Second Bay Lake Tower

Litigbearohmy

Earning My Ears
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
27
It seems likely that Disney will eventually demolish the Garden Wing building and build a second BLT tower to finalize the hidden mickey they are creating with the footprint of the buildings. (Maybe with a different name than south BLT tower?)

Any speculation on how that will effect our current BLT points? Not really too depressed at the idea of more Standard view rooms or more Grand Villas (Std View category?) and they can't increase the point chart (although don't really know how they can add a whole building to our BLT community and maintain the integrity of that chart).

Did the Jambo owners know that a Kidani was in the works?
 
Did the Jambo owners know that a Kidani was in the works?

Yes. Kidani Village was part of the initial announcement for AKV. There was also the standard disclaimer saying that KV was planned and my not be built.
 
I certainly would not be surprised if they do this at all. I am just hoping one day The Poly gets one.
 

There's been speculation about a 2nd tower (not just when, but if) for as long as there's been a 1st tower. There are many who don't think it seems "obvious" (I'm one) and that it's far more likely DVC would build in other locations well before they'd add a 2nd tower.

That said, they managed to create a unified point chart for Jambo and Kidani, so I would imagine they could do the same for a 2nd tower.
 
Some Dvcers wonder if Disney will build a second tower at Bay Lake. Now, there are lots of reasons why it couldn’t or shouldn’t happen. But lets assume for the sake of discussion that a second tower is built, and that it is identical to the present tower in size. Also, lets assume that the second tower, called BLT-2, is built where the South Garden rooms are now located and that it is part of the Bay Lake Resort.

How will a second tower affect the point chart for an enlarged BLT?

BLT-1 will have about 5.73 million points allocated to it when it is fully declared. If BLT-2 is identical to BLT-1, then it, too, will have the same 5.73 million points allocated to it. This is because all accommodations of similar size at the same resort must be allotted the same number of points. At BLT-1, a two-bedroom accommodation is allotted 19,640 points and a Grand Villa is allotted 34,975 points. That same points-to-size/accommodation formula will have to be used at BLT-2. This means that BLT’s point chart will now have to account for twice as many points, or 11.46 million points

Now, lets assume that the Contemporary’s A-frame building blocks views of MK from BLT-2, so BLT-2 won’t have any MK views. In fact, some of BLT-2’s accommodations might have to be downgraded from MK to Standard. Just a drop from MK to LV would result in a loss of about 275,000 booking points at BLT-2, and it would be a greater loss if villas had to be downgraded to the Standard View category.

On its point chart, a resort’s relative total points can’t go up, but they also can’t go down. If BLT-2 cannot generate 275,000 booking points, then those points must be made up by the other accommodations at BLT, both at BLT-1 and BLT-2. Thus, the entire BLT resort might see a slight increase of a point or two per night in all booking categories to handle BLT-2’s shortfall.

There are other ways that BLT-2’s shortfall could be made up. One way is to create separate booking categories at BLT-2 that charge more than comparable LV and Standard views at BLT-1. But why would someone want to pay more at BLT-2 for the same LV as at BLT-1?

Another way to make up the point difference is to create a new category at BLT-2, such as a Concierge Level, which charges as many, if not more, points as the MK category. Like AKV’s Concierge Level, the additional point charges are not based on views but amenities offered.

Of course, one way to keep from having a second tower adversely affect BLT is to make BLT-2 into its own DVC resort. That way, its not encumbered with BLT-1’s point structure and can have its own accommodation formula.
 
My understanding is that when they did core samples of the site in preparation for BLT they found the South Garden area wouldn't support the weight of a second tower.
 
Fascinating to think about -- I think a Concierge option would be help make the addition to BLT feel better, but overall I think the South Garden location would dilute our BLT investment as in counting those steps to MK and with likely no MK view -- it just wouldn't be the same.

So hopefully they build a Poly location first. Or make the South Garden a new DVC unrelated point wise to BLT.

Any plans or space for a Yacht club DVC?? Then again Stormalong is crowded enough at times -- hopefully they would take this into account!
 
I hope they do NOT build another tower and join it with BLT for the variety of reasons already given, but we will see what happens!
 
blt was moved so it would not block any views at CR.

don't think they have the room to move a second building and kept it in the same area.

now might tear down the south wing - but really think it would be moved closer to the convention area - and suites make for the conventioneers - when they were not using it - rented to the general public.

it would connect to CR thru the convention center.

okay who knows what Disney will do....
 
If we assume that the land cannot support a second tower structure at the Contemporay, then the next locations with the most available land near MK would be either Grand Floridian or an expansion of VWL. Given the popularity of the Poly with cash guests, and the limited ground availability, I don't see Disney allowing demolition of existing buildings for DVC there.
 
though the VWL used up all the nice land near WL.

most of the land around VWL is wetland. (which because of the Federal laws - WDW can't build on - or am I wrong)

still hoping - that they tear down Tahiti and build a DVC resort..... there is alot of land there - so the DVC resort could fit.

the polyn needs to kept Rarotonga because of the handicapped guests.
 
I was going by Google Earth images, which, unfortunately, do not show topography or designated wetland areas. There is a lot of land in the general area of WL/VWL, but it may be under a wetland zone.

There is a nice size area of vacant land near GF, as well. Just North of what appears to be an employee parking lot and maintenance building. But it is inland and across the road from the main resort, so no spectacular lake views. And quite a hike to the Monorail.

The best area would be a new resort, between TTC and CR/BLT, on Seven Seas Lagoon, but I've heard that land also can not support a structure.
 
DSC_0636.jpg
 
okay got told that BLT was moved because of view problems - was that a lie - or would it have interfered with the views from the last few rooms?
 
maybe they can get the design of the rooms correct and put the kitchen in the bathroom where it belongs.:rotfl2: and maybe have doors you can close and lock.:laughing:

They could name the 2nd tower BLTOT (OT) ON TOAST:thumbsup2
 
dizfan, nice photo! That vacant area near MK, and also outside the frame to the right, near TTC, is one area rumored to not be able to support a large structure.
 



















DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top