Poly DVC expansion coming 2024!

[Epcot Forever Forever]

Right now, there is a lot of talk of how DVD will handle getting all of those points back in 2042, with all that inventory. So, I think the thought is whether they want to create a situation with probably 7 million points expiring in 2066, which is what will happen if these are both part of one condo association.

I just again don’t see why it’s a problem. An expired DVC is an empty, well kept, fully paid for building that is a blank canvas. They can use them as hotel rooms with zero bills to pay, or renovate on someone else’s dime and sell them as new DVC properties (they have 10 million+ points for sale frequently), or bulldoze them and do something else with the space.

The one thing they don’t have to do is worry about how much money they have invested in these buildings. Because that number is zero.

 

[Sandisw]

I think we can (mostly?) agree that Disney cares about direct sales and they don’t really care about resale. The way to maximize this is to have a new association with resale restrictions - it will attract folks who didn’t buy Poly1 due to lack of a mix of rooms and also attract Poly1 owners who want to sell and buy direct into Poly2.
I think the idea that Poly1 owners will be upset with a new association is moot from Disney’s perspective because these owners bought into Poly1 as it currently is and this portion of the resort is not changing. Bungalows are readily available at 7 months so I think this is moot as well.
By taking one of the most popular, established resorts and adding a new tower with restrictions, I think Disney is hoping that many who did not buy RIV due to restrictions will do exactly that with Poly2. A global pandemic and parks shutting down have not stopped restrictions and I don’t see any reason for Disney to stop now. Buying direct to access all resorts is the only long term benefit. As crazy as this might sound, in a way they need the resale restrictions - first RIV, then DLT, followed by Poly2, then it will become the norm that we all become accustomed to.

I can say that if this is a new association, I will buy it to add to what I own. If it is not, I have to think about it and whether I want/need home resort advantage for what is there. You don't need it right now for most of the time for the PVB studios so does it make sense to own for the new rooms and then find out the new rooms are too hard to book?

 

[Sandisw]

I just again don’t see why it’s a problem. An expired DVC is an empty, well kept, fully paid for building that is a blank canvas. They can use them as hotel rooms with zero bills to pay, or renovate on someone else’s dime and sell them as new DVC properties (they have 10 million+ points for sale frequently), or bulldoze them and do something else with the space.

The one thing they don’t have to do is worry about how much money they have invested in these buildings. Because that number is zero.

I am not sure it is because they have to figure it out. But, you do wonder if that is why they began making things 50 years instead of matching end date in the early years so they would no longer end up with what they will have with 2042.

Even so, they can still make this a different association and end it in 2066 to match the current PVB rooms. It is not like they are forced to choose. All we know for sure is that did not announce it as an expansion to PVB...they announced it as adding to Poly Village Resort on purpose...whether those words were chosen to mean something or not???? Why we are on 22 pages!!! LOL

 

[DVChris]

I can say that if this is a new association, I will buy it to add to what I own. If it is not, I have to think about it and whether I want/need home resort advantage for what is there. You don't need it right now for most of the time for the PVB studios so does it make sense to own for the new rooms and then find out the new rooms are too hard to book?

This is exactly why I think Disney will make it a new association with resale restrictions. They want people to buy direct Poly2. I think many are thinking the same as you.

 

[redboat45]

I think it will be a new association. Biggest clues for me is the amount of studios that appear to be there. If it was existing they wouldn't need all of those studios. The other reason is the style of the resort is completely different. It's like Riviera and Caribbean Beach. The theme is completely different even though they built it on Caribbean Beach land.

 

[Jimmy Geppetto]

New association or same association… one question that has been answered is why Disney rarely took Poly points via ROFR. Now we know.

 

[KimMcGowan]

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?

I think this may be the most astute analysis of the situation I have read. However, I do think some of this would require long term thought of what is best for Disney in the future - something the current regime has not demonstrated to be their strong point.

 

[Paul Stupin]

I can say that if this is a new association, I will buy it to add to what I own. If it is not, I have to think about it and whether I want/need home resort advantage for what is there. You don't need it right now for most of the time for the PVB studios so does it make sense to own for the new rooms and then find out the new rooms are too hard to book?

I’m with you on this. New resort, new association, I‘m in. But if I have to compete with a trillion pre-existing Poly owners for 24 one bedrooms at 11 months, it’s just not worth it. DVC isn’t building this to benefit Poly resale owners, and I don’t think there’s any doubt that it will sell with whatever restrictions are attached, as will DLT. Also, Disney is in the early stages of implementing resale restrictions. They’re playing the long game, and I doubt they’re going to stop right when they’re getting started.

 

[zavandor]

I'll be perfectly honest here. If they put this in the same association, I probably will not buy it (I am not a current Poly owner). I would have to see the mix of room types in the new building first. But I would not be thrilled with having to compete with the millions of already existing points to grab the limited amount of 1BR/2BR/3BR in the new building.

PVB1 owners probably have points just for a studio. Upgrading to a 1BR means double points. Even people who book 2 studios would have to spend 50% more points to book a 2BR. I think most current owners will stick with studios.
Maybe who bought enough points for a bungalow might want to book a GV instead, depending on the point charts, but how many of those there are?

 

[SleeplessInTO]

I’m with you on this. New resort, new association, I‘m in. But if I have to compete with a trillion pre-existing Poly owners for 24 one bedrooms at 11 months, it’s just not worth it. DVC isn’t building this to benefit Poly resale owners, and I don’t think there’s any doubt that it will sell with whatever restrictions are attached, as will DLT. Also, Disney is in the early stages of implementing resale restrictions. They’re playing the long game, and I doubt they’re going to stop right when they’re getting started.

I’m eating a lime dole whip and smelling the lobby of the Poly as I write this so maybe my judgment is a little skewed… but I’d probably buy direct at Poly2 if it’s a new association, and resale at Poly2 if it’s not. My cheap points would be just as good as the shiny new ones for grabbing that one bedroom theme park view room at 11 months, so why not?

 

[wilkydelts]

This hasn't been mentioned before but be honest with yourself:

Selling Poly2 points with resale restrictions does not equal selling RIV points with resale restrictions

Oh no I can only stay at the Poly on the monorail vs Wait, I can only be at the RIV?

 

[Sandisw]

I’m eating a lime dole whip and smelling the lobby of the Poly as I write this so maybe my judgment is a little skewed… but I’d probably buy direct at Poly2 if it’s a new association, and resale at Poly2 if it’s not. My cheap points would be just as good as the shiny new ones for grabbing that one bedroom theme park view room at 11 months, so why not?

Which is exactly why DVD could go the way of the new association. If their goal is to increase direct offerings, this is the perfect project to get that back on track. If it comes out to be the same, it will be a BIG sign that they have decided restrictions are not worth it for the future.

 

[SleeplessInTO]

Which is exactly why DVD could go the way of the new association. If their goal is to increase direct offerings, this is the perfect project to get that back on track. If it comes out to be the same, it will be a BIG sign that they have decided restrictions are not worth it for the future.

I agree with this. It is also an interesting experiment. Will people buy Poly2 even with restrictions? An even more fascinating comparison to Riviera than VGF2 would be.

 

[Paul Stupin]

I mean maybe. You could say the same thing about VGF2. Their goal is money. Maybe it's better to sell full priced contracts with nine years missing.

I think the new Tower will sell either way, and shutting out resale owners will motivate more people to buy direct across the board to make them even more money. And potential buyers, myself included, wouldn’t be as interested in owning a massive resort monumentally overweighted toward studios.

VGF was an aberration…a small, fast, cheap hotel flip where they could never get away with a separate association.

 

[UofMGuy423]

This hasn't been mentioned before but be honest with yourself:

Selling Poly2 points with resale restrictions does not equal selling RIV points with resale restrictions

Oh no I can only stay at the Poly on the monorail vs Wait, I can only be at the RIV?

No...it's just looking at the same situation, but with different motivation to justify the purchase. Which is why DVD might just decide to make POLY2 a new association with restrictions so it can snag buyers in your example that didn't like RIV with restrictions, but are okay with Poly having them.

 

[wilkydelts]

No...it's just looking at the same situation, but with different motivation to justify the purchase. Which is why DVD might just decide to make POLY2 a new association with restrictions so it can snag buyers in your example that didn't like RIV with restrictions, but are okay with Poly having them.

Sort of I referring more to the people who were terrified there would be no value to resell a RIV contract since people buying could only buy to stay at the RIV. I don't think there is any price worry for that regarding "only" being able to stay at Poly2 if you buy it resale.

 

[Sandisw]

I agree with this. It is also an interesting experiment. Will people buy Poly2 even with restrictions? An even more fascinating comparison to Riviera than VGF2 would be.

One of the big discussions when RIV was announced is that it wasn't a great resort due to location and the restrictions. But, now you have an MK resort which many feel is a better location. So, could buyers forgo restrictions because it is where it is???

While I think RIV has done fine given its a different product, having an MK resort might truly outweigh the negative of the restrictions! Plus, to be honest, the RIV contracts on the resale market did not tank. They are holding their own right now. Granted, we don't have a lot that have sold, but the point is, that if a resort can sell itself, and people are cool just staying at one...or having it as part of a membership that includes owning more than one resort...you insulate yourself from this.

Plus, as long as YOU own the contract, you have absolutely no restrictions for use and I would venture that more buyers look at their use than what they can get back from it 10, 20, or 30 years down the road!!

 

[Sandisw]

This hasn't been mentioned before but be honest with yourself:

Selling Poly2 points with resale restrictions does not equal selling RIV points with resale restrictions

Oh no I can only stay at the Poly on the monorail vs Wait, I can only be at the RIV?

I think that is an important aspect of it. While I love love love RIV, I know that an MK resort DOES offer a whole new experience when MK is a big piece of your vacation. So, I do think that resale restrictions will be better received at a place like Poly than it is at RIV.

 

[nlenguyen]

With the Poly, you can also walk to TTC and get to EPCOT. Riveria you can get to MK but not as easily because the Skyliner station is not near the Monorail and you would need a park reservation to get into EPCOT to get to the monorail station. Personally, I felt I did not like Poly because of just studios. I would rather than a kitchen so this new building no matter the decision will be game changer to me staying at the resort

 

[HickoryDickory]

I dislike the resale restrictions and would prefer to see them done away with. If Poly 2 is included in Poly 1's association then I will be thrilled to see a new resort included in the unrestricted O-14(+) portfolio.

However, I don't really understand what I'm seeing in these threads with regards to so many Poly 1 owners feeling entitled to access to Poly 2 at the 11-month window, at least not until/unless DVC announces that Poly 2 will be under the Poly 1 association. BLT is one of my home resorts. The Comtemporary/BLT complex is another site rumored to potentially 'expand' one day with a BLT 2 tower. Whenever I've read those rumors I've never once assumed my BLT points could/should/would get home resort priority at a potential BLT 2 solely because it would be located on the same complex site.

Admittedly I'm not a Poly owner (yet! counting down to 2024) but I'm not irked at all by the idea of Poly 1 points potentially not having access to Poly 2 during the 11-month window. I consider Poly 1 and Poly 2 to be two separate resorts with their own booking windows. So within that narrow view I think Poly 2 should have its own association. It is only beacuse I don't like the resale restrictions that I hope Poly 2 is under Poly 1's association. My ultimate dream is resale restrictions are done away with entirely and Poly 2 has its own separate association.