More WL DVC?

[SpaceMountain77]

The villas were just all refurbed. Don't see any difference other than the locations of the rooms themselves. There would be no special decor with renovated hotel rooms.

Yes, I know that the hard goods renovation was completed in the spring. However, would you pay a premium for those same furnishings in the main lodge? Moreover, do you honestly believe that decor will be carried over into concierge level rooms? I certainly hope not.

 

[gkrykewy]

I rather like the decor photos from the rehabbed VWL rooms; not too too dissimilar to VGC or even the rehabbed polynesian rooms. I have not experienced one of the new VWL rooms personally though.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Yes, I know that the hard goods renovation was completed in the spring. However, would you pay a premium for those same furnishings in the main lodge? Moreover, do you honestly believe that decor will be carried over into concierge level rooms? I certainly hope not.

Well I don't see anything more special for the newer DVC rooms. Have they done that in the past? AKV concierge has the same as the rest of the resort. What special features would they do to those rooms?

I personally really like the rehab that's been done to the Villas. I think the only reason people will pay the higher direct PPP is for the longer end date. Current direct is $130 ( I think) for a 2042 end date. How is $170+ any different for say a 2062 end date?

 

[JenWis]

Eh... I don't believe this guy. I am more apt to believe that he overheard a bunch of people talking about DVC and what could be future development. Personally, I just don't think that the DVc sales people are really *that* in the know about future development...

 

[LisaS]

It will be a very curious expansion with a novel point chart. If the expanded lodge rooms follow VGF and PVV, then the existing villas will need their own category on the point chart. If all of the rooms are pooled, I, for one, would be disappointed if I was assigned an older villa in the annex as opposed to a newer villa in the main lodge.

I imagine it will be like AKV -- Jambo House and Kidani are separate booking categories. I've never stayed in a WL room but if they are similar in size to AKL rooms then there might be a size difference in the converted lodge villas vs the existing villas. On the other hand, the views from rooms in the main lodge will probably be much better than those from the existing building, plus you have easier access to restaurants and the resort store. So if the rooms end up costing the same points per night, just as with AKV you could choose between a smaller room close closer to all the amenities or a larger room in a separate building.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

It will be a very curious expansion with a novel point chart. If the expanded lodge rooms follow VGF and PVV, then the existing villas will need their own category on the point chart. If all of the rooms are pooled, I, for one, would be disappointed if I was assigned an older villa in the annex as opposed to a newer villa in the main lodge.

Older? In what way? The main lodge was built before the villas. As was mentioned the villas building just under went a refurb so there wouldn't be much of an age difference. I haven't stayed in the hotel rooms since their latest refurb which I heard was a very good one - and moved the hotel up in one of the hotel rankings that it had lost years ago so experts apparently agree too. However the Villas refurb was not that spectacular and lost coherent themeing that it seems they have kept within the hotel. I'd prefer they try again with the villas building though rather than switch rooms in the hotel to the decor they just finished in the villas.

I'd agree with Lisa that it would likely become a booking category to be in the main building.

But - in the end - I'll believe this when I see it.

 

[SpaceMountain77]

I'd prefer they try again with the villas building though rather than switch rooms in the hotel to the decor they just finished in the villas.

Kat,

You eloquently captured the sentiment that I was trying to express. If this comes to pass, I hope that both the existing villas and converted rooms have upgraded finishings that capture the Lodge's charm.

Jim 8O

 

[DebbieB]

Kat,

You eloquently captured the sentiment that I was trying to express. If this comes to pass, I hope that both the existing villas and converted rooms have upgraded finishings that capture the Lodge's charm.

Jim 8O

I don't think Disney would pay to upgrade the existing villa rooms again. That would have to come from dues.

 

[ziravan]

I just read most of that very long thread. Whew. There was tons of anti-DVC sentiment, based along these lines:

1. DVC is making Disney so much money that they aren't interested in spending money anywhere else; DVC is the root of all concerns about lack of spending in the parks.

2. Room rates across Disney are overpriced and they're forced to keep them that way in order to justify a savings for DVC.

3. DVC dumbs down deluxe resorts. The "Wal-mart crowd takes over" wherever DVC treads in.

As a soon to be BCV owner (passed ROFR, waiting to close), I was interested to see a different perspective.

I discussed it with my wife, and she said, "So basically, DVC lets the riff-raff rain on the parade of cash resort users. Steerage invades 1st class, is that it? And, we're the riff-raff?"

We both agree: yes, that seemed to be the basic complaint, and.....

We can live with that.

 

[ziravan]

What I didn't understand was the constant complaint in the other thread that DVC was the root of all evil at Disney.

Yes, obviously Disney is making money on DVC, or they wouldn't be doing so much of it. How does that prevent Disney from spending money in the parks? Can Disney not walk and chew gum at the same time?

Here's what I think. Disney is spending money in lots of locations, DVC is primarily WDW based because it's a proven winner there and obviously not at saturation point. Also, land availability favors WDW. I don't think the two are related much.

Park infrastructure is coming. Avatarland, and Carsland and StarWars have to be in the mix, at least long term.

Here's my biggest takeaway from that thread: it looks like DVC is going Poly, then VWL, then BCV. Disney is committed to finding a saturation point for DVC.

Along the way, I expect incentives for ownership when sales finally tighten, like more FP+, or set asides for ADRs, etc. That's on top of more variety. These changes can only be good for DVC.

Plus, if DVC goes back to VWL and BCV, then they will probably have to readdress contract extensions, at least in those places. Another plus. Considering that the OKW extension was widely considered a bust, maybe the lessons learned from that experiment will be more favorable deals for VWL and BCV. After all, while it will help to make up front money, I think Disney will be more interested in a broad MF base to carry the new projects through their new dates. (I can't see them selling new VWL and BCV points with 2042 expirations).

The 2042 expirations don't mean much yet. That's why the previous experiment likely didn't go over as expected. That will change, and soon. It won't be much longer before 2042 expirations begin to seriously degrade value on the resale market. I don't think Disney can tolerate a resale market that strongly skews to later expiration dates. Their plan focuses on points being equal at 7 months. I think they'll have to standardize expiration dates at these resorts with new DVC build outs for those willing, and let expirations expire for those unwilling. (In out years, they can use expired points from those whom decline to extend and rent those points for cash to subsidize lost MF fees. That's an easier rule change than negatively affecting owners.)

 

[gkrykewy]

Yeah, the OP over there is fairly offensive in disparaging DVC clientele (wal-mart bags, people who used to stay in the holiday inn and occasionally splurge on All Star, etc). Kind of jarring for someone who appears to be a respected member of the fan community.

Whatever.

 

[Msmithmd]

Yeah, the OP over there is fairly offensive in disparaging DVC clientele (wal-mart bags, people who used to stay in the holiday inn and occasionally splurge on All Star, etc). Kind of jarring for someone who appears to be a respected member of the fan community. Whatever.

My thoughts precisely.

Anyone want to bet a quarter that that OP's "long time CM" role is as a bus driver? Or maybe a "transportation leader." Certainly seems like the kind of rumor one occasionally hears on the evening bus back to OKW.

I'm not much of a gambler, but I would be willing to lay a pretty large wager that the prediction and rumor of that thread is simply false. After that, it's basically a lot of people whining about DVC. Probably wishing they had bought in, back when it cost 1/3 of current direct prices...

 

[twinklebug]

I discussed it with my wife, and she said, "So basically, DVC lets the riff-raff rain on the parade of cash resort users. Steerage invades 1st class, is that it? And, we're the riff-raff?"

We both agree: yes, that seemed to be the basic complaint, and.....

We can live with that.

Haha, welcome my fellow DVC members to the world the RVers have been living for the past 3 decades: Campers can spend upwards of 100K on a beautiful traveling home and are still looked down on by "hotel folk" as being low class riff-raff. Ignore them, they are simply uneducated regarding both DVC and RVs and have no desire to learn, but rather they prefer to huddle up together in fear. Enjoy, and hope that they fear us so much they'll give us wide berth and not invade the DVC areas

 

[Andrew015]

Sorry, Double post...

 

[Andrew015]

I am waiting for Andrew, the WL guru, to join this discussion.

Wow... I'm quite flattered that my opinion has been requested on such a topic! It's certainly nice to be thought of as a WL "subject matter expert", but unfortunately, I must admit that I have little meaningful information to add to this discussion other than what has already been covered.

I am now just getting caught up on this rumor, and have only been able to read the first few pages of the thread where this originally surfaced. I know nothing about the OP, and thus, have very little to gauge the credibility of the source. I understand that the OP was or still is a CM, but does anyone know in what capacity? If he/she is a bus driver, then I'd say we have as good of a chance at staying in an "Over-the-Water Tee-Pee" as we do booking an "Over-the-Water Burrito" at Coronado Springs in the near future. At this point, it's really hard to classify this as anything other than "talk".

Having said that, it's hard to discredit the possibility of this happening at WL somewhere down the line. We know that Disney's current mentality is pedal-to-the-metal DVC. We also know that it is far cheaper to retrofit existing room inventory into DVC (i.e. Poly) than it is to construct an all new resort (i.e. Fort Wilderness DVC), so converting existing WL inventory into DVC seems like a logical move based on what Disney has proven to us in recent years.

The initial gut reaction to the notion of removing 379 rooms from WL's existing inventory and changing them over to DVC is "Insanity", as this is such a drastic reduction in total inventory. But the bean counters look at things differently than we do. Converting rooms to DVC means selling all new contracts and locking in more "repeat business" for the next 50 years. What's not to like about that from Disney's perspective? Reducing existing inventory of "non-DVC" rooms will reduce supply and artificially increase demand, which will equate to price increases for the non-DVC inventory, much like we expect to see with the Poly upon completion. Not to mention that rennovation costs are quickly recouped once the new DVC inventory goes on sale, all of these are factors that lend credence to the possibility of the rumor becoming reality somewhere down the line.

But seriously.... Over-The-Water Tee-Pees?!?!?!? Who even thinks of something like this? I will say, though, that if this ever comes to fruitiion - talk about delivering an "innovative" guest experience. Where else in the world would you be able to stay in a Tee Pee that sits over the water? Only Disney could come up with and execute something like this...

Even if a portion of this rumor pans out to be true, we all saw how many times the initial Poly DVC plans changed from conception to ground-breaking. I wouldn't hold my breath on any or all of this coming to a Lodge near you anytime soon...

 

[disneynutz]

Converting existing rooms to DVC not only saves Disney money and increases their profit compared to building new, it allows them to sell DVC units sooner due to the shortened construction time. They can also start marketing sooner per the Florida law on building and selling timeshares. The converted units can pay for the new construction.

As far as shorting the existing cash room inventory, the additional per night cash cost of a DVC studio may help make up for it if the guest has no other choice.

Bill

 

[tjkraz]

What I didn't understand was the constant complaint in the other thread that DVC was the root of all evil at Disney.

Yes, obviously Disney is making money on DVC, or they wouldn't be doing so much of it. How does that prevent Disney from spending money in the parks? Can Disney not walk and chew gum at the same time?

Since DVC members are pretty much obligated to use their points each year, the sense is that Walt Disney World has less off a need to reinvest in the parks. Generally speaking, it's guaranteed business for the parks regardless of how much they add.

Sure, some owners will alter their habits if the parks grow stale. But in general, owners keep buying APs (or other ticket media) to have access to the parks throughout their stays.

Hard to dispute this. Any business which can lock-in a guaranteed revenue stream is likely to benefit. And it's clearly one of the big motivating factors for continued DVC development. Even at $165 per point, Disney stands to make a LOT more money off lodging with its normal nightly room rates...or even discounted rates. Disney is willing to sacrifice those long-term gains in exchange for the big up-front investment and the promise of decades of ancillary revenue through park tickets, dining, recreation and souvenirs.

There are also people who believe that dollars spent to build a DVC resort would otherwise be going into attractions or non-DVC hotels. That line of thinking is quite naive. Dollars spent (or not spent) on attractions have no relationship to DVC construction.

 

[sleepydog25]

Since DVC members are pretty much obligated to use their points each year, the sense is that Walt Disney World has less off a need to reinvest in the parks. Generally speaking, it's guaranteed business for the parks regardless of how much they add.

Sure, some owners will alter their habits if the parks grow stale. But in general, owners keep buying APs (or other ticket media) to have access to the parks throughout their stays.

Hard to dispute this. Any business which can lock-in a guaranteed revenue stream is likely to benefit. And it's clearly one of the big motivating factors for continued DVC development. Even at $165 per point, Disney stands to make a LOT more money off lodging with its normal nightly room rates...or even discounted rates. Disney is willing to sacrifice those long-term gains in exchange for the big up-front investment and the promise of decades of ancillary revenue through park tickets, dining, recreation and souvenirs.

There are also people who believe that dollars spent to build a DVC resort would otherwise be going into attractions or non-DVC hotels. That line of thinking is quite naive. Dollars spent (or not spent) on attractions have no relationship to DVC construction.

Those last few lines are spot on. Even the military faces similar misconceptions: "if we save money in R&D, then we can pay more to military members." Well, in the long-term scheme of things, that could be doable with changing some laws, but the fact is the monies for each come from a separate pot, and the two can't be mixed.

 

[DVC Jen]

there is a link on page one

What I should have asked was - where did the person speaking in this link get his/her information from?

nevermind. After reading through this entire thread again.. I think I answered my own question.

 

[ziravan]

Since DVC members are pretty much obligated to use their points each year, the sense is that Walt Disney World has less off a need to reinvest in the parks. Generally speaking, it's guaranteed business for the parks regardless of how much they add.

Sure, some owners will alter their habits if the parks grow stale. But in general, owners keep buying APs (or other ticket media) to have access to the parks throughout their stays.

Hard to dispute this. Any business which can lock-in a guaranteed revenue stream is likely to benefit. And it's clearly one of the big motivating factors for continued DVC development. Even at $165 per point, Disney stands to make a LOT more money off lodging with its normal nightly room rates...or even discounted rates. Disney is willing to sacrifice those long-term gains in exchange for the big up-front investment and the promise of decades of ancillary revenue through park tickets, dining, recreation and souvenirs.

There are also people who believe that dollars spent to build a DVC resort would otherwise be going into attractions or non-DVC hotels. That line of thinking is quite naive. Dollars spent (or not spent) on attractions have no relationship to DVC construction.

I understand what you are saying, but the number they bandied about was 5-10% of total gate traffic is DVC. There was general frustration that DVC is such a small percentage of total gate, that the execs don't care what they think anyway. Fair enough, but they can't have it both ways: 5-10% of total traffic guaranteed is enough to convince them to coast on P&R, or it's not enough to merit attention:

Which is it?

My take is that it's a wash. The top corp brass does care about what DVC members think because word of mouth is a powerful sales driver. But. That business is locked in.

I just don't see how this translates to DVC ruining the park experience.

What I think: the naysayers would love to see P&R development move as fast as DVC development, so DVC becomes a scapegoat for all things not perfect in the parks. As you say, dollars spent in the parks have no relationship to those spent on DVC. Equating their frustration with the speed of park development to the speed of DVC development is intellectually lazy, or at least too convenient, if you ask me.