PVB Tower Charts, Sales Date and more!!!

[tx911]

"Premium" view, which supposedly includes at least a partial view of the lagoon.

And will cost you a premium partial allotment of your DVC points.

 

[maui22]

"Premium" view, which supposedly includes at least a partial view of the lagoon.

Not sure all the duos that are included in that category, but the rooms where the tower is in DVcNews article where the lift is located are duos in that category. The rooms further back where the angle changes are duo and for that category description for premium view (partial lagoon). I believe these are the best views possible from any of the duos. There may be additional duo premium view, but I can’t recall where they all are located.

Edit2: including a link to @aka Charles post showing where the declared rooms are. We had several posts back and forth on the declaration, but ironed out the specific details. @aka Charles does a far better job summarizing these things than I can. Two duo lagoon (premium view) on the 9th floor in addition to the others.
https://www.disboards.com/threads/i...llas-bungalows.3945907/page-144#post-65649033

 

[Tatebeck]

I don't like all of the "partial" talk with the views or how they have 3 view categories for the duos but none of them are even theme park view. It feels like they are milking the views and point charts for all they are worth.

We don't have any breakdowns for the number of rooms in each view category for the different room types yet do we? I have a feeling that with all of the premium and theme park views, the average point cost for these rooms counting all of the different views is not only going to be the highest like we expect, but easily skyrocket past even VGF levels. The grand flo doesn't have any theme park views for 1br or 2br for example, so those will likely be the worst. The breakdown will tell us eventually

Unless they are very nice and have more standard views that I expect, but that doesn't sound likely from all of the "partial" wording with the views.

 

[SL6827]

Let’s be honest though…it’s still a rental except now each owner is both a renter and rentee. Using BVTC has you using your own membership and that is a big difference…at least IMO.

But I get that as more owners are restricted, they may be more willing to rent their own points to rent someone else's points.

DIS used to allow people to try to connect this way and it stopped because it wasn’t really popular or it was hard to make the deal work.

Id have to think just renting your own and then paying cash would be a lot less risky than having to tie up extra money…extra deposit.. to rent your reservations.

Of course, I won’t be surprised to see down the line DVC offering owners a chance to pay a per point fee to book other resorts.

ETA: Just had a thought , I think the popular practice of confirmed reservations being offered is pretty close to this…just not the same renter snd rentee in both transactions!

Could they do this to current owners? Make them pay a fee to book other resorts? Could they restrict all owners to only thier home resort?

 

[Tatebeck]

Could they do this to current owners? Make them pay a fee to book other resorts? Could they restrict all owners to only thier home resort?

It is not likely that they would, but they could technically do something like that. They would have to keep whatever rules were in place at the time of each resort purchase is all. They are making the new resorts restricted upon opening but not changing the older resorts typically. There would be an uproar and probably a bunch of lawsuits if they messed with the old ones too much.

Disney possibly offering to let you book using restricted points for a fee in the future provides MORE options than what they promised in the initial purchase.

Disney trying to make an older resort's resale points restricted or charging a fee suddenly would be TAKING AWAY options that they promised. Much less likely

 

[Mikey15]

I don't like all of the "partial" talk with the views or how they have 3 view categories for the duos but none of them are even theme park view. It feels like they are milking the views and point charts for all they are worth.

We don't have any breakdowns for the number of rooms in each view category for the different room types yet do we? I have a feeling that with all of the premium and theme park views, the average point cost for these rooms counting all of the different views is not only going to be the highest like we expect, but easily skyrocket past even VGF levels. The grand flo doesn't have any theme park views for 1br or 2br for example, so those will likely be the worst. The breakdown will tell us eventually

Unless they are very nice and have more standard views that I expect, but that doesn't sound likely from all of the "partial" wording with the views.

From what we’ve seen of the floor plan (basically the maps of the declared units) as best as I can tell a number of the duos that face MK appear to be “set back” next to normal studios & lockoffs.

I’d guess they may have “theme park view” from out on the balcony, but maybe not from inside the unit. I’m guessing they didn’t want to overpromise by calling them “TPV” even though that’s how they’re basically oriented.

 

[GADisneyDad14]

Not sure all the duos that are included in that category, but the rooms where the tower is in DVcNews article where the lift is located are duos in that category. The rooms further back where the angle changes are duo and for that category description for premium view (partial lagoon). I believe these are the best views possible from any of the duos. There may be additional duo premium view, but I can’t recall where they all are located.

Edit2: including a link to @aka Charles post showing where the declared rooms are. We had several posts back and forth on the declaration, but ironed out the specific details. @aka Charles does a far better job summarizing these things than I can. Tw

I suspect you are right about the Duo “Premium” views. This angle, either from the ferry or resort launch taken from the direction of MK’ish, shows how those are likely to be inset too far / blocked by the adjacent balconies to have a park view, or at least a legitimate view of it. Good view of the lagoon towards CR, but I’m guessing the left view (if standing on the balcony) will be somewhat restricted. Base photo courtesy of wdwmagic.com

 

[maui22]

From what we’ve seen of the floor plan (basically the maps of the declared units) as best as I can tell a number of the duos that face MK appear to be “set back” next to normal studios & lockoffs.

I’d guess they may have “theme park view” from out on the balcony, but maybe not from inside the unit. I’m guessing they didn’t want to overpromise by calling them “TPV” even though that’s how they’re basically oriented.

I agree. Those 9th floor duos sure seem like TPV at least from the balcony. Or maybe the correct words would be from part of the balcony since they are definitely set further back than all the other rooms.

Disney could have extended those out and made them regular studios. This was a nice option for 1-2 people traveling to save some points.

 

[GADisneyDad14]

I agree. Those 9th floor duos sure seem like TPV at least from the balcony. Or maybe the correct words would be from part of the balcony since they are definitely set further back than all the other rooms.

FWIW, reminder that those two 9th floor lagoon facing rooms that flank the 2BR Penthouse are Deluxe Studios. There are two Duo Studios that flank the 2BR Penthouse on the golf course/entrance side. Presumably (key word) the 10th floor will be the same (assumption on my part).

 

[Sandisw]

Could they do this to current owners? Make them pay a fee to book other resorts? Could they restrict all owners to only thier home resort?

Yes. The terms of BVTC have language that mentions that fee based trading is a possibility and that DVC reserves the right to do so. They could implement it for some and not all too. The other thing that can change is the non home resort booking window. They can give owners are longer home resort period and thus, shorten the booking window to trade. Or, they could reverse it too. Owners are guaranteed only a one month home resort advantage...we currently have 4...but nothing prevents them from making it 6 months and reducing trading to 5 months....and, IMO, we may see some of that the last few years of the 2042 resorts.

The only way to restrict owners to their home resorts, for current DVC resorts that exist, is to remove them as a resort associated with BVTC.

If that were to happen, then owners would be stuck at home resort. This has always been the case and all one is every guaranteed when you buy because you are buying into a multi-site timeshare plan that deeds you to a specific property (not all are set up that way).

Having said that, the POS always spells out very specifically ways that a resort could find itself no longer part of BVTC and they are pretty unique situations, like BVTC fails to exist, something happens to the resorts, etc (don't know them off the top of my head). DVC doesn't have the power to simply remove them at will "just because".

But, its why people, when they buy, need to be sure to read the POS and understand it all.

 

[Sandisw]

Not likely. They would have to keep whatever rules were in place at the time of each resort purchase. That is why they are making the new resorts restricted upon opening but not changing the older resorts. There would be an uproar and probably a bunch of lawsuits.

Disney possibly offering to let you book using restricted points for a fee in the future provides MORE options than what they promised in the initial purchase.

Disney trying to make an older resort's resale points restricted or charging a fee suddenly would be TAKING AWAY options that they promised. Much less likely

I answered above and I agree it isn't likely, but legally, they do have the power to do quite a few different things in the way that the DVC resort agreement is written for each resort. The fee ability existed at resorts prior to "resale restrictions"

 

[disneylandtour]

Yes. The terms of BVTC have language that mentions that fee based trading is a possibility and that DVC reserves the right to do so. They could implement it for some and not all too. The other thing that can change is the non home resort booking window. They can give owners are longer home resort period and thus, shorten the booking window to trade. Or, they could reverse it too. Owners are guaranteed only a one month home resort advantage...we currently have 4...but nothing prevents them from making it 6 months and reducing trading to 5 months....and, IMO, we may see some of that the last few years of the 2042 resorts.

The only way to restrict owners to their home resorts, for current DVC resorts that exist, is to remove them as a resort associated with BVTC.

If that were to happen, then owners would be stuck at home resort. This has always been the case and all one is every guaranteed when you buy because you are buying into a multi-site timeshare plan that deeds you to a specific property (not all are set up that way).

Having said that, the POS always spells out very specifically ways that a resort could find itself no longer part of BVTC and they are pretty unique situations, like BVTC fails to exist, something happens to the resorts, etc (don't know them off the top of my head). DVC doesn't have the power to simply remove them at will "just because".

But, its why people, when they buy, need to be sure to read the POS and understand it all.

Though all this may be a theoretical possibility, I doubt DVD would ever try it. To tell potential customers that they can be removed from the current the multi-site options, at the will of the DVD, would be a HUGE damper on direct sales moving forward. I'm pretty sure that things will mostly stay as is until the late 2050s, when a lot of the contracts end. There will be a strange time in the 2060s when it's only BLT, CCV, Poly, etc., for re-sale owners.

 

[Sandisw]

Though all this may be a theoretical possibility, I doubt DVD would ever try it. To tell potential customers that they can be removed from the current the multi-site options, at the will of the DVD, would be a HUGE damper on direct sales moving forward. I'm pretty sure that things will mostly stay as is until the late 2050s, when a lot of the contracts end. There will be a strange time in the 2060s when it's only BLT, CCV, Poly, etc., for re-sale owners.

Maybe you missed it but I said they can't do it "at will". There are reasons that exist in the contract that can happen that could force a resort to have to be removed, some that may not be in the control of DVD.

The point is that the DVC resort agreement lays out the terms and that trading is guaranteed only by those terms. Not everyone understands that trading is a function of the arrangement of BVTC and not a guaranteed right like you have at your home resort.

Its like the borrowing restriction DVC put in place in 2020...people were very upset because they never knew that DVC has the power to change those rules...

As I said, I agree that this is not likely to ever happen unless it has to happen, but the question was "could they" not "will they". I will find the language from one of the POS documents so people can see the reasons.

ETA: Here they are...from VGF POS: (bolding is mine)

BVTC may, in its sole disaetion, delete all or a portion of an existing DVC Resort due to casualty where any ofthe affec'ted Vacation Homes or related facilities are not reconstrucled or replaced.

BWTC may, in its sole discretion, delete all or a portion of any existing DVC Resort where an eminent domain action has taken place and where any of the afiected Vacation Homes or related facilities are not replaced.

BWtC may,initssole,absoluteandunfettereddiscretion,delete an existing DVC Resort pursuant to the specific termination rights maintained in each individual DVC Resort Agreement. A DVC Resort also will be automatically deleted upon theexpiration or earlier terminatlon of the term of its Vacation Ownership Plan

And here is the section that let's an owner know up front that if any of those happen, no trading will be happening.

In the event that a DVC Resort is deleted, all Club Members at the deleted DVC Resort will no longer be able toparticipate in the DVC Reservation Component so as to maintain no greater than a "oneto-one use right to use night requirementratio,'as thatterm is defined in Section 721.05(25), Florida Statutes. ACtub Memberata deleted DVC Reortwillnotbeableto makereservations at other DVC Resorts unless the Club hdember owns an Ownership lnterest at a non{eleted DVC Resort; however, theClub.Member will continue to have reservation rights in the resort where the Club Member owns his or her Ownership lnterest inaccordance with the terms of the resort's Vacation Ownership Plan.

 

[SL6827]

Maybe you missed it but I said they can't do it "at will". There are reasons that exist in the contract that can happen that could force a resort to have to be removed, some that may not be in the control of DVD.

The point is that the DVC resort agreement lays out the terms and that trading is guaranteed only by those terms. Not everyone understands that trading is a function of the arrangement of BVTC and not a guaranteed right like you have at your home resort.

Its like the borrowing restriction DVC put in place in 2020...people were very upset because they never knew that DVC has the power to change those rules...

As I said, I agree that this is not likely to ever happen unless it has to happen, but the question was "could they" not "will they". I will find the language from one of the POS documents so people can see the reasons.

ETA: Here they are...from VGF POS:

BVTC may, in its sole disaetion, delete all or a portion of an existing DVC Resort due to casualty where any ofthe affec'ted Vacation Homes or related facilities are not reconstrucled or replaced.

BWTC may, in its sole discretion, delete all or a portion of any existing DVC Resort where an eminent domainaction has taken place and where any of the afiected Vacation Homes or related facilities are not replaced.

BWtC may,initssole,absoluteandunfettereddiscretion,deleteanexistingDVCResodpursuanttothespecifictermination rightS mntained in each individual DVO Resort Agreement. A DVC Resort also will be automatically deleted upon theexpiration or earlier terminatlon of the term of its Vacation Ownership Plan

And here is the section that let's an owner know up front that if any of those happen, no trading will be happening.

In the event that a DVC Resort is deleted, all Club Members at the deleted DVC Resort will no longer be able toparticipate in the DVC Reservation Component so as to maintain no greater than a "oneto-one use right to use night requirementratio,'as thatterm is defined in Section 721.05(25), Florida Statutes. ACtub Memberata deleted DVC Reortwillnotbeableto makereservations at other DVC Resorts unless the Club hdember owns an Ownership lnterest at a non{eleted DVC Resort; however, theClub.Member will continue to have reservation rights in the resort where the Club Member owns his or her Ownership lnterest inaccordance with the terms of the resort's Vacation Ownership Plan.

In 2020 were they allowing one to bank thier points and use two years worth the following year?

 

[Sandisw]

In 2020 were they allowing one to bank thier points and use two years worth the following year?

They did not amend the banking rules at all. Those were still intact. They made the exception, thought to allow for late banking due to the pandemic.

DVC went a step further...which they did not have to do....by giving those owners who had banked points that were at the end of their UY and expired during closure, their own points to compensate for use, since points can not be "banked" twice.

Borrowing, however, was changed from 100% to 50% for about 2 years.

 

[maui22]

FWIW, reminder that those two 9th floor lagoon facing rooms that flank the 2BR Penthouse are Deluxe Studios. There are two Duo Studios that flank the 2BR Penthouse on the golf course/entrance side. Presumably (key word) the 10th floor will be the same (assumption on my part).

View attachment 896973

Good grief. You are right, the ones on ninth are golf course view.

 

[HappyDisneyWife]

Sooo…. this is several pages ago in the discussion, but wanted to clarify- Magical Beginnings WAS an option when buying VGF2 during the initial members-only add-on sales (I attached a screenshot from the promotional page during initial sales).

But - this really is apples to oranges. With BPK opening mid-year like that: we bought in March, planned to buy Apr UY & use MB… but bc of no one getting ‘21 points, we went with an Aug UY & got our ‘22 points (no MB) so we wouldn’t start off in a heavily borrowed situation… it seemed like a horrible idea to use MB with plans to book in 2022 (& I got way more than $20pp value with my booking)!! On the other hand, with Poly Tower opening in Dec, & we have a Feb UY- this is where I could see the MB really paying off- lowering my purchase price, but still giving us the first “effective” year’s points in ‘25). We’ll see

I think the initial Grand floridian was better without magical beginnings. It was 207 with 22 off a point at 250 points. So 185. Price increased and with the free point incentive 250 points was 190 with the free point incentive during last summer's sale. During last summer magical beginnings was around though which wasn't during the initial offering. So they could get a rebate of $22 a point making it better if you sold back the first year of points.

Did initial buyers get previous years points (like giving 2024 points with the PIT) when the VGF expansion first opened? And just not get offered magical beginnings? If so then that is slightly better. If not then getting double points with magical beginnings selling the previous years' points back at the end of the firesale would work out to be the best deal.

We got 2022 points for BPK when it opened in 2022. So, it was the same as PVB tower getting 2024 opening in 2024.

Only difference is BPK opened in June and PVB tower is opening in December.

The incentives were better if you take out that MB was not a thing then. Had it been, my price would have been better than the fire sale last year.

 

[Sandisw]

Sooo…. this is several pages ago in the discussion, but wanted to clarify- Magical Beginnings WAS an option when buying VGF2 during the initial members-only add-on sales (I attached a screenshot from the promotional page during initial sales).

But - this really is apples to oranges. With BPK opening mid-year like that: we bought in March, planned to buy Apr UY & use MB… but bc of no one getting ‘21 points, we went with an Aug UY & got our ‘22 points (no MB) so we wouldn’t start off in a heavily borrowed situation… it seemed like a horrible idea to use MB with plans to book in 2022 (& I got way more than $20pp value with my booking)!! On the other hand, with Poly Tower opening in Dec, & we have a Feb UY- this is where I could see the MB really paying off- lowering my purchase price, but still giving us the first “effective” year’s points in ‘25). We’ll see






View attachment 897023

Thank you for correcting me. We bought opening day and don’t remember anything about that or it being discussed here then.

 

[MICKIMINI]

Could they do this to current owners? Make them pay a fee to book other resorts? Could they restrict all owners to only thier home resort?

DH and I distinctly remember that conversation when we bought OKW in 1996. It makes my head hurt to think of what will happen in 2042.

 

[chrisqr]

Could they do this to current owners? Make them pay a fee to book other resorts? Could they restrict all owners to only thier home resort?

Before you lose too much sleep over this, think about how a change like this would impact future sales, or how many more assurances future buyers might demand if they were to make a technically-allowed-but-fundamentally-opposed-to-the-value-proposition like removing the Animals from Animal Kingdom Lodge. I’d expect this sort of thing to happen only if they are willing to risk tanking the entire line of business.