Poly Tower Speculation

[hockeydad21]

I'm gonna commit and make a call...it is 99% going to be its own association with resale restrictions.

They just haven't shared it with the public; because it is so obvious to DVD that it falls into the new-tower category a la Riviera and Villas at DH (see the "emchen Theorem" expressed above). "It's a new facility, of course it will have it's own association!".

Make the call guys! I've yet to hear a convincing prediction that it WILL BE a part of the old association.

I feel like comparing it to Riviera and the Villas at Disneyland Hotel is a misleading comparison though. Riviera was BRAND NEW, and the Disneyland Hotel didn't have any DVC rooms previously, so they had no choice but to make both of them new associations. The more similar comparison would be Grand Floridian. While not apples to apples, it's certainly a better comparison than Riviera or Villas at Disneyland Hotel.

 

[TheDailyMoo]

If it was going to be part of the old PVB association wouldn't Disney be ROFRing the PVB resales left and right in order to flip it? If they knew it was going to be the same association and are letting people buy in the 130s that would be kinda not smart on their part,no?

 

[emchen]

I feel like comparing it to Riviera and the Villas at Disneyland Hotel is the incorrect comparison though. Riviera was BRAND NEW, and the Disneyland Hotel didn't have any DVC rooms previously, so they had no choice but to make both of them new associations. The more similar comparison would be Grand Floridian. While not apples to apples, it's certainly a better comparison than Riviera or Villas at Disneyland Hotel.

I was referring to the fact that they are new facilities (as defined in my theorem). But I see how it wasn't very clear. I don't cite VGF renovation because it is not a new facility therefore does not falsify my theorem. CCV is the better example because it is on existing BRV property AND the building of cabins (new facility) necessitated its own association. You know how people joke that Towers at Polynesian is just Reflections plopped down? I have no doubt that Riviera, Reflections, Villas at DH, and now Towers at Poly were all planned from the start to be their own association AND have resale restrictions.

I feel the same. But here is a simple theorem: a new DVC property at an existing one will be part of a new association when there is one or more new facilities built (refurb of existing ones don’t count as new facility).

…Fort Wilderness Cabins will be 17th simply because they will be completed and on sale sooner than The Towers at Polynesian…which will be 18th (if the theorem holds true).

@hockeydad21 ...what do you predict? New association or no?

 

[hockeydad21]

I was referring to the fact that they are new facilities (as defined in my theorem). But I see how it wasn't very clear. I don't cite VGF renovation because it is not a new facility therefore does not falsify my theorem. CCV is the better example because it is on existing BRV property AND the building of cabins (new facility) necessitated its own association. You know how people joke that Towers at Polynesian is just Reflections plopped down? I have no doubt that Riviera, Reflections, Villas at DH, and now Towers at Poly were all planned from the start to be their own association AND have resale restrictions.

@hockeydad21 ...what do you predict? New association or no?

I’m torn 60/40 with the edge going to the same association. I also won’t be shocked at all if it’s a new association with restrictions though.

Selfishly though, I want it to be part of the same association because I own there and my family is still growing. Would love to have access to 1 or 2 bedroom villas at my home resort. Worst case scenario it’s different associations, and I’ll just get 2 studios in the future. My family doesn’t really utilize the villas’ kitchen, so 2 studios would suffice.

 

[EYL]

What is the disadvantage to current PVB owners if the new tower is part of the same association? How will making PVB2 the same association as PVB1 effect bookings for current owners? I understand what happened over at VGF (increasing competition for studios/1BR's) but isn't this the opposite? Aren't they adding multiple room types to an existing "limited"-option inventory? I guess I understand the disadvantage to those who are looking to stay in, say, duo studios or GV's that may be included in the tower because the current PVB1 owners would also have the 11-month advantage there....but if that is the case, there is nothing really stopping those folks from buying PVB1 right now, either direct or resale.

If it's the same association, the only disadvantage I predict is that it will add competition to the existing longhouse studios.

We bought PVB in 2019 to book Lake View Studios with a direct view of the fireworks from inside the room. We are happy and know that, for the dates we typically travel, I don't have to wake up and book at exactly 11 months. But since studios are typically the first to go, the extra points from the Tower could mean additional 11-8 month competition at the Original PVB. Which means I might have book earlier than I usually do. This is why I don't want it to be in the same association - I am happy with using my PVB points at the original PVB.

 

[Sammie]

I think it will be a new association with the same restrictions as Riviera.

 

[ehh]

Make the call guys! I've yet to hear a convincing prediction that it WILL BE a part of the old association.

I'm personally on the fence, leaning 55/45 toward separate association (entirely due to restrictions, to be clear), but I'll play Devil's Advocate here and try to make the case for same association:

• They're both at the Poly (merely a prerequisite, not a significant indicator)
• It looks like they're going to complete construction, begin sales, and open just before the '40 year deadline'
  • There's a law in Florida that says something like 'you need to sell new timeshares with at least a 40yr lease'
  • Every other resort that expanded clear of the '40 year deadline' was the same association:
    • Treehouses to SSR
    • Kidani to Jambo
    • VGF2 to VGF1 (VGF2 also barely cleared the deadline, fwiw)
  • CCV was well past the '40 year deadline' for VWL (would have been just ~25yrs)
• You could make an argument that they already have too many resorts 'on the menu' (RIV, VDH, and CFW will all be available when Poly2 goes on sale), but yet it seems Poly2 will be complete prior to the '40 year deadline' despite this. You could even say they appear to be rushing to meet the deadline, based on construction progress.
• Why would they be rushing to complete? I think there's a verystrong argument to be made that they can justify a higher $/pt, or have a higher sales velocity at the same $/pt, by selling "you get access to both resorts at 11m", referring to the new Tower and the existing Studios/Bungalows
  • Yes, we know there are downsides to some owners/buyers to mixing the inventory, but from a purely marketing angle I strongly suspect this would be pretty effective, especially to new buyers
  • I think ultimately they care most about maximizing their return on investment and selling the 'you basically get two home resorts!' angle would be a very effective sales pitch
    • Also avoids the "oh you wanted to buy at THAT Poly? sorry, we're only selling THIS Poly" sales talk
    • Remember: the bulk of buyers are fairly uninformed! Things that make the sales conversation go easier and seem like 'plusses' are good
• As for informed buyers, I'm not convinced existing Poly owners will have significantly stronger sales one way or the other, but I lean slightly toward same association also helping sales to existing Poly owners
  • Argument for increased sales with same association: high enough quantity of Poly1 owners will buy in to Poly2 to get 'Big Villa' points, upgrading from their Studio points, owing to the reduced number of points needed, to offset the reduce number of points each owner 'needs'
  • Argument for increased sales with different association: Poly1 owners will buy more Poly2 points overall because their Poly1 points won't get what they want at Poly2
• There might not be a 'modern' ratio of studios::big Villas in the Tower, based on evidence from construction progress and artist renderings. Existing Poly1 studios would be that inventory to give the entire resort a 'modern' balance that is studio-heavy
  • I do think DVC does care about the ratio of rooms to make a resort as balanced as possible...VGF1+2 and VDH are strong indications they see studio-heavy as the way forward, but Poly2 construction clearly doesn't indicate that path for Poly2
  • And what Studios we see in construction/artist renderings may be Resort Studios or Duo Studios, we can't tell yet
• They haven't yet indicated whether it will be the same association or not. I see the longer they wait to announce the more likely they're the same association due to wanting to avoid losing sales to resale
  • Personal take: If they did announce it was the same association tomorrow with an on-sales date of mid-2024, I would almost immediately buy more resale points. If they announce shortly before sales, I'd probably consider waiting for direct to see the pricing
  • Easy counterpoint to this: there's likely reduced losses to resale if they're separate
• I'm not sure they know that restrictions are a benefit to them, especially short term. They appear to be mostly committed to restrictions (with an interesting detour at VGF2, an opportunity they passed on to make a new association, too), but maybe still interested in what's best in the short term or hedging their bets
• DVC markets "Studios" as separate from and lesser than "Villas", but the existing resort name is "Polynesian Villas and Bungalows" despite no Villas according to their current definition
  • Citation: https://disneyvacationclub.disney.go.com/deluxe-villas-accommodations/
  • Yeah, this is picayune, but maybe points to this being a planned expansion to fulfill the name
• I'm not sure DVC has much evidence that 50yr expiration is meaningfully more enticing than a 40yr expiration, nor do I think they care when a resort lease ends and they control the property again, none of current management will be working for Disney then
• An argument could be made (easily, I think) that the only significant organizational or financial benefit DVC has to separate the associations is restrictions. It's a significant argument, but if RIV and VDH didn't do restrictions, I'm not sure we, as a community/forum, would even be considering a separate association seriously
• Counterpoint to the "emchem Theorem" (sorry!): the grandness of the construction is a minor factor as it ultimately doesn't matter to the bottom or top line--construction costs are what they are and ultimately the biggest thing that matters is sales and I don't think there's a robust argument that they will sell Poly2 faster or at higher $/pt if the association is separate

 

[emchen]

"emchen Theorem": a new DVC property at an existing one will be part of a new association when there is one or more new facilities built (refurb or expansion of existing ones don’t count as new facility).

This is the theorem....nothing about the grandness of construction.

I'm personally on the fence, leaning 55/45 toward separate association (entirely due to restrictions, to be clear), but I'll play Devil's Advocate here and try to make the case for same association:

OK, after your well-thought out and extensive list, are you now 55/45 towards SAME association?

 

[🍀TwinsMom]

I just want floor plans already. This thing is zooming on construction. If it's opening late 2024, chances are it goes on sale spring of 2024, and that's not that far off. I need details of duo/tower studios, restaurants, grand villas, dedicated two bedrooms. Come on now, someone get the deets!

We're assuming/hoping new association to continue pushing resale restrictions, but who knows.

 

[tom1944]

If it’s the same association I don’t think I would buy there until I see if my SAP get me the access I would want.

I would add it to a rotation of other resorts so I am not looking to book there all the time.

 

[Sandisw]

I feel like comparing it to Riviera and the Villas at Disneyland Hotel is a misleading comparison though. Riviera was BRAND NEW, and the Disneyland Hotel didn't have any DVC rooms previously, so they had no choice but to make both of them new associations. The more similar comparison would be Grand Floridian. While not apples to apples, it's certainly a better comparison than Riviera or Villas at Disneyland Hotel.

The true comparison would be CCV and BRV….but that situation was different in the time difference between the two products.

The big reason to make it new is restrictions which started with RIV. Association aside, they didn’t have to add those to VDH and yet they did….which means it’s still something they want in their new products.

Conversion of BPK was unique in that is was a quick conversation and opened a year later, with work taking only about 3 months. It may have been easier to roll it in because VGF was pretty small and the demand for studios there high.

Poly tower is a massive project and there are a few things different than with BPK at VGF. DVD stopped selling VGF points once announced….still selling PVB.

Purposely keeping it a secret….BPK came out right away to be the same…

With FW cabins coming online around the same time, it seems odd that they want the brand new tower selling along with FW cabins with and without restrictions. Yes, they have it with BPK and RIV…but BPK was a building and Poly tower is a resort complex with dining and shopping expected.

We shall see. I just can’t think of any reason if it’s going to be part of PVB, why hold off announcing it. And, remember, they slipped in restrictions for VDH via a change to POS without any announcement.

My guess is we may need to keep an eye out for documents to find out.

 

[Genie+]

I think they 100% want Poly2 to be new/restricted and just leaving their foot in the door. Something must be concerning them that they don’t want to commit either way.

 

[tom1944]

What do they gain by announcing it now?

What do they lose if they make the announcement shortly before it goes on sale?

 

[ehh]

This is the theorem....nothing about the grandness of construction.

OK, after your well-thought out and extensive list, are you now 55/45 towards SAME association?

Yeah, "Grandness" was a weird word choice from me. My broader point is that how it's constructed (from refurb to more-significant-than-VGF2 refurb to partially new facilities to all new facilities to [something even 'grander]) doesn't really matter to the bottom line and that the bottom line would be prioritized by a rationale organization.

And yes, I'm still slightly leaning toward separate associations. I'm not convinced DVC management will make the choice that makes more money (on paper) when they can implement restrictions. If it weren't for restrictions, I really don't think we'd be talking about this at all.

 

[kilik64]

If it was going to be part of the old PVB association wouldn't Disney be ROFRing the PVB resales left and right in order to flip it? If they knew it was going to be the same association and are letting people buy in the 130s that would be kinda not smart on their part,no?

I dont think you can read anything into the lack of ROFR on poly. They are not buying anything currently and I'd lean toward the reason being cost cutting overall and the company as a whole trying to reduce expenses thanks to the big Hulu buyout they gotta do early next year.

 

[Genie+]

Yes I think this decision hinges on keeping restrictions.

Which may also explain having many resorts active at one time. Having RIV, VDH, CFW, Poly2 all selling with restrictions (with VGF close to or already gone) normalizes it. No more need to discuss days of yore.

Plus look at RIV today as the lonely restricted resale on the market. Instead of new resorts with restrictions dribbling in one by one on the resale front, RIV will go from singular to having alot of company.

 

[CraigInPA]

I've said from the first announcement that they'd make it the same association, and outfit the tower with one bedrooms, two bedrooms, grand villas, and only a token number of lock off units, thereby pushing people to the original buildings for studios. If you think about it, that would allow Poly to have a complete mix of accommodations, instead of the studios and the ridiculously point expensive bungalows that exist today.

Personally, I wanted the original Poly DVC to be on the site they're building now, but with studios. I dislike the side of Poly over by the TTC, and prefer the marina side. So, if it's a new resort with studios and 1/2 bedrooms, and especially if they've got fixed weeks, I'm in for a big add-on if it's a separate association. But, if it's part of the existing association and is only 1/2/3 bedrooms and a few lock offs, I'm out.

 

[maui22]

If it was going to be part of the old PVB association wouldn't Disney be ROFRing the PVB resales left and right in order to flip it? If they knew it was going to be the same association and are letting people buy in the 130s that would be kinda not smart on their part,no?

I understand the concept.

I think there would be some bad consequences for a company that is battling hard financial decisions.

High ROFR activity on PVB would reveal their decision. Some would decide not to buy RIV or VGF if they knew tower decision. Additionally, they would be spending more money to ROFR at a time analysts are very concerned about the expensive Hulu buyout from Comcast. (Comcast can legally require Disney to buy the remaining 1/3 of Hulu for a very large amount of money).

 

[BamaGuy44]

What do they gain by announcing it now?

What do they lose if they make the announcement shortly before it goes on sale?

They don't gain anything by announcing it now, IMO. With VDH they literally didn't even announce it, probably will be the same vibe with Poly2. One day the docs will get updated, someone will notice, and we'll basically "announce" it to ourselves.

As for prediction, I'm on record from way back saying I'll be shocked if it's not separate. I just can't see any reason they would pass up the chance to add all those restricted points to the system. But I'm also on record as saying they've shocked me before

Restrictions are clearly the path they're committed to, no reason the think they would vary it for Poly2. As a probable buyer, I hope it's separate. I have way more interest in the tower than the longhouses, so no desire to have to compete with all those ridiculous bungalow points.

 

[BeachClub2014]

We shall see. I just can’t think of any reason if it’s going to be part of PVB, why hold off announcing it. And, remember, they slipped in restrictions for VDH via a change to POS without any announcement.

My guess is we may need to keep an eye out for documents to find out.

This.

If my memory serves me correctly, DVC already announced that new resorts would have restrictions in the future. Given this, perhaps DVC doesn't feel it necessary to make any announcement. We may all be eagerly awaiting an announcement that never actually happens.