Possible new resort coming to river country area?

[LaidBackDad]

I could be wrong, but I think part of what makes a value, a value is its location. You are far away from the parks. Even the moderates are farther away than Deluxes. The only resorts you will get near parks are deluxes because that is part of what makes them a deluxe.

I agree location is absolutely one of the things that would make a resort deluxe or value; but, clearly not the only thing. OKW and SSR both are considered deluxe but are not close to any of the parks.

 

[LaidBackDad]

It has nothing to do with my "lofty" expectations.

It has to do with how they run the place and what they won't provide... Starting with the appearance and rules that govern the staff.

Four Seasons doesn't fill their staff from a general labor pool at low wage... Disney does. Four seasons doesn't say no to customer requests when it involves going to another vendor outside of their compound...Disney does. "Concierge" doesn't fill out a worksheet and then plug you into a reservation system that's an open free for all on the Internet...or tell you "sorry, citricos is booked". The concept of no privilege to your own clients is laughable.

At the risk of sounding like a completely unsophisticated country bumpkin, I'm still not following you. I don't know what else you could expect from GF or its staff? I know it is all subjective; but, GF is one of the most opulent resorts I have ever seen and surpasses many other 4 Seasons resorts or other top tier resorts. I would also respectfully disagree with you about what labor pool each resort draws from. It is the same labor pool. Are the monorail resorts over priced because of location and transportation conveniences, of course. But, they are also some of the nicest resorts in WDW as far as amenities and décor. I just think you may be giving 4 Seasons a little too much credit for the service they may or may not be able to deliver on a consistent basis. Maybe I'm just confused about what these limitations on Disney staff you keep talking about are? I am new hear so please forgive me if that is an ignorant question.

I do see your point about the concierge service. I also would not consider Disney concierge's true concierge's either. More like advanced customer service reps. You are also right on target about DVC, which is why I believe the next "new" resort (and most in the conceivable future) will be DVC. Too much money made by DVC (particularly upfront) with much less overhead cost.

From reading these boards for quite a while I understand your frustration with other posters who will defend bad Disney policies and decisions ad nauseam. I don't think those posters are doing a service to Disney either; but, I do think you may be underestimating the quality of service by Disney at its top end resort.

 

[doconeill]

I could be wrong, but I think part of what makes a value, a value is its location. You are far away from the parks. Even the moderates are farther away than Deluxes. The only resorts you will get near parks are deluxes because that is part of what makes them a deluxe.

It really isn't just about location. It's about construction, the type of theming, etc.

All but of the deluxes (and let's leave DVC out of this...OKW and SSR are generally considered Deluxes as well) are within a very short walk of at least one park or on the monorail (a unique and convenient transportation option).

Disney lists Wilderness Lodge and Animal Kingdom as Deluxes. However, they lack what all the others have.

Wilderness Lodge isn't on the monorail, so you have to take bus or boat. The boat isn't terriibly fast, and the bus is probably not much faster to MK than it would be from, say, Coronado Springs to Epcot, or for that matter, the All-Stars to Animal Kingdom. And if the boat to MK is the qualifier, why isn't Ft. Wilderness considered a Deluxe?

Animal Kingdom Lodge, isn't actually very close to the Animal Kingdom park. The only way there is by bus. And it's at the most extreme end of the property, not convenience to ANY of the other parks. Further away than any of the values.

That's why in some circles they are referred to as "modeluxes".

So what sets apart the classes? Although park access has something to do with it, I think is is far more to do with design and theme.

The values are generally of the same "motel" design - entrances are external (I believe the suite buildings at AOA were modified to have the entrances within an internal hallway). And the theming is more "cartoony", for lack of a better term - not a disparaging term, but just trying to describe it. The buildings are decorated or painted with images, there are giant representations of the theme everywhere, and the pools are in various related shapes. Lastly, they only offer a food court for an on-resort dining option, and pizza delivery.

The moderates are a bit different. They are themed to make you believe you are somewhere else, but are also more subtle about it. They each have a unique style. Although entrances are still external, they have more style than just a long row of rooms. And I believe each of them offer at least one table service and one counter service, plus pizza delivery.

The Deluxes done on a more grand scale. They are fully hotel style resorts, indoors and enclosed. The lobbies are luxuriously themed. There is often more than one table service location for dining, a lounge/bar, and there is a full-service in-room dining option, and other services you'd expect from a hotel.

Of course there can be exceptions.

 

[doconeill]

For some reason it's not letting me quote LaidBackDad's last post, but in response...it's all about the rules set down by whoever decides how many stars a resort gets (typically, the publisher of said guides). There are VERY strict requirements for getting a fourth star. Some require certain policies with what is and isn't allowed in the resort. I don't remember them all (as I don't really care about four-star status), but IIRC one of them is that resort amenities are strictly for resort guests...for example, a restaurant would only be used by guests at the resort, not people "from the street", etc.

Strict dress codes I believe were another one. One is not allowed to wear just beach attire in the lobby even if passing through to the pool, etc.

There are some who will not stay at the Grand Floridian because it isn't good enough. Disney would still like to take their money too...

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I agree location is absolutely one of the things that would make a resort deluxe or value; but, clearly not the only thing. OKW and SSR both are considered deluxe but are not close to any of the parks.

OKW and Saratoga have boat access
To downtown...

The only exception is so do port and Dixie

However... If they had it to do over again... I don't feel like port Orleans would have that if constructed today.

 

[ArwenMarie]

I think AKL is definitely a deluxe...there are giraffes outside the window! Plus restaurants, bars, etc. WL is the one that is borderline deluxe in my mind. You pay a bit less for it, but the rooms are smaller. But then again, it has all of the key amenities that they seem to mark as Deluxe.

I do think location is the main consideration though. If you stuck a value where Beach Club is, it wouldn't be priced as a value anymore. If you moved BC to where AS is, it wouldn't be priced the same either.

They throw in the extras to make people think they are getting more for their money, but you are really paying for the location.

 

[doconeill]

I think AKL is definitely a deluxe...there are giraffes outside the window! Plus restaurants, bars, etc. WL is the one that is borderline deluxe in my mind. You pay a bit less for it, but the rooms are smaller. But then again, it has all of the key amenities that they seem to mark as Deluxe.

I do think location is the main consideration though. If you stuck a value where Beach Club is, it wouldn't be priced as a value anymore. If you moved BC to where AS is, it wouldn't be priced the same either.

They throw in the extras to make people think they are getting more for their money, but you are really paying for the location.

The animals do make my point about there being exceptions. AKL would have trouble warranting the money of a deluxe although, like WL, it does not cost as much as the others. Part of the reason the a good portion of AKL was converted to DVC is even with the animals they couldn't get the occupancy up.

Yes, location is part of it. But that's also probably the one with the biggest exceptions.

As for OKW and SSR...easy travel to DTD as a location perk might be debatable...if Pleasure Island still existed as it had, I might think differently.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

The prevailing wisdom is that Wildeness lodge was built as a moderate and they decided to switch it to a "deluxe" during construction...

That does make some sense...as the pool is more indicative of a moderate (except the hot tubs... Which could easily have been added). Also artists point appears to be a retrofit... And it has the one store that is standard issue now... But was not in the early 90's.

The most telling is the price...rooms were about $125 when they opened... Which at the time wasn't necessarily "cheap"... But not anywhere the other "deluxe" built at the same time... Boardwalk.

There have been... I believe... Disney sources to confirm this tale over the years.

 

[LaidBackDad]

...it's all about the rules set down by whoever decides how many stars a resort gets (typically, the publisher of said guides). There are VERY strict requirements for getting a fourth star. Some require certain policies with what is and isn't allowed in the resort. I don't remember them all (as I don't really care about four-star status), but IIRC one of them is that resort amenities are strictly for resort guests...for example, a restaurant would only be used by guests at the resort, not people "from the street", etc.

Strict dress codes I believe were another one. One is not allowed to wear just beach attire in the lobby even if passing through to the pool, etc.

There are some who will not stay at the Grand Floridian because it isn't good enough. Disney would still like to take their money too...

Ok, that makes a little more sense; but, are we sure the new 4 Seasons is going to be considered a 4 star resort also. Additionally, since it is not a "Disney resort hotel" Disney is not really "taking their money". 4 Seasons is. I know resort guest will buy tickets to the parks and shop at Downtown Disney but it seems contradictory to Disney's best interest to send guest with the most disposable income to competing resorts for services which have the highest profit margins.

GF does set different dress codes (at least for Victoria and Albert's) and restrictions on children. I'm still not sure why if Disney wanted to cater to this very small (yet profitable) demographic why it wouldn't build a resort for that purpose. Maybe that is what is being planned for the old River Country area; but, I doubt it because I think they are infatuated with DVC and its quick and easy money without the hassle of over demanding and pampered guest associated with luxury hotels.

 

[Kpskyman]

It is my opinion that the making of any new resorts will go along the lines of what the people are using. If Disney sees that it needs more Value rooms, because what they have is consistently selling out, then that it what they will build. Location would, of course, have to follow the locations of other value resorts, so it would not be on Bay Lake, or the monorail. I realize that all the deluxe resorts are not on the Monorail, but they are in a close proximity to one of the parks, have larger rooms, nicer restaurants, more shopping areas, and generally just more of an adult feel to them. Given the area of River Country, and the size of the area, I don't see this area being used as a resort in the future. This is why nothing has come here yet. It is a shame that thenImagineers have not come up with anything to utilize this parcel of land yet, but really, if it stays as is, for another 20 years, it is no big deal. There are still at least half of the property that has not been developed yet, so there are many easier places to rebuild on the River Country.

 

[doconeill]

Ok, that makes a little more sense; but, are we sure the new 4 Seasons is going to be considered a 4 star resort also. Additionally, since it is not a "Disney resort hotel" Disney is not really "taking their money". 4 Seasons is. I know resort guest will buy tickets to the parks and shop at Downtown Disney but it seems contradictory to Disney's best interest to send guest with the most disposable income to competing resorts for services which have the highest profit margins.

GF does set different dress codes (at least for Victoria and Albert's) and restrictions on children. I'm still not sure why if Disney wanted to cater to this very small (yet profitable) demographic why it wouldn't build a resort for that purpose. Maybe that is what is being planned for the old River Country area; but, I doubt it because I think they are infatuated with DVC and its quick and easy money without the hassle of over demanding and pampered guest associated with luxury hotels.

The Four Seasons would be taking the guests' resort money, but the point is they'd be going to the parks, so there is ticket money, merchandise money, food money...from people with huge amounts of disposable income from a class that Disney previously didn't serve, and for whatever reason Disney did not wish to serve directly.

Building a new resort doesn't necessarily solve it either. They'd have to build it, then build up its reputation to get to four stars. And that could actually be _difficult_ to do with the Disney name attached. Not only because of the name itself, but because being a Disney resort there would be an expectation of things working a certain way that would not be the case in a four star hotel.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Building a new resort doesn't necessarily solve it either. They'd have to build it, then build up its reputation to get to four stars. And that could actually be _difficult_ to do with the Disney name attached. Not only because of the name itself, but because being a Disney resort there would be an expectation of things working a certain way that would not be the case in a four star hotel.

A calculated risk...

But what risk? They taken money from bill gates et al to do this and they are the ones doing the building...

Low risk/high reward for disney

 

[doconeill]

A calculated risk...

But what risk? They taken money from bill gates et al to do this and they are the ones doing the building...

Low risk/high reward for disney

Exactly...why should Disney fight the uphill battle and spend its own money to serve a niche when they can just get someone who already serves that niche and essentially would bring them along? Sure, they don't get the same long term recurring revenue levels, but they do get a lot of money up front...

 

[bcrook]

It has nothing to do with my "lofty" expectations.

It has to do with how they run the place and what they won't provide... Starting with the appearance and rules that govern the staff.

Four Seasons doesn't fill their staff from a general labor pool at low wage... Disney does. Four seasons doesn't say no to customer requests when it involves going to another vendor outside of their compound...Disney does. "Concierge" doesn't fill out a worksheet and then plug you into a reservation system that's an open free for all on the Internet...or tell you "sorry, citricos is booked". The concept of no privilege to your own clients is laughable.

Respectfully, you missed the point. I was commenting on the comparison of a Disney hotel to an established luxury brand. There isn't one. I'm not calling the grand a dump... I'm saying that they can't be realistically compared to four seasons because their service falls far short based on the limitations placed within the wdw compound. That means their price point is off. It wasn't a "personal preference" assessment.

I know I sound like a broken record...but you don't have to accept every myth, publicity campaign, and price Disney sells you to qualify as a fan of wdw. You just don't. You serve a company that wants to take every dime you have if you do... You do not service yourself.

There are things at all Disney locations that I think are spectacular... And that's why I'm a fan. Some examples are EPCOT, wilderness lodge, the yacht/beach/boardwalk area and many parts of the animal kingdom lodge and animal kingdom, and the original stunning landscape engineering and construction of the original elements around magic kingdom...
But please, oh please, don't qualify me as an elitist if I don't fall for the prices of the monorail hotels. I love it there... But that doesn't mean I have to switch my brain off.

And don't think it's any coincidence that after the four seasons started construction in earnest that they just so "happened" to build a DVC lodge at grand Floridian...which is a model that is based on predictability and cost control -for instance probably a 50-75% reduction in housekeeping services rendered by contract. That is the antithesis of "first class service"

I would think the draconian advanced dining system, credit card guarantee, 24 hour cancellation policy would keep all Disney resorts from being four star.

But your points about staffing are important too.

Deluxe at Disney is nothing like 4 star hotels.

And DVC has members hauling their own trash and paying for their own upgrades to the furniture. Antithesis is a perfect word.

That being said, I am a time share junky and don't mind it. But it is definitely a different style of travelling. It is brilliant how Disney convinced me and thousands of others to pay for the building and upkeep of these deluxe accommodations.

 

[ToyStoryMania1]

I actually think Disney could hit two birds with one stone on this one.

1) Demolish the barren theme park landscape that was River Country and clean up the area.

2) Attract Star Wars fans with a premium hotel that is themed around a luxury Star Wars related hotel. This would definitely be a good decision for Disney in the long run.

I don't know if I would support additional DVC construction though, it is getting a bit out of hand at this point.

 

[rteetz]

I actually think Disney could hit two birds with one stone on this one. 1) Demolish the barren theme park landscape that was River Country and clean up the area. 2) Attract Star Wars fans with a premium hotel that is themed around a luxury Star Wars related hotel. This would definitely be a good decision for Disney in the long run. I don't know if I would support additional DVC construction though, it is getting a bit out of hand at this point.

But if you look at Disneyland their deluxe resorts none of them have character or movie theming. The only resorts that have such a thing would be values. Disney is not going to build a Star Wars resort that is a deluxe. Even the moderates don't have that type of theming they have theming of certain areas around the world. Like AKL African themed, wilderness lodge, Polynesian Hawaiian type.

 

[disneylovin24]

I agree location is absolutely one of the things that would make a resort deluxe or value; but, clearly not the only thing. OKW and SSR both are considered deluxe but are not close to any of the parks.

When I wrote my first post I was thinking about SSR and OKW as being close to DTD but also since they are just DVC resorts I think they are an exception to the rule!

It really isn't just about location. It's about construction, the type of theming, etc.

All but of the deluxes (and let's leave DVC out of this...OKW and SSR are generally considered Deluxes as well) are within a very short walk of at least one park or on the monorail (a unique and convenient transportation option).

Disney lists Wilderness Lodge and Animal Kingdom as Deluxes. However, they lack what all the others have.

Wilderness Lodge isn't on the monorail, so you have to take bus or boat. The boat isn't terriibly fast, and the bus is probably not much faster to MK than it would be from, say, Coronado Springs to Epcot, or for that matter, the All-Stars to Animal Kingdom. And if the boat to MK is the qualifier, why isn't Ft. Wilderness considered a Deluxe?

Animal Kingdom Lodge, isn't actually very close to the Animal Kingdom park. The only way there is by bus. And it's at the most extreme end of the property, not convenience to ANY of the other parks. Further away than any of the values.

That's why in some circles they are referred to as "modeluxes".

So what sets apart the classes? Although park access has something to do with it, I think is is far more to do with design and theme.

The values are generally of the same "motel" design - entrances are external (I believe the suite buildings at AOA were modified to have the entrances within an internal hallway). And the theming is more "cartoony", for lack of a better term - not a disparaging term, but just trying to describe it. The buildings are decorated or painted with images, there are giant representations of the theme everywhere, and the pools are in various related shapes. Lastly, they only offer a food court for an on-resort dining option, and pizza delivery.

The moderates are a bit different. They are themed to make you believe you are somewhere else, but are also more subtle about it. They each have a unique style. Although entrances are still external, they have more style than just a long row of rooms. And I believe each of them offer at least one table service and one counter service, plus pizza delivery.

The Deluxes done on a more grand scale. They are fully hotel style resorts, indoors and enclosed. The lobbies are luxuriously themed. There is often more than one table service location for dining, a lounge/bar, and there is a full-service in-room dining option, and other services you'd expect from a hotel.

Of course there can be exceptions.

I have never heard either the WL or AKL be referred to as Deluxe. Looking at size of room and other amenities, I think they fit in along with other Deluxes along with being close to the parks. I didn't say that they had to have great transportation to a park, I just said they had to be close WL Is much closer to a park than PO or CB or any of the values, same for AKL. The AKL also has special perks for getting in to the AK if I am correct.

 

[disneylovin24]

With the exception of SSR and OKW (which like I said I think get passes cause they are just DVC resorts), isn't another way to separate Deluxe from others is outdoor vs. indoor room entrances. I could be wrong but I think the Deluxe are the only hotels on property with indoor room entrances.

And FW is another exception since they are cabins.

 

[disneylovin24]

It is my opinion that the making of any new resorts will go along the lines of what the people are using. If Disney sees that it needs more Value rooms, because what they have is consistently selling out, then that it what they will build. Location would, of course, have to follow the locations of other value resorts, so it would not be on Bay Lake, or the monorail. I realize that all the deluxe resorts are not on the Monorail, but they are in a close proximity to one of the parks, have larger rooms, nicer restaurants, more shopping areas, and generally just more of an adult feel to them. Given the area of River Country, and the size of the area, I don't see this area being used as a resort in the future. This is why nothing has come here yet. It is a shame that thenImagineers have not come up with anything to utilize this parcel of land yet, but really, if it stays as is, for another 20 years, it is no big deal. There are still at least half of the property that has not been developed yet, so there are many easier places to rebuild on the River Country.

Honestly, as someone who has spent a lot of time at FW and WL I am not too worried about turning River Country in to something. First off, I love the trail between the two and would hate to see that tampered with. Second, the theming of both resorts is woods/nature and its nice to have an undeveloped area between the two. IMO the appeal of both is that they are more secluded and I would hate to see that go if they built a resort or something large. Even putting a water park there again would mean more buses around and

I understand why others want to see it utilized but for me, I don't mind it sitting empty

 

[doconeill]

I have never heard either the WL or AKL be referred to as Deluxe.

Disney most definitely categorizes them as deluxe. Did you mean my "modeluxe" comment? I don't recall who originated the term but I've heard of it a few places.

Looking at size of room and other amenities, I think they fit in along with other Deluxes along with being close to the parks. I didn't say that they had to have great transportation to a park, I just said they had to be close WL Is much closer to a park than PO or CB or any of the values, same for AKL. The AKL also has special perks for getting in to the AK if I am correct.

I've never heard of any special perks for getting to AK from AKL, and I've stayed there.

You could build a resort right next to AK, but if it takes two miles to get around to the front entrance, it's not closer than the All-Stars. Carribean Beach is quite close to Epcot - you just can't get IN Epcot without going all the way around.

I did a little Google Earth-fu...WL to MK bus loop is about 1 mile. AKL to AK is about 1.25 miles. Coronado Springs to DHS is about 1.3 miles. (I had mentioned Coronado to Epcot before...but I forgot that there doesn't appear to be a way to get from there to the main Epcot entrance from that direction without going the long way around...). ASSp is about 2 miles to AK.

Not massive distances, but if you want to make the cutoff at 1.25 miles to _some_ park, then all the Deluxes fit (outside SSR and OKW).