Regarding timing of announcing new DVC properties...

[sjdisneywedding]

If it was non DVC, why keep it a secret? Future growth and expansion is great news to announce. The only reason not to announce expansion would be if the timing had a negative impact. Kind of like an automaker unveiling a 2008 and 2009 model at the same time. Sell the 2008 model and then unveil the 2009 model.

no kidding!!! thats what I have been saying

 

[SFLTIGGER]

I have to agree with sjdisneywedding!

I can also add proof! We just got back from VWL and when we checked in, our bell hop (_ _ _) to remain nameless told us about the unannounced construction at the CR (with out any prompting) and that is WAS going to be DVC! And we all know where bell hops stand on the rumor (I mean 'info') totem pole!
But seriously, the DVC rep. in Tommorowland (when questioned about it) said, "It could be convention facilities." Yeah, Right!

This then, is my point about why I think sjdisneywedding is right. If it is not at least partially DVC, why would they not make some kind of announcement! The least they could do would be to give DVC reps. a script of believable responses!

 

[tjkraz]

If it is not at least partially DVC, why would they not make some kind of announcement!

Many possibilities:

1. Even Disney hasn't figured out exactly what they are going to do with it. Could be all DVC...could be all suites...could be part of each. The construction specs could be identical for each option, with the use all that is left open for debate.

Let's not forget that if they open the new facility as suites, they can always change to DVC later without missing a beat. If the economy (or at least tourism) holds strong in the short term, there is a lot more money to be made if they can fill 300 suites per night with cash-paying guests.

If the economy goes south and/or the suites just aren't a big hit, THEN it's pretty easy to turn over to DVC. On the other hand, giving the rooms to DVC is a one-way ticket.

2. If they announce it as non-DVC suites, DVC loses all of this wonderful buzz. You can't tell me there aren't people out there buying AKV or SSR points thinking "I can't wait to use my points to stay at the CR like that busboy at Chef Mickey's said I could!"

I'm sure there are others waiting to see what happens with the CR before making a decision, but those people aren't going anywhere.

3. For the same reason that they don't hype future attractions like they used to--Disney wants to focus primarily on the here-and-now rather than confusing people with what is yet to come.

(Of course that didn't stop them from discussing the CA and HI DVCs, so who knows what they are thinking! )

There's no magical formula to making sense of this project. This is definitely a wait-and-see situation.

 

[WDRabbit]

We just returned from WDW and while we were there booked 2 different trips over to the preview center so of course I mentioned CRV to every DVC CM I could find To me it was obvious that they all know that CRV is DVC. None of them would comment on it but they all gave me the smirk and something along the lines of "You're gonna get me in trouble!".

My guess is the following timeline:
2007/Early 2008 - Finish SSR sales
2008 - Concentrate on AKV sales
2009 - DL GCV sales
Late 2009/2010 - CRV sales
2011 - HI sales

Those dates are just based on the information I was able to get out of the DVC staff. I don't know how far along the DL resort add-on is, but was told that it was already in the construction phase. Since that one has been announced and is under construction I would expect them to sell it first. The CRV tower is definitely coming along, but the overall pace makes me think it will still be 2 years before they have it completely finished. It has taken them over a year to demolish the old building and just frame the first few floors of the new building.

 

[pilferk]

I don't recall there being any other hotel construction since Iger / Jobs took over and clamped down on the rumor mill.

Hawaii

The expansion of GC.

The building of "themed hotels", outside of the parks, was talked about as a concept at the shareholders meeting.

The discussions between the hoteliers at Gardenwalk and Disney was recently disclosed.

The Disneyland Hotel Tower remodels has been disclosed.

Not that any of it means anything, one way or the other (which is rather my point).

 

[pilferk]

I agree with Pat. I think CRV will be all-DVC, but I don't think they'll announce it until pretty late in the process for a couple of reasons.

One obvious reason is it will adversely affect AKV...unless there is something very different about CRV (much higher price, for example). GCV and Hawaii don't affect sales at WDW at all -- if anything, they help because they offer additional options to prospective buyers. But CRV will definitely affect AKV sales.

The other reason I think they'll delay somewhat longer than usual is that this entire project will all come online essentially at the same time. SSR and AKV were built in stages, so they had some early units to sell. This is not a situation where one building gets a CO and closings can take place, but the bulk of the project comes online one building at a time over a period of years. CRV won't be like that. The whole tower will finish and open at once.

That's pretty much the direction I'm leaning in, too.

 

[pilferk]

I have to disagree with Jim. Disneyland has had a DVC sales center for 2-3 years now and they have been responsible for selling thousands of SSR and AKV points. And that was with no promise of a DVC resort in Anaheim.

The Grand Californian addition was announced 2 years before the villas will open and (in all likelihood) more than a year before sales will begin. That announcement will undeniably impact their ability to sell SSR and AKV points over the next 12-18 months.

Volume (50-ish 2BR units) and location (CA) will likely limit it's impact. Will there be impact? Of course.....but logically categorize the impact of GCV, with 50-ish West Coast Units compared to CRV, with 300+ WDW "monorail" units.

I don't think anyone would argue that CRV would canibalize a WHOLE lot more of AKV's/SSR's potential market than GCV will.

 

[tjkraz]

Hawaii

The expansion of GC.

That pretty much illustrates my point. Both DVCs. Both announced well before physical construction began. Why not CR?

The building of "themed hotels", outside of the parks, was talked about as a concept at the shareholders meeting.

Concept only.

The discussions between the hoteliers at Gardenwalk and Disney was recently disclosed.

Rumor. No acknowledgment by TWDC either way (again, that's my point--nothing official.)

The Disneyland Hotel Tower remodels has been disclosed.

A fair example.

 

[tjkraz]

Volume (50-ish 2BR units) and location (CA) will likely limit it's impact. Will there be impact? Of course.....but logically categorize the impact of GCV, with 50-ish West Coast Units compared to CRV, with 300+ WDW "monorail" units.

I don't think anyone would argue that CRV would canibalize a WHOLE lot more of AKV's/SSR's potential market than GCV will.

But it's still a very, VERY muddy argument.

If cannibalism was so important, why not wait until SSR was closer to being gone to start selling AKV? At least two DIS sources have posted DVC sales information within recent years and there was no noticable decline in SSR sales. (Of course, that's assuming that AKV is viewed as a superior property by the buying public, which may be far from the truth. Perhaps they felt that AKV needed a boost from SSR. )

The other assumption being made is that the Contemporary will be considered the crown jewel of the DVC empire. While I'm sure many people will be very excited about it, I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that it will eclipse all others in the minds of the buying public.

I still don't buy the arguments belittling the impact of GC's announcement on other locations. Regardless of the reasoning behind the sales centers in CA, they have brought in a LOT of revenue for DVD in recent years. Their sales are going to take a major hit until GC is officially available.

In my mind, the explanation that makes the most sense is that Disney still hasn't made a firm decision on what to do with the CR tower. They've still got well over a year to hedge their bets, weighing the economy, hotel occupancy and customer trends to decide which route will maximize the revenue generated by the new structure.

 

[tomandrobin]

I agree that Disney has time on its side to decide what to do with that "new building" at the Contemporary. The floor construction seems to be moving along at a good clip now, but there is a lot of work to be done. It takes a lot of time to finish each room, on each floor.

Who knows, Disney might not finish off all the floors. Look at Pop Century, there is a whole section just sitting there waiting to be completed. It seems to me there is at least 15 to 18 months of construction left.

 

[pilferk]

That pretty much illustrates my point. Both DVCs. Both announced well before physical construction began. Why not CR?

Um, no...it's hotel expansion, too. So it goes to BOTH points. The rooms are not 100% DVC.....

Concept only.

You're arguing semantics, not anything of any real merit. It is proposed hotel construction "announced" long before anything is being built.

Rumor. No acknowledgment by TWDC either way (again, that's my point--nothing official.)

On the contrary, there was an official statement recently.

http://ocresort.freedomblogging.com/2007/12/10/disney-plans-hotels-in-gardenwalk/

By late Friday, though, Disney confirmed that it may go in the mall

“Disney is in negotiations with Prospera Hotels, Inc, the developer of the GardenWalk hotels, in the areas in which we have expertise — family-oriented lodging and the conventions and meeting business. At this point, it is premature to unveil specifics,” said Rob Doughty, a Disneyland spokesman."

 

[pilferk]

But it's still a very, VERY muddy argument.

On the contrary, it's a very logical and very clear argument. It might not be reality, I'll grant you....but it's an easy argument to see and understand.

If cannibalism was so important, why not wait until SSR was closer to being gone to start selling AKV? At least two DIS sources have posted DVC sales information within recent years and there was no noticable decline in SSR sales. (Of course, that's assuming that AKV is viewed as a superior property by the buying public, which may be far from the truth. Perhaps they felt that AKV needed a boost from SSR. )

Closer than what?

By all reports, they are pretty close to selling out SSR. It seems they started selling AKV WELL after 2/3 of SSR was sold...and current projections I've seen mentioned peg it to sell out relatively soon. At the point AKV came into the pipeline, canibalism could probably be viewed as a necessary "evil" in order to have something to sell AFTER SSR was sold out. I'm relatively sure, eventually, if CRV were to happen, you'd see a like situation, simply to ensure you have something on the table that's compelling to the majority of your prospective "audience".

AKV has sold less than 1/3 of their units, because less than 1/3 are open.

The other assumption being made is that the Contemporary will be considered the crown jewel of the DVC empire. While I'm sure many people will be very excited about it, I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that it will eclipse all others in the minds of the buying public.

So you're assuming that a DVC, in prime location next to the MK, with monorail access to MK and Epcot, will NOT have great demand? Sorry, given everything we see on these boards, all the preference for the Epcot resorts due to location, and all the "bagging" on SSR and AKV for being "remote", I just can't agree. The Dis may be a homogonized, closed, biased sample set that's not completely reflective of the public, or DVC owners, I'll grant you. But the anecdotals are at least worthy of consideration.

Do we have proof? No, of course not. Do we have at least a compelling amount of anecdotal evidence? I think we do. If that's our disconnect, so be it. I'm not arguing it's a definitive. I'm arguing it's certainly a wel reasoned possibility. Given I don't have access to Disney's volumes of customer research (and I doubt you do, either), we can agree to disagree on that one.

I still don't buy the arguments belittling the impact of GC's announcement on other locations. Regardless of the reasoning behind the sales centers in CA, they have brought in a LOT of revenue for DVD in recent years. Their sales are going to take a major hit until GC is officially available.

Unless YOU have proof, I'm not sure how you can take issue with the assumptions above, but still latch on to your own and hold them up as evidence.

I'm sure the CA sales centers have brought in a ton of revenue for DVC. The question is, compared to the total bottom line, will they be a "blip" on the radar for WDW's DVC sales in total? If every prospective customer buying in CA were to opt for GCV, would it really "dent" the sales at SSR or AKV to any measureable extent? Now add in there are only 50-ish 2BR equivalents to sell points for, or roughly 8% of the size of AKV. I'm not even going to consider the effect on SSR because, by many reports, units will be sold out before GCV goes on sale. So, once GCV is sold out (and I think it will quickly do that), all the pent up demand will be released back into the market.

You explain how the economic impact of a timeshare 8% of the size and roughly 4500 miles away would impact, in any large scale way, sales of AKV because I just fail to see how that cannibalization would be any more than marginal in nature. It will exist.....yes. I can't see HOW it could be much of a factor.

In my mind, the explanation that makes the most sense is that Disney still hasn't made a firm decision on what to do with the CR tower. They've still got well over a year to hedge their bets, weighing the economy, hotel occupancy and customer trends to decide which route will maximize the revenue generated by the new structure.

How long they have to decide would largely depend on their construction menthods, plans, and the specifics in the design difference between cash suites and DVC villas...if any. Sure, they could just build DVC style suites, with full kitchens, etc, and rent them out. That's assuming the real issue that CRO has with renting those style of accomodations is because they can be had cheaper by renting from DVC owners, and not simply because their price tag is more than the average vacationer wants to pay...and they'll STILL be competing with DVC owners, though granted with the benefit of the location and some increased amenities.

I find it difficult to swallow that a company would commission a large scale construction project without knowing pretty much EXACTLY what it's going to use it for. I grant the possibility that it's what's happening, but...having been involved in this type of project planning here at work in just a relatively small way, it would be well out of the ordinary to do It would likely cost a good amount of money to hold the contractors/architects/designers on "spec" for the final 3rd of the job. I'm not sure shareholders would be too keen if they found out that's what was occuring either.

The fact is, nobody knows what's going on. And one opinion, really, isn't any better founded or grounded than anyone else's. We can all sit here and poke holes in the theories, and argue just to argue, but at the end of the day, there's really nothing concretely compelling to substantiate either of the 3 or 4 different "theories" out there.

Which, really, was the point of my original post.

 

[pilferk]

I agree that Disney has time on its side to decide what to do with that "new building" at the Contemporary. The floor construction seems to be moving along at a good clip now, but there is a lot of work to be done. It takes a lot of time to finish each room, on each floor.

The issue is one of utilites, wiring, and other infrastructure.

If they are simply going to build a DVC style suite, no matter what they decide to do with it, then none of the construction stuff matters because, obviously, there's no difference.

IF they're building WDW's traditional version of suites, which is very different than a DVC style villa, then there are some dramatic infrastructure differences, from plumbing to electrical and on down the line that need to be made during construction...especially when construction is concrete and steel. Structural elements would need to be placed such that you could work BOTH scenarios in, etc. It would be a pain in the keister from an engineering standpoint. Not impossible, but likely expensive and certainly headache inducing.

I'm not going to tell anyone they're wrong, because, obviously, I don't know that. But the theory that they're waiting to decide has it's own whole HOST of obstacles to overcome......

 

[salmoneous]

The issue is one of utilites, wiring, and other infrastructure.

If they are simply going to build a DVC style suite, no matter what they decide to do with it, then none of the construction stuff matters because, obviously, there's no difference.

IF they're building WDW's traditional version of suites.

They are building DVC-style suites. We've seen enough in filed plans and architectuaral drawing to be reasonable sure of that.

 

[tjkraz]

At the point AKV came into the pipeline, canibalism could probably be viewed as a necessary "evil" in order to have something to sell AFTER SSR was sold out.

Maybe, maybe not. AKV was announced fifteen months ago. That timeline strikes me as excessive if the only goal were to have something in the pipeline.

More likely, AKV was announced when it was because offering multiple locations has helped augment the program rather than diminish it. The same could be said of the CR, yet we're still waiting.

So you're assuming that a DVC, in prime location next to the MK, with monorail access to MK and Epcot, will NOT have great demand? Sorry, given everything we see on these boards, all the preference for the Epcot resorts due to location, and all the "bagging" on SSR and AKV for being "remote", I just can't agree.

They we disagree.

The Contemporary still has rack rates that trail the Poly and Grand Floridian by a considerable margin. The rates are comparable to the BoardWalk and Yacht / Beach Clubs, yet still trail in certain regards.

In fact, there are still Contemporary rooms that are cheaper than Studios at Old Key West or Saratoga Springs. Relevant? Who knows. (Although it seems to me that Disney is generally pretty good at pricing their products to meet demand.)

Perhaps if Disney had chosen to put a DVC at a more highly-regarded MK-area, monorail resort...

I tend to think that the "bagging" of SSR and AKV witnessed here does not reflect the attitude of the general public. (SSR has actually sold at a pace twice that of the beloved Beach Club.) Likewise I question whether the public would consider the CR to be the be-all, end-all of DVC accommodations.

Unless YOU have proof, I'm not sure how you can take issue with the assumptions above, but still latch on to your own and hold them up as evidence.

When did I hold up any of my comments as evidence? We're just discussing possibilities. Just because I poke a hole in someone else's theory, or offer a different POV, doesn't mean that I believe my comments to be anymore accurate than others.

You explain how the economic impact of a timeshare 8% of the size and roughly 4500 miles away would impact, in any large scale way, sales of AKV because I just fail to see how that cannibalization would be any more than marginal in nature.

The vast majority of people walking into the DisneyLAND sales center over the next 18 months would be foolish to buy into SSR or AKV rather than wait for the GC.

If you're going to suggest that the Florida sales centers WOULD be negatively impacted by a Contemporary announcement, I don't see how you could suggest California sales WOULD NOT impacted by a Grand Calfornian announcement. The supposed appeal of the CR to Florida vacationers is a more dubious assertion than the appeal of the GC to California vacationers, IMO.

I find it difficult to swallow that a company would commission a large scale construction project without knowing pretty much EXACTLY what it's going to use it for.

The alternative is to suggest that this is the worst cover-up in the history of TWDC. Let's see...we've got construction permits that say "DVC villas" and others that say "Contemporary Suites." We've got "inside sources" that say it is DVC and others that adamantly deny any DVC involvement.

I grant the possibility that it's what's happening...

Then you're in the same boat as the rest of us...trying to make sense out of a situation that makes no sense.

The fact is, nobody knows what's going on.

Agreed.

And one opinion, really, isn't any better founded or grounded than anyone else's.

I agree regarding the opinions. The thread began with a poster asking for historical precedent, which requires no opinion. Of course, the application of precedent to this situation are merely opinion.

We can all sit here and poke holes in the theories, and argue just to argue, but at the end of the day, there's really nothing concretely compelling to substantiate either of the 3 or 4 different "theories" out there.

And yet you wrote 1000 words attempting to poke holes in my posts, so welcome to the club.

 

[tomandrobin]

The issue is one of utilites, wiring, and other infrastructure.

It would be a pain in the keister from an engineering standpoint. Not impossible, but likely expensive and certainly headache inducing.

I'm not going to tell anyone they're wrong, because, obviously, I don't know that. But the theory that they're waiting to decide has it's own whole HOST of obstacles to overcome......

All true, but at this point only the floor to floor shells are going up. Still plenty of time to go with interior "A", interior "B" or interiors "A & B". Based at the rate of construction of the floor to floor shells....about 3-4 months.

I am in the engineering business, and yes its nice to plans all nice and tidy. But in a building like this, floors 2 thru 14 (or what ever the next to last floor will be) can be identical. Which makes building and design very easy. The first floor, the top floor and any utility or specialty floors, require the extra design and thought process. The electrical, plumbing and HVAC risers would not change very much. The "engineered" room uses would be similar wether it was suites or DVC. The biggest change would be the electric. Our firm has done mutli-design floors for buildings under constuction. With proper planning, its very doable.

I still think its going to be a mix use building. The new building will have at least the number of rooms lost from demolition of the wing, for hotel and suite stays. The rest of the rooms are going to be divided between suites and DVC, this is my guess.

Oh, just another thought, is there a chance of anything similar happening to the remaining wing?

 

[tjkraz]

Oh, just another thought, is there a chance of anything similar happening to the remaining wing?

This is just my OPINION, but I think that's a foregone conclusion. I can't see the long-term solution for the resort being the round tower / A-frame / garden wing arrangement that we'll be left with in about 2 years. That's going to be rather unsightly, IMO. Flanking the A-frame with two identical round towers will be much more aesthetically pleasing--and represent better use for the land.

Of course the south tower wouldn't have as appealing views as the north tower.

 

[Sammie]

In my mind, the explanation that makes the most sense is that Disney still hasn't made a firm decision on what to do with the CR tower. They've still got well over a year to hedge their bets, weighing the economy, hotel occupancy and customer trends to decide which route will maximize the revenue generated by the new structure

I think that is an accurate statement of what is going on. BCV did not come online in stages, nor did VWL or BW for that matter, but there was no huge secret as to what it was when it was being built.

VWL and BCV did not have the secrecy issue this building has, and that is because at this point I don't think a definite decision has been made.

 

[nuts]

I hope to have lunch with my friend next week during my travels. Maybe she will enlighten me. She hasn't said much since last spring...which was that it was probably a mixed use. The ace that resorts has over DVC right now is the demand is high. Resorts, when nearly booked, makes more money than DVC. DVC is a large cash infusion with some trickle profits coming in from our dues (resorts makes a profit off the fee they charge DVC for mousekeeping, etc). If they setup the mix correctly, DVC purchases will pay for all construction costs (including the hotel portion). That means little depreciation for resorts which equals greater profits in the future.

 

[pilferk]

Maybe, maybe not.* AKV was announced fifteen months ago.* That timeline strikes me as excessive if the only goal were to have something in the pipeline.*

Well after 2/3 of SSR was built and sold...and it went on sale, to existing members at least, about 3 1/2 months later.

More likely, AKV was announced when it was because offering multiple locations has helped augment the program rather than diminish it.* The same could be said of the CR, yet we're still waiting.

It could.* But one could easily see the logical difference between adding a different themed, equally remote resort and adding something that offers the best location in the system, by far.* In a system that sells itself largely on location.

They we disagree.The Contemporary still has rack rates that trail the Poly and Grand Floridian by a considerable margin.* The rates are comparable to the BoardWalk and Yacht / Beach Clubs, yet still trail in certain regards.In fact, there are still Contemporary rooms that are cheaper than Studios at Old Key West or Saratoga Springs.* Relevant?* Who knows.* (Although it seems to me that Disney is generally pretty good at pricing their products to meet demand.)*

I think it's safe to assume that rack rates are completely irrespective of DVC and DVC appeal to prospective buyers.* I don't think it's valid to try to connect those dots. Witness the sales of AKV,which have been so brisk, outpacing projections, that they've had to speed up the construction timetable considerably. And yet the resort rates still languish at the bottom of the deluxe spectrum.

Perhaps if Disney had chosen to put a DVC at a more highly-regarded MK-area, monorail resort...I tend to think that the "bagging" of SSR and AKV witnessed here does not reflect the attitude of the general public.* (SSR has actually sold at a pace twice that of the beloved Beach Club.)* Likewise I question whether the public would consider the CR to be the be-all, end-all of DVC accommodations.*

Again, the anecdotal evidence at least makes the point compelling.* If you want to discount it....that's fine.* But I don't think you can take issue with those that DO find it at least thought provoking.

When did I hold up any of my comments as evidence?* * We're just discussing possibilities.* Just because I poke a hole in someone else's theory, or offer a different POV, doesn't mean that I believe my comments to be anymore accurate than others.*

So long as you're aware that your theory looks just as much like swiss cheese as the ones you decide to nit pick apart.

The vast majority of people walking into the DisneyLAND sales center over the next 18 months would be foolish to buy into SSR or AKV rather than wait for the GC.*

Yes, and then when GCV sells out so quickly that a good portion of them get butkiss, equilibrium will occur and the Florida system will get their business, as they buy hoping to possibly book at GCV at the 7 month window.* Again, given GCV is simply 50 units, it's not likely to have a LARGE impact, at the end of the day.* It's simple math.

If you're going to suggest that the Florida sales centers WOULD be negatively impacted by a Contemporary announcement, I don't see how you could suggest California sales WOULD NOT impacted by a Grand Calfornian announcement.* The supposed appeal of the CR to Florida vacationers is a more dubious assertion than the appeal of the GC to California vacationers, IMO.*

No, I'm suggesting that the majority of the units, and thus, the business, is done selling the Florida properties.* Thus, both the proposed size, and the market, are more largely effected by the goings on in Florida, especially one the size of the rumored CRV, than the goings on in CA.* Again, simple math.* Do you, perhaps, know the "split" between CA and FLA?* My guess is it's somewhere around 75/25 in favor of Fla, but that's an unfounded guess.* I'd love to see any hard numbers that are out there.

The alternative is to suggest that this is the worst cover-up in the history of TWDC.* Let's see...we've got construction permits that say "DVC villas" and others that say "Contemporary Suites."* We've got "inside sources" that say it is DVC and others that adamantly deny any DVC involvement.*

See, here's where we agree on something: I don't think the DIS is representative of the general public, here.* To us, it seems like the worst kept secret, ever (which, FYI, is what I think it is, in part...it's likely mixed use, something Disney has been doing a lot of late).* To the general public it's nothing....maybe to vacationers it's something they wonder about as they pass it on the monorail...and then promptly forget about.

Then you're in the same boat as the rest of us...trying to make sense out of a situation that makes no sense.*

Admittedly.

I agree regarding the opinions.* The thread began with a poster asking for historical precedent, which requires no opinion.* Of course, the application of precedent to this situation are merely opinion.*

Which, of course, is where we started.* I simply pointed out the OTHER historical precedent on the hotel side....showing that the lack of announcement really isn't indicative of DVC vs Hotel, because it's out of the ordinary for both.

And yet you wrote 1000 words attempting to poke holes in my posts, so welcome to the club.*

Your posts mostly questioning others theories...and then putting the shoe on the other foot, so to speak, to present the counter point that YOUR theories are just as full of holes as those you continue to try to tear down.* In other words, trying to get us all to the point we can agree that a) there are many theories, b) they all have some merit and c) they all have some "holes".* And maybe we should all recognize that and stop trying to shred them just for the fun of it....

See the point?

And with that, I'll move on.