Not to start any BLT rumors.......but.

[pinnocchiosdad]

My sister is at WDW this week. She was speaking with a CM about the construction at California Grill. They chatted about what else is new at CR and the CM hinted at a second tower on the garden wing next to the pool. I have heard this one before. We will see.

 

[CaliforniaDreaming]

I've heard this before, too, and honestly I wouldn't be shocked if they do it. They could probably even get away with calling it the Seven Seas Lagoon Tower. My only concern is what it would look like, as I really think another tower would take away from the look that the main tower has.

 

[SpaceMountain77]

Too me, it has always seemed highly unlikely that Disney's Contemporary Resort would remain asymmetrical; the addition of a second tower to balance the resort's skyline seems inevitable.

Rather than wonder if a second tower will be built, I wonder about the views it will afford. Right now, the Contemporary's facilities and receiving area is located on the south side of the iconic A-frame tower. From their balconies, guest will get a direct view of dumpsters and back of the house convention activity.

 

[csharpwv]

I really don't think they will add ANOTHER tower...

If they build a DVC portion for Poly... the monorail will be beyond max capacity. They aren't going to make longer monorails - and they can't do a double decker monorail without making a LOT of changes to existing infrastructure...

I really don't think the monorail could live with so much increased capacity.

Between BLT and the VGF... then increased capacity at the Poly if that build happens.... I just can't see them doing it unless they add some new type of transportation or limit monorail access to cash resort guests only.... (which also isn't going to happen...)

I just can't see them making another tower happen.

And as a PP said... the views would be awful - and i don't think there is quite as much space there.

The next that thing that needs to happen at the Contemporary is a new pool and recreation area... the pool that is there now lacks imagination IMHO!

 

[RoutemanDan]

OR, they could remove the monorails altogether after everything is built and sold...

 

[dayvewc]

OR, they could remove the monorails altogether after everything is built and sold...

NNNOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Where else would I get to sing the "Monorail" song from "The Simpsons"?

 

[disneymath]

OR, they could remove the monorails altogether after everything is built and sold...

That would truly be a horribly disappointing thing!
(Love the monorail; it's iconic Disney!)

Maybe (hopefully) they would just add more water ferries from the GF/Poly/CR-BLT.

If they did decommission the monorail, would it not give BLT/CR an advantage in being the only MK area resort with walking access to the park? I thought I read somewhere at some point in time that walking access wasn't a possibility from the GF and Poly.

 

[ssawka]

I had heard, most likely another rumor, but that they looked into the possibility of building another tower, but found that the ground on that side of the CR was not stable enough to support a high rise tower.

 

[disneynutz]

Too me, it has always seemed highly unlikely that Disney's Contemporary Resort would remain asymmetrical; the addition of a second tower to balance the resort's skyline seems inevitable.

Rather than wonder if a second tower will be built, I wonder about the views it will afford. Right now, the Contemporary's facilities and receiving area is located on the south side of the iconic A-frame tower. From their balconies, guest will get a direct view of dumpsters and back of the house convention activity.

Standard view?

Bill

 

[tjkraz]

Rather than wonder if a second tower will be built, I wonder about the views it will afford. Right now, the Contemporary's facilities and receiving area is located on the south side of the iconic A-frame tower. From their balconies, guest will get a direct view of dumpsters and back of the house convention activity.

That's already the case at the current BLT. Most of the north side balconies overlook trash dumpsters and parking lots.

I really don't think they will add ANOTHER tower...

If they build a DVC portion for Poly... the monorail will be beyond max capacity. They aren't going to make longer monorails - and they can't do a double decker monorail without making a LOT of changes to existing infrastructure...

I really don't think the monorail could live with so much increased capacity.

Between BLT and the VGF... then increased capacity at the Poly if that build happens.... I just can't see them doing it unless they add some new type of transportation or limit monorail access to cash resort guests only.... (which also isn't going to happen...)

I just can't see them making another tower happen.

And as a PP said... the views would be awful - and i don't think there is quite as much space there.

The next that thing that needs to happen at the Contemporary is a new pool and recreation area... the pool that is there now lacks imagination IMHO!

Hogwash.

If capacity were a concern, all they would have to do is add another monorail train to the loop. (Of course, they would need to buy another train first, which is a whole other discussion.)

Also, building a second DVC tower at the Contemporary would necessitate tearing down the South Garden Wing. Guest numbers would increase modestly given the larger number of rooms and higher occupancy, but not to any degree which would cause the monorail system to fail.

 

[lilpooh108]

I love these threads. They usually start a good debate and regardless of whether you believe the rumors or not...these discussions are just another way to talk endlessly about DVC.

 

[rlovew]

I can just see the kind of room requests people would have for getting the north tower over the south tower if they don't make it its own resort. Right now it seems most people with lakeview ask for the north side, even numbers, and high floor, now they will have to add in which tower they want unless they make the views and rooms at that tower separate booking categories but they will have substantially more standard view rooms with the convention center there.

 

[SpaceMountain77]

Given the price of Contemporary Tower rooms, I would think that an additional tower would have both DVC villas and traditional hotel rooms.

Originally, the Garden Wings accommodated guests who wanted to stay at DCR, but could not afford the tower. If traditional rooms were not added to a new tower, then non-DVC guests who cannot afford Contemporary Tower would need to book a standard view room elsewhere.

Also, removal of the South Garden Wing would reduce the Contemporary's convention room inventory. As the largest convention hotel on property, I do not think it could afford a significant inventory reduction.

Just some thoughts

 

[cwdefouw]

That's already the case at the current BLT. Most of the north side balconies overlook trash dumpsters and parking lots.



Hogwash.

If capacity were a concern, all they would have to do is add another monorail train to the loop. (Of course, they would need to buy another train first, which is a whole other discussion.)

Also, building a second DVC tower at the Contemporary would necessitate tearing down the South Garden Wing. Guest numbers would increase modestly given the larger number of rooms and higher occupancy, but not to any degree which would cause the monorail system to fail.

I agree. Everyone always says that replacing an exisitng hotel building with at DVC building will cause overcrowding of everything from the monorails to the restaurants, because of the huge increase in the number of guests. The reality is, in terms of guests per square foot of building, a typical DVC resort sleeps fewer guests than a typical hotel building would, so a 1 to 1 replacement would actually decrease the number of guests, and the DVC resort provides kitchens which should theoretically reduce guest visits to restaurants. A 2 or 3 to 1 replacement like BLT could slightly increase guests but not to the point of a failure of systems. It just really irks me when people equate DVC with overcrowding and potential failure of resort systems.

This being said, I doubt they will build a second DVC building at the Contemporary. Primarily because it would have to be a separate DVC resort due to the large number of years that would be between the opening of the buildings. Separate memberships, separate end date, not combinable in any way. This opens up a fairly sticky problem particularily in a stuation where the two separate DVC resorts would have to share and pay for some resort service with a non-DVC resort. To this point they have not ever done something like that, having two separate DVC resorts at the same overall resort. Not saying they couldn't do it, just that they have not done it to this point.

 

[Deb & Bill]

Parking would be a nightmare at the CR, too.

 

[Brian Noble]

If capacity were a concern, all they would have to do is add another monorail train to the loop

I think this is right. IIRC, ever since Pink and Purple collided and the undamaged halves were combined to form Teal, the Resort Loop has been down one train. So, they could easily add one back to the configuration they've been running since '09 with no problems. There would eventually be a point at which they can't add another train, because the loop is already at capacity, but they aren't there yet.

As for a DVC tower replacing the current South: IMO it's a matter of when, not if.

 

[tjkraz]

This being said, I doubt they will build a second DVC building at the Contemporary. Primarily because it would have to be a separate DVC resort due to the large number of years that would be between the opening of the buildings. Separate memberships, separate end date, not combinable in any way. This opens up a fairly sticky problem particularily in a stuation where the two separate DVC resorts would have to share and pay for some resort service with a non-DVC resort. To this point they have not ever done something like that, having two separate DVC resorts at the same overall resort. Not saying they couldn't do it, just that they have not done it to this point.

That's a modest administrative hurdle.

For resorts with both villas and hotel rooms, shared costs are separated on the basis of guest counts. A second tower would probably fall within a new Condominium Association so you would have three units sharing those costs instead of two: the hotel, BLT and the second tower assoc.

11 month booking rights would be limited to the owners of each building. Operationally it would be something new for members to comprehend, but it's not dramatically different than the setup at AKL where guests specifically book either Jambo or Kidani, each has different amenities, different room layouts, etc.

Parking would be a nightmare at the CR, too.

You're trading 250 hotel rooms in the Garden Wing for 280 Two Bedroom equivalent villas. The villas do have higher occupancy but that doesn't necessarily mean more vehicles. With DME and other forms of transportation available, I doubt that it would represent a dramatic rise in vehicle traffic.

Parking would not be nearly as convenient as BLT, but no worse than something like BoardWalk.

In the end, I don't think either of these issues (second condo association, parking) would prevent Disney from moving forward with a second tower. Other issues may represent bigger hurdles...but not these.

 

[SpaceMountain77]

VWL and BCV opened with 42 and 40 year contracts, respectively. THV were added to SSR.

If a second tower is built within the next few years, then it seems reasonable that DVC would yoke the inventories of BLT North and BLT South and sell new contracts with the same expiration.

 

[heynowirv]

Parking would be a nightmare at the CR, too.

It already is IMHO

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

VWL and BCV opened with 42 and 40 year contracts, respectively. THV were added to SSR.

If a second tower is built within the next few years, then it seems reasonable that DVC would yoke the inventories of BLT North and BLT South and sell new contracts with the same expiration.

Yep. Though they've been giving 50 years to the most recent resorts that has not always been the case.

Plus - they added 3 buildings at OKW after the initial sell out and reopened sales. Those units have the same end date as the originals. AKV was similar in that Jambo opened while Kidani was being built but both have the same expiration.