PVB Tower Charts, Sales Date and more!!!

[jcolvin5]

I toured the model rooms-
The studios are unlike other studios. More of a “real” kitchen, with a dishwasher and a very small dining nook. The dining nook is so small it will barely bit 1 plate on a tiny table.
As a result of it — it only sleeps 4, with only 2 sleeping surfaces.

I really don’t know which will be more popular — longhouse studios or tower studios. To me, for a family of 4, the longhouse studios are better so each kid can have their own sleep surface.

The one bedroom is perhaps the best 1 BR unit in DVC. Very spacious, 2 really nice bathrooms. And the layout has notched efficiency up even further than other recent resorts.
I’m hoping the high point prices will keep 1 BR bookable at 7 months.

That's my hope. I don't want to own PVB, but am looking forward to booking the 1BR at 7 months. May have to pay for those TPV points to do it.

 

[disneylandtour]

I really don’t know which will be more popular — longhouse studios or tower studios. To me, for a family of 4, the longhouse studios are better so each kid can have their own sleep surface.

My crystal ball says that, in terms of PB studios: the crowds will flock to the Tower and try them out once or twice, and then, the crowds will have the realization, Hey, the longhouses are more spacious and a better value and then move back there for future trips.

Also: a realization I had yesterday. And please, someone correct me if my underlying assumptions are wrong. As the tower and the longhouses are part of the same condo association, this means that the point chart can move points between the longhouses and the tower. I do see a future, once the newness wears off of the tower, that DVD can raise the point costs on the longhouses while decreasing the point cost for studios in the tower. Maybe two points up on the longhouses and two points down on the Studio in the towers, which would help justify the sq footage difference between the two room options.

 

[disneylandtour]

That's my hope. I don't want to own PVB, but am looking forward to booking the 1BR at 7 months. May have to pay for those TPV points to do it.

At least right now, you should be fine. I booked a Tower Duo Standard room for five nights in May using my SSR and OWK points. Future years, who knows? But right now, it's reasonably open.

 

[eticketplease]

I toured the model rooms-
The studios are unlike other studios. More of a “real” kitchen, with a dishwasher and a very small dining nook. The dining nook is so small it will barely bit 1 plate on a tiny table.
As a result of it — it only sleeps 4, with only 2 sleeping surfaces.

I really don’t know which will be more popular — longhouse studios or tower studios. To me, for a family of 4, the longhouse studios are better so each kid can have their own sleep surface.

The one bedroom is perhaps the best 1 BR unit in DVC. Very spacious, 2 really nice bathrooms. And the layout has notched efficiency up even further than other recent resorts.
I’m hoping the high point prices will keep 1 BR bookable at 7 months.

Even if the table is tiny it is still a plus as they keep taking the table and chairs away in the other refurbs and replacing it with the trunk that doubles as a table. To me that is just not the same.

As nice as these 1 BR I will probably only book them once so you can have my 7 month slot.
BLT Lake vs Poly Standard for the same time period I'm saving 30 points and LV pretty much always has 7 month availability there for when we go.

 

[eticketplease]

Also: a realization I had yesterday. And please, someone correct me if my underlying assumptions are wrong. As the tower and the longhouses are part of the same condo association, this means that the point chart can move points between the longhouses and the tower. I do see a future, once the newness wears off of the tower, that DVD can raise the point costs on the longhouses while decreasing the point cost for studios in the tower. Maybe two points up on the longhouses and two points down on the Studio in the towers, which would help justify the sq footage difference between the two room options.

It would probably be more complicated then just 2 points here vs there based on number of rooms and the different view types but I certainly agree that would make sense to do once the newness wears off some.

Not just the size but you also are getting an extra shower and imo a better location.

 

[havoc315]

If they're trying to maximize sales, which I think we can agree they are, they would want to appeal to a maximal potential sales population. There are potential customers out there that know they are potential Duo customers. Some might not even look at 1BR tours (or if they do, just passingly, or so they can maybe get more hints about Duos). Making a reduced effort to customers is bad business and not some 4D chess move.

The simplest reason they don't haven't put up photos/tours of a Duo? There probably isn't one ready to photograph yet (or at the time it would have been necessary to photograph to make its way onto the site today). Same as a Penthouse.

Looks like the Virtual Tours/photos of the Deluxe Studio, 1BR, 2BRLO, and 2BR are all from a single 2BRLO taken minutes apart (based on the timestamps on the TVs) and could be the model room(s) at Saratoga or even a design/production verification room off-site.

(also, where do you rent cars? Hertz and Alamo always have the lowest spec versions of everything they've ever given me)

I am certain that’s the reason. When I was there a couple weeks ago, the cast members told me they had no clue what the 2 BR penthouses were like — no idea how they were any different than regular 2 BRs.

 

[havoc315]

Even if the table is tiny it is still a plus as they keep taking the table and chairs away in the other refurbs and replacing it with the trunk that doubles as a table. To me that is just not the same.

Agreed. I think the studios are great for 2-3 people. But for a family of 4, I’d rather have the extra sleep surface. (And maybe be closer to the monorail and main resort amenities).

For 2-3 people, I love the Tower studio.

As nice as these 1 BR I will probably only book them once so you can have my 7 month slot.
BLT Lake vs Poly Standard for the same time period I'm saving 30 points and LV pretty much always has 7 month availability there for when we go.

 

[CWTC]

I am certain that’s the reason. When I was there a couple weeks ago, the cast members told me they had no clue what the 2 BR penthouses were like — no idea how they were any different than regular 2 BRs.

Which is so unfortunate. The penthouses are the only room category in the tower that interests us and there is so little information about them.

 

[zavandor]

My crystal ball says that, in terms of PB studios: the crowds will flock to the Tower and try them out once or twice, and then, the crowds will have the realization, Hey, the longhouses are more spacious and a better value and then move back there for future trips.

Also: a realization I had yesterday. And please, someone correct me if my underlying assumptions are wrong. As the tower and the longhouses are part of the same condo association, this means that the point chart can move points between the longhouses and the tower. I do see a future, once the newness wears off of the tower, that DVD can raise the point costs on the longhouses while decreasing the point cost for studios in the tower. Maybe two points up on the longhouses and two points down on the Studio in the towers, which would help justify the sq footage difference between the two room options.

No, they cannot.
That would mean to move points between units and I and others believe it's forbidden by Florida laws. The fact the original 2020 point charts have been rolled back demonstrate DVC too believes that (or at least they're not willing to risk a lawsuit about that)

 

[Brian Noble]

The fact the original 2020 point charts have been rolled back demonstrate DVC too believes that (or at least they're not willing to risk a lawsuit about that)

I don't think it demonstrates that. I think it does demonstrate that they realized increasing the lockoff premium---which increases breakage income at the expense of raising the point values of the least-popular unit size---was likely indefensible. (There was also the matter of Base Year, but I think that was less clear).

They never undid the Treehouse rebalance, which is among the more egregious cross-unit moves. The difference there is few people complained about it.

 

[zavandor]

I don't think it demonstrates that. I think it does demonstrate that they realized increasing the lockoff premium---which increases breakage income at the expense of raising the point values of the least-popular unit size---was likely indefensible. (There was also the matter of Base Year, but I think that was less clear).

They never undid the Treehouse rebalance, which is among the more egregious cross-unit moves. The difference there is few people complained about it.

If that is true, then it would have been their responsibility to apply the other changes (increase 1BR and lower 2BR, lower cabins and bungalows and increase other room types) that were included in that change but rolled back.
Note that in those rolled back charts they also had reallocated points across seasons, and they did that eventually, but not the reallocation across units.

if they attempted to reallocate across units, they stated: there is an imbalance of demand so big that we have to change the point charts. The only reason that justifies to have such an imbalance (their assessment, but I could say it seems right) and they do nothing about it, is that it's not allowed.

 

[Brian Noble]

The problem with the lockoff premium is that raising the points required for 1BRs at the expense of 2BRs didn't even come close to passing the smell test--1BRs booked last, so why make them more expensive? They did move points from the non-THV units of SSR to the THV units, but I cant' remember when that happened. That change was never undone. So, at least at the time, they believed they could reallocate across units.

 

[CarolynFH]

The problem with the lockoff premium is that raising the points required for 1BRs at the expense of 2BRs didn't even come close to passing the smell test--1BRs booked last, so why make them more expensive? They did move points from the non-THV units of SSR to the THV units, but I cant' remember when that happened. That change was never undone. So, at least at the time, they believed they could reallocate across units.

I think another problem with the attempted reallocation across villa sizes was that Residential Units in a given condo association aren't necessarily the same size, so changing the points values affects the % ownership represented by those points. For instance, we have two 150-point contracts. One of them represents 0.2872% of a Residential Unit composed of 7 dedicated studios and 1 dedicated 1BR, the other represents 0.8651% of a different RU composed of 1 dedicated studio and 1 dedicated 1BR. If they raise the points cost of all studios by 1 point and all 1BR by 1 point, what does that do to the % of each RU that I own, and is my ownership still represented by 150 points for each contract? I think that was another difficulty pointed out to them.

 

[zavandor]

The problem with the lockoff premium is that raising the points required for 1BRs at the expense of 2BRs didn't even come close to passing the smell test--1BRs booked last, so why make them more expensive? They did move points from the non-THV units of SSR to the THV units, but I cant' remember when that happened. That change was never undone. So, at least at the time, they believed they could reallocate across units.

I think everyone can agree that increasing the lockoff premium was so wrong that is shocking they even attempted it, thinking they could get away with it.

But in the same reallocation, they also lowered the bungalows and increased the studio at Poly, lowered cabins and increased other units at CCV.
In doing so, they implicitly declared that there was an imbalance that needed to be corrected. And yet, they haven't done it since.
There are only two explanations I can see:
A) the booking patterns for bungalows and cabins have changed in 2020, making such changes unnecessary
B) the reallocation is not actually allowed

Disney never admitted any wrongdoing, they said they rolled back the change because of members' feedback, while saying around a couple dozens people complained (the Notorious 24 of my signature).
Not commenting on the topic, they can leave open the interpretation that the reason is A, while in reality it's B.

The problem for them is, like you said, they reallocated across units before*. If they get sued and lose, they have to rollback those changes too, eventually paying for the damage to everyone who booked the more expensive rooms for years. So we are in a sort of limbo, a tacit agreement: they don't make more reallocations across units and we don't poke those that have been done in the past.

*= the ones I remember are:
- SSR THV
- SSR creation of standard and preferred categories
- BLT theme park view units reclassified as standard
- AKV savannah view reclassified as standard
- AKV value lowered and concierge increased

Note that previously they did create new booking categories without changing the points: OKW near HH and BWV view. Another sign that who wrote the POS and managed DVC early days believed they couldn't change the points for existing units

 

[Sandisw]

I think another problem with the attempted reallocation across villa sizes was that Residential Units in a given condo association aren't necessarily the same size, so changing the points values affects the % ownership represented by those points. For instance, we have two 150-point contracts. One of them represents 0.2872% of a Residential Unit composed of 7 dedicated studios and 1 dedicated 1BR, the other represents 0.8651% of a different RU composed of 1 dedicated studio and 1 dedicated 1BR. If they raise the points cost of all studios by 1 point and all 1BR by 1 point, what does that do to the % of each RU that I own, and is my ownership still represented by 150 points for each contract? I think that was another difficulty pointed out to them.

See, I have looked into this and one thing that I have not really found is something in the law t when it comes with neutrality in the units to stay point neutral from a sales standpoint snd a usage standpoint.

The % of ownership in a unit does not change if they don’t sell more than what is allotted…but, when it comes to point charts for use, it can vary because some years you have more weekend days, holiday dates, etc.

So, what I have found seems to always talk about the sale….now, I am not saying that they can cross units when reallocating doe stays, but I am not yet convinced they can’t either…

The one thing we do know is that the way they set up the trust, they did so thst makes clear they can do that for any units within the same vacation plan, even if those units exist at different component sites, so that at least leads me to believe that they may or may not be able to with the other resorts.

 

[zavandor]

See, I have looked into this and one thing that I have not really found is something in the law t when it comes with neutrality in the units to stay point neutral from a sales standpoint snd a usage standpoint.

The % of ownership in a unit does not change if they don’t sell more than what is allotted…but, when it comes to point charts for use, it can vary because some years you have more weekend days, holiday dates, etc.

So, what I have found seems to always talk about the sale….now, I am not saying that they can cross units when reallocating doe stays, but I am not yet convinced they can’t either…

The one thing we do know is that the way they set up the trust, they did so thst makes clear they can do that for any units within the same vacation plan, even if those units exist at different component sites, so that at least leads me to believe that they may or may not be able to with the other resorts.

Florida law is confusing, when applying it to DVC, because it was written mostly for old week based timeshares, there are a few mentions to point systems, but very limited. So it is a bit open to interpretation.
It's possible that reallocation across units is permissible, let's say DVC thinks they can "probably" win if challenged. Yet "probably" is not "certainly". They might not be willing to risk it anymore, now that they know with every point charts the sleuths on this forum will dissect them to find possible faults (see @i<3riviera excellent job with the 2022 point charts). Which, at the end of the day, has the same result.

The trust wording, could be interpreted in the opposite way too: they had to include it it in the POS for the trust, so it's not simply allowed by default by the law.
Also, the trust is very different, deeds do not show (I think) % of ownership in a unit, only ownership of the vacation plan in the trust, so it's very different and possibly different laws apply to it.

 

[Sandisw]

Florida law is confusing, when applying it to DVC, because it was written mostly for old week based timeshares, there are a few mentions to point systems, but very limited. So it is a bit open to interpretation.
It's possible that reallocation across units is permissible, let's say DVC thinks they can "probably" win if challenged. Yet "probably" is not "certainly". They might not be willing to risk it anymore, now that they know with every point charts the sleuths on this forum will dissect them to find possible faults (see @i<3riviera excellent job with the 2022 point charts). Which, at the end of the day, has the same result.

The trust wording, could be interpreted in the opposite way too: they had to include it it in the POS for the trust, so it's not simply allowed by default by the law.
Also, the trust is very different, deeds do not show (I think) % of ownership in a unit, only ownership of the vacation plan in the trust, so it's very different and possibly different laws apply to it.

Correct in that ownership is not per unit but the language does make clear they can reallocate the points across different component sites meaning total points have to remain, but can be wherever they want them to if they add more than one resort under the plan.

I do know that because of points based it’s hard to find specifics that apply which is why I do believe that DVC has moved points in certain ways because they feel it might be allowed and are not as worried about the challenge.

Having said that, I do agree that it’s not certain and why I do not see them trying it at PVB tower with the bungalows.

 

[mkatsy]

Stopped by the tower yesterday. Other folks have already posted photos on FB, but here are a few things that I thought were unique. The masonry is being done on the entrance to cove pool and on the retaining wall by the beach. The beach sand is being installed. There are super cute sea turtle themed cement planters. The gate to cove pool has an electrical power cord (yay!) so at the least it will probably need a magic band to open. And there are fresh no trespassing signs … probably for me.

 

[mkatsy]

.

 

[maui22]

Stopped by the tower yesterday. Other folks have already posted photos on FB, but here are a few things that I thought were unique. The masonry is being done on the entrance to cove pool and on the retaining wall by the beach. The beach sand is being installed. There are super cute sea turtle themed cement planters. The gate to cove pool has an electrical power cord (yay!) so at the least it will probably need a magic band to open. And there are fresh no trespassing signs … probably for me.

I like the sea turtle on the pillar.

Disney imagineers seem to have done their story telling the research.