Dissapointed with SSR

[lllovell]

This is why I think stand alone resorts have less attraction and it may not be just me projecting my personal preference:

http://www.disboards.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=6195

The Contemporary 48 18.39%
Animal Kingdom Lodge 64 24.52%
Eagle Pines or Golf Themed 11 4.21%
The Polynesian 46 17.62%
Grand Californian/Disneyland 40 15.33%
Hawaii 19 7.28%
Paris or Tokyo 7 2.68%
Colorado/Ski Type 17 6.51%
Other-see my post below. 9 3.45%

A whopping 60% of respondants think the next resort should be at the CR/AKL or Poly. Only 4% want the DVC standalone Eagle Pines (and it may be the "golf themed" that's turning people off).

I think that SSR and OKW are golf oriented enough for my family (but granted probably not all).

The problem with this poll is asking people to vote for a known (already existing resorts they enjoy greatly) against unknowns. I also think that the Contempory, Poly, and GF all represent something to lots of people that went to WDW as children and those were the only places on site, so that is what they experienced. I have never been IN the CR, but both the Poly and GF (and finally saw AKL on my last trip) are beautiful and would be a place I might stay with hubby on a trip by ourselves, but for my family trips (which are the majority right now), I prefer a different environment.

Polls here are always interesting but far from scientific. Someone made the comment (perhaps it was you Crisi) that Disney spent too much time listening to people and not thinking through SSR and I find that really hard to believe. Disney doesn't miss the mark often and even when they do, what they would call a miss, other resort/vacation companies would call a home run.

 

[agotta]

One of the things I like most about DVC is the theming. I find wonderful theming in all the DVC resorts however, if a lack of theming is a concern, I wonder at your choice of SSR. The villas are very nice with lovely wood etc, but we saw less theming there than at any Disney Resort, excluding the economies. I was surprised by the lack of pictures in the hallways and anything to tie the hallways with the resort name. Also, since there is no carpeting in the hallways the horse theme is not continued with that feature either.

But I'm not sure how to read your posts. First you decry SSR then you seem to defend the resort. Which is it? I also don't seem to be able to figure out the direction of this thread. First we are talking about how ugly it is, then we are talking about how beautiful it is, then we are talking about how those of you who think it is ugly willl be tying up our rooms, and next we are postulating on the possibility of a resort connecting to the AKL or the CR or maybe even the GF. I think all this is fodder for several threads and is not being given the exposure it needs. By reading the title of your post about SSR I thought that is what the topic would be. Overlapping of topics is fine but this one seems to have gone far afoul of the OP's main intent.

First of all, I don't think the post has gone that far off. People are stating their opinions in response to my opinion. This could go on forever. And I am not defending SSR. I am just validating others opinions instead of bashing them. I understand why people like SSR and the value it has added to the DVC collection. Saying that, I still do not personally like SSR. It is beautiful, but not somewhere I would like to stay again.

As far as why I chose SSR, we bought before the resort was finished. I am one of those who do not believe in buy where you want to stay. I bought into DVC for many reasons, one being that I was not restricted to ONE resort. I think the themeing at SSR is horrible. A couple of pics of horses is not themeing. Again, my opinion.

 

[crisi]

I think that SSR and OKW are golf oriented enough for my family (but granted probably not all).

I also think that the Contempory, Poly, and GF all represent something to lots of people that went to WDW as children and those were the only places on site, so that is what they experienced.

And THAT is why I think the "resort connected" hotels will have a draw DVC only hotels don't. Even if it isn't "when you were a kid you stayed at the Poly" and its just "before we bought DVC we always stayed (or always wanted to stay) at the Y&BC. The DVC only hotels just don't get enough "press."

To date, all the resort connected DVC hotels have been at Disney Deluxe resorts and we've always talked about future expansion as either attached to existing deluxe resorts or standalone DVC resorts. It would be interesting to see the appeal of "DVC-POR" or "DVC-CBR."

And theming can make a huge difference. I'd love a standalone DVC resort that had a Japanese feel (shoji screens, Japanese gardens) - or a Disney hotel/DVC combination with the same feel.

 

[Daitcher]

Honest opinions are always welcome, but sometimes invite others to post their own "honest" opinions that may be contrary to your own. The problem is aggravated when some "honest" opinions are seemingly repeated at every opportunity (creating an impression of some ulterior motive) or include exaggerations. The net result is that those "honest" opinions lose the very validity they were intending to create and may even cause others to regard that poster as the "guy who hates ... (fill in the blank with any resort)" and thus make future "honest" opinions by that person be regarded as less valuable.

When someone's "honest" opinion labels a resort as "subpar" or includes comments like "No food served poolside? Do they want dripping wet people trudging into AP for lunch? No room service? Some families don't like to eat out or cook in. Staying in Congress Park rooms and forget something in your room when at the main pool? Enjoy the half hour to walk back, elevator up and down and then walk back to the pool. Have arms full of groceries for your Villa? Enjoy those five trips up and down because there are no carts to help you. The other option is to go up to the room, call bell services( good luck catching them there) and then wait for them to come over. Want to eat dinner at AP? Enjoy those limited and lunch oriented choices.", the impression made may be perceived as less than "honest". Those very comments certainly invite opposing views to point out other aspects to consider.

Surely, a simple statement about personal disappointment regarding the AP menu or wishing that luggage carts were available could have provided the same sentiment without pushing others to respond with the same intensity. It would still have given others an oppportunity to offer their own experiences at the resort in a constructive fashion.

Hopefully, "honest" opinions can contain both constructive criticism and deserved praise to invite balanced comment on all aspects of the DVC program. The extremes sometimes encourage confusion for those seeking information.

Enjoy!

I do agree with your sentiments for the most part. The part you quoted with some of my previous comments is pretty funny. Everything in there is fact. None of it is opinion based. Well maybe the "subpar" part. Calling it "less than honest" is shocking coming from you. All of it is facts based upon my experiences during my stay at SSR. Also I welcome and encourage all opinions about all Resorts. Please, being the host here your post seems to condone this attitude that only positive views are welcomed. Lets keep this board as a free exchange of opinions and ideas. It is a part of life that evryone will not like the same places. Sure I've repeated my stance on SSR but only when appropriate to the thread. I don't go out of my way to bad mouth Resorts.


DAVE

 

[SoCalKDG]

OKW has 531/761, BWV has 383/532, BCV has 208/282 and VWL has 136/181.

Current total of onsite DVC resort rooms (not including SSR) is 1258 with a maximum of 1756. Proposed eventual size of SSR once Phase 3 opens in 2007 will be 828 (1260 counting separated lock-offs). No where near the total of all other DVC resort onsite - let alone including HH and VB (120/123 and 172/208). With HH and VB, the non-SSR total of DVC rooms is 1550 with a maximum of 2087...snip..."

Now, if we assume the number of owners is proportional to the number of rooms, SSR will still have less than half of the total DVC owners. Therefore, chances of SSR owners taking over the world, or even DVC, are slim. In addition, people wanting to trade out of SSR should still be proportional to those in other DVC resorts who want to trade in. Once the construction's finished and people wander over from DTD and see how nice it would be to stay so close to the place where you end your days, others will want to try SSR. JMO. YMMV (and I know it does).

Lets say each current room represents 1 person with one week, and that 20% of people want to choose a different resort in a given year. I know its not exact, but will give a general idea on how many people might want to switch and how many rooms at a resort might be open.


Total owners broken down as follows:

OKW has 531*52 = 27,612 owners * .2 = 5,522 open rooms for year
BWV has 383*52 = 19,916 owners * .2 = 3,983 open rooms for year
BCV has 208*52 = 10,816 owners * .2 = 2,163 open rooms for year
VWL has 136*52 = 7,072 owners * .2 = 1,414 open rooms for year
SSR has 828*52 = 43,056 owners * .2 = 8,611 open rooms for year
ALL resorts have 108,472 owners

If every person views every resort as equal, then you will see the following:

4042 people wanting 5522 rooms at OKW
4427 people wanting 3983 rooms at BWV
4882 people wanting 2163 rooms at BCV
5069 people wanting 1414 rooms at VWL
3270 people wanting 8611 rooms at SSR

Now if they had made SSR half the size and created another DVC elsewhere we would have had less inequity at the 7 month mark. Oh, good luck getting BCV or VWL in the future.

 

[RobDoc]

I do agree with your sentiments for the most part. The part you quoted with some of my previous comments is pretty funny. Everything in there is fact. None of it is opinion based. Well maybe the "subpar" part. Calling it "less than honest" is shocking coming from you. All of it is facts based upon my experiences during my stay at SSR. Also I welcome and encourage all opinions about all Resorts. Please, being the host here your post seems to condone this attitude that only positive views are welcomed. Lets keep this board as a free exchange of opinions and ideas. It is a part of life that evryone will not like the same places. Sure I've repeated my stance on SSR but only when appropriate to the thread. I don't go out of my way to bad mouth Resorts.
DAVE

So, beacuse I help moderate this forum, I'm not allowed to have an opinion??

Since you brought it up (and have already admitted that "subpar" may not be fact), lets review your other facts.

It does not take 30 minutes to walk from the pool to Congress Park and back. Plus, there is a bus available right near the pool - so you don't even have to walk.

Bell Service is available 24 hours a day. If you have groceries, just stop at the bell stand and they will assist with whatever you want - using their carts. None of the WDW resorts have luggage carts available for general guest use- all are controlled by the Bell staff. You certainly do NOT have to make 5 trips to your room unless you choose to do so.

Your opinion of the menu at AP is just that - your opinion. It will depend on what you feel is a limited menu. For many, myself included, the menu was appropriate for the facility. If you want a full service restaurant, that's not the place, but for a quick meal, it fits the bill for us.

Please feel free to state your opinion (you have many times already), but don't expect to have it go unchallenged when others have had experiences to the contrary and are willing to share those opinions as well. Nothing anyone posted was called "less than honest", only that some may derive the impression that the content could be perceived that way when such "opinion" is presented as fact (repeatedly).

Enjoy!

 

[jade1]

Lets say each current room represents 1 person with one week, and that 20% of people want to choose a different resort in a given year. I know its not exact, but will give a general idea on how many people might want to switch and how many rooms at a resort might be open.


Total owners broken down as follows:

OKW has 531*52 = 27,612 owners * .2 = 5,522 open rooms for year
BWV has 383*52 = 19,916 owners * .2 = 3,983 open rooms for year
BCV has 208*52 = 10,816 owners * .2 = 2,163 open rooms for year
VWL has 136*52 = 7,072 owners * .2 = 1,414 open rooms for year
SSR has 828*52 = 43,056 owners * .2 = 8,611 open rooms for year
ALL resorts have 108,472 owners

If every person views every resort as equal, then you will see the following:

4042 people wanting 5522 rooms at OKW
4427 people wanting 3983 rooms at BWV
4882 people wanting 2163 rooms at BCV
5069 people wanting 1414 rooms at VWL
3270 people wanting 8611 rooms at SSR

Now if they had made SSR half the size and created another DVC elsewhere we would have had less inequity at the 7 month mark. Oh, good luck getting BCV or VWL in the future.

 

[Dean]

Just wanted to dig up a quote from teh past to put things in perspective.

Quoted from Doc on another thread.

"...snip...The first two phases of SSR (those already open or under construction - to be completed this year) will total 552 rooms (maximum possible of 840 counting separated lock-offs) - slightly larger than OKW.

OKW has 531/761, BWV has 383/532, BCV has 208/282 and VWL has 136/181.

Current total of onsite DVC resort rooms (not including SSR) is 1258 with a maximum of 1756. Proposed eventual size of SSR once Phase 3 opens in 2007 will be 828 (1260 counting separated lock-offs). No where near the total of all other DVC resort onsite - let alone including HH and VB (120/123 and 172/208). With HH and VB, the non-SSR total of DVC rooms is 1550 with a maximum of 2087...snip..."

Now, if we assume the number of owners is proportional to the number of rooms, SSR will still have less than half of the total DVC owners. Therefore, chances of SSR owners taking over the world, or even DVC, are slim. In addition, people wanting to trade out of SSR should still be proportional to those in other DVC resorts who want to trade in. Once the construction's finished and people wander over from DTD and see how nice it would be to stay so close to the place where you end your days, others will want to try SSR. JMO. YMMV (and I know it does).

Your numbers are similar to what I posted recently. But I have a totally different take. IMO, having roughly 35% of the total DVC points and in my estimation, likely a full 50% of those looking at the 7 month window, that is a big chunk. Remember we're talking about the long haul with 832 or so SSR units. Again, to be clear, I am not saying it's a problem per se, just that it's the way it is. If EP happens, it will get worse, if CR happens, it will get better, if both happens it will get somewhat worse. It simply makes it far more critical to buy where you want to stay if you want one of the destination resorts or certain unit types or times of the year.

 

[crisi]

Good job Ken.

(For those not following the math on the second part, take 108,472 owners - 27,612 OKW Owners for the total number of Non-OKW owners. 20% will switch, multiple that by .2. All resorts are desired equally (except OKW, we assume they would have used their home resort window), so divide by 4. Result 4042 people want OKW.)

Obviously, even if you are one of the many people who want a few rooms at VWL, you would still have a chance. But Ken's estimate shows four out of five people will be disappointed.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Thanks guys for making a mathematical arguement for what I was trying to say back a page or two. I do NOT have a mathematical mind(that's why I am a musician who only has to count to 4), but the concept seemed logical.

 

[icydog]

Good job Ken.

(For those not following the math on the second part, take 108,472 owners - 27,612 OKW Owners for the total number of Non-OKW owners. 20% will switch, multiple that by .2. All resorts are desired equally (except OKW, we assume they would have used their home resort window), so divide by 4. Result 4042 people want OKW.)Obviously, even if you are one of the many people who want a few rooms at VWL, you would still have a chance. But Ken's estimate shows four out of five people will be disappointed.

I am following you up until the 4043, which is the result of the division of non- OKW members looking for rooms in four resorts. But how do you figure they are all looking for OKW rooms, as stated in your example?

 

[crisi]

We postulated that all resorts are desired equally (on site resorts) So take the number of members wanting to stay somewhere other than home (20% of all members - home resort owners) and divide by four.

We say there are 108,472 owners (which there aren't really "owners" in this case it really translates to "member weeks," but for these purposes member weeks are a better measure than members), 27,612 "member weeks" at OKW. 20 % of members want to switch - leaving 5,522 member weeks available.

(108,472-27,612)*.20 members want to stay somewhere other than home (we take out OKW because we assume they've used their window.) That's 16,172 members who want to switch, wanting the remaining four resorts equally (that leaves the mine is better than yours debate out of it) so divide by four. 4043 members will want to stay at OKW.

That's a "surplus" of 1479 room weeks. If OKW is your favorite non home resort (and you aren't looking for something difficult to get like a Grand Villa), you are a happy camper. But if you are a VWL fan and don't own points there, there is a deficit of 3655 rooms at that resort.

Basically, you'll have a lot of availability at OKW and SSR, you'll get your room at BWV more often than not (once again, special rooms will be first come first serve, and BWV has that "special view" problem), BCVs will leave more than half the folks that would like to stay there disappointed and 4 out of 5 people will be disappointed when they make their VWL reservations.


(At least that's what I assume Ken is doing and my extra member is a difference in rounding).

 

[SoCalKDG]

We postulated that all resorts are desired equally (on site resorts) So take the number of members wanting to stay somewhere other than home (20% of all members - home resort owners) and divide by four.

We say there are 108,472 owners (which there aren't really "owners" in this case it really translates to "member weeks," but for these purposes member weeks are a better measure than members), 27,612 "member weeks" at OKW. 20 % of members want to switch - leaving 5,522 member weeks available.

(108,472-27,612)*.20 members want to stay somewhere other than home (we take out OKW because we assume they've used their window.) That's 16,172 members who want to switch, wanting the remaining four resorts equally (that leaves the mine is better than yours debate out of it) so divide by four. 4043 members will want to stay at OKW.

That's a "surplus" of 1479 room weeks. If OKW is your favorite non home resort (and you aren't looking for something difficult to get like a Grand Villa), you are a happy camper. But if you are a VWL fan and don't own points there, there is a deficit of 3655 rooms at that resort.

Basically, you'll have a lot of availability at OKW and SSR, you'll get your room at BWV more often than not (once again, special rooms will be first come first serve, and BWV has that "special view" problem), BCVs will leave more than half the folks that would like to stay there disappointed and 4 out of 5 people will be disappointed when they make their VWL reservations.


(At least that's what I assume Ken is doing and my extra member is a difference in rounding).

You are correct and thanks for expanding on my numbers by giving the full equations. That extra member is that 5th person in a studio.

 

[MiaSRN62]

I too do not agree that the stand alone resorts have less appeal. On the contrary, I PREFER the stand alones, but then I don't particularily ike hotel like accommodations.

I've had alot of problems logging on to the DIS late yesterday into this morning and fell behind in this thread discussion. But I agree with statements from Diane (and others like lllovell). I also don't believe that stand-alone's have less appeal. It's the main reason we purchased OKW. We prefer the more "homey" appeal. Most traditional timeshares are actually more like SSR and OKW than the hotel-based ones (at least the ones I'm familiar with). I do believe the hotel-attached ones do offer a nice alternative for those that are more attracted to a hotel-like feel. But I agree with lllovel when it was stated that it's really just based on preference.
And while I appreciate Crisi posting the poll results I don't necessarily see how that corresponds to people preferring a hotel-based DVC. For example : say Disney built a DVC on the AKL grounds. I'd actually be more likely to buy here if they built villas similar to OKW/SSR style (i.e. NOT attatched to the actual AKL building). If they had the ground, I think it would be neat to have buildings scattered throughout a savanah-type neighborhood, similar to how OKW is styled after neighborhoods in Key West. To me, this would be the best of both worlds----the themeing and grounds of AKL, but still having a villa that feels more like a neighborhood than part of a hotel. I feel that in that poll, people are more drawn to the themeing of the individual resort (or perhaps proximity to a certain park) rather than the fact that it may or may not be attached to a main hotel ? I think the resorts listed (mainly CR, Poly, AKL) have a solid following of fans and rightfully so. But, as I said, Disney could easily add-on to these resorts (if space permitted) with a stand-alone DVC and keep within the themeing of those resorts. That would be the perfect scenario for me.
And as far as OKW or SSR being "golf oriented", for that matter, DVC stand alone resorts can be oriented to anything Disney wishes them to be. We love OKW and not for the golf. In fact, this had nothing to do with our choice to buy here (though I appeciate it is a very nice perk for many). For us, it was the beauty and serenity of the grounds and the fact that it was not attached to a hotel. We actually prefer not having to walk through a lobby or use valet to park our car when going "home" after a day in the parks. My husband felt particularily strong about that point. So, again, I feel it comes down to preference and I think there are fans on both sides.

 

[jade1]

I too do not agree that the stand alone resorts have less appeal. On the contrary, I PREFER the stand alones, but then I don't particularily ike hotel like accommodations.

I respect that preference Diane. For us its simply comes down to location (although we do like action and Hotel like atmosphere). IF BC/YC/BCV/BWV area had never been developed and they picked up OKW and SSR and set it in its place (hypthetically there was room)-I would buy a resale there in the next 1 minute. At that point they would just be opening up IG and the canal to MGM. Cant imagine how fast they would sell at that point. I PREFER the current configuration myself, but would never know the difference with this scenario.

 

[tjkraz]

Great numbers, everyone. No objections whatsoever.

The only comments I'll add to the discussion are these:

When the day arrives that I decide I want one resort for a particular trip and no other, call right at 7 months, immediately go on the waitlist and STILL can't get a room by the time my trip arrives, I'll be the first one here jumping up and down asking "My God, how could this have happened???"

Until then, it's just one of those "problems" that may or may not ever materialize. Let other folks who don't understand the system (wait too long to call, don't go on the waitlist, change their travel dates at the 11th hour, etc.) fret about not getting their room. As long as I get mine, it's a non-issue.

Say what you want: Call me cynical. Call me selfish. Accuse me of not seeing the big picture. Regardless of what I may read here today and in the future, my own personal experiences are, and continue to be the most relevant in my opinion as to whether the system "works" or not.

Demand for the smaller resorts certainly will be higher than the supply of rooms available. But that's already the case today!!! Yet what's conspiculously absent is any great outrage over the system we live in today.

Will the addition of more SSR owners change people's opinions of the system? Perhaps. Or perhaps the situation will simply correct itself via changing reservation habits, more realistic member expectations, the addition of more "desirable" resorts, or any other factor that has yet to be taken into account.

Time will tell...

 

[dianeschlicht]

I respect that preference Diane. For us its simply comes down to location (although we do like action and Hotel like atmosphere). IF BC/YC/BCV/BWV area had never been developed and they picked up OKW and SSR and set it in its place (hypthetically there was room)-I would buy a resale there in the next 1 minute. At that point they would just be opening up IG and the canal to MGM. Cant imagine how fast they would sell at that point. I PREFER the current configuration myself, but would never know the difference with this scenario.

While I understand the preference to be near both MGM and Epcot, I still like "getting away" when I leave the parks. In reality, OKW is just as near Epcot as BWV is. It's just on the other side of the park and across the parking lot. Unfortunately, the roads don't run straight there! We probably see and hear as much of Illuminations as most folks at the BWV do (especially from the villas on the HH end of OKW). I do think if it is nightlife you are after, then the BWV and SSR are your best choices. We're too old for nightlife!

 

[MiaSRN62]

We probably see and hear as much of Illuminations as most folks at the BWV do (especially from the villas on the HH end of OKW). I do think if it is nightlife you are after, then the BWV and SSR are your best choices. We're too old for nightlife!

I can tell you we had a perfect view (and could hear the music) of Illuminations from our OKW villa this past Nov. We just sat out on the patio and enjoyed the view. And as for nightlife.......I don't even think age has alot to do with this (though I'm sure it plays a part with many). My dh and I purchased OKW when we were in our mid 30's. We feel we get plenty of "nightlife" and action while in the parks all day (we stay until close). We just find it nice to come home to quiet and the sound of frogs and crickets outside our villa. It's just a nice way to wind-down. Again, it all comes down to preference.

 

[jade1]

When the day arrives that I decide I want one resort for a particular trip and no other, call right at 7 months, immediately go on the waitlist and STILL can't get a room by the time my trip arrives, I'll be the first one here jumping up and down asking "My God, how could this have happened???"

Until then, it's just one of those "problems" that may or may not ever materialize. Let other folks who don't understand the system (wait too long to call, don't go on the waitlist, change their travel dates at the 11th hour, etc.) fret about not getting their room. As long as I get mine, it's a non-issue.

Say what you want: Call me cynical. Call me selfish. Accuse me of not seeing the big picture. Regardless of what I may read here today and in the future, my own personal experiences are, and continue to be the most relevant in my opinion as to whether the system "works" or not.


Time will tell...

Great insight and advice. Of course for those of us that own at the smaller resorts will rarely have this dilemma.

 

[evaready51]

We bought our "home" at SSR in June 2004. We go to DW, on average, once a year. A few years ago our friends invited us to stay at OKW, we loved it and the whole concept of DVC. We were not in the position to purchase at that time.

In June 2004 we came to DW to watch our son march w/his H.S. band in the MK. We made the big mistake of staying off site at a deplorable hotel, the RIU. That experience propelled us into visiting and purchasing at SSR. When we took the tour we were just blown away at the facilities. It is diffenent then OKW but everybit as lovely.

I am blown away by the negativity of some of these posts. Where is that magic pixie dust?

Our family has traveled the world and Disney just does it the best. If you think the SSR is so bad then just stay at the RIU and then you will wish that you were at the SSR!

Eva