Poly DVC expansion coming 2024!

[Sandisw]

For any DVC owners who do not own at Poly, the set up of the association is obviously not as much of an issue. However, I only own at Poly and if I can't use my Poly points at the 11-month mark at the DVC "expansion" AT THE POLYNESIAN, I am going to be EXTREMELY disappointed to say the least (and this applies to both direct and resale points). I have direct points and also have 50 non-grandfathered resale Poly points which adds another painful twist if it's a separate association. Yes, I understood when I bought resale points but this is a unique wrinkle to "future new resorts." As we do not yet know whether the association will be the same or separate, what is my strategy from here?

I understand the frustration but it has happened before and if this is deemed as a new resort simply in the same location, it will work that way.

I know that the CCV situation was done because of the expiration date being too discrepant from BRV, and that could be something being considered, but IMO, that would be the smallest con setting up two for DVD in this case.

When the current PVB expires years before, they just become cash long houses, or become another DVC and it is done with more than 50 years at that time to get it to sync up. They will be faced with that with BRV in less than 20 years.

Nothing you can do until you know for sure. Worst case it is a new resort and you will have to make the decision if having restricted points is worth keeping.

I know it feels unique but in essence, it really is not.

 

[havoc315]

I think it will be the same association because guests of this tower will undoubtedly be able to use the amenities of the Poly- pools, monorail, quick service, etc.
That would be hard to do with an entirely separate resort/association.

Not hard at all. That's exactly what happens at CCV/BRV -- They get to use the same amenities, pools, etc. But it's 2 different associations.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

This would translate to perhaps 4.3 million points. If it were one association it would become the second largest at WDW.

I don't think points are the best proxy for "largest."

Resort A: 100 rooms, average 15 points per night = 547,500 points
Resort B: 80 rooms, average 25 points per night = 730,000 points

Would you say B is larger than A?

Not hard at all. That's exactly what happens at CCV/BRV -- They get to use the same amenities, pools, etc. But it's 2 different associations.

Yeah I don't think that's the reason it'll be one association. I think it's as simple as "Disney would rather sell a 2066 deed than a 2074 deed."

 

[Epcot Forever Forever]

If they combine, I bet the annual dues will have to change because the tower would cost more to upkeep with the kitchens, etc. Maybe it would be better for separate association, but I could be completely wrong in my analysis

As a general rule of thumb in construction a new, dense, tall building will be cheaper to maintain: it’s cheaper to heat/cool with more shared walls, it’s cheaper to replace 1 roof every 15 years vs replacing several, it’s cheaper to have less landscaping, and of course the building itself won’t be 50+ years old like the OG Poly ones are.

Perhaps you are right but I think there’s a pretty solid argument in the other direction as well.

 

[Epcot Forever Forever]

I don't think points are the best proxy for "largest."

Resort A: 100 rooms, average 15 points per night = 547,500 points
Resort B: 80 rooms, average 25 points per night = 730,000 points

Would you say B is larger than A?

You know what I was saying though.

 

[Hopfather28]

I'll be honest...I totally think it's the same association. There's a reason VGF2 is selling so fast and it's 3 words NO RESALE RESTRICTIONS. I put in an offer on a small addon for my bigger PVB contract. IF it turns out that it's a new association then it's all good. I'll sell my contracts and buy in direct w/ incentives with my proceeds, get the zero benefits they offer direct folks nowadays, my pop-socket (by then it'll be a branded Bic pen probably) and call it a day. The fact that we're 21 pages deep on this thread still making assumptions based on people scouring the rendering that may or may not change a thousand times before 2024 to try and determine how many studios so we can declare it a new association is silly. The Poly has a ton of studios, that's true. But they don't have those tiny "Tower Studios."

 

[Sandisw]

If you’re Disney, what’s the rationale for doing this? It would allow them to impose resale restrictions and…what else?

Regardless of the cost & scope of the addition, there seem to be many benefits to combining the two and few reasons to keep them separate.

Can you share your thoughts on what benefits you see for Keeping it the same?

 

[havoc315]

I understand the frustration but it has happened before and if this is deemed as a new resort simply in the same location, it will work that way.

I know that the CCV situation was done because of the expiration date being too discrepant from BRV, and that could be something being considered, but IMO, that would be the smallest con setting up two for DVD in this case.

When the current PVB expires years before, they just become cash long houses, or become another DVC and it is done with more than 50 years at that time to get it to sync up. They will be faced with that with BRV in less than 20 years.

Nothing you can do until you know for sure. Worst case it is a new resort and you will have to make the decision if having restricted points is worth keeping.

I know it feels unique but in essence, it really is not.

To me, a big issue is the extent they want to stagger association expiration dates. We know they have an upcoming 2042 problem, with lots and lots of contracts expiring all at once.

With the next generation of DVC, things were more staggered..
AKL -- 2057
BLT - 2060
GFV - 2064
Poly - 2066
CCV - 2068
Riviera - 2070

So blocks of DVC expiring every 2-4 years.
So starting a new association would lead to a new 2074 block.
But if you don't start a new association, and Poly becomes the 2nd biggest association, then you're looking at a massive expiration period in a short time period.

So it's partially a long-term planning issue. Do they want to keep staggering, 300 units expiring every 2-3 years, or will they accept a glut of expiration in the mid 2060's, while nothing will be expiring in the early 2070's...

And is anyone at DVC thinking that far ahead..

 

[Epcot Forever Forever]

To me, a big issue is the extent they want to stagger association expiration dates. We know they have an upcoming 2042 problem, with lots and lots of contracts expiring all at once.

With the next generation of DVC, things were more staggered..
AKL -- 2057
BLT - 2060
GFV - 2064
Poly - 2066
CCV - 2068
Riviera - 2070

So blocks of DVC expiring every 2-4 years.
So starting a new association would lead to a new 2074 block.
But if you don't start a new association, and Poly becomes the 2nd biggest association, then you're looking at a massive expiration period in a short time period.

So it's partially a long-term planning issue. Do they want to keep staggering, 300 units expiring every 2-3 years, or will they accept a glut of expiration in the mid 2060's, while nothing will be expiring in the early 2070's...

And is anyone at DVC thinking that far ahead..

I continue to fail to see what is bad about a bunch of points expiring at the same time.

 

[nlenguyen]

As a general rule of thumb in construction a new, dense, tall building will be cheaper to maintain: it’s cheaper to heat/cool with more shared walls, it’s cheaper to replace 1 roof every 15 years vs replacing several, it’s cheaper to have less landscaping, and of course the building itself won’t be 50+ years old like the OG Poly ones are.

Perhaps you are right but I think there’s a pretty solid argument in the other direction as well.

Riveria MF are relatively high for a brand new resort and technically just one building, but I assume most of the cost is due to skyliner. Currently Poly is around $7 so I hope it keeps it low

 

[UofMGuy423]

I'll be honest...I totally think it's the same association. There's a reason VGF2 is selling so fast and it's 3 words NO RESALE RESTRICTIONS."

Or VGF2 is selling well because it's sold out flagship monorail resort going back on sale again with really good incentives.

 

[UofMGuy423]

I continue to fail to see what is bad about a bunch of points expiring at the same time.

They then have a huge glut of points coming on the market that they then have to sell simultaneously. Staggering them out with a predictable cadence would make sense.

 

[havoc315]

I continue to fail to see what is bad about a bunch of points expiring at the same time.

Because it takes time to sell them. You want a steady sales stream. Won’t be easy to sell tens of millions of points at once.
You’ll face an immediate dip in attendance as former DVC owners stop making trips (some will immediately re-purchase but plenty won’t). To the extent WDW/DVC would want to take a period for major renovations after expiration, you can only renovate so many properties at a time.

 

[havoc315]

They then have a huge glut of points coming on the market that they then have to sell simultaneously. Staggering them out with a predictable cadence would make sense.

Of course, it wouldn't be shocking if they aren't thinking that far ahead.

 

[Epcot Forever Forever]

They then have a huge glut of points coming on the market that they then have to sell simultaneously. Staggering them out with a predictable cadence would make sense.

You’re assuming Disney reuses all those properties for DVC. I think that’s exceedingly unlikely. In any case they’re going to have more total points for sale when DLV goes on sale next year than they would in 2042 if they renewed all the WDW resorts (no way they renew VB and HHI)

 

[Epcot Forever Forever]

Won’t be easy to sell tens of millions of points at once.

Tens of millions? I suggest you go count how many points BCV+BRV+BWV is.

 

[DVChris]

The CCV/BRV would have only left 25 years on the current contract. Would not have been fair to new CCV. Poly will still have 42 years left similar to the VGF add on. We shall see… This is the biggest topic on the threads…. Good for some great conversations.

The new association can start with 50 years or have the same expiration. BCV didn’t start with 50 years. I think it will start with 50 to avoid the problem Disney has with 2042. Staggering with different expiration will give them time to renovate and resell while keeping the other association going for 8 more years.

 

[Duckbug.Ducktales]

For any DVC owners who do not own at Poly, the set up of the association is obviously not as much of an issue. However, I only own at Poly and if I can't use my Poly points at the 11-month mark at the DVC "expansion" AT THE POLYNESIAN, I am going to be EXTREMELY disappointed to say the least (and this applies to both direct and resale points). I have direct points and also have 50 non-grandfathered resale Poly points which adds another painful twist if it's a separate association. Yes, I understood when I bought resale points but this is a unique wrinkle to "future new resorts." As we do not yet know whether the association will be the same or separate, what is my strategy from here?

You may be disappointed, but your contract only guarantees you booking priority at the original studios and bungalows. That wouldn't change, so from Disney's perspective, they wouldn't have breached any obligations by making a new association. We just don't know what will happen so be prepared. I would say wait and see.

 

[tjkraz]

Can you share your thoughts on what benefits you see for Keeping it the same?

The most obvious ones involve sticking with the 2066 end date. All new associations dating back to SSR have been 50 year contracts, so there's every reason to believe a separate Poly association would run through 2074. Rolling them into the current association allows DVC to re-sell 8 years earlier.

Separating the associations effectively means they're separate forever. Come 2066, they're back to trying to sell points for Studios + bungalows only, with a superior facility off in the distance. (Admittedly DVC has 4 decades to figure this out, at which time the longhouses would be 90 years old. But the presence of two separate associations places some limits on how and when they can make massive changes to the resort.)

One association gives them wiggle room to fix the bungalow point fubar. At a minimum, it gives a lot more owners 11-month access to the bungalows. Even better, develop a plan to reallocate so the bungalows are more reasonably priced without the Studios taking the entire hit.

Separate associations sets PVB1 up as a second-class citizen value-wise. DVC still has to deal with 40 years of resale price pressure, ROFR and foreclosures. My sense is that a lot of people who own Poly aren't 100% thrilled that it's studio-only, but accepted that limitation because there was no other alternative. PVB2 would be the alternative with more room sizes and views. BRV and CCV differ in that both at least have the traditional options of studio, one and two bedroom. Both have appeal depending on personal preference for location, decor, room size (BRV larger villas), end date, etc. It sure seems like PVB1 is bound to suffer in the shadow of a PVB2.

Aside from the ending date, that's a lot of little things which are easy to dismiss as "eh, DVC doesn't care about that." And that may be true. The choice of wording in the press release didn't do anything to clarify.

But circle back to the question of why. If DVC has an opportunity to sell this new tower for only 42 years, merge all of the Poly points and units into a single association, raise occupancy of the bungalows and market new buyers on the combination of new tower + bungalows + "largest Deluxe Studios" in DVC, why not go that route?

 

[jennypenny]

I think it's funny that we're on page 21 of this thread and, unless I missed it, no one is complaining about GF being too close to the new building and how the sight lines will wreck the theming because you can see a Victorian hotel from what's supposed to be a Polynesian hotel. Wasn't that one of the biggest complaints about Riviera? That looking out on a Caribbean-themed resort totally killed the vibe? Anyway ...

To be honest, it was kind of dumb planning on DVC's part to promote an Epcot area resort (RR) while it was in its Wallcot state and not have something to sell near MK during the 50th. I'm sure that had something to do with the rushed (not criticizing) decision to convert GF rooms and now the announcement about new Polynesian rooms. MK is packed daily -- they should be taking advantage of that.