NEW DVC RESORT COMING

[Oozma_Kappa]

I read an article somewhere that they wanted to build a western theme of DVC's at River Country here http://www.disboards.com/threads/river-country.2344523/ but I don't follow the rumors as much as the finances and logistics of my upcoming trips! It would be a good location if it were true.

 

[Dean]

I read an article somewhere that they wanted to build a western theme of DVC's at River Country here http://www.disboards.com/threads/river-country.2344523/ but I don't follow the rumors as much as the finances and logistics of my upcoming trips! It would be a good location if it were true.

There was a rumor and plans leak for that resort. It would take out or force the move of the outdoor dinner theater and stable if I understood correctly. But at this point it's just a rumor. They've actually announced or been further along on a number of resorts that haven't panned out including Eagles Pines, Newport Coast, A larger/differnt Poly, larger VB, NYC resort, CO resort and previous HI option as a minimum. There probably are better options available to them if they want to keep adding resorts but we'll see.

 

[ColonialMouse]

Interesting question whether it was intentional. My impression is it was really hard to get a THV before the reallocation, but now they're pretty open well past 7 months. The current point structure doesn't seem unreasonable for what they are---you have to believe the remote location is a negative, I think, to argue they are over-valued. But clearly folks who bought just enough points for a one-week stay in a THV would be unhappy.

Bruce

 

[bobbiwoz]

Well, I remember a selling point for SSR was " ...and stay in a 3 bedroom treehouse for the same point cost as a 2 bedroom!" We bought at SSR before the tree houses were built.

That did not last long! We had 3 THV stays, they were wonderful, but I do not feel the need to book one at the current cost.

 

[tjkraz]

I read an article somewhere that they wanted to build a western theme of DVC's at River Country here http://www.disboards.com/threads/river-country.2344523/ but I don't follow the rumors as much as the finances and logistics of my upcoming trips! It would be a good location if it were true.

You can find plans and other info here:

http://dvcnews.com/index.php/resort...rts-89555/2480-ft-wilderness-dvc-plans-leaked

It didn't necessarily involve River Country, rather it was to have been build on Ft. Wilderness Grounds. There was speculation that the bigger project would have involved some reclamation of River Country as a resort amenity...but it is not included in any of these proposed DVC plans.

 

[disneynutz]

Well, I remember a selling point for SSR was " ...and stay in a 3 bedroom treehouse for the same point cost as a 2 bedroom!" We bought at SSR before the tree houses were built.

That did not last long! We had 3 THV stays, they were wonderful, but I do not feel the need to book one at the current cost.

So you remember that also? Glad that it wasn't only me!

Bill

 

[tjkraz]

Well, I remember a selling point for SSR was " ...and stay in a 3 bedroom treehouse for the same point cost as a 2 bedroom!"

Do you really think DVC sacrificed additional $$$ for that marketing spiel, though?

If DVC believed the treehouses could support higher costs, IMO they would have just started with higher point values and ultimately made more money off of the treehouses. DVC has NEVER shown any reluctance to push the envelope with regard to nightly point costs.

The treehouses certainly have their drawbacks so I don't think it was ever a foregone conclusion that demand would be dramatically higher than SSR 2B villas.

 

[tjkraz]

If one is to believe that the SSR treehouse reallocation was part of some long-term plan, then one also has to believe that the treehouses were intentionally under-priced.

To put numbers to it, the original annual cost for a single treehouse (cost to book every night of the year) was about 15,000 points. Today it's closer to 17,500 points. If Disney had launched all 60 treehouses with the higher values, it would have given them 150,000 more points to sell. At just $100 per point, that would have been added revenues of $15 million.

Yes, some guides were known to use the "stay in a treehouse for the same cost as a 2 bedroom" marketing spiel. But if you believe DVC did this intentionally--and always planned to increase costs of the treehouses--fact is they left $15 million on the table by not starting with higher rates.

 

[Dean]

If one is to believe that the SSR treehouse reallocation was part of some long-term plan, then one also has to believe that the treehouses were intentionally under-priced.

To put numbers to it, the original annual cost for a single treehouse (cost to book every night of the year) was about 15,000 points. Today it's closer to 17,500 points. If Disney had launched all 60 treehouses with the higher values, it would have given them 150,000 more points to sell. At just $100 per point, that would have been added revenues of $15 million.

Yes, some guides were known to use the "stay in a treehouse for the same cost as a 2 bedroom" marketing spiel. But if you believe DVC did this intentionally--and always planned to increase costs of the treehouses--fact is they left $15 million on the table by not starting with higher rates.

Or price to sell in a timely manner. I doubt they did it purposefully and intentionally but I'd guarantee they considered the option prior to setting the points at the time in part because they wanted it to sell faster.

 

[Lisa Ronan]

Not being a DVC member, how does the whole system work?

 

[kenban]

Yes, they have to have a zero sum when they reallocate. They did just the opposite with the THV, they sold them lower then raised the points there lowering the rest slightly. Some think they did it this way purposefully. If they reallocate at the Poly lowering the bungalows and raising the studios there will be many who feel this was also done purposefully.

There are 360 studios and only 20 Bungalows. Even assuming they reallocate a one point increase in a studio yields an 18 point decrease in a Bungalow. Any reallocation will not yield a huge swing in the points required for the studios because of the large disparity in the number of units.

 

[Dean]

There are 360 studios and only 20 Bungalows. Even assuming they reallocate a one point increase in a studio yields an 18 point decrease in a Bungalow. Any reallocation will not yield a huge swing in the points required for the studios because of the large disparity in the number of units.

Agreed though the Poly studios are already high on the points requirement. They have the responsibility to even out usage when there are clear patterns that are overly unequal.

 

[bwvBound]

Not being a DVC member, how does the whole system work?

A place to start: http://www.wdwinfo.com/disney-vacation-club/index.html

 

[Lori in CNY]

but now back to VWL...are there any other owners out there that really think we're getting a lousy deal?? Right now we've had our pool removed, our trees removed and lots and lots of construction going on. What are we gaining by it other than a whole lot more people to share our "amenities" with? What are we gaining?? Doesn't sound like a thing...we won't even have an 11 month booking window open up to us even after putting up with all the construction sites and sounds. When BC or BW have their pools being worked on their offered the use of another. We've gotten no such offer and all this with one of the smallest pool areas on property. Just doesn't seem right and there is no one being our advocate. I miss my old VWL.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

What are we gaining??

More people paying dues to maintain the shared amenities.

Honestly, you aren't losing anything in the longer term, unless they up the total capacity of the resort significantly. All amenities were already shared with WL guests.

 

[Dean]

More people paying dues to maintain the shared amenities.

Honestly, you aren't losing anything in the longer term, unless they up the total capacity of the resort significantly. All amenities were already shared with WL guests.

It looks like they will raise the capacity and the density some and likely increase shared costs. It should be a wash or close to it.

 

[hakepb]

but now back to VWL...are there any other owners out there that really think we're getting a lousy deal?? Right now we've had our pool removed, our trees removed and lots and lots of construction going on. What are we gaining by it other than a whole lot more people to share our "amenities" with? What are we gaining?? Doesn't sound like a thing...we won't even have an 11 month booking window open up to us even after putting up with all the construction sites and sounds. When BC or BW have their pools being worked on their offered the use of another. We've gotten no such offer and all this with one of the smallest pool areas on property. Just doesn't seem right and there is no one being our advocate. I miss my old VWL.

Do they offer other pools when a quiet pool is closed?
I was thinking the pool hopping was only offered when a feature pool was closed.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Do they offer other pools when a quiet pool is closed?
I was thinking the pool hopping was only offered when a feature pool was closed.

When they had the main pool closed at WL I think they offered a 1 day ticket to the water parks and perhaps hopping to CR? But no, I don't think it's normal to offer hopping for a closed quiet pool. They didn't at Poly when the Oasis pool was being redone. Of course, DVC members can pool hop so it's already offered albeit not because of the pool closure.

However, I too feel that current owners are paying some price for this new DVC addition simply in not having our normal amenities and having construction work going on continually for 1 1/2 to 2 years of what was originally a 42 year contract. That's almost 5% of the contract length. Or with 27 years remaining it's having the construction disruption for 7.5% of the remaining time. And while there are amenities that do not need maintenance during this time there hasn't been a corresponding decrease in the budget. If this was an addition to the existing I might accept some possible value with the room additions it but it is a separate project to make money for DVC and no offset yet seen for what we are losing during that time. I very much liked the resort as is so the change, IMO, wasn't necessary and actually removed my favorite quiet pool and I expect the replacement to be much busier.

 

[Lori in CNY]

More people paying dues to maintain the shared amenities.

Honestly, you aren't losing anything in the longer term, unless they up the total capacity of the resort significantly. All amenities were already shared with WL guests.

As I walked the sad shell of what used to be VWL and observed there is no pool, most walkways are closed, construction crew everywhere it still made me feel that I am giving up approximately 2 years of my deed (because who wants to stay there right now??) and gaining nothing if it is to be a new entity.

Oh wait...let me correct that by saying I am gaining the cost of what will need to be replaced as the construction workers were currently using our rooms in the present VWL site to hold their ladders, construction harnesses on the balcony, etc. and walking thru on the carpet with their muddy boots and work tools. I witnessed it myself.

 

[sleepydog25]

We stayed at VWL less than two months ago, and we had a superb experience despite missing the Hidden Springs pool and hot tub, the nature trail, and the beach area. This is one of those odd situations where an entire DVC resort has seen its calling cards--serenity, beauty, and nature--severely reduced for an extended amount of time. I don't know that such a situation has happened prior to VWL II, and I'm doubtful that once the build is over that the new overall feel will be the same. Certainly, current owners won't be compensated in any manner as, in the end, DVC is still providing resort suites. DVC will make money; VWL owners will complain to no avail; and the next generation of purchasers won't care. I don't think that's quite what was envisioned in the song, "Circle of Life."