Thread on the Disney Camping Forum

[Mr_Potts]

I highly doubt that a resort built there would be "value." This is one of the prime spots of Disney property, on beautiful Bay Lake, with boat access to the Magic Kingdom. Let's also not forget that the campground was Walt's personal vision and has always been there and has some pretty great features, like the Hoop De Doo and the stables.

 

[lisareniff]

From what I have read from a poster on the wdwmagic forums, that is proven to have knowledge of Disney plans is that a DVC is coming but not to RC. My unknowledgeable guess is that a Resort/DVC combo is coming to the STOL airport spot with a canal through River Country???. I'm sure the GF DVC will happen, just whether it is next is the question.

The DVC in question is in the final stages of planning right now. Not sure how long it will take though before it's announced. And no, it's not a high rise.

Another DVC is being tossed around as well but it's still in the blue sky stage. I'm starting to believe that there will always be one on the back burner after another one opens. As long as people keep buying them, they will keep building them.

Alright. I'll cave...just a little.

DVC? Yes. On RC plot? No.

That's all. :animwink:

This article is completely wrong. There is not a DVC in the works to be built on the River Country plot.
...

No. This site is not planned for a resort of any kind to be placed on it's property.

 

[dianeschlicht]

I like Pop Century, too. But from a purely marketing standpoint, it is perception, perception, perception. A value class DVC would dilute the DVC brand for marketing, just as you won't see See's Candies or Godiva Chocolates selling Hershey bars and M&Ms. It isn't what people expect from DVC. Unless they spend big bucks adding/upgrading amenities, and bus/boat services, it would overcrowd everything.

If it was dubbed a "value class" DVC resort, it is doubtful it would sell for $100 or more per point. Or it would require many, many fewer points per night, so not as many points would be sold to each buyer...neither of which makes good marketing sense for the brand.

The other issues with a "value class" DVC resort has to do with exchanging options. I would think they COULD do it, but they would have to make the point structure very low for a value class DVC, making it difficult for people who owned enough for a week there to stay at other resorts at the 7 month window. However....I think it would be a great fit for getting folks into DVC in these tough economic times. Maybe a lower cost option for those who are hitting the resale market. I don't think DVC is above trying to lure those folks to a direct purchase if they can.

 

[TisBit]

As others have stated, I do not see any point to a "value" class DVC. Maybe if the DVC brand was just not moving inventory and they were rethinking how to do it, but that isn't the current situation. DVC membership is still going up, even in a bad economy. Sure, not as fast as before, but it is still growing.

As far as a DVC resort near FW, I do know that Disney and DVC know how to market and make something work. Just because it is adjacent to FW, doesn't mean that it will be a "part" of FW in the traditional sense. Sure, some of the facilites will be open to FW guests, like TS restaurants at any resort....but they don't have to open the pool area or many of the other amenities. DVC would just ensure it was as stand alone resort capable of being self sustaining.

As for it being the next DVC, not so sure on that one. I think DVC is looking to get elements in at ALL deluxe resorts, to further shore up the Deluxe name of DVC. Unless GF and Poly are somehow cost prohibitive do I see them putting another off site DVC in. As for the people that speculate that Poly and GF book without DVC and they wouldn't take those cash rooms out of inventory, well DVC rooms would just command a higher rent from cash guests, so there is a benefit on that side as well.

 

[dblr]

We are DVC members abd we are also campers and we enjoy beiing abls]e to stay @ both type of resorts, the one thing that I have noticed the most is @ Fort Wilderness people seem to be a lot friendlier(sp?) more folks say Hi when you walk by or they wave to you as you go past, we never seem to get that when we stay @ a DVC resort(except from cast members).
I wish we could use our points easier @ the Fort because we could stay longer there to enjoy Disney, which by the way isn't that why we go there.

 

[Brian Noble]

I meant exactly what the previous posters said. DVC is sold as a deluxe property, FW is a camp ground and not considered a Deluxe resort. Nothing against anyone who stays at the campground at all.

Presumably, any new addition would have sufficient services, etc. to "fit in" with the rest of the DVC resort family. Just because a resort might be co-located with the campground doesn't mean it can't have another restaurant, pool, etc. as one might expect with any DVC resort.

I've heard several competing rumors about what might be next. I'm not sure any of them are too credible yet. When they start turning earth, that's when you'll know---at least that *something* is going on. "Raven" is a pretty reliable source, though. Not infallible, but usually knows more than the average bear.

But, the one thing I would bet my last mickeybar on: DVD is not going to want to be in a position of not having inventory to sell. The period just before Kidani came online was very difficult, and I can't imagine DVD wants to repeat it. I would be surprised if ground-breaking doesn't start on something, somewhere within WDW's borders, within the next year.

 

[Inkmahm]

It's been many years since I've stayed in the FW trailers but they were fun! I"d have no problem with DVC adding a DVC at the old River Country and having it be more of a value resort requiring less points. I'm not sure it would require as few points as we thing though since the FW trailer homes aren't exactly cheap accomodations.

 

[Chuck S]

The trailer homes are gone. They are regular cabins, now.

But remember that DVC has to build not just to please members, but to make resorts that are desirable and marketable to both cash guests (so that Disney Collection et al trades can pay for themselves, but also to appeal to the upper end timeshare customers in general, or else our trading option with RCI/II would really draw the lower quality properties, or eliminate timeshare trades all together.

If DVC wants to branch into cabin/trailers for future projects, it would almost surely be a completely separate, freestanding timeshare operation, negotiating their own trading separate from the existing DVC options.

Could they build a deluxe resort near the campgrounds, sure. Would it really be a marketing success, unlikely.

 

[dianeschlicht]

The trailer homes are gone. They are regular cabins, now.

But remember that DVC has to build not just to please members, but to make resorts that are desirable and marketable to both cash guests (so that Disney Collection et al trades can pay for themselves, but also to appeal to the upper end timeshare customers in general, or else our trading option with RCI/II would really draw the lower quality properties, or eliminate timeshare trades all together.

If DVC wants to branch into cabin/trailers for future projects, it would almost surely be a completely separate, freestanding timeshare operation, negotiating their own trading separate from the existing DVC options.

Could they build a deluxe resort near the campgrounds, sure. Would it really be a marketing success, unlikely.

I agree they COULD build a deluxe resort on that site, but it would have to have one fantastic theme or something else very special to make it saleable. I always wondered why they didn't redo the treehouses before they did the rest of SSR, because I think they could have made SSR a better marketable product had they done that. I also think SSR was added in a hurry to have inventory. I don't think it was well thought or planned out. The location of SSR isn't the issue as far as I can see. It's more the fact that it was done more like a group of big apartment buildings than sticking to that small town theme that it first started with. They could have done so much more with the little "community" theme in the development of the town square idea.

 

[declansdad]

A "value" DVC would not dilute the brand anymore than the moderate and value resorts dilute the resort brand. I'm fairly certain the WDW marketing dept can market this type of brand extension without harming the original DVC brand.

 

[BEASLYBOO]

Well, I love my DVC but I also love to camp (RV)! Every couple of years we camp at FW, we bring the golf cart, the bikes and the dog, it's a different vacation. The boys love to fish, the resort and the bike trails are great! I think DVC can sell anything, even a resort at/in FW and with creativity, who knows what they could come up with! Hawaii is nice but I wouldn't buy there and it's selling even if the travel cost is prohibitive for many!

 

[Sammie]

Well, I love my DVC but I also love to camp (RV)! Every couple of years we camp at FW, we bring the golf cart, the bikes and the dog, it's a different vacation. The boys love to fish, the resort and the bike trails are great! I think DVC can sell anything, even a resort at/in FW and with creativity, who knows what they could come up with! Hawaii is nice but I wouldn't buy there and it's selling even if the travel cost is prohibitive for many!

oh my, could this is be the Dog friendly DVC?

Remember that question was on the survey?

 

[dbs1228]

We have stayed at FT Wildreness cabins for 15 years, we LOVE the location, golf carts, trading posts, people, tents, mega RV dream homes,(such a mix) breakfast and dinner outside the list goes on. I have also stayed at the Poly several times, contemporary and OKW and I still say the FT is our favorite location! My family has been saying for years, too bad they cannot create a dvc property like the cabins but more luxury and at least 2 bedrooms/sleep 8 . (king size bed please, but a queen would work too) OUTDOOR SPACE! Not at all interested in another VWL type resort, personally.
When our 3 DD's were younger we would buy 4 day park hopper passes for 10 night stays and never run out of things to do at the Ft.! We did an add-on at SSR just to stay at the THV, cannot wait to try them out, but will be bummed that we are not a boat ride away for the monorail and MK!

 

[Dean]

Yet another knock to SSR. I do not get it?!

Not really. However, these were all points made about SSR when it was in the planning stages and DVC pulled it off. IMO there's as much or more to work with for the product in question than there was SSR. IMO there are a fair amount of challenges and lots of potential for such a project. However, that SSR has lower demand than certain other resorts and has affected reservation patterns beyond any other option is beyond dispute, IMO.

 

[Rhonda]

oh my, could this is be the Dog friendly DVC?

Remember that question was on the survey?

That would be great!!

 

[hakepb]

The biggest problem with a pet friendly, or camping/RV DVC is potential availability issues. There are people without RV's and people with severe pet allergies that physically can never use either type of resort. You cannot have those types of rooms in the normal DVC 7 month system. It is one thing to tell someone that SSR is the only available resort that might be against a style preference. Its another thing to go against a physical impossibility. A similar argument exists for a value DVC.

If owners of those specialty products wish to swap non-refundable time periods (like RCI) no problem, but logistically they cannot be part of the normal DVC system.

 

[Sammie]

The biggest problem with a pet friendly, or camping/RV DVC is potential availability issues. There are people without RV's and people with severe pet allergies that physically can never use either type of resort. You cannot have those types of rooms in the normal DVC 7 month system. It is one thing to tell someone that SSR is the only available resort that might be against a style preference. Its another thing to go against a physical impossibility. A similar argument exists for a value DVC.

If owners of those specialty products wish to swap non-refundable time periods (like RCI) no problem, but logistically they cannot be part of the normal DVC system.

How do these people stay at hotels now that are pet friendly for example the hotels at Universal or even in a hotel room where people sneak them in.

It has to be a possiblity or DVC would have never put that question in their most recent survey.

Why ask members their opinion on something that according to you could never happen.

How is it any different from the THV, only a few are handicapped accessible. Many of them are not available to everyone. DVC could build stand alone cabins in this new area and a certain section could be dog friendly. Just as with the villas, it would be first come, first booked.

 

[hakepb]

How do these people stay at hotels now that are pet friendly for example the hotels at Universal or even in a hotel room where people sneak them in.

It has to be a possiblity or DVC would have never put that question in their most recent survey.

Why ask members their opinion on something that according to you could never happen.

How is it any different from the THV, only a few are handicapped accessible. Many of them are not available to everyone. DVC could build stand alone cabins in this new area and a certain section could be dog friendly. Just as with the villas, it would be first come, first booked.

ADA has its own way to be accomodated and for the most part an accessible room can be used by any guest.

Creating a 100% pet resort would be like creating a fully inacessible resort with steps and 2' wide doors in every unit. There is no way to accommodate a H/C member if there is only availability in that resort. How do you sell a partial pet resort? And be told at check in that you cannot bring your pet in? Or what non-pet owner would buy at a pet resort?

 

[Sammie]

ADA has its own way to be accomodated and for the most part an accessible room can be used by any guest.

Creating a 100% pet resort would be like creating a fully inacessible resort with steps and 2' wide doors in every unit. There is no way to accommodate a H/C member if there is only availability in that resort. How do you sell a partial pet resort? And be told at check in that you cannot bring your pet in? Or what non-pet owner would buy at a pet resort?

I did not state the entire resort would be pet friendly.

I don't think they would set up the resort to be 100% pet friendly, even though many hotels in the US are now. All the hotels at Universal are pet friendly.

I just think they could as easily offer a section that would be pet Friendly and the other not. Just as in the THV a small percentage is HA and the rest is not.

You would not be told at check you can not bring your pet in, you would book a pet friendly accommidation at booking. Just like some book HA at THV.

Believe me if DVC does not offer Pet Friendly in the future you are going to see more and more dogs that are being brought anyway. I saw plenty at SSR last visit.

As I stated if it was not even a possiblity of being offered, DVC would have never mentioned in the survey.

 

[sssteele]

If I ever see a dog, cat, iguana, etc. at a DVC resort, it Will be investigated and reported. If you wish to bring your pet, make appropriate plans for boarding and visit with them often. Sam (not Joan)