New Four Seasons Timeshare on Disney Property and Value Oriented West Side

[LuvDuke]

Nothing is pixie-dust. It doesn't exist. Disney sells, or did sell, a show, an experience, entertainment. Food and lodging can very much be a part of that, as the Poly and Contemporary are.

Tinkerbell doesn't exist and neither does Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Dumbo, Goofy, Pluto, Donald Duck, or any of the other characters that are the backbone of the Disney "pixie-dust" industry. That was the point.

No one goes to WDW to buy a new pair of shoes or a new suit. They go to WDW to be enchanted. That enchantment comes from "pixie-dust". That is Disney's product. All the slick merchandising in the world will not make up for an experience at WDW that doesn't leave one enchanted and wanting more.

My point is that Disney spread itself too thin at the expense of "pixie-dust". No company can do everything well. Disney should've concentrated at what it does best and leave the rest, like hotel management, to other companies who do that best.

That is the point.

Now, I agree that they have gotten away from that, but moving further away from it is not the answer.

Well trying to be all things to all people isn't going to get Disney any closer to what they once were either.

 

[YoHo]

I've read Disney War too. It didn't say any of that.

 

[DisneyKidds]

The Disney World Contempo Bay Resort and The Polynesian Village Resort (now known as Disney's Contemporary Resort and Disney's Polynesian Resort) were origionally owned by the US Steel. The first resort owned by Disney anywhere was...Fort Wilderness. Having "outsourced" hotels is not a new concept in Disney.

Just like with MJ, I'm going to have to ask you to source your information. I hope you can do a little better than he did.

The Contemporary Resort and Polynesian Resort were two of the five major resort hotels planned for Walt Disney World's five year Phase One. WED (Walter Elias Disney) Enterprises helped design the resorts along with Welton Becket and Associates, in partnership with US Steel. Disney never has been and never will be a construction company. Specifically, US Steel Realty Development, a subsidairy of US Steel, was the construction contractor. It was WED Enterprises that helped conceive the unitized modular construction technique that was employed. However, the resorts were always part of the plan for WDW, and they were owned and operated by Disney. That is very different from what is happening with the Four Seasons Resort. So I believe you are incorrect when it comes to the CR and the Poly, but I look forward to reviewing your sources.

 

[crazy4wdw]

From 1974 when it opened until just a few years ago, Space Mountain was paid for by FedEx.

Actually, Space Mountain was initially sponsored by RCA.

 

[CanadianGuy]

Just like with MJ, I'm going to have to ask you to source your information. I hope you can do a little better than he did.

Specifically, US Steel Realty Development, a subsidairy of US Steel, was the construction contractor. It was WED Enterprises that helped conceive the unitized modular construction technique that was employed. However, the resorts were always part of the plan for WDW, and they were owned and operated by Disney. That is very different from what is happening with the Four Seasons Resort. So I believe you are incorrect when it comes to the CR and the Poly, but I look forward to reviewing your sources.

I don't want to speak for another poster.. but I think what's being alluded to.. is when the resorts first opened.. the buildings were still owned by U.S. steel for a brief period of time (some number of months) before Disney 'taking ownership'. Methinks he was attemping to inject some much needed levity. Perhaps.

Either way.. the fact remains there are plenty of other (at least 9 by my count; not counting Shades of Green) hotels on WDW property not owned and operated by Disney... for whom Disney sets standards and from whom.. Disney takes "a slice". (be it big or small) And some of those deals date back 30+ years.

As for MJ's source material.. On page 63 of Disney War (Stewart) .. the author says that during the time of the Tishman-Starwood deal... and during a discussion of a potential alliance with Marriott hotels, E. Cardon (Card) Walker...

"... brushed aside their suggestion that Disney might want to build and operate more hotels.

"Disney is not in the hotel business, its in the theme-park business."

"Why is that?", Marriott asked.

Walker seemed surprised by the question, "That's the way we do things," he said.

In that same paragraph Mr. Walker is identified as as knowing the "old Disney culture." Further, given that on page 41, that same Mr. Walker, is referred to as one of "two personal allies" that Walt had installed at the company during his conflicts with Roy O. Disney and on page 45 is referred to as follows:

"As the ultimate arbiter of what Walt would have done, Walker's influence (at Disney) was pervasive"

Given that reading, one might successfully argue he would be as well positioned as anyone to understand Walt's original intentions .. when he made the comments about the hotel business quoted above. It is especially telling to me that the bulk of the Disney owned resort holdings were not built until Mr. Walker retired from the company (1983) and was no longer a consultant to the company (1990).

I personally happen to think he would be in a position to know what Walt's intentions were and I think his opinions would mirror those... at least as much as he *thought* he knew what they were. And IF it was in Walt's intentions to be in the hotel business beyond the ones planned to be theme-park adjacent [*] around Bay Lake and the Seven Seas Lagoon (most of which were never built), they were some slow off the mark building the next hotels that followed the initial Poly, Contemporary and Fort Wilderness resorts.

If you're going to take the LONG view.. Disney being firmly in the hotel business is a fairly recent development. Disney controlled just three (four if you count the former Disney Inn/now SOG) resorts in Florida till the mid to late 80's when they began seriously building out other resorts on-property and running all the day to day operations of those new resorts themselves. And until the early-to-mid nineties, when new Disney resorts started coming on strong, the number of third party hotels on-property outnumbered the Disney-owned resorts! Significantly.

Thus, from a historical perspective, you *could* argue this deal is a return to Disney's roots.

But whatever. In all seriousness, Walt's intentions or lack thereof for hotels.. whether he wanted to be in the business or not originally, the company now IS. Walt's intentions would have been based on business plans from 45 or more years ago and would be majorly out of date at this point. Walt's hotel intentions just don't matter in todays business cliimate because too much has changed. They DO have Disney owned hotels AND they DO have 3rd party hotels on-property today. They are there. Its a fact.

Either way, the man has been dead coming up on 41 years and he won't be coming back anytime soon to run the company and set things "right"... whatever your definition of "right" is. It is very easy to love someone who is dead. They make so few mistakes.

Those who have run the company over the years and previously built third party hotels on property set the stage for this deal. Not Eisner, definitely not Iger and since he was dead before the Florida development got built .. most definitely not Walt directly.

Who exactly did that? Well, as I noted, it wasn't Eisner. Eisner didn't want the Swan & Dolphin deal to go thru. He thought Disney could build and run the resorts themselves. Actually it was conceived and approved by someone much closer to Walt. That was a deal that was approved by Eisner's predecessor, Frank Miller, Walt Disney's son-in-law. Frank maybe wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but Walt was very fond of him and they were close. And since Frank was at the time married to Walt's daughter and Lillian was still alive... It seems fair to say THAT 3rd party hotel deal had the Disney family approval.

And Walt's close ally, Mr. Walker was there (in fact he was Chairman I believe) for the conception and approval of the initial Starwood deal before retiring... and he was a top executive during the decision making for the DTD hotels in the 70's. We know from his quote above that, he didn't approve of more Disney owned hotels, so it stands to reason he probably approved of the Starwood deal; or at least he didn't object strenuously enough to stop it cold. With his deep history with the company and as Chairman he could have easily invoked Walt's memory and done so.

And the DTD hotels were also approved by the Disney family (Roy O, Roy E, Lillian and Dianne presumeably). At the time they controlled a huge number of shares equating to roughly 14 to 16 % of the company. They could have stopped the DTD hotels if they felt they were off the mark for Walt's vision.

So why would anyone be shocked when, as I noted above, they add one or three more third party hotels. Last I checked Roy E was still alive and still owned the third largest parcel of individually-held stock with 1%.. I'm sure he's at least looked at this... and given how vocal he's been in the past when someone or something displeased him... I think it is also fair to say this deal has his tacit approval.

Given all that information, I fail to see that a logical extension of adding yet one more 3rd party hotel.. (and potentially one or two more down at the Western Development) is the end of everything for which the Disney name and Disney family has stood over the years... especially given the Disney family history of having approved 3rd party hotel providers at both Disneyland and Disney World .. and doubly-especially (ha ha) given that both of the proposed developments, in theory, won't compete directly (on a rate basis) with other already existing offerings from Disney.

These properties will compete with resorts, motels and hotels off-property that currently do quite well and from whom Disney doesn't currently see a dime in hotel revenue. The Four Seasons in particular will compete rather effectively with.. and be a regal snub to.. the non-Disney but awfully close to Disney, Bonnet Creek development which will see a new Hilton, Waldorf Astoria and the existing Fairfield time share when all is said and done.


Knox


[*] - Side Note - I think it IS worth distinguishing between the limited number of resorts that were initially planned to be proximate to the Magic Kingdom and the larger current reality of the entire development being home to resorts and time-shares all over the property. "Being in the hotel business" has different meanings based on scale. Personally, I believe that Walt never envisioned being the major hotelier the company is today .. controlling 25,000+ hotel rooms. I think his vision was more limited to the theme-park adjacent properties and possibly something similar near or inside the Epcot development he originally envisioned (vs. the one that was built).

 

[MassJester]

Thanks for looking it up for me--I've got an amazing amount of work before my Houston trip.

 

[MassJester]

I've read Disney War too. It didn't say any of that.

Perhaps a second read is in order.

 

[YoHo]

E. Cardon (Card) Walker...

Ah , I understand the problem.

That's a complete misreading of that section of the book and Walker.

E. Cardon (Card) Walker was a good friend of Walt's, but he simply never understood what make the Disney company work. He constantly hamstrung Ron Miller, he insulted Roy (who may or may not have deserved it).

He simply never understood the Florida project. Looking through everything he did, from vetoing any increase in the parking price to fighting against Touchstone. He did not ever understand anything. The point of that section of the book was to show how bad Walker was for Disney.

 

[CanadianGuy]

Fair enough.. but it also points to the prevailing attitudes within Disney about not building more hotels... and bad for Disney or not.. his opinions were listened to.. clearly.. since no new hotels were built till the late 80's early 90's.

I'm not arguing this guy was a genius -- I sincerely don't think he was. But I think he DID perceive himself (and others believed him) to be the keeper of Walt's flame to a degree. (rightly or wrongly -- who knows)

Walt himself often argued about keeping things affordable. He may have made that same argument about parking costs.


Knox

 

[YoHo]

Actually WED saw itself as the keepers of the flame. And he didn't argue for keeping things affordable, he argued for keeping them static. As if the world stopped turning the day Walt died. He was the one that was afraid.

Further, After Contemp, Poly and the Campground were built, Disney built the Golf resort.

Disney had two other resorts on the drawing boards. Two resorts that Walt Disney helped lay out.

And the treehouses that became the institue.

 

[DisneyKidds]

An even if, for arguments sake, we accept that Card Walker was reflecting Walt's beliefs and values in saying that "Disney is not in the hotel business", meaning in the context of the current negotiation that they weren't in the business of becoming the next Marriott (which I agree), it's a heck of a stretch, a foolish stretch really, to say that Walt wanted no part of any hotel business. He may not have wanted a Disney hotel on every street corner throughout Florida, but he sure as heck wanted specific Disney themed resorts to be part of the Walt Disney World Resort. And lest we forget, the hotels that Walt himslef included in the Master Plan were intended to be extensions of the Magic Kingdom. The CR an extension of Tomorrowland, the Poly and extension of Adventureland, etc. I actually agree Disney has severly overbuild resorts on property, but that doesn't equate to 'Disney shouldn't have any and Walt wanted none'.

Either way.. the fact remains there are plenty of other (at least 9 by my count; not counting Shades of Green) hotels on WDW property not owned and operated by Disney... for whom Disney sets standards and from whom.. Disney takes "a slice". (be it big or small) And some of those deals date back 30+ years.

Sure, that is a fact.....but you have to view those facts witht he knowledge that Walt always intended for there to be more hotels than the five he planned around the Seven Seas Lagoon. He also never intended to own and operate those hotels, that is true enough. The Seventh Preliminary Master Plot Plan, sketched by Walt himself, always had a section for motels, farther removed from the park. I'm sure he recognized there would be a need and desire for smaller, more affordable lodgings, but that isn't a business he wanted to be in. But he most certainly wanted to be in the business of having highly themed resorts extensions of his theme park as part of his theme park business. Using the Downtown Diseny hotels as a the basis for saying Disney always farmed out their resort hotel operations is an extremely specious argument. And equating what is happening with Four Seasosn (a full service resort smack dab in the middle of prime real estate a relative stone's throw from the MK) to the far removed Downtown Disney hotels (just that, hotels and not full service resorts the likes of the CR and Poly, or Four Seasons) out on the berm is a very tenuous argument.

I respect both your attemps to further your arguments, but you need to look closer and stop trying to make square pegs fit round holes.

 

[CanadianGuy]

The Seventh Preliminary Master Plot Plan, sketched by Walt himself, always had a section for motels, farther removed from the park. I'm sure he recognized there would be a need and desire for smaller, more affordable lodgings, but that isn't a business he wanted to be in.

So does that mean the Western Development would have been 'ok by Walt?' Or does it mean he would NOT have approved the value resorts? Who can possibly know?

For the record, I never said that the DTD hotels were an example of them "always" farming out hotel operations. I used them as an example of them "sometimes" farming out hotel operations over the years. There are explanations for why Disney did what it did in the 70's.. more explanations for what they did in the 80's. But explanations aside .. they really didn't get 'into the hotel business' in the big way till post 1987.

They controlled three highly themed resorts and a golf resort. (counting Disney Inn). For on-property, on the number of resort properties basis and on a room count basis.. Disney resorts were outnumbered by third party hotels at least 2.5 to one. For some time now, Disney has had plenty enough cash to be able to buy out the deals and bull-doze the DTD hotels... or take over the Swan/Dolphin deal. They *could* do that if they were serious about getting third party resorts off their land. They don't care. It's money they receive without lifting a finger for the most part.

I don't think that's the core point here tho. It's a supporting point. The fact remains the Disney family and later, Disney Corporate (for reasons we all know) have allowed third party resorts at their parks since day one. They continued that in Florida. And they repeated in the 80s. And repeated for EuroDisney to a lesser degree.

Actually.. if you think about it.. with this Four Seasons deal Disney is responding to the Bonnet Creek development. Plain and simple.

That is 'just a stones throw' from some of the parks. It will have four and five star properties and a high end time share and Disney has zero control over that property. They've tried to block it from access to Reedy Creek Improvement District roads.. and failed. Clearly this is a sore point for Disney.

My opinion is that Disney cannot do a five star hotel. History tells us they have tried and they have failed. And like hiim or not, Eisner was fully supporting the Grand Floridian at the highest levels of the company .. so why did it fail to get its designation? I dunno. Maybe you can enlighten me here, I really don't know.

Elsewhere in this thread the subject of exclusive-access was raised. Disney would have a hard time creating a resort and barring other guests from even visiting the grounds of that resort. It would be very un-Disney. Four Seasons knows how to do that and can do that.

You disagree with my thinking. Fair enough. Despite our disagreement, Four Seasons will -- in all likelihood -- not fail.

And my point remains.. I don't see how adding a few more 3rd party hotels.. when there are so many 3rd party hotels on-property and several new ones so close that may as well be considered on-property .. is the end of all the Disney name and family stood for. I'm being accused of stretching an argument. I'll accept that cause I did so intentionally to make a point. But others in this thread have stretched their argument that this deal is the end of the "World" as we know it. I won't accept that.

I understand you may not like it for emotional reasons. Fair enough. But there is plenty of precedent for this deal .. the really big news to me is the privately owned homes.

Speaking of which -- I've heard some of those are actually going over by the Western Development (as Conc alluded to earlier in this thread) .. and the fractionals are going by the timeshare property.

Can anyone shed any light on this?


Knox

 

[ConcKahuna]

Here's a great sketch by Walt of the "Florida Project"...

As you can see, he planned for a lot of different stuff. He was also known for saying that he wanted to provide accomidations for "Every taste and budget, from suites to sleeping bags."

 

[YoHo]

Nobody should be disagreeing that Walt and Walt Disney Studios was willing to allow others to handle segments of the Hotel and Motel market. That much is clear. The problem is the position that this fact is being used to support.
You say Disney was out roomed 2.5 to one, but pre-eisner Disney had 2 additional Hotels of the size of Poly on the drawing board.

Further, you're essentially saying that the Disney resorts are effectivly equivelent to any random Hotel circle Hotel.

This is simply not true.

The Disney resorts were themed extensions of the Magic Kingdom. They were intended as an integral part of that park. Eisner ruined all that, but fundimentally they were invisioned as a part of that, not a seperate venture.
In the early days before the trees filled in, you really could see the Polynesian from adventureland.

The problem with this conversation is that we're talking on two different levels and jumbling them up.

There's the question of what Disney should be doing vis-a-vis what Walt wanted WDW to be. In that case, it's not that the Four Seasons is involved, it the the location and the DeAnnexation.
The second question is the more immediate question of why Disney isn't doing it themselves.

The second question is not very interesting to me, because truth be told, I'd just as soon Disney stuck to building resorts in the style of the deluxes and let all other market segments be served by someone else. I don't like the Values at all and some of the moderates are OK, but would be better as Deluxes. However, I also don't want to see prime realestate being taken up by these Hotels. The offbrand Hotel area is afterall Isolated.


The First issue is the big concern, because Disney is giving up. And let's not be confused here. There's a difference here between "What the Master plan said and what WDW became. We're talking about a shift in corporate philosophy.

In the 1970s, If Disney had wanted to build a 5 star resort or be involved in a broader Hotel market, They would have attacked the problem and figured out how to do so. A can do attitude, Very much the core of the spirit that the company was created with.

in 2007, Disney is merely searching for how to make money. It's run be someone who distributes, not someone who creates. Nobody should be upset that Disney is outsourcing a level of Hotel service that they have no interest in developing themselves.

You should be upset that Disney is giving up on that land, that Disney is removing 900 acres of hope and dreams and a better tomorrow.

If Disney were doing this to enable them to return to the Spirit of EPCOT, the spirit that made Walt Disney World the incredible place it is, then I would Say SELL AWAY. I wouldn't be too thrilled that FS is partially owned by someone known to fund radical islamic terrorists I guess, but that's neither here nor there.
No, I'd be excvited for what Disney was going to create. I wouldn't be able to wait.


Disney doesn't sell what made them a great American company any more, but you can probably buy a snowglobe of it in the gift shop.

 

[CanadianGuy]

Good points all..

Yes they had all kinds of things on the drawing board. And no doubt they still do today.

But they didn't even so much as break ground on any of them before Eisner got there. He built the Grand Floridian.. he was very involved in it.

And a little thinking .. leads me to this...

Roy E. Disney wrote in his letter of resignation from the board..

The creative atmosphere for which the Company has so long been famous and on which it prides itself has, in my opinion, become stagnant. I do not believe it is a place where I, and perhaps others, can realize our creative capacities. Motion pictures and the fund of new ideas they are capable of generating have always been the fountainhead of the Company; but present management continues to make and remake the same kind of motion picture, with less and less criticial and box-office success... The Company is no longer sensitive to its creative heritage. Rather it has substituted short range benefits... for long range creative planning.

Now.. what's interesting about THAT resignation letter, was that it was written in March of 1977. Man that guy sure resigns a lot. he was right then for sure. Thirty years ago he was making the same arguments about short-sighted planning and just doing things for financial gain and not long-term value.

If you look at Walt Disney Productions slate of releases and TV movies from 1972 to 1977.. it's a pretty sorry collection for the most part. A few bright spots.. but little to cheer about. I personally don't think that "Brother Bear" is better or worse than "Robin Hood." But I do personally think that Aladdin, Beauty & The Beast and The Little Mermaid are much better than The Rescuers.

Roy could write that same letter today about any number of different divisions in the company and in the eyes of many, he'd be correct to do so.

Clearly this argument over the way Disney does things has been going on in various divisions for decades. I happen to think that the Grand Floridian (designed and built under Eisner) actually continued the tradition of Disney's themed resorts. In fact, I think that a number of things (not everything) that happened under Eisner were pretty good. I realize you may not. Whatever might be thought about Eisner, I simply cannot agree that the last 30 years of Disney has been nothing but mistake after mistake. I suspect Disney is cyclical like most companies.. they have highs and lows. Are we in a low? Dunno. Ironically in 5 10 or 15 years we may look back on this time and perceive it as a high point.

Given the very long history of this very argument.. with the same points being made on both sides for over 30 years, and despite our mutual best efforts, I doubt very much we're going to convince the other of very much or come to agreement about it on this message board.

Knox

 

[YoHo]

Oooo, I happen to know that AV's gonna be gone for a month or so which is too bad, because he'd have a field day.
I can't speak with the same Authority, but I'll try to muddle through.

I don't really care what Roy's resignation letter said. Roy's an idiot.
Roy E. Disney was hated by Card Walker and was considered no great shakes by his uncle. He was constantly being shut out. Roy was pretty bitter about that, not surprisingly. He thought he was a great director, he thought he deserved more. What that letter is really saying is that He doesn't think the Disney company is creative, because they wouldn't give him any respect.
It's a self fullfilling lie.
Roy E. Disney didn't start the stock fight because he thought Disney was doomed, he started it because he felt he deserved to be in power.
He didn't like Ron Miller, he hated Card Walker, He was gonna show them by G-d.


The fact of the matter is this.
After Walt died, Walt Disney productions was lost and adrift. If you watch the Animated movies of the time, you see a melancholy in the execution of them. They're just a little less exhuberant compared to what came before.

Ron Miller changed all that. Ron Miller, Walt's son in law was Walt's chosen heir. Ron created Touchstone Pictures, Ron made Splash, the movie that put Walt Disney Productions back on that map. Ron first broached the subject of Video sales. Ron went to Eisner and asked him to come run the studio. The Little Mermaid was first pitched and started story work when Ron was in charge. Ron suggested that parking and other prices be raised to compensate for inflation.

Ron Miller did all these things. Card Walker was a constant impediment to some of these things, But in the early 80s, Card stepped down and Ron was finally able to bring the Walt Disney Studios into it's own.....and in steps cousin Roy with a chip on his shoulder. So now, we'll never know what TDC would have looked like under Walt's chosen successor.

The First thing Eisner and Wells did was go after all the things Ron wanted to do. The continued on the success of Splash. They made The Little Mermaid (despite the fact that Eisner hated the very idea, his idea was Olvier and company) They raised prices, they sold videos (over Roy's strenuous protests).
Everything Ron Miller had wanted to do, they did and got all the credit. The low hanging fruit. The easy stuff.


As for the Grand Floridian....You've got to be kidding me right? The Grand Floridian is nothing like the classic Disney resort.

That location was originally supposed to be the Asian I think, or the Persian. I'm sure somebody remembers better then I do. Anyway, for over 10 years, Disney had plans for that location to be a very specific resort. Eisner wanted a 5 star resort instead so the right kinda of people, the park avenue set, would be able to give him money too. So they took the Hotel Del, and made it boxy. They tried to emulate the kind of place that your typical wealthy east coast 5 star hotel going person would want to stay at. There's nothing magical about that. They replaced a hotel that would spark a sense of adventure and mystery with an oversized replica of what any visitor to California can see. And they didn't even manage to ge tthe 5 star rating.

 

[CanadianGuy]

So.. I understand.

The argument seems to be "Disney ain't what it used to be."

And Ron Miller days is the time when everything was so much better? Do I have that right? Ron did some good things but ....

Ron's Little Mermaid and the one that hit theatres.. not even close to being the same. So that's kind of an empty argument in my books.

I didn't even like Oliver & Co. But the film made money... so obviously some people liked it. Nevermind, I don't wanna argue a point based on that movie. It blows.

There is a much bigger chasm here than I thought. I shall stop here before this devolves. We disagree on fundamentals so what's the point in debating details.

Knox

 

[YoHo]

It wasn't all butterscotch and Ponies when Ron Miller was in charge, no, but WED had a master plan for WDW and they were working on righting the Movie business.

The idea that the company was in any sort of creative danger is a corporate lie.

 

[Another Voice]

I’m dead yet…


For all the Disney history being slung around – there is a stunning lack of understanding any of it.

Card Walker was many things – the true knower what Walt would have done isn’t one of them.

I mean, if Walt hated being in the hotel business, what was his whole Mineral King project about? Walt dying to get in ski rental equipment business?

The reason Disney didn’t want to build the convention hotels (the Marriott project that became the Swan and Dolphin) was that all of the company’s capital had been tied up in EPCOT Center. There was no way they could have produced a (then) Disney-quality resort.

Of course, Disney’s standards have radically fallen today –all that’s needed for “Disney quality” is a place to plug in the credit card swipe machine.

The “business” that Disney wanted to stay out of was conventions. EPCOT Center had made WDW attractive to normal adults and the demand for convention space at WDW was far outstripping the Contemporary’s merger offerings. Disney knew how to cater to families – it knew nothing about the expense account crowd. Given that the company was opening EPCOT Center, the Disney Channel, Tokyo Disneyland and preparing for a chain of retail stores at the time, becoming world class experts in convention management was just a little too much to handle, and a little too much outside the box for Card.

The convention center was to be located next to EPCOT Center because World Showcase would serve as the nighttime “Entertainment” center for all those happy convention goers and their happy company-paid per diem. Groups renting meeting space could also rent out a pavilion after park hours to host parties and receptions.


If you look at the renderings of the original E.P.C.O.T., the large central tower you see was a hotel. Yes – Walt wanted a hotel to anchor his community. All of the original E.P.C.O.T. was designed as a resort town along that were springing up in the Colorado ski areas and along the Florida coasts. I’ve heard one of the planning notes indicated they expected about 20,000 permenant resisdents (manily WDW employees and their families) and 10,000 guests to be in E.P.C.O.T.


The entire point of being in the hotel business for Disney was an extension of the theme parks. As I said (and which everyone ignored) – the theme parks are for a day, the hotels are the same experience for a week. They weren’t interested in offering plain lodging like the Best Westerns, Howard Johnson’s and Holiday Inns offered – nor was Disney ever interested in the mini-palaces to wipe the rears of the rich with expensive towels.


Disney is in entertainment. Let the land at WDW be used for that. Let Four Seasons destroy other swampland. There’s little place for imagination left in this world, it’s a crime for any of it to be destroyed for yet another fatfarm for the rich.

And like hiim or not, Eisner was fully supporting the Grand Floridian at the highest levels of the company .. so why did it fail to get its designation? I dunno. Maybe you can enlighten me here, I really don't know.[/quote
Simple.

The requirements for a five star resort – from Exxon, Michelin and AAA are well known. The original design for the Grand Floridian called for all of those elements. Eisner never liked the theme parks to any degree (you could actually say he hated them), but understood the role they had in keeping Disney afloat. Eisner supported the GF because he believed it was his best chance to get “the right kind of people”*, i.e., the weathly New York crowd – the come to WDW.

However, problems quickly developed at the resort and the budget skyrockected. Faced with spending the money to do things right or cutting back to keep his bonus growing – many “5-star” elements were cut from the resort. The saloon disappeared. The in-room billing and entertainment system disappeared. The average room size was cut. On and on the axe came down.

Eisner said the Disney “magic” and his wonderful servants, er, cast members would so impress the critics that 5 stars were guaranteed. That and a lot of extra cash on the side to people that needed it (remember, Exxon was a major sponsor at EPCOT Center, AAA makes huge amounts of money off selling WDW and Disneyland vacations).

Well, it turns out that in some company’s standards remained standards. Despite numerous appeals and lots of pleading, the guides stuck to the requirements list. It wasn’t that Disney tired and failed – it was Disney's decision not to meet the known standards.

And that too is the story Modern Disney – demanding people lower their expectations to match whatever Disney chooses to sell.



* - and yes, that is a direct quote. He’d use is again, years later, to describe the goals of California Adventure.

 

[MassJester]

I’m dead yet…

Of course, Disney’s standards have radically fallen today –all that’s needed for “Disney quality” is a place to plug in the credit card swipe machine.

Ok, I here that alot, in different iterations. So, when was the company running right, and how was that measured?