Poly Expansion Watch

100% agree. The watered down architecture started with Bay Lake Tower and now Riviera, Grand Destino Tower and Swan Reserve. Might as well stay at Bonnet Creek for 1/2 the price. As someone who's been going to WDW since the 70s, I'm coming to the realization that they will never again invest like they did with the original Poly, Contemp, Wilderness Lodge or Animal Kingdom Lodge. I know it probably doesn't bother a lot of people but I grew up with the resort being a big part of the magic. Feeling transported somewhere else. Disappointing. I just hate that that nice space on the walk over to the GF will now be a giant, loud Hilton with less green space. Money talks. I was gonna finally take the plunge on DVC resale this year but I've backed off with all the examples of bad leadership.

I am not selling just yet, but I can't find the passion to tout its excellence anymore either. I was the biggest fan of DVC, but now I just hope it improves before all of the shine wears off for us. If my family were to decide they didn't enjoy the trips as much or want to go somewhere else for vacation I wouldn't put up nearly the argument I would have several years ago.
 
you hit the nail here. If people don’t see an out, then less people would buy. And many would argue that Disney’s been doing more to take away the value of buying direct. The ability to book at future resorts just isn’t very compelling yet. Not until 2042I’m guessing.
Like Sandisw said above, I think the average DVC buyer isn't looking for an "out" when they buy. Like me, for example. I bought in with the intention of never selling. Most people don't know about the resale market. And there will always be the option to sell, even if the resale restrictions severely reduce the resale price.
 
So while this gets all the DVC owners all excited, in the end it's more hotel capacity with no park expansion. If Disney keeps going in this direction, putting in more rooms without expanding offerings/parks, the parks will become a nightmare.

I just dread the way this is going.
 
100% agree. The watered down architecture started with Bay Lake Tower and now Riviera, Grand Destino Tower and Swan Reserve. Might as well stay at Bonnet Creek for 1/2 the price. As someone who's been going to WDW since the 70s, I'm coming to the realization that they will never again invest like they did with the original Poly, Contemp, Wilderness Lodge or Animal Kingdom Lodge. I know it probably doesn't bother a lot of people but I grew up with the resort being a big part of the magic. Feeling transported somewhere else. Disappointing. I just hate that that nice space on the walk over to the GF will now be a giant, loud Hilton with less green space. Money talks. I was gonna finally take the plunge on DVC resale this year but I've backed off with all the examples of bad leadership.

My only gripe about this kind of argument is that it assumes every single DVC member (or Disney hotel guest) is drawn to over the top theming like AKL, Poly, Wilderness, etc. Some people, myself included, enjoy that kind theming, on occasion, but also like staying at hotels that have more subtle theming. I personally loved the Swan Reserve and would stay there again. The newer "toned down" resorts does appeal to a lot of people. And it's not like they're tearing down AKL, etc., those options are still there. More variety is a good thing.
 
So while this gets all the DVC owners all excited, in the end it's more hotel capacity with no park expansion. If Disney keeps going in this direction, putting in more rooms without expanding offerings/parks, the parks will become a nightmare.

I just dread the way this is going.
Possible but people buying more into DVC might also mean more people will stay on property than off site negating the offset? I agree though. The park needs to expand
 
The most distressing thing that I see with all the new additions to DVC, is that you can't even go by "Buy Where you Want to Stay" because now DVC is changing existing associations depending on if it suits THEIR needs, and not the owners. Sometimes this is beneficial to membership, and sometime not. But you can no longer just assume your HOME RESORT will stay the same which should be very concerning to all owners.
 
The most distressing thing that I see with all the new additions to DVC, is that you can't even go by "Buy Where you Want to Stay" because now DVC is changing existing associations depending on if it suits THEIR needs, and not the owners. Sometimes this is beneficial to membership, and sometime not. But you can no longer just assume your HOME RESORT will stay the same which should be very concerning to all owners.
But what is changing to the existing Poly buildings? The only thing I see changed is taking the Luau away. Will the other locations of Poly be changed?
 
Maybe we are the oddball, but seeing a healthy resale market made us comfortable taking the plunge. We felt comfortable buying a “time share” knowing there was a popular resale market… if we grew out of it or our situation changed then we had a good shot at selling it. We knew about the resale market and still bought direct.

We are also poly owners and have mixed feelings. At first I assumed it was an expansion because why else would Disney talk about poly if it wasn’t going to be part of it? If it ends up being poly2, is it going to be it’s own resort and therefore not have access to the poly pool or are all the amenities going to be shared? It seems like things are crowded at poly as is… won’t this make it worse?
 
Here at moonlight magic and asked a sales manager whether the new poly tower would be a new association or not. She said it is "just like the recent expansion at VGF: ONE ASSOCIATION".
Thanks for sharing ! That’s great news if true. I’d love to combine my resale Poly points with the direct points I will purchase at PVB2 for 2 bed options occasionally.
 
Here at moonlight magic and asked a sales manager whether the new poly tower would be a new association or not. She said it is "just like the recent expansion at VGF: ONE ASSOCIATION".

Pretty surprised but let’s hope we can get more reports! Thanks for asking.
 
The newer "toned down" resorts does appeal to a lot of people.
Agree. I love detailed theming. However, my DH really prefers the more relaxed vibe of offsite resorts like Wyndham Bonnet Creek, Hilton resorts and Marriott resorts. At heavily themed DVC resorts, he feels like it's a commercial hard sell, Mickey "in your face" all the time trying to prod guests to open their wallets. We differ in what we prefer, but obviously, he's not alone.

Maybe we are the oddball, but seeing a healthy resale market made us comfortable taking the plunge.
Judging by the frequent comments by DVC owners over on the Timeshare Users Group forums, that's a pretty common thought.

If it ends up being poly2, is it going to be it’s own resort and therefore not have access to the poly pool or are all the amenities going to be shared? It seems like things are crowded at poly as is… won’t this make it worse?
Well, consider what happened over at Wilderness Lodge. When they first added the (DVC) Villas at WL (now called Boulder Ridge Villas), they also added a small quiet pool and a fitness room but no additional restaurants. Hotel guests and DVC guests all had access to both pool areas. The total increase of WL guests made the WL feature pool much too crowded.

So when they converted a wing of WL's hotel rooms into DVC units (note: it's a 2nd, separate association, Copper Creek), they also overhauled and greatly expanded the quiet pool area, as well as adding a large splash pad to the main feature pool. Now both pool areas are better utilized by guests and don't feel as crowed, IMO. They also significantly enlarged the outdoor dining capacity by building Geyser Point for sit-down dining, with a side take-out counter, located lakeside and centrally to both pool areas of the WL resort.

The opening of Copper Creek did not substantially increase the number of guests using those pools, since the only additional rooms were the lakefront cabins. So these expanded facilities were likely to address the need for more facilities at an expanded deluxe resort. Btw, all guests staying at WL, BRV, & CC have full access to all shared facilities on those grounds. I'd totally expect the same at Poly.

At Saratoga Springs, they also later added a 2nd feature pool area in the center of the resort (Paddocks section) with a decent poolside bar/grill. These larger facilities were not in the original plans for the resort but rather a welcome addition late in the game.

The initial artist rendering released for Poly's DVC2 appears to show a large additional pool. They must know that is necessary. They may also look to add another restaurant since the Ceremonial House restaurants are often so busy and hard to book. AKV-Kidani has Sanaa. Guess we'll see, eventually.
 
Last edited:
I am not selling just yet, but I can't find the passion to tout its excellence anymore either. I was the biggest fan of DVC, but now I just hope it improves before all of the shine wears off for us. If my family were to decide they didn't enjoy the trips as much or want to go somewhere else for vacation I wouldn't put up nearly the argument I would have several years ago.
I know what you mean. When I see talk about all of the factors to consider when buying into DVC, there is one I rarely see but think should be factored in. That is: Do you trust the leadership to make Disney a place you want and can afford to visit for years and years to come. I love Disney and am very happy with my DVC contracts thus far, but each year less so under the current leadership.
 
My only gripe about this kind of argument is that it assumes every single DVC member (or Disney hotel guest) is drawn to over the top theming like AKL, Poly, Wilderness, etc. Some people, myself included, enjoy that kind theming, on occasion, but also like staying at hotels that have more subtle theming. I personally loved the Swan Reserve and would stay there again. The newer "toned down" resorts does appeal to a lot of people. And it's not like they're tearing down AKL, etc., those options are still there. More variety is a good thing.
Sure, variety is a good thing, but not when it's at the expense of a property already highly themed. The Swan Reserve doesn't bother me at all because it's not built among highly themed property, but if you plopped it down on the grounds of the Poly, it would bother me quite a lot.
 
I don't think Disney really cares too much about the resale market. Those contracts are already purchased. If the resale market dries up because of the new restrictions, the only way to acquire points will be via direct purchase. Which was the point of Disney implementing those resale restrictions in the first place...to help drive direct sales.
But…if the resale market driup- meaning the ability to sell your time share at a reasonable price is eliminated. Then, DVC is trending towards any other time share company.
What makes DVC unique besides being Disney of course is the ability to sell at some point. Most non-DVC time shares are basically given away from what I understand.
With that being said, they must be aware that a healthy resale market is a big differentiator for them. We would not have bought into DVC if it weren’t for the fact that we could sell for a reasonable price down the road.
I don't think Disney really cares too much about the resale market. Those contracts are already purchased. If the resale market dries up because of the new restrictions, the only way to acquire points will be via direct purchase. Which was the point of Disney implementing those resale restrictions in the first place...to help drive direct sales.
A healthy resale market is important to Disney. A major differentiator for DVC compared with many other time shares is that the time share actually holds value. That is the case due to resale.
I suspect Disney makes solid money reselling via ROFR as well. This market wouldn’t exist either if it weren’t for resale. I totally agree Disney much prefers to sell direct as the restrictions incentivize some to do so. But no resale market would be bad for Disney.
 
But…if the resale market driup- meaning the ability to sell your time share at a reasonable price is eliminated. Then, DVC is trending towards any other time share company.
What makes DVC unique besides being Disney of course is the ability to sell at some point. Most non-DVC time shares are basically given away from what I understand.
With that being said, they must be aware that a healthy resale market is a big differentiator for them. We would not have bought into DVC if it weren’t for the fact that we could sell for a reasonable price down the road.

A healthy resale market is important to Disney. A major differentiator for DVC compared with many other time shares is that the time share actually holds value. That is the case due to resale.
I suspect Disney makes solid money reselling via ROFR as well. This market wouldn’t exist either if it weren’t for resale. I totally agree Disney much prefers to sell direct as the restrictions incentivize some to do so. But no resale market would be bad for Disney.
When I say “dries up”, I don’t mean the resale market completely going to zero. Of course there will be a market for those prospective buyers who are ok staying at just one resort if they purchase resale. And anyone buying direct in that situation still has the comfort of knowing they can probably sell down the road if they need to (although at a lower price). But the option to sell your contract isn’t guaranteed anywhere.

Again, I don’t think Disney really cares about the resale market. They are putting these restrictions in place to drive buyers to buy direct. They know there will always be a resale market for those buyers that need to sell, but those contracts will be restricted. Disney’s outlook: You don’t want a restricted contract then buy direct…you want to save some money then buy resale and only stay at one resort…if this hurts resale prices then who cares? I am pretty confident Disney doesn’t really care if people selling their contracts are making good money on them.
 
When I say “dries up”, I don’t mean the resale market completely going to zero. Of course there will be a market for those prospective buyers who are ok staying at just one resort if they purchase resale. And anyone buying direct in that situation still has the comfort of knowing they can probably sell down the road if they need to (although at a lower price). But the option to sell your contract isn’t guaranteed anywhere.

Again, I don’t think Disney really cares about the resale market. They are putting these restrictions in place to drive buyers to buy direct. They know there will always be a resale market for those buyers that need to sell, but those contracts will be restricted. Disney’s outlook: You don’t want a restricted contract then buy direct…you want to save some money then buy resale and only stay at one resort…if this hurts resale prices then who cares? I am pretty confident Disney doesn’t really care if people selling their contracts are making good money on them.
You could be right. Disney may not care. But selling a contract WITH restrictions is reducing the sales as Riviera. I’m sure they are disappointed it still isn’t sold out. Point being Disney may rethink their strategy. Buying direct knowing it will be harder to sell disincentivizes buying direct which isn’t what Disney considered. It will be interesting to see if PV2 is same association or not as that will say a lot about Disney’s current strategy. Good dialogue. Thanks for sharing.
 




























facebook twitter
Top