Poly DVC expansion coming 2024!

[kdm31091]

I think making it a separate association would upset current PVB owners since they still would only have 11mo access to studios and bungalows, which is really kind of unfair in a sense. CCV/BRV at least have comparable room types available, other than cabins. I think the least backlash would be found if DVC adds the new building to the existing PVB association (plus, the direct price of $250 currently for PVB is high considering the lack of flexibility you get - no way they'd be able to sell it at that price once this opens if it is separate).

 

[Airb330]

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 ...

I mentioned earlier I was wondering if the style was intentionally transitional. Not quite full on poly themed but a light poly/Waikiki theme. I think the sight lines will be fine but I do hope it isn't too loud at VGF in 2023.

 

[RoseGold]

They should announce one way or the other. They are actively selling millions of developer points and advertising this resort with an aw shucks who knows press announcement. Very timeshare-y.

 

[wnielsen1]

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.

 

[Lumee23]

I have been thinking about the condo association question more and I think Disney hasn't decided. The wording seems purposely vague and if they had decided why hold back on it? I can see both sides of the debate and it seems reasonable that Disney is still weighing both sides on their end as well since they have almost 3 yrs before its finished.

Personally I think they are waiting to see how VGF sells specifically to new members compared to Riv once it opens up. I love Riv and I don't think the resale restrictions have necessarily been the dampener on sales that people (including myself) expected and the pandemic fallout obviously makes that harder to evaluate; however, I think it will be somewhat telling if VGF with less years on it outsells or keeps up with Riv for new members. I think there are more pros and cons between the two than just resale restrictions but can Disney really ignore the potential impact of resale restrictions if VGF comes close to or outperforms Riv?

I don't necessarily think Disney will go back on restrictions long term but they may choose to kick the can down the road for WDW resorts to maximize sales of Poly2 for quick cash.

Either way I do hope they announce it soon. I don't think the optics of keeping it vague are great.

The other thing I am thinking about more is that generally speaking I am not a fan of association expansions (despite being excited about Poly2). One of the reasons we picked Riv is the room type balance. Had I been a VGF1 owner I would have been upset about the VGF2 expansion because of the direction they went with the rooms and presumably increased competition for the villa rooms. If Poly2 is the same association, while the room variety is a welcome change, it may still put pressure on the existing studio demand, especially if the point premium for those Theme Park view rooms are what people are suggesting. Overall I guess my point is that we weighed a lot of factors when deciding where to purchase and it is a little disconcerting that Disney can swoop in and change the overall makeup of the resort.

 

[UofMGuy423]

I think making it a separate association would upset current PVB owners since they still would only have 11mo access to studios and bungalows, which is really kind of unfair in a sense. CCV/BRV at least have comparable room types available, other than cabins. I think the least backlash would be found if DVC adds the new building to the existing PVB association (plus, the direct price of $250 currently for PVB is high considering the lack of flexibility you get - no way they'd be able to sell it at that price once this opens if it is separate).

I get the fairness argument, but PVB1 owners purchased their points there knowing it was studios and bungalows only.

 

[DVChris]

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.

 

[nlenguyen]

With any decision, they should increase incentive to PV1 or lower the price. When they are able to sell both products, most people are going to choose the one that has the larger units. I have always thought it bizarre to have such a drastic difference in studios and bungalows

 

[BamaGuy44]

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.

That's a good point. I'm not a Poly owner, but we love it. We bought resale last December knowing we would want more points in a few years. And we've already decided the next buy will be direct. The timing of this expansion is perfect for me and I'm excited about it. Assuming the incentives are decent, something along the lines of what they are doing for VGF2, I'll definitely be a buyer.

Most likely I'll buy either way, but honestly I'm not sure which I'm hoping for, same association or new. I can see pros/cons both ways. I'd really like it to be the same so my resale points will be good there, and no resale restrictions. But as you say, resale contracts being blocked and current Poly owners being blocked would give some definite advantages. Hmmmm maybe I'll start a poll...

 

[EM Lawrence]

If Poly2 is a new association with resale restrictions, I would probably buy more resale points and skip a direct purchase entirely. I've had good luck using my Poly contract as SAP. I also love the current Poly studios. I'd rather own points that can be resold without restrictions if I ever need to sell, and it seems that the appetite for studios is only increasing. Poly1 has plenty of those, and really nice ones at that. I see the expansion as win either way. If it is part of the same association, I can book 1BR and larger rooms with a home resort advantage and still stay at my beloved Poly. If it is a new association with resale restrictions, I won't stay in those rooms, but I can still enjoy whatever new amenities it adds to the resort, and use my Poly points as SAP if I want a bigger room.

My only concern is if the new tower joins the existing association and also increases our dues significantly. That would stink.

 

[Paul Stupin]

I think it’s wishful thinking to consider that Disney will make as substantial an investment as the construction of this new tower requires, and not attach resale restrictions with a new association. In my mind, of course they will. The ability to book at Riviera, DLT, and now Poly2, for me at least, is a truly meaningful reason for owning direct points. I don’t think many resale buyers really believed that they’d be shut out of a brand new WDW resort beyond Riviera for the foreseeable future, and now suddenly it’s a very real possibility. That’s a pretty big shot across the bow of resale, and a pretty substantial new benefit to owning and buying direct.

 

[Frugal Fairy Tales]

I think it’s wishful thinking to consider that Disney will make as substantial an investment as the construction of this new tower requires, and not attach resale restrictions with a new association. In my mind, of course they will. The ability to book at Riviera, DLT, and now Poly2, for me at least, is a truly meaningful reason for owning direct points. I don’t think many resale buyers really believed that they’d be shut out of a brand new WDW resort beyond Riviera for the foreseeable future, and now suddenly it’s a very real possibility. That’s a pretty big shot across the bow of resale, and a pretty substantial new benefit to owning and buying direct.

Yes, and it makes sense at truly new resorts going forward. But to shut out existing Poly owners until 7 months at a new build that is an "expansion" of an existing resort that is part of the same resort just feels like the ULTIMATE CRAP SANDWICH. They did not do that at VGF (and I am happy for all of you VGF folks). And I know BRV owners are shut out of CC until 7 months (and vice versa) but that was not a mere few years after it opened. If a separate association happens I am also concerned about the value of Poly 1 points. Perhaps there could be some remedy... Poly 1 owners can book at Poly 2 at 10 or 9 or 8 months?... or, a new class of "full access" Poly points, and then Poly 1 and Poly 2 points?..., or etc.?... But, I am wholeheartedly hoping for the same association!

 

[Duckbug.Ducktales]

Yes, and it makes sense at truly new resorts going forward. But to shut out existing Poly owners until 7 months at a new build that is an "expansion" of an existing resort that is part of the same resort just feels like the ULTIMATE CRAP SANDWICH. They did not do that at VGF (and I am happy for all of you VGF folks). And I know BRV owners are shut out of CC until 7 months (and vice versa) but that was not a mere few years after it opened. If a separate association happens I am concerned about the value of Poly 1 points. Perhaps there could be some remedy... Poly 1 owners can book at Poly 2 at 10 or 9 or 8 months?... A new class of "full access" Poly points, and then Poly 1 and Poly 2 points?... etc.?... But, I am wholeheartedly hoping for the same association!

I don't think they would make a new class of full access Poly points that can book somewhere in the middle of 11 to 7 months. I really think the only options are new or existing association. There will be folks who will be disappointed either way: some want expanded access, others want no competition from existing points.

My guess would be that DVC would try to disappoint the perspective buyer group less than the existing owner group (and I know there's overlap), given they're trying to sell.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

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?

Don't make decisions on speculation - just wait until it's known.

Having said that though, to speculate I'd believe it will be part of the existing association. Plus that is the information that is coming out from what sounds like a more internal source - a better basis to go by at this time.

The theory of an entire new booking window set up is not really workable IMO. The resorts are all part of the Buena Vista Trading company in order to exchange between each other. They do NOT have individual agreements with other resorts and doing that or just creating a different window between two resorts would create some crazy entanglements that I do not see DVC heading into.

I think this will be the Poly slam dunk that they had thought they'd get with the original buildings but then discovered that a studio only resort actually doesn't appeal as well as a resort with a full complement of villa sizes. They will not have to search for ways to ensure sales. Really they never have had to do that but became convinced they needed to become like other timeshares.

 

[Sandisw]

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 agree but I also think they have a lot of options that don't have to follow all the previous patterns. Who figured 10 years ago we would see them come up with resale restrictions or a membership perks program only for those who buy X amount of points direct from DVD.

In this case, assuming its a new resort, I think they can decide to go for less than 50 years and match it to PVB. They can make it a 60 year lease, which allows a larger difference between current and new and help with how things expire.

Can they ask current owners of PVB to vote on changing the POS so that it becomes part of the new in exchange for resale restrictions?

There are so many different ways it can go. I think a lot of us were surprised to see them just roll in the BPK resort studios in the current VGF. Nothing they do, or will do, will surprise me at this point and for whatever reason, they did not commit to one or the other with the announcement so as you say, maybe they are still trying to figure it out all.

I just can't understand why they realized it now. I do have a theory on the name. They just updated the POS for VGF and once this is named, if may need to be included in that part that says don't buy as XYZ might not ever happen?

 

[Sandisw]

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."

It is only selling to current owners who have been around long enough to care about restrictions. I bought and could give a hoot about them as I bought both direct and resale RIV...so my 300 points had nothing to do with that aspect. I bought for the resort and for the price. Had they priced this higher, I would have gone for more RIV. Yes, I am one buyer only, but I am sure I am not the only one.

The key for resale restrictions will be when we see how this fairs with new buyers. That is when we will truly be able to see how well a shorter contract at VGF with no resale restrictions and one that is longer but has them compete against each other.

And, that could every well be why they did not commit to this being a new resort or a Phase 2 for PVB.

 

[RoseGold]

I think it’s wishful thinking to consider that Disney will make as substantial an investment as the construction of this new tower requires, and not attach resale restrictions with a new association. In my mind, of course they will.

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.

 

[Sandisw]

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

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.

 

[Sandisw]

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?

Thank you for the detailed thoughts! Some I had not really thought about. So, the bungalows. How does this help that though? Isn't the theory that the points allotted to the bungalows have to stay with those units? Or, are you saying that by having that many more owners with home resort advantage, they will be booked more often?

So much to debate which I guess is exactly what DVC wanted to happen...talk about free market research! LOL

 

[Sandisw]

I think making it a separate association would upset current PVB owners since they still would only have 11mo access to studios and bungalows, which is really kind of unfair in a sense. CCV/BRV at least have comparable room types available, other than cabins. I think the least backlash would be found if DVC adds the new building to the existing PVB association (plus, the direct price of $250 currently for PVB is high considering the lack of flexibility you get - no way they'd be able to sell it at that price once this opens if it is separate).

All very true but could be exactly what DVD may want to happen...reduce the resale price, guide people to buy direct at this new property and not worry about all the PVB points out there..