Is SSR going to be too large/overcrowded?

[dtheboys]

We just visited SSR, my concerns is the theme pool seems small for the size of the resort.( considering future expansion)

Do you think the pool will be overcrowded when the resort is 100% completed?

I don't own at SSR (yet), but I'm concerned about the main pool. We love DVC, and Disney because of the themed pools. When I'm at Disney I prefer the themed pools. I can stay at any resort off premises if I just want a quiet pool..............

I'm concerned about doing an add-on, and not being able to use the theme pool once the complex is completed. Anyone else share my concerns?

This thread is not a debate, it is just what I prefer in a resort.

 

[calypso*a*go-go]

This is a subject that has already come up several times and it is a legitimate concern. As I am not familiar with the plans at SSR, is there room to create another themed pool as the resort grows or possibly expand one of the quiet pools? Perhaps DVD was planning to market SSR as a more upscale resort that would appeal to adults vacationing without children that would prefer quiet pools vs. a larger themed pool.

 

[dtheboys]

This is a subject that has already come up several times and it is a legitimate concern. As I am not familiar with the plans at SSR, is there room to create another themed pool as the resort grows or possibly expand one of the quiet pools?

That is exactly what I asked my guide...."what is the future plans on additional pools, etc"? I could not get an answer from him. That is what concerns me the most about my add on.

 

[kjkelley]

I started this thread a couple weeks ago and did not really seem to generate much support. It seems that many owners at SSR are way to concerned about dues going up to support another theme pool. I think they will definately need one and I will revisit this issue after I return from SSR at the end of May.


See my thread below:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=762698

I think making SSR the preferred location to stay (i.e. with a top of the line pool/pools offering) will avoid the big concern everyone has about the 7 month ressie crunch. If SSR can come closer to matching SAB in quality and variety at the pool, it will balance out demand with the other DVC offerings!

 

[wtpclc]

Quote from Doc on another thread. It has great facts, excuse the fact that it's slightly out of context here:

"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.

CBR has a total of 2112 rooms - 852 rooms more than the proposed eventual maximum size of SSR.

If, as you suggest, the CBR pool is smaller than High Rock Springs, SSR (with it's three large leisure pools in addition to HRS) will have adequate capacity for those wanting to enjoy a swim."

So, pool capacity at SSR is proportional to other WDW resorts.

 

[kjkelley]

All of those numbers mean nothing when everyone is packed into the theme pool. I for one as an owner at SSR, want the theme pool to be able to accomodate the demand.

Using your logic, if I take 828 (SSR) and divide it by 1258 (onsite DVC not including SSR)= ~66%. So if SSR's HRS Theme Pool was 66% of the size of OKW Theme Pool + BCV Theme Pool (- % for hotel guests) + BWV Theme Pool (- % for hotel guests) + VWL (- % for hotel guests); I would be satisfied. I think if you do the math, there is not much comparison.

SSR needs to consider changing a quiet pool at the Paddock (i.e. probably least desirable area of SSR to stay) into a theme pool. Heck as the OP suggested if we just want a quiet pool, we can stay nearby offsite or just go jump in the backyard pool!

 

[tjkraz]

All of those numbers mean nothing when everyone is packed into the theme pool. I for one as an owner at SSR, want the theme pool to be able to accomodate the demand.

The problem is that nobody here knows what the demand will be. You don't...I don't...none of us do.

The only thing we know for certain is that Disney has a lot of experience in designing resort complexes (a component of which is predicting demand) and they (obviously) do not think there will be a problem.

The SSR pool is virtually identical in size to the Luna Park pool at the Boardwalk. There are over 700 Inn and Villa rooms, while SSR is slated to come in at a little over 800, with more "Leisure Pools" (or Quiet Pools if you prefer) than the Boardwalk. Doesn't seem like it will be a problem to me, and I'm certainly not going to overreact based upon the limited info available.

 

[Greysword]

I am wondering if the planners for SSR have other ideas for the resort than a spectacular pool. if they have other theming, then the pool may be there just because they need one and won't plan to expand it.

 

[SoCalKDG]

If the pool is too small, why buy at SSR? Just as people buy at BCV for the pool, the same should go at other places. Are the guides telling people another themed pool is possible?

I just read a trip report, a great one, I must say, that had this family of four staying at OKW. They would take a bus to get to the main pool. To me, thats a pain. I'd use one of the other pools that are available that are close. I imagine that many others would also.

I own at BWV and since we share a pool with BWI, our pool has the same amount of rooms feeding into it as SSR does. On a very hot, hot day, its going to be crowded at the BWV pool, just as SSR's pool will be crowded.

 

[JimFitz]

The SSR pool is virtually identical in size to the Luna Park pool at the Boardwalk. There are over 700 Inn and Villa rooms, while SSR is slated to come in at a little over 800, with more "Leisure Pools" (or Quiet Pools if you prefer) than the Boardwalk. Doesn't seem like it will be a problem to me, and I'm certainly not going to overreact based upon the limited info available.

Ever been to Luna Park during a peak time? It's not very fun.

 

[thelobstershanty]

I am confused. How one can compare the number of rooms at BWV & BWI combined, with the number of rooms at SSR and use this as a guide as to how crowded the pool at SSR will be? Since a big number of those rooms are in BWI which only sleeps 4 people at maximum, how can that compare to rooms at SSR which can sleep up to 8 - 12? Isn't there a much greater chance of having more guests per room at SSR so therefore more total guests? Or am I missing something?

 

[tjkraz]

I am confused. How one can compare the number of rooms at BWV & BWI combined, with the number of rooms at SSR and use this as a guide as to how crowded the pool at SSR will be? Since a big number of those rooms are in BWI which only sleeps 4 people at maximum, how can that compare to rooms at SSR which can sleep up to 8 - 12? Isn't there a much greater chance of having more guests per room at SSR so therefore more total guests? Or am I missing something?

According to Allearsnet.com there are 378 Inn rooms with a max occupancy of FIVE. There will be about 400 Villa rooms when the pending construction is completed, and those are basically a one-to-one comparison with SSR.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that SSR will have a slightly higher occupancy level on average than BWV/BWI. And, IMO, that's the primary reason that SSR has four Leisure Pools scheduled for construction vs. the two at BWV/BWI and three at OKW.

JimFitz: No, I have never been to Luna Park during peak period. But get back to me as soon as someone starts a "we need another feature pool at BWV" thread. No resort, Disney or otherwise, is going to overbuild an amenity such as this to compensate for the absolute busiest times of the year.

I guess if the point of this thread is that High Rock Spring will be overcrowded during Memorial Day weekend, 4th of July, Spring Break, etc., then no, I don't disagree. But show me a Disney pool that isn't equally "overcrowded" during these peak periods.

Don't get me wrong, here, I'm not trying to imply that I am absolutely right and anyone who thinks otherwise is absolutely wrong. But I do think it's wrong to imply that the pool situation at SSR is grossly inappropriate when compared to other resorts. Anyone who thinks that DVD should change its pool construction plans for the resort is welcome to that opinion.

 

[cruise-o-matic]

I think they ought to put in a lazy river that meanders throughout SSR

 

[kjkelley]

When I get the chance for my first visit home in late May, I plan to address this situation with my guide and throw in my support for the lazy river! What better way to make a marked improvement in SSR sales than to add a lazy river?

Quote from tj (sorry I do not know how to due the fancy blue quote box): No, I have never been to Luna Park during peak period. But get back to me as soon as someone starts a "we need another feature pool at BWV" thread. No resort, Disney or otherwise, is going to overbuild an amenity such as this to compensate for the absolute busiest times of the year.

I think you are missing the point here tj. The point is SSR is in position to more easily change this oversite NOW because it has not been built! I can not emphasize enough how easy it is to change plans on paper vs correcting something that is already built (the incremental $$$ is monumental). And correct me if I am wrong, it seems that SSR has a little more land than BWV to build something like a second theme pool! Finally because SSR HRS pool is ? small already, it should not be a problem to put in a similar size theme pool at Paddock because they do not take up to much room.

If DVC wants SSR to be the flagship for onsite resorts, it seems they need to start thinking proactively now. I have already heard one person at HRS state they already do not have enough tables with umbrella's and the resort is only 1/3 open? Doesn't anyone else see a problem here?

 

[JimC]

...CBR has a total of 2112 rooms - 852 rooms more than the proposed eventual maximum size of SSR.

If, as you suggest, the CBR pool is smaller than High Rock Springs, SSR (with it's three large leisure pools in addition to HRS) will have adequate capacity for those wanting to enjoy a swim."

So, pool capacity at SSR is proportional to other WDW resorts.

Remember that CBR has six quiet pools, one for each of its "island villages" in addition to the themed pool at Old Port Royale.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I voted "yes". I understand the value of the math and 'guest to pool ratio', but I'm just going with what my own eyes saw last October.
Only phase 1 of the resort was open. My wife and I went to the bar for a beer before the Member Update, and the bar and pool were packed. It took 20 minutes to get a beer. The pool, although not to capacity, was crowded. I just can't imagine what it will be like when four phases are complete.

That being said, I have blind faith in Disney to do the right thing. If the pool situation becomes out of control, it's my belief they will build.

I find SSR to be a beautiful resort. If I didn't love VWL so much, I would absolutely own there.

MG

 

[DizneyNutz]

HECK NO------DO NOT change a "quiet pool" into a theme pool! Theme pools are just that! THEME POOLS! Let's face it, kids ENJOY having a ton of other kids around! Give us older folks a break---we have RAISED our kids-enjoyed MORE THEME POOLS than one person can imagine and have now bought in to SSR to enjoy OURSELVES not a blue million kids! Not that I have anything against children, I do not---between my DH and myself, we've raised FOUR! We have suffered kid pools-ballgames, high school, college etc., we are just ready to kick back and a QUIET pool sounds like H-E-A-V-E-N!!!! Sorry if I've caused a problem here-----please don't bombarde me with "you hate kids" responses....I truly don't, I love them, I am just a 40something woman who enjoys time for herself and DH of five years!

 

[DrTomorrow]

[...] The point is SSR is in position to more easily change this oversite NOW because it has not been built! I can not emphasize enough how easy it is to change plans on paper vs correcting something that is already built (the incremental $$$ is monumental). [...]

Um, kjkelley, have you ever actually been to SSR yet? Is is very much "built": almost 70 percent of the resort will be totally complete by years end. I understand your concept, but it would apply to Eagle Pines (where no construction has started), not to a resort like SSR where all but the final Phase buildings are permanently - and immovably - built.

 

[thelobstershanty]

According to Allearsnet.com there are 378 Inn rooms with a max occupancy of FIVE. There will be about 400 Villa rooms when the pending construction is completed, and those are basically a one-to-one comparison with SSR.

This what I do not understand. How can BWI rooms be a 1-1 comparison to SSr villas that have a much higher room capacity than a BWI room????. Which, BTW from our many visits and experiences at BWI---we have always been told -- the room max is 4 adults per room, not 5 per room???

 

[tjkraz]

This what I do not understand. How can BWI rooms be a 1-1 comparison to SSr villas that have a much higher room capacity than a BWI room????. Which, BTW from our many visits and experiences at BWI---we have always been told -- the room max is 4 adults per room, not 5 per room???

You'll note that I said the VILLA rooms were 1-to-1. The limit of five per room at the Inn came from the website that I noted. Far as I know, many of the Inn rooms (if not all) have two beds and a daybed. That seems to indicate enough room to sleep 5.

Whatever the case, I'm really not trying to debate this down to the bed. My wife and I have reserved a One Bedroom villa just for the two of us. It's impossible to guess how many people are booked into the individual rooms on average.

IMO, these are the relevant points:
* High Rock Spring and Luna Park are of comparable size.
* There are about 5% fewer rooms at BWV/BWI than the current proposed construction for SSR.
* SSR rooms should have higher average occupancy than half of the rooms at the Boardwalk. To what degree is really unknown.
* SSR will have four Quiet Pools vs two at the Boardwalk.

Again, I'm not going to say there is any absolute right or wrong here, but IMO SSR is at least as well equipped to accommodate swimmers as BWV/BWI.