Should DVC Keep Expanding?

[hakepb]

I definitely want to visit DC on vacation in the next 5-10 years. So I would not mind the idea of staying @ national harbor.
I don't want to own there, though because I do not see that as a regular destination.
It may be possible that a VGC sized DVC (at most) would work OK (enough trades into NH to make up for the NH trades into WDW.

 

[CMOORE185]

Yes, in the summer. But what about the rest of the year? I think it took way longer to sellout the points at HH than they expected and they had to offer larger incentives to do it. A friend of mine bought there when they offered them 3 nights dirt cheap in the winter and then upgraded them (2 people) from a studio to a 2 bedroom. She has used the points elsewhere, she just wanted to get a foot in the door. I think DVC is going to be very careful building outside of the parks again. The name of the game is to build resorts and then sellout the points as quick as possible at the highest price.

I wish they would expand at DL, I think they only put 50 rooms at VGC to "test the waters", plus I don't think they wanted to draw away from Aulani since they will have more west coast people buying there.

It is my understanding that they get close to capacity most of the year, but summer of course it going to be the worst. I do not know anything about the incentives they had to buy their, but I do not believe one of them was coming down on price per point, all the other stuff like a discounted room does not cost them hardly anything. It may have taken them longer than they wanted to to sell out, but they sold out. And now people are purchasing their just to get the 11 month booking window. I think if they pick offsite locations properly they are a great selling point for people worried they may get tired of WDW in the future.

 

[ludari]

I think it would be great for DVC to keep expanding. This would give DVC members more opportunities to visit various Disney themed resorts at various locations.

 

[quentina]

I do not know about Vero, but I think HH is a great success. It is nearly impossible to book at 7 months in the summer. People on these boards are purchasing resale contracts all the time just to get 11 month booking. Hilton Head Island itself is a gem, and the DVC resort is spectacular. By the way I think DVC should keep expanding both on and off site.

I agree, 100%

 

[Goofy DVC]

IMO, the answer depends on what each members goals are and the specifics of the resort in question. The reality is that as long as the general demand of a new resort is equal to those of the more in demand resorts, it's neutral but provides options. However, new resorts that are in demand do NOT help the 7 month window enough to matter, even if those members exchange out a lot (HI). The reason is that in general they are more likely to trade to the other higher demand options. However, on the other side, a resort with a lot of points and lower demand has a dramatic affect on the 7 mo window (SSR as example). As a rough gestimate, it likely takes 10 times the points in a high demand option to balance a lower demand option. That be around 40-45 BCV resorts compared to just SSR. I'm personally of the opinion that the more the better due to more choices, but there is a downside depending on specifics.

I agree with Dean and would also add the following. The more DVC resorts, the more limited the perks. Some perks are not doable as membership grows. For example, if Fastpass was around when OKW was being sold, Disney could have easily implemented a perk where upon ckeckin you received so many FPs based on the number of days and room size and it would have had minimal effect on the system. No way could they do that now at every DVC resort at WDW. So, if you're really looking for new and substantial perks, I think it becomes less likely as DVC grows. Personally, I love the expansion and all of the choices.

 

[ACDSNY]

More DVC people means more DVC rooms, right? Not everybody will want BCV or VWL at the 7 month window.

Personally, own where it is important to you to stay and it doesn't matter how many more DVC resorts are built or how many new DVC members join!

I agree! We sold our SSR points in order to change UY and purchase VGC as we'll use it more than a WDW resort.

We are on the west coast so we view DVC differently than those that primarily use it for WDW. I'm all for expansion at Disney sites and off. The more choices the better.

 

[Mickey'sApprentice]

But National Harbour? Naw. Why? Location, location, location. Who the heck wants to stay there???

ME!

My parents spent a lot of time turning my sisters and I into history nuts!

I also spend my weekends watching people talk about books on C-SPAN.

 

[Tinker74]

Iam all for expansion at the GF and the Poly but I agree we don't need another SSR .

Iam a SSR owner...bought in 5 years ago when that was all disney was selling. I DO love the place and would still enjoy staying there.(especially the walk to DTD)
BUT...Iam embarrased to say ..we have NEVER stayed there yet!

Over the last 5 years..we have booked ONLY at the 7 month window and stayed at BCV 3 times, AKLV CONCIERGE!!, BLT, VWL.
And in a few weeks we will be staying at BWV with a boardwalk view!

So if iam the typical SSR owner then another similar huge stand alone resort might not be a good idea for the 7 month window.

 

[OhioDVC]

Absolutely, DVC should continue to expand as long as the market will support it. If you desire to book at a smaller resort, then buy points there!! To hold expansion so members can book into smaller resorts at the 7 months window is unreasonable.

Expansion brings more options to the club.

The more the merrier for me!

 

[Tinker74]

Absolutely, DVC should continue to expand as long as the market will support it. If you desire to book at a smaller resort, then buy points there!! To hold expansion so members can book into smaller resorts at the 7 months window is unreasonable.

Expansion brings more options to the club.

The more the merrier for me!

But aren't you contradicting yourself?....it only brings more options to you if you buy points at all the resorts you want to stay at.
I agree though ..the more the merrier..as long as its other "desirable" resorts..it all evens itself out.

 

[ssawka]

Personnally, I think they should limit any additional DVC in WDW and maybe add elsewhere, whether at DL, other Disney parks, or even offsite options like castaway cay.

If they add at WDW, they should keep it small to avoid over-building it. No more BLT's, AKV's, or SSR's.

I'm in so close the door?

I have never understood this mentality. I have lived outside of DC for the past 15 years and have seen a tremendous amount of growth and urban sprawl during that time. Every so often there is a group of residents that argue that the local goverments should limit expansion. However many of the people arguing live in brand new houses. To me that seems a bit hypocritical.

Personally, I would love to see DVC expand both on at WDW and offsite. One of the reasons we bought DVC was because we loved going to WDW, but wanted options to do different kinds of vacations. Having a large selection of resorts (even if they are at WDW) provides that option.

One thing I would love is to see an expansion abroud. I'm thinking DVCs at DLP or DLT or DLHK.

 

[nunzia]

They need to expand the DVC presence in California. They have a park there (or two) yet the VGC are so few. Plus with the possibility of people going to Aulani maybe doing a stopover for a few days at DL, it w/b nice to be able to get a DVD room there.

Hoping to hear that rumored extra tower at DLH will include some DVC rooms...

 

[JimMIA]

I definitely want to visit DC on vacation in the next 5-10 years. So I would not mind the idea of staying @ national harbor.
I don't want to own there, though because I do not see that as a regular destination.

Yep...and that's the problem with National Harbour -- who's going to buy there?

Timeshares are built to SELL, not for people to stay in. The success of a timeshare development is measured in how quickly it sells and how much profit is made from sales.

DC is a wonderful place to visit, but National Harbour is hardly an ideal location to use as a base. It's some distance outside DC (somewhat farther away than Alexandria, VA) and with no Metro service. And it's not in the greatest neighborhood.

We go to DC often, usually staying in the Arlington/Crystal City area. Now that we own Wyndham (which has a resort at NH), we will stay at the Wyndham Old Town Alexandria -- great location with a Metro station right across the street.

We wouldn't stay at NH, even though we already can, and we certainly wouldn't buy there.

 

[dianeschlicht]

IMO, the answer depends on what each members goals are and the specifics of the resort in question. The reality is that as long as the general demand of a new resort is equal to those of the more in demand resorts, it's neutral but provides options. However, new resorts that are in demand do NOT help the 7 month window enough to matter, even if those members exchange out a lot (HI). The reason is that in general they are more likely to trade to the other higher demand options. However, on the other side, a resort with a lot of points and lower demand has a dramatic affect on the 7 mo window (SSR as example). As a rough gestimate, it likely takes 10 times the points in a high demand option to balance a lower demand option. That be around 40-45 BCV resorts compared to just SSR. I'm personally of the opinion that the more the better due to more choices, but there is a downside depending on specifics.

I agree with your final statement about giving better and more choices. I hope though, that DVC no longer builds a HUGE complex like they did at SSR. I think it's a mistake to put all your eggs in one basket, and I think that's what they tried with SSR. When they found it didn't work too well to create a cheap neighborhood in a less desireable location, they turned back to developing DVC at existing WDW resorts that weren't making it. Hence we have AKL. I think about the only options left for DVC at WDW is more of that remake of existing resorts. They pretty much sold off the Eagle Pines site (or at least leased it), and there would be very few options for a large build close to any theme park other than existing resorts unless they choose to build another theme park.

At least they didn't decide to turn the Pop Century into DVC!

 

[rocketriter]

The elephant in the room is, "Will DVC services decline as DVC grows?" Let's hope that DVC sees fit to invest in scaling up service and maintaining/improving its quality as growth continues.

 

[sean-1966]

The elephant in the room is, "Will DVC services decline as DVC grows?" Let's hope that DVC sees fit to invest in scaling up service and maintaining/improving its quality as growth continues.

My question as well...

 

[BeesKnees]

The elephant in the room is, "Will DVC services decline as DVC grows?" Let's hope that DVC sees fit to invest in scaling up service and maintaining/improving its quality as growth continues.

The flipside of that is will DVC services decline if DVC has zero growth?

 

[DisneyEater]

I'm in so close the door?

I have never understood this mentality. I have lived outside of DC for the past 15 years and have seen a tremendous amount of growth and urban sprawl during that time. Every so often there is a group of residents that argue that the local goverments should limit expansion. However many of the people arguing live in brand new houses. To me that seems a bit hypocritical.

Personally, I would love to see DVC expand both on at WDW and offsite. One of the reasons we bought DVC was because we loved going to WDW, but wanted options to do different kinds of vacations. Having a large selection of resorts (even if they are at WDW) provides that option.

One thing I would love is to see an expansion abroud. I'm thinking DVCs at DLP or DLT or DLHK.

I am not saying they should not build at all. They need to keep up with demand, but there are 3 very large resorts currently selling now plus DVC has not been exercising ROFR. I am just suggesting that further add-ons should be smaller to meet but not exceed demand.

 

[DisneyEater]

IMO, the answer depends on what each members goals are and the specifics of the resort in question. The reality is that as long as the general demand of a new resort is equal to those of the more in demand resorts, it's neutral but provides options. However, new resorts that are in demand do NOT help the 7 month window enough to matter, even if those members exchange out a lot (HI). The reason is that in general they are more likely to trade to the other higher demand options. However, on the other side, a resort with a lot of points and lower demand has a dramatic affect on the 7 mo window (SSR as example). As a rough gestimate, it likely takes 10 times the points in a high demand option to balance a lower demand option. That be around 40-45 BCV resorts compared to just SSR. I'm personally of the opinion that the more the better due to more choices, but there is a downside depending on specifics.

I think we are in the same neighborhood on this. Any additiional resorts in WDW need to have high demand.

 

[BirdsOfPreyDave]

Put my vote firmly in the “continue to grow” column. I'd like to see additional options at both Disney parks and other locations. I'd love to see a National Harbor DVC. I'd also like to see some DVC options in other popular destinations like Vegas, New York, London, Caribbean, etc. I'd particularly like to see this because, to be honest, the RCI exchanges don't seem to be a great use of points right now. The Concierge and Disney collections seem (to me) to be even more of a waste of points. Of course, having additional DVC resorts is only a benefit if the point charts for those resorts is reasonable. We didn't stay at VGC on our recent trip to DLR, for example, because I wasn't willing to spend that many points on the room. We made a cash reservation out in town, instead.

I haven't stayed at the Poly since I was in High School, and have never stayed at the GF. I'd love to stay there, but won't do it unless there's a DVC added. Hoping for those options in the future.

Love the idea of using Water Country as a new DVC. I'm crossing my fingers that this comes to fruition because I think it's an excellent location.

Ok, this is where I'm probably going to drift way off topic...

I'm not sure I quite buy into the premise that mega resorts are always a drain on the overall system. I love SSR -- own there and have stayed there often on my SSR points. I've also stayed at other resorts on those same points. I remember not-so-fondly all the SSR bashing back when the resort first opened up. The fact that there were so many SSR owners changed the program. I don't dispute that booking at the 7-month mark probably did get more difficult at other resorts when SSR members started to come into the system.

I don't necessarily think the same happens for any mega sized resort that opens, though. SSR's problem wasn't that it was large. The problem was that it was larger than it's demand. This has, unfortunately, made it a "fall-back" resort in some people's minds. "Oh well, we couldn't get into any place good. But at least we found a room at SSR." (Although it's usually not stated so harshly, it's frequently the sentiment.)

A mega-size resort that isn't bigger than it's demand doesn't have the same impact on the program. In fact, it possibly serves as a pressure relief valve, taking some of the demand away from the smaller resorts and making it easier to book at them.

I think the location and theming of a resort play the biggest roles in it's popularity (or lack thereof). The popularity of the resort is what's going to drive it's impact on the overall system.

I'm not discounting size, mind you. It does come into play when people decide if they like a resort or not. People do post about how spread out SSR and OKW are, and how much walking is involved to get to the main pool or the restaurants. But they also post about the long hallways at Boardwalk and Kidani, which are much smaller resorts.

Location, location, location. That's the biggest driver. A resort that's walking distance from a park is going to be very popular. A resort that has transportation to theme parks other than a bus is going to be more popular than resorts that only have buses.

If Disney were to build a SSR-sized resort within walking distance of a theme park, I don't think there'd be the same discussions there are regarding SSR or OKW.

The other thing I think comes into play is the theme of a resort. Again, I love SSR. It's beautiful. We've stayed in every section except the Carousel, and enjoyed them all. The landscaping and views are beautiful. The Tree Houses are awesome. Others find the resort too boring, I guess. Or, at a minimum, not special enough to overcome the disadvantage of it's location.

There are themes DVC hasn't ventured into yet. Things that would make a new resort unique, and therefore popular. There isn't an extremely in-your-face-Disney themed DVC resort yet. Nor is there one on the cash booking side. (The closest being the value resorts.) Think about the potential of a royal-themed resort -- a full-sized castle where every villa is similiar in design to the year of a million wishes room in Cinderella Castle. Balance it out with a restaurant to give Midevel Times a run for their money and you'd really have something. Pirates are also very popular right now. Think about a pirate resort that's like walking into a full-sized version of the MK ride. That would be popular as well.

When travelling on our own, I love the look and feel of the DVC resorts and their theming. I'm often ready to escape the Disney feel of the parks and relax at the resort. As a grandparent, I can imagine the absolute thrill of taking our little one to a princess resort.

Give a mega resort an excellent location and an excellent theme and good luck booking that resort at the 7 month mark regardless of how big they make it.

Ok, this is where I'm probably going to drift way off topic...

Yep, I sure did.

Wonder if I'm the first person to quote my own post within that post?