixie dust and magical things to our trips and we are quite content there. The room we get is always a King and we always have had a beautiful view and the room was a nice size. I have stayed at BC and Poly and actually do not care too much for either, not that there is anything wrong with either place, but honestly when I stayed at BC one year and tried CBR the next, I did not feel that CBR was a step down...in fact I felt it was on the same level...I've also stayed on concierge level and while the pampering was nice during our honeymoon (I am speaking of GF) it is not something I require. So it all boils down to personal taste. I agree with the poster that compared the Poly with the Mirage in Vegas, and I agree with him 100%....I have stayed there many times and the theme is unbelievably done right.

 

[WDWHound]

Originally posted by Mooobooks
The Contemporary is just hideous, and the ONLY interesting thing about it is that the monorail runs through the middle (though the allure of that has been minimized since in no longer stops in both directions). It looked tacky in the 1970s and it looks truly ugly now.

Well, I guess its all in the eye of the beholder. The Contemp is one of my favorite resorts.

When it was built, it was extremely well themed (in fact, it was so futuristic, they made sure you could see it from Tomorrowland). In the early 70's, the Contempory looked like the future. It looked exactly the way we expected a building from the future to look in the 70's, lots of angular walls, lots of white concrete, big open spaces, spherical lights and a southwest style interior that was heavy on the orange (why we decided that orange southwest interiors were futurisic I'll never know, but it was a very common view of the furture back then).

The Orange upholstery and the spherical lighting are gone now and the Contemporary is no longer the one of a kind structure it was when it was built, but I think it has held up well (though the new room color schemes are dog ugly). It's a look back at a vision of the future we threw away 25 years ago, mixed with a modern contemporary feel. It may look a little bit like someone plopped a Hyatt down next to Bay Lake, but I still love the place. Disney World just wouldn't be Disney World without it.

 

[Mooobooks]

Sentiment is what we're really dealing with, here. For many, such as WDW Hound, the Contemporary and Poly have a nostalagic value.
In the case of the Contemporary, it has fared less well than its companion Epcot (which, frankly, is where the Contemporary should have been built). In its original incarnation, Epcot reflected Walt's unpleasant idea of the future where you saw mostly concrete and plastic rather than trees and wood. In other words, Walt really seemed to think that everything was going to look like Jetsons-land. Thank goodness it doesn't! Epcot has been partially rescued from this dreary future by the changing of Universe of Energy to an entertainment piece instead of Exxon's propaganda about how ruining the earth in order to provide fuel was a wonderful thing.
The Contemporary is a concrete and plastic horror that falls into exactly the trap Tomorrowland falls into everytime they tried to make it forward looking. Now it's backward looking in a retro way and it works better (except in California, where it's just a mess).
Anyway, I'm straying from my real point, which is that perhaps Walt wasn't always right. If he was alive today he might take one look at the Poly and Contemporary and have them completely redone because they certainly run well behind the pack in the "pixie dust" "Immersion" "getting away from everything" "totally transported to someplace else" and WHATEVER you want to call it that the newer themed hotels succeed so well at, particularly the Animal Kingdom and Wilderness Lodges.
To address Landbaron's final question, and more briefly than he would prefer (and by the way, LB, that was MY quote, not "Yo-Hos"--no one else should be burdened with my rantings), the difference is, as another poster has written, location location location. The moderate resorts are more remote from the parks. I think it's that simple.
Oh--one final thing. Landbaron, no one who can afford to buy into the Disney Vacation Club is really middle class anymore. The caste system really starts right with the DVC, doesn't it?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

(and by the way, LB, that was MY quote, not "Yo-Hos"--no one else should be burdened with my rantings),

OK! I can see we first need to clear up a little misunderstanding. When I said:

See YoHo!! It starts already!

I was referring to the subjectivity of the subject, which I alluded to in my previous post. All the quotes were yours. I absolutely give you total credit!!

OK!! On With The Show!!!

Sentiment is what we're really dealing with, here. For many, such as WDW Hound, the Contemporary and Poly have a nostalagic value.

I will admit that there is an awful lot of that “warm & fuzzy feeling” associated with those two resorts. And I will further admit that I think it may cloud my knee jerk reactions. Which is why, on a lot of these thread (listening Scoop?) I hang back and try to get some perspective first. I try not to jump into the fray immediately. And for the most part I think I can separate that nostalgic feeling from what I think Disney’s philosophy should be. If I hadn’t had all this rumbling around in my head because of my long thread with Mr. Kidds, I probably wouldn’t have answered so quickly, and as it is I passed on the first round, until you bid “3-no-trump”!!

The Contemporary is a concrete and plastic horror that falls into exactly the trap Tomorrowland falls into everytime they tried to make it forward looking. Now it's backward looking in a retro way and it works better (except in California, where it's just a mess).

I’m sorry, Mr. Mooobooks, but I don’t see it that way at all. It comes down to a matter of taste. Mr. Hound LOVES it. You don’t. Oh well, different strokes! But can you see through your personal dislike for the theme and see the Disney quality within? I personally don’t care for the Corinado Springs “feel” or “look” or whatever you want to call it. But I can clearly see that it ‘fits’ within the moderate classification. I can understand the “Disney” within. Can you do the same with the original two?

Anyway, I'm straying from my real point, which is that perhaps Walt wasn't always right

Well, I’ll tell you. Mr. Kidds could have saved himself from a mild case of carpal tunnel if he had used this tactic. There really is no defense. I say, “Yeah he was!!” And you say, “No he wasn’t!!” And that goes on until we all get tired of it! And I don’t get tired of those things too easily!!

Anyway, you could be right. They were cutting edge at the time and they may be left in the dust today. I don’t know (that warm & fuzzy is getting in the way). And I will say that of the new ones the two you named, Animal Kingdom and Wilderness Lodges are my favorites. IF it were not for the price! An issue you totally ignored!!!!!

To address Landbaron's final question, and more briefly than he would prefer (and by the way, LB, that was MY quote, not "Yo-Hos"--no one else should be burdened with my rantings), the difference is, as another poster has written, location location location. The moderate resorts are more remote from the parks. I think it's that simple.

I don’t think it’s quite that simple! Which is why I purposely gave those two particular examples. Tell me how the location of Wilderness Lodge is any more advantageous that Port Orleans? Maybe, if we really take a stop watch to it, we might save a full five minutes to the MK. But to EPCOT, AK and the Studios it is considerably longer. So where does this “Location” notion come into play? I’m afraid, once again, I just don’t get it!!!

Oh--one final thing. Landbaron, no one who can afford to buy into the Disney Vacation Club is really middle class anymore. The caste system really starts right with the DVC, doesn't it

You are right and wrong at the same time. I can no longer afford the rate at the Poly (at least comfortably). Yet I can easily afford the points I own at the Vacation Club. So I find a tremendous “VALUE” (just like the old Disney days) in owning a piece of the magic. I do NOT find that value in any other place on the property today.

As for the caste system. Hmmm. I suppose, now that I think about it, you are right. But unless we defrost the originator things ain't likely to change. So, I’m pragmatic enough for a “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” attitude. Does it make me a hypocrite or just plain nuts!?

 

[DC7800]

Originally posted by Mooobooks
In the case of the Contemporary, it has fared less well than its companion Epcot (which, frankly, is where the Contemporary should have been built).........Epcot has been partially rescued from this dreary future by the changing of Universe of Energy to an entertainment piece instead of Exxon's propaganda about how ruining the earth in order to provide fuel was a wonderful thing.

The Contemporary is a concrete and plastic horror that falls into exactly the trap Tomorrowland falls into everytime they tried to make it forward looking. Now it's backward looking in a retro way and it works better.........I'm straying from my real point, which is that perhaps Walt wasn't always right. If he was alive today he might take one look at the Poly and Contemporary and have them completely redone because they certainly run well behind the pack in the "pixie dust" "Immersion" "getting away from everything" "totally transported to someplace else" and WHATEVER you want to call it that the newer themed hotels succeed so well at, particularly the Animal Kingdom and Wilderness Lodges.

How well the Contemporary has fared is really a matter of opinion, and I've seen comments here both praising and condemning the place. Personally, it's my favorite WDW resort and always has been (the "nostalgia" element at work), but the fact that the resort still has a somewhat modern feel to it at all after nearly 31 years shows just how effective the theming was back in 1971. As you note, the Contemporary and Future World suffer the same fate as Tommorrowland, in that they keep "catching up" to that idealic future they were supposed to represent. However, Future World has serious problems of it's own and certainly has begun to look not really "bad", but "less effective" in many respects - but it is less than twenty years old, and it has been rehabbed only in isolated spots (and some of which are hardly "improvements"). Were the status quo to be maintained for another decade (ie, no substantial investment after Mission Space) it could then look thematically just as dated as the Contempoary.

Tommorrowland was in similar condition prior to it's refurbishment (much as I liked Mission to Mars, it looked like the 70's). Indeed, the key to all three is the need to keep their appearance fresh, which costs money, something Disney seems chronically afraid to invest in the parks. Walt would not have suffered from this aversion, and the necessary refubishments would keep the resorts current. Both the Contemporary and Future World could still easily be brought back to their original states of "awe" and "wonder" over the future, but I still argue the Contemporary projects it's "theme" far better than most people give it credit for.

As for the Polynesian, I think that's more a matter of opinion. It is a 1971 design as well, so perhaps some ipdating couild help the theming. I have read at least one trip report that critisized Riverside (Dixie Landings) for not being themed at all like a Disney resort, while praising the (less-expensive) All-Stars for having that magical Disney appearance. Most people's thinking runs just the opposite, to say the least.