New Disney Vacation Club Resort

[Shamus]

Understandably, the DVC program is extremely profitable for Disney, Inc., and with the 40-year limit on ownership contracts (unlike a true timeshare), the resorts will eventually convert to regular nigthly resorts starting in another 25 years, and that might be the answer to the question, but still doesn't resolve the problem of staffing. -R

Just to clarify ... DVC ownership contracts were originally set to expire after 50 years (not 40) and that expiration is in 2042 which is still 36 years away (not 25). Saratoga is set to expire in 2052. Also DVC is a TRUE timeshare ... IT may not be traditional as it is a lease, but it is still legally a timeshare and falls under the State Timeshare laws.

 

[jade1]

However, I'm sure you'll agree that the cost of a small ribbon of asphalt on already-stable ground cannot compare to the cost of a canal, even the same length.

Thats kind of what I meant, is there any chance they could at least do this? Or would it be further than MGM to BW making it simply too far. I STILL LIKE THE DREDGE IDEA.

 

[raidermatt]

The cost in and of itself would not be prohibitive.

The question is whether the benefit would be greater than the cost, by how much, and how quickly they would see the return. Then it would be compared to other options given the amount of overall capital they are willing to invest in WDW at that time.

To LF's point, certainly its possible for Disney's perception of the benefit of such a waterway to change over time, based on how guests have responded to AK and AKL, and the potential addition of a DVC in that area.

That's not to say that I think they WILL do it. In fact, I'd say its doubtful, based on what we know about how the company thinks and operates. But even within those parameters, its possible.

That said, I would like to see them give it stronger consideration than they likely have. I think it could add a lot to the perceived value of staying at AKL, especially if they are successful at also increasing the overall demand for AK.

 

[Lord Fantasius]

Just to clarify ... DVC ownership contracts were originally set to expire after 50 years (not 40) and that expiration is in 2042 which is still 36 years away (not 25). Saratoga is set to expire in 2052. Also DVC is a TRUE timeshare ... IT may not be traditional as it is a lease, but it is still legally a timeshare and falls under the State Timeshare laws.

O.k., my apologies, the fact that it still reverts back to Disney, Inc., no matter the amount of time or money invested by the leaseholder still sits wrong with me, but I probably would be arguing from the other side if I bought when I first had the chance.

This was built as part of the construction of the entire BoardWalk Resort -- part of the development of that entire piece of land.

But they built the Boardwalk up after S/D was there didn't they? I guess my point was that plans change and so does what Disney, Inc., thinks will benefit the Corporation the most. Two of the originally-intended resorts were never built while most everything else, except for MK, CR, Poly, & FW, weren't even on the plans until after Walt died.

Disney has a keen perception of what amount of work will generate what amount of direct income over the first 5 - 7 years, they are very poor at long-term "big picture" projects...their guideline appears to be if it doesn't generate a direct profit in its second year, let's pull it and see what else we can do...in a nutshell, they seem to be better at crisis management than they are at proactive investing and building. Proactive management doesn't wait until there is a problem with garbage or paint-peeling for people to start complaining, it walks the property and looks at where the weakness lies before it becomes a visible problem.

Again, I love the idea of some sort of direct link between AKL, AK, and an AK DVC resort, and even though a canal would be kind of cool, it would be rather costly; so as long as there is some sort of tracks on top that strip of asphalt, e.g., train, trolley, WEDway people-mover (though it would be hard to fit into the theme), I would love to see it happen.

-R

 

[drakethib]

I cannot imagine that ever happening. The cost would be prohibitive.

Why so Bick?

I would think they could get a ROI from such a project.

It would become part of the DVC so that would be a selling item point in itself which could possibly attract more people to the club.

Heck,if I was a venture capitalist I would throw my money that way (not that they need it).

With that being said, and please note that I am not as much of a Disney Guru as others on this board, but what has Disney backed away from due to cost?


Didn't some Disney Manager say something about why not build something that cost a lot for no reason?

 

[bicker]

Matt explained it, above. It is doubtful that such a large outlay for that specific purpose would ever be the best use of available capital.

DVC practically sells itself. The fact that we were talking about the "next" DVC so soon after SSR went on sale is testament to that. For that reason, there isn't much return to derive from digging a canal -- it just wouldn't translate into as much of a long-term revenue stream as, say, taking that capital and applying it to a new attraction.

 

[jade1]

I guess its been beat to death and thanks for all the input.

I can say we will not add on at AKL (I'm sure Disney is shaking) with its current isolation from the parks (same with EP/OKW/SSR). May as well be 10 miles away IMHO because if you want to arrive at an attraction or PS with the bus system you need to leave your room about an hour before hand to be safe.

 

[doubletrouble_vb]

Matt explained it, above. It is doubtful that such a large outlay for that specific purpose would ever be the best use of available capital.

DVC practically sells itself. The fact that we were talking about the "next" DVC so soon after SSR went on sale is testament to that. For that reason, there isn't much return to derive from digging a canal -- it just wouldn't translate into as much of a long-term revenue stream as, say, taking that capital and applying it to a new attraction.

I'm not so sure this logic holds. Why did they build the canal from OKW, Port Orleans and Dixie Landings? Why did they do the excavations at SSR to provide water views away from the DTD waterfront? Easier than a canal yes but equally unnecessary. If a big enough DVC is built on the AKL canal waterfront real estate perhaps the return would be justified. It would also serve to eliminate the need for making the DVC buildings have savannah access. In addition some type of water transit would encourage park goers to take the easy and attractive "water ride" over to the AKL for good quality TS meals and deluxe shopping.

 

[Another Voice]

It’s more likely the real reasons have more to do with corporate politics than with “prohibitive costs”.

Both the park and the lodge have the reputation as being failures. Getting anyone to pour “more good money after bad” is an extremely hard sell considering the year Disney just had. And before anyone starts screaming about ‘Everest’ – remember the it’s a hacked-budget version of the original ‘Journey to the Center of the Earth’ attraction which was in turn a hacked-budget replacement for the original Beastly Kingdom area. ‘Everest’ is simply the lowest cost approach Disney can come up with to jolt attendance.

The Lodge is WDW’s most problematic deluxe resort. The DVC rumors you’re reading about are mostly likely coming from an idea of turning some of the existing hotel space into DVC units. Disney can’t fill the existing Lodge, so it’s better to find another use for those empty rooms. If people can be conned, er, I mean convinced to “buy” them – it’s a huge benefit for Disney.

The cost of building a cannel suitable for a boat is pretty cheap. It’s just that it won’t generate any real revenue because people see its only purpose is to move people from a hotel no one stays at to a park no one visits. WDW is run as a cash machine to fund the rest of the company. Nothing is going to be built unless is returns instant money back to Corporate (if I remember correctly, the debt Disney took over when it bought Fox Family was roughly the same as the combined cost of Animal Kingdom and the Lodge).

 

[bicker]

I'm not so sure this logic holds. Why did they build the canal from OKW, Port Orleans and Dixie Landings?

Flood prevention, I believe.

Why did they do the excavations at SSR to provide water views away from the DTD waterfront?

That's a whole big resort they built there, so, as I said before, that's the time they'd have made such capital investments.

If a big enough DVC is built on the AKL canal waterfront real estate perhaps the return would be justified.

Yes...this is good. I think we're coming to consensus. If a DVC the size of OKW or SSR is built, then yes, I think you could be correct.

There is no way they're going to build a DVC that size there. It would be remarkable if they build a DVC the size of BWV -- I would guess that both the AKL DVC and the Contemporary DVC would be about the same size as BCV.

It would also serve to eliminate the need for making the DVC buildings have savannah access.

I'm pretty sure that was never in the cards, anyway. If they can sell SSR out in a few years, they can sell a small AKL DVC out in far less time, without a canal, and without savannah views. Time will tell.

 

[GrimGhost]

...If people can be conned, er, I mean convinced to “buy” them.....

Why so bitter? I know I wasn't conned. I know I didn't buy real estate in Disney. I know it's on an expiring ground lease. I also know that I will go to WDW every year and enjoy my vacations. I seriously doubt that most people who bought were unaware of the expiration.

 

[Galahad]

I thought DVC was over built years ago. Anybody in the know have an opinion about saturation of DVC? It seems they will build one more that is supportable at this rate.

 

[pedro2112]

It’s just that it won’t generate any real revenue because people see its only purpose is to move people from a hotel no one stays at to a park no one visits.

Wrong. Out of the hundred or so Amusement parks in this country, Animal Kingdom drew 8.2 million people into the park last year... making it the eight most popular theme park in the United States.

 

[Lord Fantasius]

Wrong. Out of the hundred or so Amusement parks in this country, Animal Kingdom drew 8.2 million people into the park last year... making it the eight most popular theme park in the United States.

According to theme park insider it was the fifth most park visited in North America/USA. But that figure isn't as impressive as it sounds...it had the smallest increase on both an absolute basis (less than half a million visitors) and percentage increase (less than 5%) of any of the four WDW parks over 2004. By comparison, MK increased its attendance by 6.5% or more than a million visitors. However, the only figure that would really matter would be how many visitors only visited AK without park hopping. Unfortunately, only Disney can compile this information and the people that have it are likely sworn to greater secrecy than Area 51.

 

[bicker]

The rate of sale is a good guage of saturation, and based on that DVC has at least a couple of more properties to go before it could possibly reach saturation.

 

[peter11435]

According to theme park insider it was the fifth most park visited in North America/USA. But that figure isn't as impressive as it sounds...it had the smallest increase on both an absolute basis (less than half a million visitors) and percentage increase (less than 5%) of any of the four WDW parks over 2004. By comparison, MK increased its attendance by 6.5% or more than a million visitors. However, the only figure that would really matter would be how many visitors only visited AK without park hopping. Unfortunately, only Disney can compile this information and the people that have it are likely sworn to greater secrecy than Area 51.

The attendance figure only counts the first park a guest enters. Thus when they say 8.2 million at AK, those are all people who went to AK as their first park park of the day. If they later went to Epcot they were not counted on Epcots attendance on this list.

 

[peter11435]

It’s more likely the real reasons have more to do with corporate politics than with “prohibitive costs”.

Both the park and the lodge have the reputation as being failures. Getting anyone to pour “more good money after bad” is an extremely hard sell considering the year Disney just had. And before anyone starts screaming about ‘Everest’ – remember the it’s a hacked-budget version of the original ‘Journey to the Center of the Earth’ attraction which was in turn a hacked-budget replacement for the original Beastly Kingdom area. ‘Everest’ is simply the lowest cost approach Disney can come up with to jolt attendance.

The Lodge is WDW’s most problematic deluxe resort. The DVC rumors you’re reading about are mostly likely coming from an idea of turning some of the existing hotel space into DVC units. Disney can’t fill the existing Lodge, so it’s better to find another use for those empty rooms. If people can be conned, er, I mean convinced to “buy” them – it’s a huge benefit for Disney.

The cost of building a cannel suitable for a boat is pretty cheap. It’s just that it won’t generate any real revenue because people see its only purpose is to move people from a hotel no one stays at to a park no one visits. WDW is run as a cash machine to fund the rest of the company. Nothing is going to be built unless is returns instant money back to Corporate (if I remember correctly, the debt Disney took over when it bought Fox Family was roughly the same as the combined cost of Animal Kingdom and the Lodge).

Thank You Captain Negative. Only you could look at Everest as a bad thing. I would hardly call the lodge (or AK a failure). I guess you have never tried to get a last minute room at the lodge. While they don't charge as much as other deluxe resorts the hotel is often very busy and many times full. I really wonder sometimes where you get your "facts."

 

[bicker]

Thank You Captain Negative.

Hehe... I'll have to remember that one!

 

[MainStreetFan]

I was taken on a tour of one of the refurbished rooms at the CR a couple of weeks ago and while walking up to the room, the concierge told us the North tower would be torn down and a 5 story DVC building would replace it. I haven't seen any rehab work on that building, only the tower and south building. This would seem to back up what he told us.

 

[SoCalKDG]

It’s more likely the real reasons have more to do with corporate politics than with “prohibitive costs”.

Both the park and the lodge have the reputation as being failures. Getting anyone to pour “more good money after bad” is an extremely hard sell considering the year Disney just had. And before anyone starts screaming about ‘Everest’ – remember the it’s a hacked-budget version of the original ‘Journey to the Center of the Earth’ attraction which was in turn a hacked-budget replacement for the original Beastly Kingdom area. ‘Everest’ is simply the lowest cost approach Disney can come up with to jolt attendance.

$100 million doesn't seem like the lowest cost they could have come up with. Then they have the additional cost of changing the Tarzan Theater, doesn't seem that cheap. Looks like they are going to get their money's worth as well with initial reviews seeing the ride as a souped up version of BTMRR with que theming that is as good as it gets. I see AK eventually passing DS in attendance if they don't get some new rides into DS.