Harder to get a room?

[bicker]

That's perhaps true. I believe strongly that people should expect what they're promised, rather than what they wish they were promised. I believe that unfounded expectations are a major source of dissatisfaction, and a major source of unnecessary cost and waste in our economy.

 

[Chuck S]

Boat, your logic is flawed. Those buynig the smaller resorts knew exactly what they were buying at the time. Heck, VWL & BCV don't even have any 3 bedroom units. Surely they knew DVC would be expanding to more resorts. And it isn't like large resorts were anything new to the DVC system. OKW was the first DVC resort. With the popularity of DVC, and the popularity of Grand Villas, they should very well have expected a larger resort to be built. And in fact Eagle Pines a large resort, was announced prior to SSR.

Folks that bought the smaller resorts did so for the 11/7 month window to allow them to book only in competition with other owners at that resort. Since the number of points at each resort is fixed, and the 11/7 window hasn't changed, they are getting exactly what they paid for in regards to booking priority. Again, the only trend that seems to have changed is owners at each resort seem to be booking earlier in the 11/7 window, as any saavy owner would. It is also a trend over which DVC has no control.

 

[boatboatboat]

Chuck I can't imagine that in 1998 many bwv buyers had any idea at all, that someday the "club" they had just joined for 10k, would build a resort in a location such as SSR, that would DOMINATE the total ownership.

I never even considered that an option for DVC.

DVC was right in the middle of the action........heck I live in Ohio, and there are a bazzillon resorts between here and Orlando that have nice pools and are close to shopping.

DVC=WDW=PARKS.

I wish DVC would just go ahead and split SSR off into it's own seperate pool of resorts and be done with it.

DVC has obvioulsy done nothing against the law, but what they have done is a dis-service to it's other owners.


SSR wasn't built to enhance DVC.

 

[cobbler]

Boat -
Serious question for you, just curious.

We know you don't like the size of SSR. We know that you don't like the location of SSR. Why complain about it? Esp since you don't even own there?

And yes I have read the complaints about thinking SSR would be as good as if not better than the others and it didn't turn out that way in some people opinions.

I am just trying to get a feel for where you are coming from. Aside from the fact that you truely detest SSR. Which have you ever stayed there? Just curious really.

ETA:
Would you be happier about it if it was smaller? Maybe Spring/Congress Park was SSR and the rest was EP or something?

 

[TDC Nala]

I own at the Beach Club. If I want to stay there in early December or pretty much any time during the food and wine festival I know I have to be on that phone exactly 11 months from my travel dates. And that has nothing to do with how many SSR owners there are, just how popular those times of year have become.

 

[bicker]

DIS veterans have always advised folks, "BUY WHERE YOU PLAN TO STAY." And this situation, itself, has been discussed in great detail ever since the first big subsidy was announced at VB. People were buying at VB solely because the points were less expensive, those folks figuring that they would just book at the 7 month point at the DVC resort they'd really want to stay, i.e., a WDW DVC resort. I remember writing at the time, both here and in RADP, that within a few short years (which would have been a few years ago) owners BWV and VWL especially (and now, of course, BCV as well) would learn that they have to book before the 7 month point in order to be sure to get space at their home resort.

 

[bicker]

DVC=WDW=PARKS.

Were you aware that there are DVC resorts at Vero Beach and Hilton Head?

 

[cobbler]

Oh and one more question please.

What would be the difference if they built only half of what is currently at SSR at that location and the other half at EP? Which isn't a desirable location in your book either I assume.

According to your theory then, both of the resorts would be clamoring into the others. So then you are talking about 2 resorts now trying to get into the others.

And I guess it really doesn't matter because EP will probably be built and then this whole nonsense about SSR is going to start all over again.

 

[boatboatboat]

Why complain about it? Esp since you don't even own there?


because IMO it is very likely that in the next 38 years when I book a vacation for my family at 200 days, it will be where i will HAVE to stay.


Which have you ever stayed there?


no, took a tour back in 04. Keep in mind, SSR is nice, it really is. Heck it's brand new, everything is nice. But, at this point in time not on par with the other resorts. look at the pool size vs # of rooms, look at the places to eat vs the # of rooms. But it's the location above everything. We go to WDW, for WDW. If we want a pool/shopping vacation why fly/drive 1000 miles?

If DVC was willing to make SSR a DVC2 resort with a new 50 years, then IMO they should have just put it into a pool of other resorts with 50 years, and left the current DVC resorts in it's own pool of resorts.

Why would you build a resort that is the largest, and put that resort in a location that is the least desirable to the largest number of people? we all know the answer........ The same person who pulled the trigger on SSR, also just turned down the pools 4 degrees. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$

 

[bom_noite]

I personally think there is some merit in what Boat is saying.

I am certain people knew what they were buying in too when they bought at SSR. How many folks bought add-ons at SSR stayed there once and said "fantastic resort, but, not for me - so I will use my add-on to stay at BCV or BWV!" It certainly is there right to do that!

In essence, every new contract means increased competition for certain resorts. Obviously BCV and BWV are more attractive to the average person or their resale contracts would not be selling for $10 to $20 more per point then other resorts!

My concern is that the next DVC resort will be at Eagle Pines. It is not close to any park or Downtown Disney - so what would be the draw? You could increase the room size - but - OKW rooms are huge and that does not help pack people in. Maybe a fabulous pool would do it?

I think it best for all existing DVC members to have the next park at AK or the CR. I just do not think a new mega resort is in our best interests.

I may be wrong - probably am - but - that is my opinion.

 

[boatboatboat]

Were you aware that there are DVC resorts at Vero Beach and Hilton Head


no, I was to stupid.

 

[waltfan1957]

DVC has obvioulsy done nothing against the law, but what they have done is a dis-service to it's other owners.


SSR wasn't built to enhance DVC.

It's a great place stop knocking it also with the 11/7 month windows no SSR
owners will be able to book at your home resort before you have chance to so what exactly is your problem if you dont get the times you want that will be nothing to do with SSR not really sure where you are going with this again

 

[Chuck S]

Boat, I can't imagine anyone thinking in 1998 that DVC villas would continue to be these little "add-on" wings to existing resorts, either. The upkeep costs is much greater on a per room basis for smaller resorts. Other larger resorts had also been announced earlier in DVC, they simply were never built...including Colorado and Newport. DVC never said nor implied that they'd have only small resorts from now on.

The institute property became available and was was built upon. Why wasn't it announced and promoted earlier? Disney was giving the institute concept a fair chance, then they tried it as more of a corporate retreat...which were "THE" in thing at the time. I still find the institute concept interesting, and think it would work for Disney on a smaller scale, in a much smaller location, and would have worked well in the Golf Resort/Disney Inn location if the military hadn't taken it for SOG. Especialy for couples where one spouse was an active golfer and the other was not.

 

[boatboatboat]

I personally think there is some merit in what Boat is saying.
Obviously BCV and BWV are more attractive to the average person or their resale contracts would not be selling for $10 to $20 more per point then other resorts!
I may be wrong - probably am - but - that is my opinion.

EGG-ZACT-LEE

 

[cobbler]

Ok, boat I understand a little better.

Now what if SSR was built oh somewhere around the MK (just pretend for a minute) or AK? And it is EXACTLY the same as it is now, just somewhere different, would you feel differently about it?

If DVC was willing to make SSR a DVC2 resort with a new 50 years, then IMO they should have just put it into a pool of other resorts with 50 years, and left the current DVC resorts in it's own pool of resorts.

Ok this one I don't understand. Are you trying to say that SSR should be a DVC2 that can't trade out into DVC1 and vise versa?

That would be an interesting proposition because darn it all if we wouldn't get that Poly, CR DVC and you all couldn't touch it

 

[boatboatboat]

What would be the difference if they built only half of what is currently at SSR at that location and the other half at EP? Which isn't a desirable location in your book either I assume.

It would be a resort that would attract 2 types of people. Now we have 40% of the rooms in a single location, that is attractive to a very small% of people.

According to your theory then, both of the resorts would be clamoring into the others. So then you are talking about 2 resorts now trying to get into the others.

2 x 20%= 1X 40%

And I guess it really doesn't matter because EP will probably be built and then this whole nonsense about SSR is going to start all over again

I agree, everytime DVC build a WDW resort further and further away from WDW, this debate will rage.

 

[Chuck S]

if you dont get the times you want that will be nothing to do with SSR

yes it will, anytime i call at 200 days it will

Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on the part of anyone else. The simple solution is what it has always been for EVERY DVC member. Plan early, or take what you can get.

 

[DVC Sadie]

On what page did they say 40% of the rooms would be in the worst location?

It's the worst location for you! It is a great location for us. You seem to forget that the WHOLE world does not revolve around just you. We love SSR for it's location and a lot of other reasons that I will not list since you seem not to hear anyone except those that agree with you.

 

[boatboatboat]

Now what if SSR was built oh somewhere around the MK (just pretend for a minute) or AK? And it is EXACTLY the same as it is now, just somewhere different, would you feel differently about it?

Yes. Can't stay on site at epcot........ no problem we can stay on site at mk.

no problem with that at all.


Ok this one I don't understand. Are you trying to say that SSR should be a DVC2 that can't trade out into DVC1 and vise versa?

at a 2 mths window they could

That would be an interesting proposition because darn it all if we wouldn't get that Poly, CR DVC and you all couldn't touch it.


If it would pull 40% of the owners out of the bwv/bcv area, i would jump for joy.

 

[boatboatboat]

It's the worst location for you!

I know

It is a great location for us.

you don't have stores,bars where you live?

You seem to forget that the WHOLE world does not revolve around just you.

dvc built here last for a reason

We love SSR for it's location and a lot of other reasons

that is a good thing

that I will not list since you seem not to hear anyone except those that agree with you.
huh?