Suppose there is a Contemporary Resort Villa?

[wingkng]

A question came to me as I was reading some of the posts about the next potential resort after SSR.

If DVC decides to convert some of the Contemporary Resort or Polynesian Resort into Villas, would they also have the same life-span as, say, SSR? CR and PR are the oldest hotels on the property, and even if they renovate the place into villas, can they realistically have another 40 year+ lifespan? I mean, PR as it is looks pretty outdated and worn. I would not stay there if not for the unique atmosphere.

I will throw out another question... What do you think will happen to the current DVC resorts when the contracts expire in 30 years or so? Would they tear them down to build new buildings, or would they re-sell them to new members for higher prices? I know that the prevailing tendency in the northeast is to renovate a house, even if it a 100 years old. In the south, from personal experience, many people prefer to knock down an old house to build a new one. So, I just wonder what DVC would do when their current property becomes old and worn.

 

[goofeydec]

I realy cant awnser any of these questions but if i could get a add on at the POLY that would be awsome. I have had the add on bug now for three weeks but i think i will wait to see what happens.

 

[Daitcher]

For starters I'll get this out of the way, I'd have no interest in a CR DVC. CR just doesn't do it for me and the monorail isn't a must or want for us. PR DVC would be a little appealing but I still wouldn't jump. I book 7 months out so home resort means nothing to me for on site DVC. I'm holding out hope for a Hawaii DVC. Your other questions are interesting. Here is my take for what it is worth. I'm sure any new DVC resorts will follow the 50 year contract. Why change it now? I also believe CR and PR will be alive and well in 50 years. They will have been renovated many times over the course of those 50 years. They will be there forever as long as no major catastrophe strikes. My best guess for the DVC resorts at the end of the 50 year term would be that they will offer members or whoever is the surviving family owner a deal to re-up another 50 years for a nominal fee, say 25 dollars a point. Any members not taking the deal will mean DVC would resell those points at market rate. As for the DVC resorts, they should be in tip top shape. After all, our dues pay for maintenance and upkeep. It doesn't cost them a dime. Why would they let them get run down? Who would buy into a new resort seeing DVC let the older properties go to seed?



DAVE

 

[rogerram]

daitcher,
I agree with alot of what you said except one thing. Disney will not offer anything to the existing owners at less than what they can sell it for as a new DVC sale. If it is going for $200 per point then, they might sell it to the current owner with an incentive, like a f&f deal with 10-15% off or some other deal. People will buy it (current owners or new ones)and Disney will make much more that way.

 

[DisFlan]

As for the DVC resorts, they should be in tip top shape. After all, our dues pay for maintenance and upkeep. It doesn't cost them a dime. Why would they let them get run down? Who would buy into a new resort seeing DVC let the older properties go to seed?

No matter how great the upkeep is, resort buildings approaching 50-65 years in age are going to have major problems. Building codes and safety requirements will have changed. Technology will have moved on. The world and travel will have changed. Think about the "cutting edge" resorts of the 1950's era. Most of them have been gutted and rebuilt, had MAJOR uber-expensive renovations or torn down and completely replaced.

Disney's Poly and the CR are barely 35 years old, and they've required a number of expensive re-dos. By the time they hit 50 or 60, a lot more of their weaknesses are going to show up. In another 30 years, no matter what's done to them, they'll continue to look more and more dated.

In 30 or 50 years, there's just no way the present DVC resorts in their current form (even with excellent upkeep and repair) could be resold at the same level as something newer and up-to-date.

I'd expect most of the present DVC resorts will face the same fate as the "old" buildings at DI. They'll be bulldozed and replaced with new units - and new sales. This is assuming that the DVC business model is still viable and popular in 30 or 50 years, and that WDW is still up and going strong. But who knows?? Things can change a lot in 50 years.


DisFlan

 

[DizWacko]

No matter how great the upkeep is, resort buildings approaching 50-65 years in age are going to have major problems. Building codes and safety requirements will have changed. Technology will have moved on. The world and travel will have changed. Think about the "cutting edge" resorts of the 1950's era. Most of them have been gutted and rebuilt, had MAJOR uber-expensive renovations or torn down and completely replaced.

Disney's Poly and the CR are barely 35 years old, and they've required a number of expensive re-dos. By the time they hit 50 or 60, a lot more of their weaknesses are going to show up. In another 30 years, no matter what's done to them, they'll continue to look more and more dated.

In 30 or 50 years, there's just no way the present DVC resorts in their current form (even with excellent upkeep and repair) could be resold at the same level as something newer and up-to-date.

I'd expect most of the present DVC resorts will face the same fate as the "old" buildings at DI. They'll be bulldozed and replaced with new units - and new sales. This is assuming that the DVC business model is still viable and popular in 30 or 50 years, and that WDW is still up and going strong. But who knows?? Things can change a lot in 50 years.


DisFlan

Very interesting post .... I wonder this myself. However, I will say that just about EVERYTHING at the Poly has been semi-gutted sometime in the past 10-15 years, including just about everything but the framing of the buildings/longhouses. THis includes new pool, new room interiors/patios, flooring, retail stores, restaurants.

The thing about the Poly/CR, etc that most demands the selling price is the location. Secondly, the Poly's theming wont ever necessarily require that the buildings be demolished, I cant think of why they would.

The Contemporary on the other hand is a different story. I love the retro-future feel of the place, but the exterior is just plain awful. Will Disney ever spend big bucks to update it or just start over?

 

[rascalmom]

I think one hiccup in Disney's path at the end of the original 50 year DVC contract period will be the sheer number of units becoming available all at one time. OKW, HH, VB, BWV, BC & VWL would all have the same contract end dates. If they wanted to continue having these properties be part of the DVC family, I think they would have to offer an appealing extension incentive to the (then) current members to be able to have the cash flow to maintain the properties. Even if they intended to convert them all to CRO use - that is a lot of rooms to flood the "market" with all at one time.

Many, many properties have a useful life well beyond 50 years. The Hotel Del Coronado comes to mind as one that has been around for many years & has maintained it's appeal. I think the properties could definitely be kept viable, the question will be whether & how Disney want to use them at that point.

 

[disney-super-mom]

I think one hiccup in Disney's path at the end of the original 50 year DVC contract period will be the sheer number of units becoming available all at one time. OKW, HH, VB, BWV, BC & VWL would all have the same contract end dates. If they wanted to continue having these properties be part of the DVC family, I think they would have to offer an appealing extension incentive to the (then) current members to be able to have the cash flow to maintain the properties. Even if they intended to convert them all to CRO use - that is a lot of rooms to flood the "market" with all at one time.

Many, many properties have a useful life well beyond 50 years. The Hotel Del Coronado comes to mind as one that has been around for many years & has maintained it's appeal. I think the properties could definitely be kept viable, the question will be whether & how Disney want to use them at that point.

I agree!

 

[DisFlan]

The Contemporary on the other hand is a different story. I love the retro-future feel of the place, but the exterior is just plain awful. Will Disney ever spend big bucks to update it or just start over?

I've wondered about this, too. What the heck could they do to the exterior? Maybe it'll come back into fashion.

DisFlan

 

[DisFlan]

Many, many properties have a useful life well beyond 50 years. The Hotel Del Coronado comes to mind as one that has been around for many years & has maintained it's appeal. I think the properties could definitely be kept viable, the question will be whether & how Disney want to use them at that point

I agree, but the Del Coronado took a LOT of money to revamp when it was redone. When you stay there, you're staying in a piece of "originally-built-with-the-very-finest" and "restored with loving care" history.

The DVCs are nice, but they aren't a Del Coronado. Sure the current DVCs could be around a long time, but how would they be sold or used? As "historical" villas along side newer ones? If that happens, it'll cost Disney many times more to rebuild them to fit future demands than it did to build them. Replacing them would be cheaper.

I'd bet the Poly and the CR will be around longer than anything else - they're the "icon" original resorts. The others, except maybe for the GF, are more dispensible. I'd give the values 25 years, tops. Maybe not even that long.

DisFlan

 

[Disney Doll]

For starters I'll get this out of the way, I'd have no interest in a CR DVC. CR just doesn't do it for me and the monorail isn't a must or want for us. PR DVC would be a little appealing but I still wouldn't jump. I book 7 months out so home resort means nothing to me for on site DVC. I'm holding out hope for a Hawaii DVC. Your other questions are interesting. Here is my take for what it is worth. I'm sure any new DVC resorts will follow the 50 year contract. Why change it now? I also believe CR and PR will be alive and well in 50 years. They will have been renovated many times over the course of those 50 years. They will be there forever as long as no major catastrophe strikes. My best guess for the DVC resorts at the end of the 50 year term would be that they will offer members or whoever is the surviving family owner a deal to re-up another 50 years for a nominal fee, say 25 dollars a point. Any members not taking the deal will mean DVC would resell those points at market rate. As for the DVC resorts, they should be in tip top shape. After all, our dues pay for maintenance and upkeep. It doesn't cost them a dime. Why would they let them get run down? Who would buy into a new resort seeing DVC let the older properties go to seed?



DAVE

What Dave said, except for them selling it to "current owners" at a way cheaper price than they can get for it on the open market. My guess is that they would offer it for sale first to current owners at whatever the going rate is at that time, but if the current owners do not want to pay market price, then the contract would be resold to someone else at market price. They might decide to be really nice and maybe offer it to current owners at $5-$10 less than market price, but I doubt they'd offer it to current owners at a price way below what it would be worth per point at that time.

 

[doubletrouble_vb]

There are advantages to letting the DVC I contracts expire. VB and HH could be sold off to another entity (which they could anyway). OKW could be bulldozed with Disney choosing to either rent out the remaining units as part of the hotels they are attached to or tying them into the expiration dates of DVC II for an upgrade fee.

The one thing I can't quite see is Disney turning around and re-selling the properties for the full current price. If they were located in a less heat, water and insect stressed part of the US I could see it easily. But this is Florida...keeping old buildings in good shape seems to be a bit of a challenge. Why struggle with aged structures when you could start on DVC VI at that time?

On the other hand...how old are the seven non-Disney hotels by DTD? By this notion they should be nearing demolition time.

 

[rascalmom]

I agree, but the Del Coronado took a LOT of money to revamp when it was redone. When you stay there, you're staying in a piece of "originally-built-with-the-very-finest" and "restored with loving care" history.

The DVCs are nice, but they aren't a Del Coronado. Sure the current DVCs could be around a long time, but how would they be sold or used? As "historical" villas along side newer ones? If that happens, it'll cost Disney many times more to rebuild them to fit future demands than it did to build them. Replacing them would be cheaper.

I'd bet the Poly and the CR will be around longer than anything else - they're the "icon" original resorts. The others, except maybe for the GF, are more dispensible. I'd give the values 25 years, tops. Maybe not even that long.

DisFlan

Yes, it took a lot of money to restore the Del, but it had been allowed to linger at a lesser state for a while. Disney has the steady stream of our dues to keep the DVC resorts in good shape. Besides, if they can't keep the resorts nice over the long run - what is going to happen to the parks?

 

[wingkng]

There are advantages to letting the DVC I contracts expire. VB and HH could be sold off to another entity (which they could anyway). OKW could be bulldozed with Disney choosing to either rent out the remaining units as part of the hotels they are attached to or tying them into the expiration dates of DVC II for an upgrade fee.

The one thing I can't quite see is Disney turning around and re-selling the properties for the full current price. If they were located in a less heat, water and insect stressed part of the US I could see it easily. But this is Florida...keeping old buildings in good shape seems to be a bit of a challenge. Why struggle with aged structures when you could start on DVC VI at that time?

On the other hand...how old are the seven non-Disney hotels by DTD? By this notion they should be nearing demolition time.

I was hoping that I would stir up some interesting discussion. I agree that I just can't see Disney keeping those buildings maintained for 50 years. I lived in Houston most of my life, and I know that the heat, humidity, summer hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. do take a toll on buildings. In addition, I don't know if Disney properties have experienced any foundation problems. Houses down in Houston are prone to having foundation problems, and it is a fortune trying to correct them. Sometimes with a good flood the problem suddenly pops up. I know for a fact that WDW sits right on top of some swamp land, so I don't know how they have handled it (I'm sure that they would work very hard to not let that kind of problem show).

What I was thinking for DVC's future is perhaps they could build new resorts near the end of the DVC-I's lifecycle, and offer owners and prospective owners at the original resorts the option of moving their home resort to the new properties, at a nominal discount, of course. That way, there is still some incentive to keep buying and using those older properties. As the new resorts become available, then they can close the older resorts in stages. This may potentially prevent any drastic fluctuation in supply and demand.

 

[Dean]

DVD has incentive to have set dates, it gives them options on getting out, selling, reselling or extending. We have a hx of all resorts having the same expiration until SSR, even when the expiry date approached 40 years in terms of VWL and BCV. I think it's reasonable to think that if there are any new resorts in the next 10 years, they will have the same expiry date as SSR. The possible exceptions would be an off site option that was not necessarily a hot ticket and a large resort such as EP.

As for extensions, I have changed my stance from a few years ago. I don't think it will be feasible, maybe not even possible, for DVC to offer extensions. The only way they could feasibly do so would be to either resell the entire resort for say another 30 years OR to have a very large percent of current owners (say 70-80%) participate in the extension to 2054. Say they wanted to extend the extra 12 years, reselling new would not be feasible. To get even half interested in an extension, it'd have to be easy and cheap AND the fees structure would have to be reasonable at the time. To get the number I think it'd take to make extending reasonable, they'd have to almost give it away or might even have to offer a free extension. As mentioned above, that's a lot of rooms and frankly, a lot of park and other venue guests they'd lose. Obviously there are a lot of variables that would affect the economics from both the member standpoint and Disney's that we don't know yet.

 

[DisFlan]

Besides, if they can't keep the resorts nice over the long run - what is going to happen to the parks?

Well, this was sorta my main point. I worry about this, too. DVC at WDW rests on the parks. In 50 years, WDW may no longer be THE place to go. Disney may have been bought out by another conglomerate with different park goals. There may well be bigger and better vacation destinations by that time. Being that I love WDW, I'd hope that wouldn't happen, but there's a high probability.

Every business model has a lifespan. 50 years is a long time. By that time, our grandkids may be more interested in visiting and/or buying timeshares at the new ultra-humongous parks and resorts complex being built now in Dubai. An 80 year old WDW may well be old-hat by that time. It may still be nice, but it also may be "your grandfather's resort".

DisFlan

 

[d-r]

does anyone know how many feet above sea level wdw is?

 

[DisFlan]

does anyone know how many feet above sea level wdw is?

Earth Google says Epcot and the MK are 92 ft. There are lower and higher areas, but most of it is between 70 and 100 ft. The old "Stolport Airstrip" is listed as 92 ft.

I don't know how accurate Earth Google is, but I'd guess the real numbers are pretty close to these.

DisFlan

 

[RobertKC]

I just bought SSR last week. I spoke to member services today about the length of contract on new DVC resorts. I was promised that there are new resorts in the planning and that I will have access to them until 2054.

 

[Dean]

I just bought SSR last week. I spoke to member services today about the length of contract on new DVC resorts. I was promised that there are new resorts in the planning and that I will have access to them until 2054.

I think it's reasonable to expect that IF there are any new resorts, present members will have access to those resorts per the rules as long as they stay members. That means that those who's resorts expire in 2042 will then not be able to use points at the other resorts after their resorts cease to exist as a DVC entitiy. However, this promise has no meaning unless you get it specifically in writing as part of your contract. DVC has rules on this situation and they could change. There is no guarantee that you would have access to future resorts.