New Poly Tower

[DVCsloth]

It seems to me the main reason they made VGF2 the same association is to give people the option of 1br and larger as well as the option of staying in VGF1 building. Don't see DVC making Poly2 the same, there is no benefit to them doing so. This will be a new resort, so it will most likely be a new association. More than likely similar to BRV, CCV.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Don't see DVC making Poly2 the same, there is no benefit to them doing so.

What? The benefit is selling contracts that expire in 2066 for the same price as what they'd get for contracts that expire in 2074.

 

[DVCsloth]

What? The benefit is selling contracts that expire in 2066 for the same price as what they'd get for contracts that expire in 2074.

This is true but, only problem is. I wouldn't be thrilled about 4 million points or however many Poly points there are including very point hungry cabins being able to book at 11 months.
This is going to be a new resort so it should be 50 years.
ETA, referring to buying Poly2 at $225 or so and having all those contracts being able to book at 11 months. VGF2 did it because they wanted to show a variety of accommodations with kitchenettes, full kitchens etc. Now they just added hotel rooms, not really DVC Villas.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

This is true but, only problem is. I wouldn't be thrilled about 4 million points or however many Poly points there are including very point hungry cabins being able to book at 11 months.
This is going to be a new resort so it should be 50 years.

There is absolutely no reason why this is guaranteed to be any more of a "new resort" than VGF2. None whatsoever.

Maybe it will be, and maybe it won't. But acting like it's a forgone conclusion is a leap based on nothing.

 

[DVCsloth]

There is absolutely no reason why this is guaranteed to be any more of a "new resort" than VGF2. None whatsoever.

Maybe it will be, and maybe it won't. But acting like it's a forgone conclusion is a leap based on nothing.

Looks like it is going to be a new resort to me. Obviously, I don't know what they are going to do, Disney may not even be sure yet.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Disney may not even be sure yet.

I think that's likely. I wouldn't be shocked if they're using VGF2 sales data to inform the decision.

 

[BeachClub2014]

I've heard very credible rumors that it will be a new association with resale restrictions. At least that's what Madam Leota told me in a dream, so it must be true. Right?

 

[Sandisw]

What? The benefit is selling contracts that expire in 2066 for the same price as what they'd get for contracts that expire in 2074.

But they don't have to make Poly tower a 50 year contract. It can be 44 years and still be a new association. If they are finding that VGF is selling well without the 50 years, we could see them decide it is not needed for Poly tower so they can match it to end with PVB.

I could see a new association, resale restrictions, and the shorter contract all happening.

 

[DVCsloth]

But they don't have to make Poly tower a 50 year contract. It can be 44 years and still be a new association. If they are finding that VGF is selling well without the 50 years, we could see them decide it is not needed for Poly tower so they can match it to end with PVB.

I could see a new association, resale restrictions, and the shorter contract all happening.

Probably make is less confusing if they do expire at the same time.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

But they don't have to make Poly tower a 50 year contract. It can be 44 years and still be a new association. If they are finding that VGF is selling well without the 50 years, we could see them decide it is not needed for Poly tower so they can match it to end with PVB.

I could see a new association, resale restrictions, and the shorter contract all happening.

If their preference is "new association," why wouldn't they have made VGF2 a new association too? I don't see any material difference between the two. VGF2 JUST happened, and by all accounts it's working. So why wouldn't they do the same thing?

 

[Paul Stupin]

If Poly 2 is a separate association it will almost be guaranteed to have resale restrictions which may very likely make Poly 1 more desirable overall even if a resale buyer can’t stay at the new tower. Poly 2 sales incentives will only be short term in nature, the minute it sells out, Poly 1 resale might be the best bargain. Also Poly 1 value might be insulated by the fact that longer dated rentals there sell at a premium since a lot of renter are just looking for a studio.

Maybe. Again, this is just my opinion, but Poly1 for me looks and feels a bit old and outdated, while the new tower will present a far more attractive and contemporary option. Owning in Poly1 would make me feel like a second class citizen, and I don’t think I’d be the only one to feel that way. Also, I’m not sure the average direct buyer really cares about resale restrictions, since they don’t affect their ability to book elsewhere.

I don’t think VGF2’s sales will make a bit of difference in DVC’s decision to create a new association and impose resale restrictions. DLT will have the same restrictions, and sell like hotcakes. So will Poly2.

 

[BeachClub2014]

The difference is that one is a flip of under used and refurbed hotel rooms and the other will be a whole new tower.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The difference is that one is a flip of under used and refurbed hotel rooms and the other will be a whole new tower.

None of that is relevant to the decision.

It doesn't matter if the refurb cost $50 and the new construction cost $500 million. Disney isn't going to say "wow it was so cheap to flip Big Pine Key that we're going to sell those points in a less-than-ideal structure."

No. If Disney's preference is new resort with resale restrictions, they would have sold VGF2 as a new resort with resale restrictions no matter how much that refurb cost or didn't cost.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Maybe. Again, this is just my opinion, but Poly1 for me looks and feels a bit old and outdated, while the new tower will present a far more attractive and contemporary option. Owning in Poly1 would make me feel like a second class citizen, and I don’t think I’d be the only one to feel that way. Also, I’m not sure the average direct buyer really cares about resale restrictions, since they don’t affect their ability to book elsewhere.

I don’t think VGF2’s sales will make a bit of difference in DVC’s decision to create a new association and impose resale restrictions. DLT will have the same restrictions, and sell like hotcakes. So will Poly2.

I think you guys are severely underestimating the degree to which they're unhappy with Riviera's performance.

 

[BeachClub2014]

None of that is relevant to the decision.

It doesn't matter if the refurb cost $50 and the new construction cost $500 million. Disney isn't going to say "wow it was so cheap to flip Big Pine Key that we're going to sell those points in a less-than-ideal structure."

No. If Disney's preference is new resort with resale restrictions, they would have sold VGF2 as a new resort with resale restrictions no matter how much that refurb cost or didn't cost.

Uh huh. Believe what you may, but Madam Leota said differently

 

[Sandisw]

If their preference is "new association," why wouldn't they have made VGF2 a new association too? I don't see any material difference between the two. VGF2 JUST happened, and by all accounts it's working. So why wouldn't they do the same thing?

Because they wanted something to be done quickly and easy. I also don't think they wanted to have another studio only resort. DLT will be studio heavy, but I don't count that because that is the nature of trips to DL....shorter stays... VGF was small and so adding these rooms to it kept it manageable. While they discuss the new studios, they sell the entire resort and the ability to book all room sizes.

We have still not seen how well the sales are going with new buyers yet, so we really don't know how its stacking up against RIV.. Again, if they want to keep the long term game of resale restrictions...then this will make sense to make it new and I don't think it will have any problem selling.

I just think it made sense to add the renovated hotel building to VGF...which did have studio issues for booking...so now that resort can meet the demand the current building could not. Plus, the buildings were pretty close to each other.

Poly tower is going to be on the entire different side of the resort than PVB, so it lends itself well to being a new condo association. It makes sense to me that this will happen and as I have said, the title and every thing I have read mention coming to the Poly Village Resort, not Poly Villas and Bungalows...that alone leads me to believe they may make it new...or at the very least, don't want anyone to know which way it will go.

 

[Sandisw]

I think you guys are severely underestimating the degree to which they're unhappy with Riviera's performance.

We can agree to disagree on that one, based on information I have heard.

 

[Bjaiken77]

But they don't have to make Poly tower a 50 year contract. It can be 44 years and still be a new association. If they are finding that VGF is selling well without the 50 years, we could see them decide it is not needed for Poly tower so they can match it to end with PVB.

I could see a new association, resale restrictions, and the shorter contract all happening.

Selfishly, I’m happy they didn’t do this with VGF2. It gives me more options. But I think it would have been more fair to existing owners had they done this.

Everything is just so unpredictable right now: Resale restrictions (or not), new building or convert existing, same association or different. As someone who is a planner (and I assume most DVC people are), it’s hard to know what to expect and feel like you are making informed decisions.

 

[BeachClub2014]

I think you guys are severely underestimating the degree to which they're unhappy with Riviera's performance.

I'm not. I don't think we have any inside knowledge or empirical evidence to know whether they are pleased or displeased.

 

[Paul Stupin]

If their preference is "new association," why wouldn't they have made VGF2 a new association too? I don't see any material difference between the two. VGF2 JUST happened, and by all accounts it's working. So why wouldn't they do the same thing?

I think there’s a huge difference between the two. It’s one thing to flip an underused hotel wing with a quick, relatively insubstantial three month refurb, and something entirely different to design and construct what appears to be a compact but entirely new resort, with new restaurants, quick service, pools, conversation areas, different room types, etc. And by the time Poly2 opens, DLT will have just happened, and have more than healthy sales with a new round of resale restrictions.