DVC New York Article

[tjkraz]

Jim Hill takes a brief look at the New York destination that could have been. As always, it's another interesting read from JimHillMedia.com:

<a href=http://www.jimhillmedia.com/mb/articles/showarticle.php?ID=1172>Jim Hill Media: Why for? (11/12/04)</a>

 

[3DisneyNUTS]

Oh man What a shame. That would have been great. I would have bought but at 100 units that would have sold out immediately. Oh well maybe they will think of expanding again once Eisner steps down. I would love additional DVC's in other parts of the country.

 

[rocketriter]

I think I'll call MS and put myself on the waiting list anyway!

 

[Chuck S]

Originally posted by 3DisneyNUTS
....Oh well maybe they will think of expanding again once Eisner steps down....

I doubt it, if other locations were profitable, they'd be doing that now. Whle off-site locations would give the current owners more lodging options, they have to be profitable to build and sell...and the key is they HAVE to sell.

 

[mbhoxsie]

I doubt it, if other locations were profitable, they'd be doing that now. Whle off-site locations would give the current owners more lodging options, they have to be profitable to build and sell...and the key is they HAVE to sell.

I must be one of the weird ones then...

The only place where I'll buy more points is an offsite location... We have WAY more than enough to stay at WDW.... Don't get me wrong, I love WDW, but it's the offsite locatons that give us something a bit different..

Not to mention the fact that once SSR finally finishes and sells out, and if and when DVD decides to start Eagle Pines, there will be a whole huge new crop of owners that may want to round out their ownership interests with a new offsite property...

Yeah... VB and HHI took a long time to sell in comparison to the onsite properties, but I just couldn't imagine the program without them.

 

[Par8hed]

I agree. And VB and Hilton Head DID sell out. I too would be much more interested in additional off-sites.

 

[3DisneyNUTS]

dh would never add on UNLESS there are other off site locations like Colorado or California.

 

[rocketriter]

Our family would definitely buy in NY or San Francisco and probably Hawaii. It would take more than some fun activities and a beach to attract us, but a fabulous tourist attraction would do the trick.

 

[Chuck S]

Originally posted by Par8hed
I agree. And VB and Hilton Head DID sell out. I too would be much more interested in additional off-sites.

Actually VB sold so poorly, that the resort was not completed and the portion of the property that was to be built upon was sold off. If the resort had been built to original designs, VB would probably still be selling. Now, don't get me wrong, I think VB is a lovely resort, I took a day trip there doing one of our WDW trips and I want to stay there sometime...but given the sales experience, I just don't think we'll see a big push for new off-site DVC resorts.

It would certainly make our home resort advantage much more important, as many of the folks that would purchase off-site (except for existing members) would more than likely expect to be able to book an on-site DVC resort at least every 3 years, perhaps more often if they have children.

 

[tjkraz]

I'd like to see another off-site resort simply because it would give us another low-point destination to book at 7 months. But honestly I can't think of a single location right now that would be attractive enough to induce us to purchase points there. If we did that, it would have to be with the intention of visiting at least every 2-3 years. As long as our children are young, WDW is the only destination that really fits that description.

Perhaps something like Hawaii would appeal to us down the road, but that's a good 15-20 years from now.

In the meantime, I'd be content to purchase more points at a WDW resort (which, if nothing else, seem to hold their resale value better than the offsites), and book slow periods off-site at 7 months.

The only thing that might make me reconsider this concept would be greatly reduced dues at an off-site location, but HHI and VB don't seem to indicate that would happen.

 

[DrTomorrow]

I just can't see a non-WDW location as a significant new-sales draw; an add-on draw, maybe, but not new sales.

We bought into DVC to stay at WDW for most of our trips; if that wasn't our goal, then we would have bought into a non-DVC timeshare. I assume (yes, I know that's a minefield) that's the same for the vast majority of DVC owners.

My opinion is that Disney wants to maximize the synergy of the parks, the shopping, the entertainment and the transportation with the DVC resorts; the NY article even bemoans the fact that they would have loved to bus VTS (Villas at Times Square) guests to the Disney stage shows. So they are focusing very heavily on the 'D' of DVC, which is why I'd expect to see the next off-WDW DVC resort - if any - be located at another Disney park complex (CA, Paris, Tokyo, HK, etc).

 

[Happy Birthday Cat]

Thanks for the article TJK. It was interesting but I have to admit that I have no interest in "off-site" resorts. We own DVC to go to WDW. If we want to go somewhere else, we just go. My only exception would be Castaway Cay since you can't "just go there".

HBC

 

[mbhoxsie]

So they are focusing very heavily on the 'D' of DVC, which is why I'd expect to see the next off-WDW DVC resort - if any - be located at another Disney park complex (CA, Paris, Tokyo, HK, etc).

I agree...

But with them selling out Newport Coast to Marriot with DL, and then having Village d'Ile-de-France so close to DL Paris, I don't see it happening..

One can only dream though...

 

[eporter66]

Sounds like it was a tough decision for Eisner, and hindsight is 20/20. NYC is a big destination, but I guess it is hard to determine how well a "Disney" hotel would go over in the big apple.

I know we would have gotten some use out of it being only a couple hours from the city. It would be great for the times where we would not be able to get to WDW, but have points to use.

I am sure having just bought into SSR that there will be years where we want to use our points for other places (Vero and HH), so NYC would have been great for us.

Eric

 

[Dean]

I think every single member would like to see more off site options, why not. Of course they'd have to be prime locations. IMO, DVC made a number of mistakes in the VB and HH issues. For HH, they chose to take a relatively poor location and try to make it work. They did a splendid job of making the best of the options available where it was built. At VB they tried to take a none destination area and create one, again I think they did a great job with the situation as it stood. Add to that the fact that DVC isn't aggressive enough in soliciting buyers or closing the deal when the time comes. I know everyone likes the fact that DVC guides are totally non pressure but the downside is that we have no off site options.

 

[Doug Wolfe]

Can you imagine what the annual fee's & real estate taxes would have been for a New York DVC property?

 

[CaptainMidnight]

Originally posted by Dean
I think every single member would like to see more off site options, why not. Of course they'd have to be prime locations. IMO, DVC made a number of mistakes in the VB and HH issues. For HH, they chose to take a relatively poor location and try to make it work. They did a splendid job of making the best of the options available where it was built. At VB they tried to take a none destination area and create one, again I think they did a great job with the situation as it stood. Add to that the fact that DVC isn't aggressive enough in soliciting buyers or closing the deal when the time comes. I know everyone likes the fact that DVC guides are totally non pressure but the downside is that we have no off site options.

Interesting take on the offsite locations. Good points. They really reached with teh two locations they chose.

 

[Doug7856]

Originally posted by Dean
I think every single member would like to see more off site options, why not. Of course they'd have to be prime locations. IMO, DVC made a number of mistakes in the VB and HH issues. For HH, they chose to take a relatively poor location and try to make it work. They did a splendid job of making the best of the options available where it was built. At VB they tried to take a none destination area and create one, again I think they did a great job with the situation as it stood. Add to that the fact that DVC isn't aggressive enough in soliciting buyers or closing the deal when the time comes. I know everyone likes the fact that DVC guides are totally non pressure but the downside is that we have no off site options.

I agree. VB and HH do not appeal to us and are not destinations that we would normally go to for a vacation. We may check them out some day since they are part of the program, but it would be a side trip. When we are in Florida it is to see relatives or go to WDW. South Carolina is quite a drive for us and airfare is very high -- so its not really an option.

If DVC added NYC, I could see us taking the 4.5 hour drive up and spending some time every couple of years so a small add on might be in order. Also, a beach destination in the mid-Atlantic reagion would be a draw for us -- even Williamsburg due to is closeness. It would be great if Disney would bring back the "Disney's America" theme park idea in VA and add a DVC there! If only I made the decisions . . .

 

[lisareniff]

I'm interested in the off site locactions BUT not enough in any one location. It would be really cool if you could have home resort advantage (or near home resort advantage) for a group of off site locations. Did that make sense?

Great points Dean. Very interesting.

 

[Dean]

Actually the views expressed above are exactly the reason that off sites don't work well. Approaches like:

• I might try it.
• I might do an add on
• I like having choices but probably won't visit most of them.

are part of the problems. IF DVC ever does another off site, it will have to be something that would sell if it were the ONLY option. IMO, DL might work and it's possible but unlikely DLP, Tokyo or Hong Kong would work out. HI or a Caribbean island might work but only if it were a great location. Selfishly, I'd love to have 40 choices in places I want to visit. That's why I feel expanding the BVTC by teaming up with companies like Hyatt and Hilton might be a good option.