Looking to maybe join Disney Vacation Club

[DVChris]

I think it wasn’t, hence so many replies to your post.

Glad to hear! I was a bit worried that you bought Riviera not fully aware.

 

[Drewski77]

Glad to hear! I was a bit worried that you bought Riviera not fully aware.

??? I never thought resale Rivera could be used elsewhere. That’s what it sounded like another poster thought.

 

[Paul Stupin]

I think it wasn’t, hence so many replies to your post.

I think you’re right! My bad!

 

[DonMacGregor]

They can't just invent more land really close to the parks. A lot of what's left has been deemed not suitable to build on. So I disagree they can just create spots at will. Maybe building technology will evolve, maybe they'll build a new park, who knows. I'm not basing any purchase decisions on it though.

Well, I haven't seen the soils reports or seen any raw data from any core sampling or test pits, but I'd hazard a guess that most of the soil out there is of very poor quality, with the land under Contemporary and BLT likely being the best given that Contemporary was the only tower on property for years. You'll get no argument from me on that.

Having said that, and again not knowing the in-situ water table depths, soil composition, stratification, or bearing capacity, it's pretty likely that several of the sites could be developed with existing technology. Whether it's near-surface consolidation through import and fill, mud jacking/compaction grouting, cement deep soil mixing, or the advancement of piles down to competent bedrock, poorly consolidated, saturated, or heavily organic material can be made competent. Just look at some of the huge construction sites on reclaimed land in Japan, Hong Kong, and the Middle East. Heck, just about all of Tokyo Disneyland sits on reclaimed land in Tokyo Bay. Granted, those are coastal reclamation and not on or adjacent to swamp land, but the technology has advanced since ground was broken on WDW, and continues to develop to this day. "Not suitable" can be become "not economical" then evolve into "not ideal" and then "feasible".

Certainly, it's not cheap, and if you've got good dirt elsewhere, that's where you obviously build first, but over time soil changes, and technology advances. Also, the type of construction is obviously dictated by soil conditions, and if Disney is on a tower building trend (as they seem to be with Gran Destino, Riviera, and DLT), then that can affect buildability and site selection, and that certainly could drive and/or limit site selection. Alternately, a resort more in the low-rise style of say SSR, OKW, or even PVB might be more feasible in a broader range of locations, with far less, yet still significant, site prep. I'd bet a paycheck that's why you keep hearing about "activity" occurring on some of those formerly "abandoned" sites: additional ongoing soil testing performed over time to monitor changing conditions and buildability based on current needs and technology.

I also wouldn't base any purchase decisions on it, but conversely I wouldn't assume that Disney isn't planning on swinging any more hammers in the next 20+ years either.

 

[Yinn]

I was with you at all stars and pop. Or if we wanted to splurge, AoA. I now own a blue card, purchased the minimum at AKL to obtain it. I also have a white card from my resale purchases at PVB and CCV. In hindsight, IMO it has absolutely nothing to do with the card and everything to do with the value of your stay. Put the card away for a second.

If you absolutely want CCV then financially it makes no sense to buy it direct over current resale prices. CCV is currently ~$160/pt resale and $225/pt direct. I'm not sure that $85/pt difference is worth what I get for my blue card. Further, if I could use that $85/pt to buy more points then that is definitely something that would make a difference if I went from a studio to a 1BR or a 1BR to a 2BR on my stays.

Then comes the question of where would you stay? 100% CCV? Then absolutely go with that resort. I own CCV and have yet to stay at CCV. The main reason being that the room layout just doesn't work as well for us. So we use our CCV points by renting them out, or we use them at 7 months. Which in hindsight...I should have just bought SSR back when they were cheap and half the price of CCV. Many times availability can be cured by stepping up to the next room class.

To sum it up. Blue card has been nice but in the grand scheme it's not a top factor. In order of importance to me. Total # of points > Home Resort > Blue/White Card.

 

[BamaGuy44]

I also wouldn't base any purchase decisions on it, but conversely I wouldn't assume that Disney isn't planning on swinging any more hammers in the next 20+ years either.

Well you’ve obviously thought about it a lot more than I have, I’ve just read a few things where they had looked at building in a couple of places in the MK area as a new monorail resort and they couldn’t do it. They might break ground next week on a hotel with a lobby connecting to the castle, I have no idea.

obviously there will be some more cool resorts coming, but the prospect just doesn’t move the needle for me as far as enticing me to want to spend a lot more money for direct points to prevent future FOMO. I’m confident the current WDW resorts will serve my needs for the next 20-25 years I’ll be going.For others it’s a big factor. That’s fine because I’ll be spending my money and they’ll be spending theirs

 

[Paul Stupin]

Well, I haven't seen the soils reports or seen any raw data from any core sampling or test pits, but I'd hazard a guess that most of the soil out there is of very poor quality, with the land under Contemporary and BLT likely being the best given that Contemporary was the only tower on property for years. You'll get no argument from me on that.

Having said that, and again not knowing the in-situ water table depths, soil composition, stratification, or bearing capacity, it's pretty likely that several of the sites could be developed with existing technology. Whether it's near-surface consolidation through import and fill, mud jacking/compaction grouting, cement deep soil mixing, or the advancement of piles down to competent bedrock, poorly consolidated, saturated, or heavily organic material can be made competent. Just look at some of the huge construction sites on reclaimed land in Japan, Hong Kong, and the Middle East. Heck, just about all of Tokyo Disneyland sits on reclaimed land in Tokyo Bay. Granted, those are coastal reclamation and not on or adjacent to swamp land, but the technology has advanced since ground was broken on WDW, and continues to develop to this day. "Not suitable" can be become "not economical" then evolve into "not ideal" and then "feasible".

Certainly, it's not cheap, and if you've got good dirt elsewhere, that's where you obviously build first, but over time soil changes, and technology advances. Also, the type of construction is obviously dictated by soil conditions, and if Disney is on a tower building trend (as they seem to be with Gran Destino, Riviera, and DLT), then that can affect buildability and site selection, and that certainly could drive and/or limit site selection. Alternately, a resort more in the low-rise style of say SSR, OKW, or even PVB might be more feasible in a broader range of locations, with far less, yet still significant, site prep. I'd bet a paycheck that's why you keep hearing about "activity" occurring on some of those formerly "abandoned" sites: additional ongoing soil testing performed over time to monitor changing conditions and buildability based on current needs and technology.

I also wouldn't base any purchase decisions on it, but conversely I wouldn't assume that Disney isn't planning on swinging any more hammers in the next 20+ years either.

Who knows if they’ll ever revisit Reflections, but the site is still pretty viable. Also, they could always bulldoze more of Caribbean Beach and build another skyliner resort by Riviera. One way or another, I think there are plenty of options available for new construction. In the meantime, I enjoy using my direct CCV points at Riviera at 7 months. It’s available, and for us it was worth the extra cost since we’ll be able to use them, theoretically, until 2068.

 

[DonMacGregor]

Who knows if they’ll ever revisit Reflections, but the site is still pretty viable. Also, they could always bulldoze more of Caribbean Beach and build another skyliner resort by Riviera. One way or another, I think there are plenty of options available for new construction. In the meantime, I enjoy using my direct CCV points at Riviera at 7 months. It’s available, and for us it was worth the extra cost since we’ll be able to use them, theoretically, until 2068.

I agree. All I'm saying is given the volume of open space adjacent to existing premium locations, many factors play into "viability", including resort demand, intended use, current construction technology, and the existence of other more easily developable land. Many factors play into it.

Just look at the location of the new DLT. It's getting shoehorned in between the existing Frontier Tower and DLH convention center/ballrooms, while a good 25 acres exist just a stone's throw away in the Simba lot right behind the Frontier Tower (a sizeable portion of which NEVER fills). Obviously, it will look out onto the existing central courtyard and pool area to some extent which is optimal, and add the fourth "wall" to the DLR compound as it were (sort of), but they could have easily demo'd the existing DVC office space behind Frontier (affectionately referred to as BOB, or the Big Orange Building) and built on P-lot land for far less money (and maybe even given more rooms a view other than the glorious Lynn Avenue apartments) and connected the tower to the existing space via terraces, walkways, etc. They could even have given the tower its own lobby and registration. Given the Disneyland Forward master plan, a tower placed in the Simba lot might actually have even better views than the existing DL towers. Just saying there are always options, and decisions.