Plans have been filed for DVC expansion at Caribbean Beach Resort

[sachilles]

I know fireworks view doesn't sell it for me, as the view will also show the back of the house ugliness. That back of the house really takes it out of "the show".

 

[Madonna3]

Morning y'all

On the contrary, I love BC and I realize CBR has it's drawbacks currently; but, that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about a future CBR DVC. I'm just saying a brand new tower room with views of Illuminations and / or Star Wars fireworks is bound to cost a few more points than the one at the 20 year old BC.

We're not? I thought that was the whole point of this discussion that CBR's drawbacks are WHY this is not a good DVC fit.

Absolutely relevant. That's why I keep saying it won't be DVC. Can't create the value at CBR.

100% agreed UNLESS they dump A LOT of money and create infrastructure that currently does not exist and would cost MILLIONS to build.

But does that really mean anything beyond the unit that's on the contract? Technically Jambo and Kidani are separate, so are SSR and the treehouses. But those (and presumably VWL once CC comes online), the home-resort is still just one resort for DVC purposes and they all share amenities.

Not exacltly. While there is a hub at each of your examples, each section got its own pool, bar, lobby, gift shop, etc. So while they are able to share they don't have to. They can stand on their own.

That's a great point.

Can't sell it as "not really deluxe but we are gonna call it that since you have a view of the backside of the International Gateway, but half of you don't".......

The only idea that makes sense is what was brought up here, that if this is going to be DVC, they will have to build a whole new resort and separate from CBR.

The flip to that, can they really still do that with bus as the only transportation option? They do it at OKW and SSR I suppose, but at least they have a ride or walk to the TRex restaurant.

Yes, they are going to have to separate anything they do for DVC completely from CBR. While there may be walking access to CBR, the new resort will need to function completely independent of CBR. One concern I have is like the Jambo/Kidani build. Jambo has the quick service and if you want QS at Kidani, you have to walk over to Jambo. The idea behind this was that as DVC members they wouldn't be interested in QS since they could prepare meals in their rooms. Can't tell you how much that annoys me. I don't cook for $#@& on vacation.

Nah...you misfired on this one...especially the line above.

Caribbean is nowhere close to as nice as any of the deluxes...not only the visual look, but the feel/experience.

It is the worst overall quality of the 4 moderates...so where are you basing your assumptions in?

It's not close...at all. Trust me...I know Caribbean, grand Floridian, and yacht club like the back of my hand (hint)...this isn't debatable.

And I know the "great location" is big to you...but I can't say this anymore clearly: logistically it is not a great location without massive, expensive infrastructure and ground work that does not fit the dvc operation currently.

You skimmed the list and saw the "differences" on the categories...but are not there currently to experience. It's really pronounced...it hits you the minute you get off the bus/car.

This is not a "minor" thing.

I'd like to see what happens...if they build a Bay lake tower type "meh" add on and tout views of their 20 year old fireworks at Epcot...

I'd watch for a few months before dumping my dvc...at least...

I agree with you @lockedoutlogic and I don't understand why there is focus on the location. My husband, an architect looked at the plans for me last night since I can't read blueprints... at all. He tried to see where the possibilities lay for connecting Epcot/DHS. He can't find them without, as has already been said, creating near impossible infrastructure to allow it and basically the only way he can see it is if they tunnel down UNDER the roads to connect to the waterway on the other side of Buena Vista Drive. He said kind of like they did at the TTC parking lot. Then you could have a walkway to a boat dock, but again the small size of the canal is an issue and then he agreed they aren't going to build this to service just one resort, even with a DVC addition. There's no way to tie in AOA or other resorts without doing some major work. This is kind of what we've all said that park access to this resort is difficult and expensive. The location is NOT great. It's close to Epcot, but so land locked that giving it access is no easy task.

Can you build a tower so you can see exactly how landlocked it is and see the fireworks over the trees? Sure, but that's about it.

 

[Madonna3]

I know fireworks view doesn't sell it for me, as the view will also show the back of the house ugliness. That back of the house really takes it out of "the show".

I'm sure they'd address that. Although, you can see some back of the house stuff from Top of the World, so then again, maybe not.

 

[sachilles]

I'm sure they'd address that. Although, you can see some back of the house stuff from Top of the World, so then again, maybe not.

The back of the house that you can see from top of the world is infinitely cleaner and more presentable. It is clean and functional.

Certainly, they can neaten it up, but it will require more effort than just polish. It will require construction to make it look presentable.

 

[Madonna3]

Only difference is the disparity in pricing is much higher because they have raise them at a ridiculous rate. Part of that is to DETERMINE THE PRICING OF DVC. That key here.

I'll throw my fun fact here: 2002 cheapest rack at wildwness lodge: $119
2015: $350

This. The more they raise the price of the mod/deluxes the better the deal DVC looks for the consumer. WHAT?! I can stay at Wilderness Lodge for the rack rate of CBR?! Sign me up...

That's their whole pitch.

I'm thinking more along the lines that the resort stays it's moderator level but the new build is considered deluxe. That's different than any other DVC we currently have.

And why would they do that? Why is it not more reasonable to believe the new build will be completely separate from CBR, but have access to CBR as an "added amenity" if this turns out to be DVC.

Devil's advocate.

What prevents Disney from using this property to debut a new fractional ownership model separate from DVC? One better positioned to grab the market below what is currently offered by DVC.

They can't change any previous agreements, but they are not required to make new properties fit in to the current model.

if it's not broken, why fix it? Disney isn't have trouble filling DVC rooms.

 

[sachilles]

if it's not broken, why fix it? Disney isn't have trouble filling DVC rooms.

They didn't need alcohol in the MK, but we got it.

We didn't need cabana's.

In Disney's case, if they sniff money, they will look to grab it.
On it's own, I'd agree it would make no sense for a moderate DVC. However, just as there is a market for rack rack deluxe, moderate and Value, there is likely a market for a moderate level DVC program...and every journey starts with the first step.

CBR also has open land. A phase 2 could happen quickly if it proves popular and/or convert the rest of CBR.

 

[rteetz]

And why would they do that? Why is it not more reasonable to believe the new build will be completely separate from CBR, but have access to CBR as an "added amenity" if this turns out to be DVC.

That's basically what I'm saying. The new build would be separate but still have access to CBR.

 

[skier_pete]

This would be the first "standalone" dvc construction (at wdw...and aulani only blew the budget by a cool billion or so) since half of Boardwalk in the the early 90's...in a way...If they want to "bring it up" to that level..

I would argue Kidani is stand-alone in many ways.

Devil's advocate.

What prevents Disney from using this property to debut a new fractional ownership model separate from DVC? One better positioned to grab the market below what is currently offered by DVC.

The issue is - they are now weaned onto the profit margin from the current DVC model. Big business doesn't look at it as "wait, lets just cut prices in half on a separate DVC model", it's pretty hard to make the same profit when you sell it at a much lower rate. No, DVC continues to sell reasonably well. It doesn't sell as well as it did for a time when the prices were more reasonable, but they are still going to sell out the Poly in about 3 years, which is a large point quantity. WL 2.0 (I can't keep the names over there straight) will be smaller in points than the Poly. While the point totals for rooms will probably be less than what the Poly is getting, I am sure they are going for a similar price point.

But yes, that's the whole debate here right? How do they make it work? Do they go cheap and sell cheap? Or do they add infrastructure and stay the same. None of the options seem ideal, which is why we are debating. I just don't see them wanting to drop prices.

 

[LaidBackDad]

Morning y'all

I agree with you @lockedoutlogic and I don't understand why there is focus on the location. My husband, an architect looked at the plans for me last night since I can't read blueprints... at all. He tried to see where the possibilities lay for connecting Epcot/DHS. He can't find them without, as has already been said, creating near impossible infrastructure to allow it and basically the only way he can see it is if they tunnel down UNDER the roads to connect to the waterway on the other side of Buena Vista Drive. He said kind of like they did at the TTC parking lot. Then you could have a walkway to a boat dock, but again the small size of the canal is an issue and then he agreed they aren't going to build this to service just one resort, even with a DVC addition. There's no way to tie in AOA or other resorts without doing some major work. This is kind of what we've all said that park access to this resort is difficult and expensive. The location is NOT great. It's close to Epcot, but so land locked that giving it access is no easy task.

Can you build a tower so you can see exactly how landlocked it is and see the fireworks over the trees? Sure, but that's about it.

... because location is the only thing that is important. Location is the only thing about a resort that can't be changed. Location, location, location. That is why CBR is so attractive for DVC. CBR is not land locked, honestly it's not a logistical issue as much as it is a lack of imagination. Connecting CBR with the friendship boats and the IG at Epcot is a relatively small and inexpensive endeavor with massive upside. It is in between 2 parks rumored and confirmed to be getting the most attention in the next 5 to 10 years. You know it has to drive the suits crazy that a moderate is smack dab in the middle of the action and not earning its full potential.

 

[Madonna3]

They didn't need alcohol in the MK, but we got it.

We didn't need cabana's.

In Disney's case, if they sniff money, they will look to grab it.
On it's own, I'd agree it would make no sense for a moderate DVC. However, just as there is a market for rack rack deluxe, moderate and Value, there is likely a market for a moderate level DVC program...and every journey starts with the first step.

CBR also has open land. A phase 2 could happen quickly if it proves popular and/or convert the rest of CBR.

Is there a market for rack rates? I have to disagree because there's constantly hotel discounts to fill rooms. While Disney does look to get money from new sources, it also doesn't cut off its nose to spite its face. So making a new DVC model when the first is raking in the cash doesn't make sense when the new model will be a fraction of the current.

I would argue Kidani is stand-alone in many ways.


The issue is - they are now weaned onto the profit margin from the current DVC model. Big business doesn't look at it as "wait, lets just cut prices in half on a separate DVC model", it's pretty hard to make the same profit when you sell it at a much lower rate. No, DVC continues to sell reasonably well. It doesn't sell as well as it did for a time when the prices were more reasonable, but they are still going to sell out the Poly in about 3 years, which is a large point quantity. WL 2.0 (I can't keep the names over there straight) will be smaller in points than the Poly. While the point totals for rooms will probably be less than what the Poly is getting, I am sure they are going for a similar price point.

But yes, that's the whole debate here right? How do they make it work? Do they go cheap and sell cheap? Or do they add infrastructure and stay the same. None of the options seem ideal, which is why we are debating. I just don't see them wanting to drop prices.

agreed

 

[Madonna3]

... because location is the only thing that is important. Location is the only thing about a resort that can't be changed. Location, location, location. That is why CBR is so attractive for DVC. CBR is not land locked, honestly it's not a logistical issue as much as it is a lack of imagination. Connecting CBR with the friendship boats and the IG at Epcot is a relatively small and inexpensive endeavor with massive upside. It is in between 2 parks rumored and confirmed to be getting the most attention in the next 5 to 10 years. You know it has to drive the suits crazy that a moderate is smack dab in the middle of the action and not earning its full potential.

But we've been debating the possibilities here and as builds currently stand, there is no easy and inexpensive way of doing it. Where do you see that?

 

[sachilles]

In theory......

The expenses at a moderate DVC would be less, as there are less services and amenities. Using a tower model, you can fix a lot units in to said property with lower overhead than a deluxe. From a profit motive, it may (or may not) make sense. I'm certain they are crunching the numbers. It can be just as profitable in the moderate price range if done correctly. The big problem is the interchange with the more spendy options. If they are not in the same pool, it alleviates that issue.
If done right, it's a gateway drug to the more expensive stuff. The key is to lock families into vacations at the property.

 

[Madonna3]

That's basically what I'm saying. The new build would be separate but still have access to CBR.

You're going (well not you, but you get what I mean) to have that as an added benefit, but still market it as something completely DIFFERENT than CBR. Maybe it's Hawaiian themed so walking over to CBR keeps the same feel of the tropics (if you feel CBR represents the tropics. I live in Florida, I call BS on the theme), but you have to make it so exclusive that CBR really feels just like an added plus and not part of the resort at all. It can't be like BLT and CR because even though they are separate builds, BLT is just viewed as CR DVC

 

[LaidBackDad]

Nah...you misfired on this one...especially the line above.

Caribbean is nowhere close to as nice as any of the deluxes...not only the visual look, but the feel/experience.

It is the worst overall quality of the 4 moderates...so where are you basing your assumptions in?

It's not close...at all. Trust me...I know Caribbean, grand Floridian, and yacht club like the back of my hand (hint)...this isn't debatable.

And I know the "great location" is big to you...but I can't say this anymore clearly: logistically it is not a great location without massive, expensive infrastructure and ground work that does not fit the dvc operation currently.

You skimmed the list and saw the "differences" on the categories...but are not there currently to experience. It's really pronounced...it hits you the minute you get off the bus/car.

This is not a "minor" thing.

I'd like to see what happens...if they build a Bay lake tower type "meh" add on and tout views of their 20 year old fireworks at Epcot...

I'd watch for a few months before dumping my dvc...at least...

I get what you mean about "the feel" of the resort. The only thing I will say is that is also largely subjective and that "feel" changes when you call something luxury instead of moderate. You add DVC and a few more amenities and that deluxe feel increases and the moderate fell starts to fade away.

 

[Madonna3]

In theory......

The expenses at a moderate DVC would be less, as there are less services and amenities. Using a tower model, you can fix a lot units in to said property with lower overhead than a deluxe. From a profit motive, it may (or may not) make sense. I'm certain they are crunching the numbers. It can be just as profitable in the moderate price range if done correctly. The big problem is the interchange with the more spendy options. If they are not in the same pool, it alleviates that issue.
If done right, it's a gateway drug to the more expensive stuff. The key is to lock families into vacations at the property.

I agree with you about them wanting to lock families into vacations at the property. That's what DVC is all about. But DVC's hook is you get to vacation at a deluxe property for moderate pricing which means they're already kind of marketing to the market you're talking about. What's the new tag line; Vacation moderate for value pricing? To do that means raising the prices on the values. Currently, there are offers to get value rooms at $86/night. Those will go away and create occupancy issues on the value tier.

 

[sachilles]

Is there a market for rack rates? I have to disagree because there's constantly hotel discounts to fill rooms. While Disney does look to get money from new sources, it also doesn't cut off its nose to spite its face. So making a new DVC model when the first is raking in the cash doesn't make sense when the new model will be a fraction of the current.

You are missing the point. There is a market for rooms in three distinct price levels. Whether you see it as rack, or the more typical 10-20% "discount". The DVC program while making a lodging property a more safe investment, it is also a hook to retaining consumers for the parks.

 

[sachilles]

I think we are typing at the same time.

 

[LaidBackDad]

But we've been debating the possibilities here and as builds currently stand, there is no easy and inexpensive way of doing it. Where do you see that?

That's is the major disagreement. There are any number of possibilities to "un-land lock" CBR. Some have been mentioned here, others haven't. Some would be more expensive or problematic than others; but, the thing is, none of them are deal breakers. I don't know what method they are going to choose; but, I will bet the farm it's going to happen. My best guess is a couple of bridges and less than 1/4 mile canal from the main lake at CBR to the Epcot lagoon next to Germany. The friendship boats travel through the lagoon and drops off at IG. Widening the existing canal behind WS and connecting it to CBR would also work. I have yet to read a legitimate reason why either of those options wouldn't work. They are both very inexpensive and easy to implement (I guess that is subjective also but I'm comparing it to the millions already committed to building a new deluxe resort). People keep saying it won't or can't work without giving any explanation as to why not.

 

[Madonna3]

That's is the major disagreement. There are any number of possibilities to "un-land lock" CBR. Some have been mentioned here, others haven't. Some would be more expensive or problematic than others; but, the thing is, none of them are deal breakers. I don't know what method they are going to choose; but, I will bet the farm it's going to happen. My best guess is a couple of bridges and less than 1/4 mile canal from the main lake at CBR to the Epcot lagoon next to Germany. The friendship boats travel through the lagoon and drops off at IG. Widening the existing canal behind WS and connecting it to CBR would also work. I have yet to read a legitimate reason why either of those options wouldn't work. They are both very inexpensive and easy to implement (I guess that is subjective also but I'm comparing it to the millions already committed to building a new deluxe resort). People keep saying it won't or can't work without giving any explanation as to why not.

I don't disagree with you on that because I feel it MUST happen for this to work.

And you're right, as far as we can see, it's not that your ideas wouldn't work, it's the cost and implementation of those ideas that make them unlikely.

 

[Madonna3]

You are missing the point. There is a market for rooms in three distinct price levels. Whether you see it as rack, or the more typical 10-20% "discount". The DVC program while making a lodging property a more safe investment, it is also a hook to retaining consumers for the parks.

I seem to get told that a lot lately...