Looking at SSR with a critical eye.
- Thread starter Daitcher
- Start date
- Status
dvc_john
DVC since 1993
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2000
- Messages
- 2,071
boatboatboat said:
I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but whatever you think of the location, the above statement makes no sense at all!
The SSR site WAS developed with villas long ago, the same timeframe as the Poly and the Contemporary. So Disney must have thought it was a good site.
All other hotels and DVC's were developed later. The SSR site WAS NOT available when OKW, BWV, VWL and BCV were built.
Hay Dave, while I thoroughly enjoy SSR I am behind ya if it can help make it a better place. And honestly I don't know why any SSR owner wouldn't.
I guess we (and this is a general we) need to stop complaining about what doesn't work and come up with solutions to what will work. Instead of being one of those employees who whines that this isn't right or that isn't right but offers no solutions, we can come up with positive solutions and make something better.
I guess we (and this is a general we) need to stop complaining about what doesn't work and come up with solutions to what will work. Instead of being one of those employees who whines that this isn't right or that isn't right but offers no solutions, we can come up with positive solutions and make something better.
SimplyMagical
Mouseketeer
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2001
- Messages
- 398
jarestel said:
You may not care about what people think about the resort you own, but believe me, there are many people who do! And by the way, I own at VWL and love it.
tomandrobin
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,001
boatboatboat said:
LOL
boatboatboat
This space for rent.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2006
- Messages
- 538
Ok I am confused now..
B3 I thought you owned at SSR??
Is this not the case?
no I am just worried I will be staying there unless I book 7 mths+ in advance.
B3 I thought you owned at SSR??
Is this not the case?
no I am just worried I will be staying there unless I book 7 mths+ in advance.
tomandrobin
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,001
Tink10
Always Lurking
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2000
- Messages
- 1,740
Wow.....Such a debate!
ITA with the OP's concerns about SSR's shortcomings, but I try to look at things in a totally different light. SSR is still so new & I too think of it as a teenager, so to speak.
I'm both anxious & excited to see what SSR will become. None of us here can say that we definitively know of DVC or WDW's plans for the coming years. Anything could happen. I also have been wondering about the resorts that are coming in the future......Look at the DVC build history, not including the non-WDW DVC's....(I hope I get the order right)
#1. OKW
#2. BWV
#3. VWL
#4. BCV
#5. SSR
#6. CRV (???)
People have also speculated about AKL & Poly DVC's as well......which would both be incredibly popular.
Now, many of you may be thinking that my theory is totally laughable & wishful thinking (It definately is wishful thinking). But, it would serve as the next wave of DVC's with a 2054 expiration. One large DVC, followed by several smaller, more exclusive DVC's. That formula has worked well for them so far.......
Regardless, DVC offers something for everyone. We love the BWV, and that's why we have a few points there. We also own at SSR, but have yet to stay there, but will be within the next year. If we love it, great....If we don't, then we'll try for something else, but we'll just be happy to have a room on WDW property that's not a value resort.....
ITA with the OP's concerns about SSR's shortcomings, but I try to look at things in a totally different light. SSR is still so new & I too think of it as a teenager, so to speak.
I'm both anxious & excited to see what SSR will become. None of us here can say that we definitively know of DVC or WDW's plans for the coming years. Anything could happen. I also have been wondering about the resorts that are coming in the future......Look at the DVC build history, not including the non-WDW DVC's....(I hope I get the order right)
#1. OKW
#2. BWV
#3. VWL
#4. BCV
#5. SSR
#6. CRV (???)
People have also speculated about AKL & Poly DVC's as well......which would both be incredibly popular.
Now, many of you may be thinking that my theory is totally laughable & wishful thinking (It definately is wishful thinking). But, it would serve as the next wave of DVC's with a 2054 expiration. One large DVC, followed by several smaller, more exclusive DVC's. That formula has worked well for them so far.......
Regardless, DVC offers something for everyone. We love the BWV, and that's why we have a few points there. We also own at SSR, but have yet to stay there, but will be within the next year. If we love it, great....If we don't, then we'll try for something else, but we'll just be happy to have a room on WDW property that's not a value resort.....
Beca
Apparently, we all have more money than brains!!!
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,676
First of all, I would like to thank Dave for this thread...it really has started me thinking. And, B3...you're comments have really started me thinking as well.
Here's my thoughts: Do owners of other DVC timeshares besides SSR have any right to complain about the shortcomings of SSR? Absolutely!! Why? Because, if I really feel that SSR is "sub-par" (I know people hate that description....just using it as an example here ), and because the size of the resort is equal to the size of the three smallest on-site DVC's....there is a good chance that will be my "less than 7 month option". That would make the quality of SSR my business. For my family, the bottom line is this....I do not care for SSR, but my dh hates it. He says his vacation time is too valuable to spend in a resort like that (i.e....we will not go to WDW if we have to stay there)...extreme, yes...but true. If SSR were the same size as the resort that we bought into (208 units), this would not be such a concern...our chances of staying there would be very small.
But, let's just look at the rough numbers (these are from memory, so forgive me if I am wrong):
SSR 858 units
OKW 512?
BWV 383
BCV 208
VWL 137
That equals 2098 units on-site.
SSR is 40.98% of all on-site DVC rooms. 41%?!!!! So, the owners of all 4 other on-site DVC's make up 59%, and SSR owners make up 41%? That means that, outside of your 7 month window, the chances of staying somewhere besides SSR become VERY small...that makes the quality of SSR ALL of our "business". As someone who owns in a system that shares availability with that resort, but has been told that we can never stay there (by dh), that really messes with my vacation plans. I hate feeling like I can only book between 7-11 months out, and there is NO flexibility in my vacation days...it is pretty stressful.
So, here's what I have been thinking:
Looking at the size of the rooms, DVC does have a responsibility to make the "desireability" of the resort equal to the % of onsite rooms that resort has. That seems like it will be the only answer to be fair to ALL owners in the "flexible trading system".
Therefore, until polls taken by DVC show that the popularity of the resorts are (in descending order):
1) SSR
2) OKW
3) BWV
4) BCV
5) VWL
Their work should not be done!! I really think Dave is onto something. Nothing can be done about the location of SSR (unless a new park is built, it is never going to be next to a park), but something should be done to make 40% of the on-site DVC owners (SSR or otherwise) think it is the BEST resort ever!!! If that is adding horses, re-doing the theme to a "Mary Poppins" Victorian one, adding a stage show in the theatre, adding "race tracks", a monorail, lowering the points, or WHATEVER would make SSR AMAZING in the eyes of 40% of on-site DVC owners...that is what they need to do.
Then, they need to focus on "improvements" to make the desireability of the other resorts fall in line with the size of the resort as well. I think this is the responsibility they have to owners of ALL resorts. Until then, none of us will be truly happy.
Sometimes, I think DVC feels that just by "saying" something, it comes true (maybe it's all the pixie dust in that place). But, I remember a while back, a new SSR owner posted that she bought SSR because she wanted to own at the "flagship" DVC resort. I think the ink was still wet on her contract...and, this was obviously a term used by her guide. I think B3 is onto something here. I don't know whether all guides use the "buy here, stay there" sales tactic (mine certainly did), but I do have to wonder about a guide who says, "SSR is the flagship DVC resort" when so many others have amenities and features that SSR currently does not have. If SSR had a pool like BCV, was in walking distance to a park OR had a monorail, had poolside food (with waiters), a character breakfast for the little ones, had SV and DTD view options with prices to reflect as such, and room service...I could see a guide saying it was the "flagship" resort....but, not as it is now.
And, maybe cobbler is right. Maybe DVC thought the popularity of OKW would make SSR a great thing...but, they didn't really "reproduce" OKW. They made the rooms smaller, the points higher, and the resort bigger.
I'm not sure why people think that old owners want to just "bash" the new kid on the block? I think the assumption is that tearing down the new resort makes old owners feel better (since they have already laid down their money, and cannot buy into the new resort). Well, I purchased my DVC after SSR was in pre-sales, but before the expansion was announced. I almost cancelled my contract (I was in ROFR) when the expansion was announced. Why didn't I? I believed that just because I didn't care for SSR, that DVC must know better than I, and that MANY other people would LOVE SSR. Honestly, from reading these boards...I do not believe that is the case.
I would be THRILLED if DVC opened a new resort that I adored!! How cool is that? My points could be used at a really cool resort, new options would be added....and, I don't have to do anything. Why would I (or any new owner) possibly want to think badly of a new resort? I can guarantee you that I will be cheering if a CVR, AKV, or PV opens. Would I still prefer my "home"...probably...but, I would be thrilled at the new options.
But, back to my old discussion with Maistre Gracey....even if a resort were on the monorail, right next to MK (such as a CRV), I don't think ANY resort should have 850 rooms, when others in the "flexible trading system" have 137. Even if, on paper a CRV looks "AMAZING"....that could still cause problems with the owners of the 137 resort. Why am I adding this element to the conversation? Because, IMO DVC has an ADDED responsibility to make SSR even MORE amazing than they normally would because they chose to add 300+ rooms to the resort AFTER it started selling. At that time, DVC should have been held to answer the question, "Okay...what WONDERFUL features are you adding to make 41% of on-site DVC owners choose this as their FIRST choice of properties?"
And, that is something DVC should be held to "fix". I own at one of the hardest resorts to get into (BCV). By the numbers above, BCV should be one of the LAST resorts people want to get into. Making BCV worse is not really an option (unless you let maintenance/housekeeping slip even further), but improvements should be made to shift desirability so that BCV is one of the least desireable resorts to stay at.
I know many people will consider this post "bashing", and for that I am very sorry. I don't mean to bash, but sometimes it seems like whatever negative point is mentioned...it is labeled as "bashing" (except, I can say pretty much whatever I want about BCV and no one says I am "bashing" ). I feel that, on these boards there is a sense of "You can only say negative things about a resort if you own there". But folks....in actuality....we all own at all of them!! If you don't believe me....try booking at 6 months, and see where you can stay.
Beca
Here's my thoughts: Do owners of other DVC timeshares besides SSR have any right to complain about the shortcomings of SSR? Absolutely!! Why? Because, if I really feel that SSR is "sub-par" (I know people hate that description....just using it as an example here
), and because the size of the resort is equal to the size of the three smallest on-site DVC's....there is a good chance that will be my "less than 7 month option". That would make the quality of SSR my business. For my family, the bottom line is this....I do not care for SSR, but my dh hates it. He says his vacation time is too valuable to spend in a resort like that (i.e....we will not go to WDW if we have to stay there)...extreme, yes...but true. If SSR were the same size as the resort that we bought into (208 units), this would not be such a concern...our chances of staying there would be very small.But, let's just look at the rough numbers (these are from memory, so forgive me if I am wrong):
SSR 858 units
OKW 512?
BWV 383
BCV 208
VWL 137
That equals 2098 units on-site.
SSR is 40.98% of all on-site DVC rooms. 41%?!!!! So, the owners of all 4 other on-site DVC's make up 59%, and SSR owners make up 41%? That means that, outside of your 7 month window, the chances of staying somewhere besides SSR become VERY small...that makes the quality of SSR ALL of our "business". As someone who owns in a system that shares availability with that resort, but has been told that we can never stay there (by dh), that really messes with my vacation plans. I hate feeling like I can only book between 7-11 months out, and there is NO flexibility in my vacation days...it is pretty stressful.
So, here's what I have been thinking:
Looking at the size of the rooms, DVC does have a responsibility to make the "desireability" of the resort equal to the % of onsite rooms that resort has. That seems like it will be the only answer to be fair to ALL owners in the "flexible trading system".
Therefore, until polls taken by DVC show that the popularity of the resorts are (in descending order):
1) SSR
2) OKW
3) BWV
4) BCV
5) VWL
Their work should not be done!! I really think Dave is onto something. Nothing can be done about the location of SSR (unless a new park is built, it is never going to be next to a park), but something should be done to make 40% of the on-site DVC owners (SSR or otherwise) think it is the BEST resort ever!!! If that is adding horses, re-doing the theme to a "Mary Poppins" Victorian one, adding a stage show in the theatre, adding "race tracks", a monorail, lowering the points, or WHATEVER would make SSR AMAZING in the eyes of 40% of on-site DVC owners...that is what they need to do.
Then, they need to focus on "improvements" to make the desireability of the other resorts fall in line with the size of the resort as well. I think this is the responsibility they have to owners of ALL resorts. Until then, none of us will be truly happy.
Sometimes, I think DVC feels that just by "saying" something, it comes true (maybe it's all the pixie dust in that place). But, I remember a while back, a new SSR owner posted that she bought SSR because she wanted to own at the "flagship" DVC resort. I think the ink was still wet on her contract...and, this was obviously a term used by her guide. I think B3 is onto something here. I don't know whether all guides use the "buy here, stay there" sales tactic (mine certainly did), but I do have to wonder about a guide who says, "SSR is the flagship DVC resort" when so many others have amenities and features that SSR currently does not have. If SSR had a pool like BCV, was in walking distance to a park OR had a monorail, had poolside food (with waiters), a character breakfast for the little ones, had SV and DTD view options with prices to reflect as such, and room service...I could see a guide saying it was the "flagship" resort....but, not as it is now.
And, maybe cobbler is right. Maybe DVC thought the popularity of OKW would make SSR a great thing...but, they didn't really "reproduce" OKW. They made the rooms smaller, the points higher, and the resort bigger.
I'm not sure why people think that old owners want to just "bash" the new kid on the block? I think the assumption is that tearing down the new resort makes old owners feel better (since they have already laid down their money, and cannot buy into the new resort). Well, I purchased my DVC after SSR was in pre-sales, but before the expansion was announced. I almost cancelled my contract (I was in ROFR) when the expansion was announced. Why didn't I? I believed that just because I didn't care for SSR, that DVC must know better than I, and that MANY other people would LOVE SSR. Honestly, from reading these boards...I do not believe that is the case.
I would be THRILLED if DVC opened a new resort that I adored!! How cool is that? My points could be used at a really cool resort, new options would be added....and, I don't have to do anything. Why would I (or any new owner) possibly want to think badly of a new resort? I can guarantee you that I will be cheering if a CVR, AKV, or PV opens. Would I still prefer my "home"...probably...but, I would be thrilled at the new options.
But, back to my old discussion with Maistre Gracey....even if a resort were on the monorail, right next to MK (such as a CRV), I don't think ANY resort should have 850 rooms, when others in the "flexible trading system" have 137. Even if, on paper a CRV looks "AMAZING"....that could still cause problems with the owners of the 137 resort. Why am I adding this element to the conversation? Because, IMO DVC has an ADDED responsibility to make SSR even MORE amazing than they normally would because they chose to add 300+ rooms to the resort AFTER it started selling. At that time, DVC should have been held to answer the question, "Okay...what WONDERFUL features are you adding to make 41% of on-site DVC owners choose this as their FIRST choice of properties?"
And, that is something DVC should be held to "fix". I own at one of the hardest resorts to get into (BCV). By the numbers above, BCV should be one of the LAST resorts people want to get into. Making BCV worse is not really an option (unless you let maintenance/housekeeping slip even further), but improvements should be made to shift desirability so that BCV is one of the least desireable resorts to stay at.
I know many people will consider this post "bashing", and for that I am very sorry. I don't mean to bash, but sometimes it seems like whatever negative point is mentioned...it is labeled as "bashing" (except, I can say pretty much whatever I want about BCV and no one says I am "bashing"
). I feel that, on these boards there is a sense of "You can only say negative things about a resort if you own there". But folks....in actuality....we all own at all of them!! If you don't believe me....try booking at 6 months, and see where you can stay. Beca
Disney Doll
DIS Security Matron
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2000
- Messages
- 28,883
I have read your other posts, and I dont think I realized till now that you owned at SSR!!!!! And live in the Saratoga area!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My God, Dave, sell and buy something in one of the other resorts you so dearly love!!!! You bought SSR sight unseen and you live in the Saratoga NY area. Of course you're not going to like it! It's like not being on vacation and if they really didn't capture the "flavor" of the area, then it's going to aggravate you even more!!!! I live in southwestern Connecticut. If they ever built New England Leafs Resort at WDW, it would be the last place I would ever buy. When I go on vacation, I like to be on vacation...in a "place" different from where I live!!!!!
The other points you raise may be valid, but to many folks, they are not deal-breakers. I don't care if there's food & drink by the pool. If I want something to drink that badly, I can bring it from the refrigerator which is in my room. Generally, poolside food & drink is over-priced and not all that good...at least not any that I have had, and yes, I have had pollside food at the DVC resorts in Disney...soggy potato chips and tuna sandwiches that cost me $10. Room service...don't care about that either, for the same reasons...over-priced and not that good usually, especially since it is lukewarm at best when it gets to the room.
Having the Disney themeing...this may be more important to some, especially folks with kids, but doesn't matter much to me. I am an adult, looking for an adult vacation experience. Don't need to be able to kiss Mickey around every corner.
Food availability...my guess is the thought was that with DTD so close, and all of its dining choices, having a bunch of restaurants at SSR would be redundant.
I haven't stayed at SSR yet. I am sure we will. My only point is that every DVC resort has pros and cons, and they differ depending on people's opinions. To me, being on the monrail line at the CRV that everyone is so anxiously awaiting doesn't mean a thing. Also not a fan of that "contemporary" styling, and the CRV would have to maintain that "theme" to a degree, so that would be a turn-off for me. To someone with kids, however, it can be a deal-breaker to be in that location, so close to the MK. For some trips, I like the location of the BCV/BWV. There are other trips where all that hustle & bustle would drive me crazy.
Different strokes for different folks. But for God's sakes man, buy where you want to stay. If they day comes that the DVC "rules" change and you can only stay at your home resort, do you want to stay there & be miserable??? And have a miserable wife & MIL along with you?????????
The extra 12 years isn't worth it. Let your kid(s) buy their own DVC someday.
My God, Dave, sell and buy something in one of the other resorts you so dearly love!!!! You bought SSR sight unseen and you live in the Saratoga NY area. Of course you're not going to like it! It's like not being on vacation and if they really didn't capture the "flavor" of the area, then it's going to aggravate you even more!!!! I live in southwestern Connecticut. If they ever built New England Leafs Resort at WDW, it would be the last place I would ever buy. When I go on vacation, I like to be on vacation...in a "place" different from where I live!!!!!
The other points you raise may be valid, but to many folks, they are not deal-breakers. I don't care if there's food & drink by the pool. If I want something to drink that badly, I can bring it from the refrigerator which is in my room. Generally, poolside food & drink is over-priced and not all that good...at least not any that I have had, and yes, I have had pollside food at the DVC resorts in Disney...soggy potato chips and tuna sandwiches that cost me $10. Room service...don't care about that either, for the same reasons...over-priced and not that good usually, especially since it is lukewarm at best when it gets to the room.
Having the Disney themeing...this may be more important to some, especially folks with kids, but doesn't matter much to me. I am an adult, looking for an adult vacation experience. Don't need to be able to kiss Mickey around every corner.
Food availability...my guess is the thought was that with DTD so close, and all of its dining choices, having a bunch of restaurants at SSR would be redundant.
I haven't stayed at SSR yet. I am sure we will. My only point is that every DVC resort has pros and cons, and they differ depending on people's opinions. To me, being on the monrail line at the CRV that everyone is so anxiously awaiting doesn't mean a thing. Also not a fan of that "contemporary" styling, and the CRV would have to maintain that "theme" to a degree, so that would be a turn-off for me. To someone with kids, however, it can be a deal-breaker to be in that location, so close to the MK. For some trips, I like the location of the BCV/BWV. There are other trips where all that hustle & bustle would drive me crazy.
Different strokes for different folks. But for God's sakes man, buy where you want to stay. If they day comes that the DVC "rules" change and you can only stay at your home resort, do you want to stay there & be miserable??? And have a miserable wife & MIL along with you?????????
The extra 12 years isn't worth it. Let your kid(s) buy their own DVC someday.
Hello All:
I have read and re-read this post with great interest.
I just want to say a few things and will try to do my best to do so without taking sides.
First and foremost I think we all need to take stock and stop a minute and thank our lucky stars that we are fortunate enough to have the luxury to own a piece of any DVC property.
There are a lot of people out there who no matter how hard they work could never ever afford it and would never ever complain if given a chance to stay in any DVC property.
That being said we as owners were not given anything and paid for the privilege of ownership.
I think it obvious to all that every person takes their hard earned dollars and elects to buy into DVC for a multitude of individual and personal reasons. By that I mean what attracted one person to ownership is usually different than what attracted the other person to ownership.
Occasionally some will find their reasons for buying into DVC match and when this is the situation it is easy for those individuals to band together and make the case for their purchase rational to thump another owner or group of like minded owners thus back and forth arguments start.
I own at SSR and do I think the property is perfect and meets all my (and my family desires...well no... but then again I do not think any of the resorts are perfect nor will they ever be as each one has it own unique pro and cons.
I also know that SSR was primarily the Disney Institute and for whatever reasons that Disney project failed and as such SSR was born out of re-tooling and re-working a great deal of the buildings, structures, roads, amenities that made up that former property and as such SSR was not (nor will it ever be) built from the ground up as some of the DVC properties were.
Knowing the above I do think the property is going through some growing pains and Disney as a company may be sailing in uncharted waters while they attempt to get it right.
Most of us here know Disney is a very image conscience company that cares a great deal about its name recognition and the quality attached to it and given this I'm sure over time Disney will get it right.
That being said SSR may be just right for some owners as it is now and that is perfectly okay.
For those owners that feel something is missing with in the resort, I suggest you go back and check Forever a Princess and another's suggestion which is a darn fine idea. Writing a formal letter to the proper officials at Disney is smart. You as an owner do have a voice and Disney is one of the few premium consumer companies that will listen (and in most cases react) to your voice.
In fact, I suggest that, if you care to, take the letter writing one step further...use the power of communication (email, forums, phones, etc.) to compile a list of features, amenities, services owners would like to see added to the SSR property.
Once the list is compiled and agreed upon it would be quite easy to craft it into a point by point petition and post it to a website so that all owners could sign it and then it could be presented to Disney at an owners meeting.
I guess what I'm getting at is it is unfair of me to sit here and judge who's views are right or wrong or to join in the argument and continue the bantering as to what Disney promised, hinted at, eluded to or what someone should expect or not expect out of SSR ownership... etc.
Seeing as my little guy (13 months) took his first steps this morning maybe I have a very positive outlook today and I'm just feeling... hey we are all members of an exclusive community and if we stop going at each other and get together and present our wish list in a formal matter to Disney maybe it will effect the change will ultimately better what is already a special place.
Sorry this was so long winded all I'm getting at is be positive folks if you want change communicate it to Disney... I know expectations of Disney are high because we pay a premium but try and put things into perspective...now I'm off to try and get the little guy walking some more because all things aside when I see him running alongside his sister to a favorite Disney ride, show and/or attraction when we go home to Disney this Nov after him spending the first weeks of his life in a hospital you could honestly charge me 10 times the amount I paid to get into SSR and I would still think it a great value.
Best Regards,
Tony Passero
I have read and re-read this post with great interest.
I just want to say a few things and will try to do my best to do so without taking sides.
First and foremost I think we all need to take stock and stop a minute and thank our lucky stars that we are fortunate enough to have the luxury to own a piece of any DVC property.
There are a lot of people out there who no matter how hard they work could never ever afford it and would never ever complain if given a chance to stay in any DVC property.
That being said we as owners were not given anything and paid for the privilege of ownership.
I think it obvious to all that every person takes their hard earned dollars and elects to buy into DVC for a multitude of individual and personal reasons. By that I mean what attracted one person to ownership is usually different than what attracted the other person to ownership.
Occasionally some will find their reasons for buying into DVC match and when this is the situation it is easy for those individuals to band together and make the case for their purchase rational to thump another owner or group of like minded owners thus back and forth arguments start.
I own at SSR and do I think the property is perfect and meets all my (and my family desires...well no... but then again I do not think any of the resorts are perfect nor will they ever be as each one has it own unique pro and cons.
I also know that SSR was primarily the Disney Institute and for whatever reasons that Disney project failed and as such SSR was born out of re-tooling and re-working a great deal of the buildings, structures, roads, amenities that made up that former property and as such SSR was not (nor will it ever be) built from the ground up as some of the DVC properties were.
Knowing the above I do think the property is going through some growing pains and Disney as a company may be sailing in uncharted waters while they attempt to get it right.
Most of us here know Disney is a very image conscience company that cares a great deal about its name recognition and the quality attached to it and given this I'm sure over time Disney will get it right.
That being said SSR may be just right for some owners as it is now and that is perfectly okay.
For those owners that feel something is missing with in the resort, I suggest you go back and check Forever a Princess and another's suggestion which is a darn fine idea. Writing a formal letter to the proper officials at Disney is smart. You as an owner do have a voice and Disney is one of the few premium consumer companies that will listen (and in most cases react) to your voice.
In fact, I suggest that, if you care to, take the letter writing one step further...use the power of communication (email, forums, phones, etc.) to compile a list of features, amenities, services owners would like to see added to the SSR property.
Once the list is compiled and agreed upon it would be quite easy to craft it into a point by point petition and post it to a website so that all owners could sign it and then it could be presented to Disney at an owners meeting.
I guess what I'm getting at is it is unfair of me to sit here and judge who's views are right or wrong or to join in the argument and continue the bantering as to what Disney promised, hinted at, eluded to or what someone should expect or not expect out of SSR ownership... etc.
Seeing as my little guy (13 months) took his first steps this morning maybe I have a very positive outlook today and I'm just feeling... hey we are all members of an exclusive community and if we stop going at each other and get together and present our wish list in a formal matter to Disney maybe it will effect the change will ultimately better what is already a special place.
Sorry this was so long winded all I'm getting at is be positive folks if you want change communicate it to Disney... I know expectations of Disney are high because we pay a premium but try and put things into perspective...now I'm off to try and get the little guy walking some more because all things aside when I see him running alongside his sister to a favorite Disney ride, show and/or attraction when we go home to Disney this Nov after him spending the first weeks of his life in a hospital you could honestly charge me 10 times the amount I paid to get into SSR and I would still think it a great value.
Best Regards,
Tony Passero
SimplyMagical said:SSR is not our home resort - and we have never stayed there - so I probably wouldn't be able to name any - however, my point was - just because there are some people out there who don't like SSR, there are many out there that do! Its very simple - if you don't like it - sell! Why would anyone be interested in keeping a timeshare that their family stated they hated
Because for now I book everyone elses resorts at 7 months. If I can no longer do this for whatever reason I will sell.
DAVE
NMW
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2004
- Messages
- 3,119
Deb & Bill said:
Well, I can only speak for our family, but it would not appeal to us at all. We go to Disney to go to the parks every day and be AT Disney. We could golf at home! Also we go to one of the Carolinas every summer and I get my full of golf then.
Nothing about Eagle Pines appeals to me.boatboatboat
This space for rent.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2006
- Messages
- 538
tact , good looks, abilty to turn 2 on a short hopper.
heck 2 outa 3 ain't bad.
heck 2 outa 3 ain't bad.
- Status
-
The New Stories of California Adventure: 9 Countdown Movies
-
New Seasonal Menu Items at The Polite Pig, Disney Springs
-
Disney Destiny Departs Meyer Werft Shipyard, Heads for the North Sea
-
Walt Disney World Reaffirms Weapons Ban Despite Florida Open Carry Ruling
-
Does Disney's Animal Kingdom Live up to Its Price Point?
-
Cause of Death & Identity Revealed of Guest Who Died at Universal Epic Universe
-
New Loungefly Styles A Disney Fan Must See Right Now!
