How do we know WL bungalows will be DVC?

[CarolynFH]

Just wondering: In the absence of an official announcement, how do we know that the bungalows and other construction at WL will be part of DVC? Is it just assumption/speculation that Disney will use DVC as a way to finance the construction and maintenance as they did with Poly bungalows, or is that a certainty? I could see WL bungalows being very popular with cash guests.

 

[tjkraz]

In lieu of any announcement from Disney, nothing is certain.

However, Disney has not made any additions at the Deluxe hotel level for some time. Animal Kingdom Lodge opened 15 years ago as the last new deluxe. Since then they've only REMOVED Deluxe rooms in favor of DVC.

Most DVC accommodations are made available to cash guests, albeit in small numbers. Cash guests can pay for the Poly bungalows if they wish...at a rate of $2000+ per night. Don't count on Disney building 26 (?) Ft. Wilderness cabins/bungalows and offering them solely to cash guests.

 

[Dean]

Just wondering: In the absence of an official announcement, how do we know that the bungalows and other construction at WL will be part of DVC? Is it just assumption/speculation that Disney will use DVC as a way to finance the construction and maintenance as they did with Poly bungalows, or is that a certainty? I could see WL bungalows being very popular with cash guests.

As noted, we don't. The real question is whether they'll be officially part of the current VWL or be a separate resort legally. And if they're part of the VWL, will there be an extension forthcoming. IMO being part of the VWL but not having some type of extension would be the least likely scenario given the 26.5 yrs remaining on the RTU there.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

As noted, we don't. The real question is whether they'll be officially part of the current VWL or be a separate resort legally. And if they're part of the VWL, will there be an extension forthcoming. IMO being part of the VWL but not having some type of extension would be the least likely scenario given the 26.5 yrs remaining on the RTU there.

Or maybe it's a good way to have the construction all paid for and to get them back in a short amount of time to be resold or added to the hotel side? I think it would reek havoc on the current association though to add all those bungalow points to a very small DVC.

 

[Dean]

Or maybe it's a good way to have the construction all paid for and to get them back in a short amount of time to be resold or added to the hotel side? I think it would reek havoc on the current association though to add all those bungalow points to a very small DVC.

I don't see them adding to the resort itself at the current 2042 expiration, they'd be leaving too much money on the table. Paying for the resort itself doesn't help them much as they make most of their money on the up front sale. Whether it'll be a separate resort is up to them and likely depends on the scale of the project, there's no legal restriction on this option. While I don't know what the new law options might bring, the current setup would require them to extend all members if they extend the land lease. Since they didn't have the legal authority for a special assessment they tried with OKW (as I read the POS) and the attempt was unsuccessful by anyone's standard, I'd expect a different approach if they extend. The problem with making the new section part of the same legal entity is that it extends everyone if there's an extension and they would need to extend everyone to do so no matter what approach they took. As I'm discussing this I'm coming to the conclusion that the only viable options are a new legal entity or a free extension and the latter causes issues with the OKW situation. The other option would be to wait until the current resort expires but given the time involved, that seems unlikely.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I don't see them adding to the resort itself at the current 2042 expiration, they'd be leaving too much money on the table. Paying for the resort itself doesn't help them much as they make most of their money on the up front sale. Whether it'll be a separate resort is up to them and likely depends on the scale of the project, there's no legal restriction on this option. While I don't know what the new law options might bring, the current setup would require them to extend all members if they extend the land lease. Since they didn't have the legal authority for a special assessment they tried with OKW (as I read the POS) and the attempt was unsuccessful by anyone's standard, I'd expect a different approach if they extend. The problem with making the new section part of the same legal entity is that it extends everyone if there's an extension and they would need to extend everyone to do so no matter what approach they took. As I'm discussing this I'm coming to the conclusion that the only viable options are a new legal entity or a free extension and the latter causes issues with the OKW situation. The other option would be to wait until the current resort expires but given the time involved, that seems unlikely.

As in wait for an extension until the current resort expires or somehow wait to incorporate the bungalows until that time if that were somehow possible?

 

[Dean]

As in wait for an extension until the current resort expires or somehow wait to incorporate the bungalows until that time if that were somehow possible?

To proceed with the project and incorporate it into the current entity, I'd think they need to extend now. Of course they could put it on hold until the current resort expires then create a new resort with the additional components for any period they wanted. It would seem unlikely to delay with the project otherwise planned and ? viable though. We'll see, they've already gone outside the rules to extend OKW.

 

[DebbieB]

Any more on the rumors that some of the WL rooms will be converted to DVC? If they do that, there would be enough points for a separate resort including the bungalows. Say 100 rooms plus the bungalows. According to allears, WL has 728 rooms.

 

[SpaceMountain77]

Any more on the rumors that some of the WL rooms will be converted to DVC? If they do that, there would be enough points for a separate resort including the bungalows. Say 100 rooms plus the bungalows. According to allears, WL has 728 rooms.

If you follow some of the other boards, then you might have noticed an interesting challenge that is actively being discussed. DVC has existing rooms at VWL that do not share the look and upgrades of VGF and PVB. It would be difficult to convert the hotel rooms, mirroring the current VWL villas, and charge $165 per point or more. Members and potential buyers will likely expect the modern design elements and amenities they have come to know from VGF and PVB.

The two ideas that seem to be receiving the greatest weight are either a cabins only addition, to avoid old and new villas, or a second condominium association inclusive of new lodge villas and the cabins.

 

[SpaceMountain77]

For what it is worth, I am anticipating a second VWL condominium association. With construction scheduled to begin in October and a rumored 2018 opening, any potential extension discussions with VWL members would be happening now.

This will be an easier build-out for DVC because the cabins will not require the infrastructure that was required for the bungalows. Given what is proposed in the permits, an 18-month window seems entirely feasible.

 

[DebbieB]

A second association makes sense, that way the new owners would have the 11 month window for the new rooms/cabins. Otherwise, current VWL owners would have the same 11 month window to the new rooms.

 

[ziravan]

This thread has me thinking... If as rumored BCV is next, will they get Bungalows?

Supposedly, EPCOT is due to revamp Illuminations soon, a tweak or two combined with streamlining the view (BCV would already be in line of sight of the gap at international gateway), and voila, balcony access to fireworks view...

Just angle the balconies to the right to orient with the gateway and slightly extend each bungalow out a tad bit more...

 

[ziravan]

 

[ziravan]

BCV: put 10 Bungalows on the lake, and build a Longhouse in the woods along EPCOT Resort Blvd with 10 3BR suites with 2nd floor balconies facing EPCOT and a private bridge with direct access to the Gateway (and private parking). Maybe a private Bungalow pool and sauna in the space between the BCV "Secluded EPCOT Access" Bungalows and the main BCV...

We're talking Bora Bora Bungalow level points per night!

On 2nd thought, forget the lake, build all 20 3BRs in the woods opposite the Gateway. I'll need more BCV points.

Sorry to hog the thread... It's sorta kinda on topic.

 

[Dean]

For what it is worth, I am anticipating a second VWL condominium association. With construction scheduled to begin in October and a rumored 2018 opening, any potential extension discussions with VWL members would be happening now.

This will be an easier build-out for DVC because the cabins will not require the infrastructure that was required for the bungalows. Given what is proposed in the permits, an 18-month window seems entirely feasible.

Overall I don't think there's enough track record or information to truly know what they'll do, however, I do think there's plenty of time to do an extension of any type now and for some methods, it wouldn't require much or any advanced warning. The only historical info we have related to DVC is the build out at BWV & OKW and the THV. I don't think AKV would apply The BWV & OKW projects were so small and included within the framework of the current resort, there really wasn't any choice but to include it within the resort proper. The THV didn't have the RTU expiration issue or the sales potential for what's being discussed now but, IMO, it clearly should have been separate.

I'll also point out what should be obvious, that if it's separate, it'll be separate from a reservations standpoint as well meaning that current VWL members would only be able to reserve at 7 months out. For VWL I think including it within the single resort would be better, they just have to work out the other details accordingly so they can charge $165 a point rather than $125 a point and possibly they can find a way to get some income on an extension as well. Possibly they can work it out to have some expiring at a different end date though I'm not sure how.

I'm not seeing how they can take what Marriott did with their trust conversion and adapt it here. What Marriott did was to create a new system completely and then create a crossover option. To do that it'd have to be a new DVC II, not just a separate resort as I read it. If that was the direction they wanted to go, it should have started with VGF or even BLT.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

If a separate condominium association is created ( VWL II) it would give them the 11 mos booking advantage to bugalows and newly created rooms. However, wouldn't they then still be subject to the 7 month booking timeframe for the rest of the DVC resort? You can't block out one segment but include all with the other. I don't see why anyone would want to purchase at VWL solely for half of the resort.

 

[ziravan]

Overall I don't think there's enough track record or information to truly know what they'll do, however, I do think there's plenty of time to do an extension of any type now and for some methods, it wouldn't require much or any advanced warning. The only historical info we have related to DVC is the build out at BWV & OKW and the THV. I don't think AKV would apply The BWV & OKW projects were so small and included within the framework of the current resort, there really wasn't any choice but to include it within the resort proper. The THV didn't have the RTU expiration issue or the sales potential for what's being discussed now but, IMO, it clearly should have been separate.

I'll also point out what should be obvious, that if it's separate, it'll be separate from a reservations standpoint as well meaning that current VWL members would only be able to reserve at 7 months out. For VWL I think including it within the single resort would be better, they just have to work out the other details accordingly so they can charge $165 a point rather than $125 a point and possibly they can find a way to get some income on an extension as well. Possibly they can work it out to have some expiring at a different end date though I'm not sure how.

I'm not seeing how they can take what Marriott did with their trust conversion and adapt it here. What Marriott did was to create a new system completely and then create a crossover option. To do that it'd have to be a new DVC II, not just a separate resort as I read it. If that was the direction they wanted to go, it should have started with VGF or even BLT.

If DVC puts Bungalows and Concierge at VWL into a separate system that excludes current owners, they'll have a riot on their hands much worse than the OKW fiasco.

No way DVC can expect current owners to put up with years of construction and share the cost with MFs and not get to participate in the final product.

I'd sue that they failed their fiduciary responsibility to represent the best interest of current owners. I think you could make a good case.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

If DVC puts Bungalows and Concierge at VWL into a separate system that excludes current owners, they'll have a riot on their hands much worse than the OKW fiasco.

No way DVC can expect current owners to put up with years of construction and share the cost with MFs and not get to participate in the final product.

I'd sue that they failed their fiduciary responsibility to represent the best interest of current owners. I think you could make a good case.

Absolutely there would be legal challenges....

 

[Dean]

If a separate condominium association is created ( VWL II) it would give them the 11 mos booking advantage to bugalows and newly created rooms. However, wouldn't they then still be subject to the 7 month booking timeframe for the rest of the DVC resort? You can't block out one segment but include all with the other. I don't see why anyone would want to purchase at VWL solely for half of the resort.

I guess it depends on what they're getting. It's certainly one of the issues they'll have to contend with.

If DVC puts Bungalows and Concierge at VWL into a separate system that excludes current owners, they'll have a riot on their hands much worse than the OKW fiasco.

No way DVC can expect current owners to put up with years of construction and share the cost with MFs and not get to participate in the final product.

I'd sue that they failed their fiduciary responsibility to represent the best interest of current owners. I think you could make a good case.

I think you overestimate the resolve of DVC members, I think they already put up with a lot of things that would drive non fanatics away (poor maintenance for example, no room priority system, rooms read "after 4"). I think Disney can make it work either way but I do not expect VWL owners complaining about access issues to be a determining factor. We saw such complaints (threat's) with reallocations, the 1 week booking option, elimination of valet parking, the OKW extension and the like. IMO DVC members have already proven they'll largely go along even when DVC is outside the rules. I think DVC of 2000 would have let it sway them (they did holding off on needed reallocation) but I don't see the same fear today.

At the end of the day coming up with a workable extension plan and including any expansion (if it proceeds, it may not) is the best solution. The issue is a viable extension plan given the hole they've dug themselves with the OKW failed method and the wording of the POS tying membership to the land lease.

 

[Dean]

Absolutely there would be legal challenges....

Doubtful and even if there were, there would be no legal stance on the principle of separate, only the direct impact on the usage of the current resort.