Agree, however...
Yacht Club, too.
Well...yacht club is kinda in a pain in the that spot...lot going on in that area. As i stated above...beach and yacht are really one location and they already have the whole beach thing going on.
However, they Poly is unlikely to be the end of DVC development. As another poster said, a second tower at the Contemporary is likely once CR is ready to let go of those Garden Wing rooms.
I also believe we will see more conversions of existing hotel rooms over time. DVC sales have undoubtedly hurt demand for Deluxe resorts. Many former Deluxe guests have bought into DVC. Others are favoring more economical accommodations like the family suites and themed Moderate rooms.
Circumstances will vary from one resort to the next but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if we eventually see hotel rooms at the Wilderness Lodge, Beach Club, Contemporary, etc. eventually converted to DVC villas.
I agree that some rooms may be retrofitted. In the case of Animal Kingdon Lodge - they used it to bail themselves out in many ways. Saratoga the same X10.
But I don't know about expansion again at contemporary (though i'm sure theyd do it if they want) or at yacht/beach.
I believe one of the prime reasons for DVC unit construction (beyond the blatantly obvious) is to maximize the existing services at the hotels...mostly restaurants and shops but also recreation locations. You added 300 units to contemporary in no doubt to make money off the existing restaurants...but you also pack the pool.
If they were to add at yacht...or contemporary...they may be in the difficult position of having to add more services that will increase the overhead without a significant profit return. That has gone against their recent trend of adding the units and throwing in a little bit of amenity. The bar at contemp, Sanaa, the new paddock pool at saratoga...all nice but seemed to be offered just as window dressing...not as a fully functional amenity center...which leads the villa goers back to the original lodge - as the case may be.
At yacht the stormalong bay complex is a problem. It is pretty crowded and more villas might make it impossible to manage. So that would be something they would have to address with more elaborate secondary offerings....which costs bucks.
I could definitely see more units at wilderness lodge - as those were constructed sparingly in the leanest years of DVC and there is space and probably would be great demand for further sales. They also have no grand villas and could use a second structure to satisfy that demographic.
More than likely though...is that the modified "buffalo junction" DVC area betweem the Hoop and Wilderness Lodge (river country) could be on the plans...which would eliminate the need for expansion at wilderness lodge itself.
I don't see conversion of moderates or values to DVC...
1. They would be open to all DVC members and would have to have a lesser point value unless they were heavily re-invested in and added too...which means existing members could then stretch their contracts on the "lower end" of the food chain and not run into the need to purchase additional points in new developments - potentially.
2. Disney doesn't want less rooms to filter people into their giftshops - errr..."parks" i mean - they just want guaranteed return customers and less overhead. While more DVC at say port orleans might satisfy the first objective...simply outsourcing the operations of the mods and or values might better serve them by meeting the second objective.
3. I would think that they still want to keep DVC on the "deluxe" level in the short term as long as its feasible to expand it and keep selling contracts. Like it or not...there is a certain "arrogance" with the DVC membership that they like (my opinion)...and i'm sure their statistical analysis says that it is better that way. In laymans...attaching them on to deluxes equalled more money by their estimation...so that is why they are there and how they market it and attempt to sell it.
Lets not forgot that they could have easily built villas on caribbean beach or all stars...they didn't for a reason.
I am certainly biased but I doubt Disney execs are using DVC members as justification for their budgetary decisions. DVC villas only represent about 15% of all hotel rooms on property. Less if you include Dolphin, Swan and DTD area.
Tens-of-thousands more guests are drawn to the parks from off-site resorts, locals, etc.
DVC members aren't nearly adequate to support the theme park operating expenses. The parks would suffer dramatically if the customers not obligated to
Disney vacations stop showing up.
Not currently...but their goal has been guaranteed revenue, repeat clientele for decades now...
If they grow DVC and start to remove themselves from the traditional rack room hotel business - which is what i believe they are actively moving towards - then they may have the ability to cut without consumer backlash buy and large.
The 40 year DVC contract is quite a weapon to yield if the numberes continue to grow at a significant rate.
This cannot be denied.
Bottom line: Disney cuts because they can; because hotel guests, off-site guests, locals AND DVC members keep coming regardless.
Wholeheartedly agree...and we're all guilty.
We had a fantastic trip in september...but the overall quality and pricing continues to decline from the guest perspective. The question is - when will the scale tip and make it unacceptible? Or will outside factors or internal management decisions change and keep this from happening?
we'll see.
