Three DVC Resorts Cancelled - Colorado, New York, & Florida

[Horace Horsecollar]

Yesterland has a new article about three DVC resorts that were cancelled before construction began.

See "Three Disney Vacations Clubs That Might Have Been" at http://www.yesterland.com/dvcnever.html

I wish that Disney had gone ahead with the urban DVC resort in New York City.

 

[Happy Birthday Cat]

Great historical information Horace. Here is the article from the NYTimes quoted in the article about the New York DVC.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03EFD91E39F93AA25757C0A960958260

We stay often at the Westin when we are in NYC and I always think about what could have been on that site.

HBC

 

[Chuck S]

There was also Newport Beach in California, the property was sold and developed by Marriott.

 

[deej696]

I used to work for Westin and was thrilled when the Times Square location opened. I would have been much happier however, if it was a DVC instead

 

[DVC Mike]

I want a DVC right outside of Disneyland Resort Paris!

 

[MinnieGi]

Thanks for the great article! Our family would have loved the Vail Ski DVC!!!! As well as the NYC DVC that we could have made shorter trips too as we are only two hours away.

 

[ADP]

Eagle Pines was very close to getting off the ground. If I remember correctly DVC even made an official announcement.

All of a suddent the project was scrapped and SSR moved forward.

 

[profdsny]

Interesting. They really seem to be putting everything into the parks regarding DVC. With the Tower they have all 4 parks at WDW covered. Plus the new one at DCA. What's next? I can't seem them doing another monorail one. However, there is that whole new complex they are developing over by AK, and maybe there will be one there, with a 5th park.
I think off-site, other than Hawaii, will be a while in seeing. good thing we still have 50 years left.

 

[ariel & eric]

I would love to see DVC in other parts of the country. NYC would be great and maybe somewhere in the mountains around the KY or TN area.

 

[Chuck S]

I would love to see DVC in other parts of the country. NYC would be great and maybe somewhere in the mountains around the KY or TN area.

The only problem with that scenario (and I'm sure DVC would love to be in other parts of the country) is that those offsite resorts have to attract owners, not just existing members that trade to them. They have to be purchased by someone. It didn't work out well for VB and HHI, I think Hawaii will be a determining factor for future resorts. If it sells well, they will build more offsites in select locations from time to time. If it doesn't sell well, it will be a long time before they consider another off-site resort.

 

[Jaaron2]

I read that article as well, it was very interesting.

I really like that DVC has a mindset of expansion in other areas. I also think that in the past the problem has been most people want to own at a Disney Park resort which slows down the sales of the off site resorts (Vero, HHI). I do think that as the DVC membership grows that the off site resorts will get plenty of members that will want to stay there and reserve at the 7 month mark.

 

[dvc_john]

I was fortunate enough to stay at 3 of the properties that DVC never built (the Marriott's in Newport Beach and Paris, and the Hyatt in Beaver Creek).
All are great resorts, but I still wish they had been DVC's!

Also, NY is getting 2 new timeshares. Hilton (HGVC) is building a new project on 57th St. And Hyatt is building a project, but I believe that one is going to be a fractional.

 

[DisFamily2006]

One more thing to note about off-sites. The more you have, the more folks will be exercising the 7 month booking window as they (I'm sure) will be wanting to stay at WDW quite a bit. I can see, with enough offsite resorts, it getting difficult to even book SSR and OKW at the 7 month mark. Especially during peak times. BWV, VWL and BCV will be nearly impossible. THEN you'll REALLY need the 11 month booking window even more than you do now for those resorts. Unless of course, you're VERY flexible on travel dates (not usually the case with us folks that have kids, ie summer, spring break etc.)

 

[phyllisnnj]

One more thing to note about off-sites. The more you have, the more folks will be exercising the 7 month booking window as they (I'm sure) will be wanting to stay at WDW quite a bit. I can see, with enough offsite resorts, it getting difficult to even book SSR and OKW at the 7 month mark. Especially during peak times. BWV, VWL and BCV will be nearly impossible. THEN you'll REALLY need the 11 month booking window even more than you do now for those resorts. Unless of course, you're VERY flexible on travel dates (not usually the case with us folks that have kids, ie summer, spring break etc.)

Disney can resolve that issue easily by creating a new separate DVC system for the new contemporary villas and new offsite DVCs. Offsite owners would have their own onsite resort to trade into and current DVC members don't have to worry about competition at the existing DVC resorts.

 

[tjkraz]

One more thing to note about off-sites. The more you have, the more folks will be exercising the 7 month booking window as they (I'm sure) will be wanting to stay at WDW quite a bit. I can see, with enough offsite resorts, it getting difficult to even book SSR and OKW at the 7 month mark. Especially during peak times. BWV, VWL and BCV will be nearly impossible.

That's the dilemma Chuck spoke of several posts ago. The off-site resorts need to carry their own demand rather than just filter more owners in to the theme park-based resorts. Looking at Ko Olina in particular, for every DVC Hawaii point used at a theme park resort you would ideally want to see a SSR/OKW/BWV/BCV/AKV/VWL point used in Hawaii.

If the Contemporary is DVC, you'll have about 3000 rooms in WDW vs around 400 in Hawaii. I think Hawaii is a popular enough tourist destination that the system won't noticeably slip out of balance. But Disney does need to show some caution. If they start building a half-dozen resorts away from the theme parks without word of another WDW property, it may be a sign that things are going to start getting tighter in Orlando.

Disney can resolve that issue easily by creating a new separate DVC system for the new contemporary villas and new offsite DVCs. Offsite owners would have their own onsite resort to trade into and current DVC members don't have to worry about competition at the existing DVC resorts.

That's all well and good for owners, but there's little benefit to DVC. They enjoy the ability of being able to market the package as a whole--regardless of where you own you have a fair chance of booking BWV, BCV, Contemporary, etc.

Creating a two-tier system makes it that much more difficult to market off-site properties. Not gonna happen.

 

[phyllisnnj]

That's all well and good for owners, but there's little benefit to DVC. They enjoy the ability of being able to market the package as a whole--regardless of where you own you have a fair chance of booking BWV, BCV, Contemporary, etc.

Creating a two-tier system makes it that much more difficult to market off-site properties. Not gonna happen.

I actually think there is a benefit to DVC. Those who want the best of both systems will need to buy points in both.

A two tier system protects the interest of those who really only want to stay onsite and those who really want to stay offsite. By giving the offsite tier at least one dedicated onsite resort, DVC can market the new offsite package as a whole (DisneyWorld, Disneyland, Hawaii, etc...). The offsite owner that wants to spend most of his/her vacation time onsite is going to have to buy points in the other tier and vice versa.

 

[tjkraz]

I actually think there is a benefit to DVC. Those who want the best of both systems will need to buy points in both.

A two tier system protects the interest of those who really only want to stay onsite and those who really want to stay offsite. By giving the offsite tier at least one dedicated onsite resort, DVC can market the new offsite package as a whole (DisneyWorld, Disneyland, Hawaii, etc...). The offsite owner that wants to spend most of his/her vacation time onsite is going to have to buy points in the other tier and vice versa.

Disney can't compete with offsite timeshare programs. When you buy into a Wyndham or Marriott timeshare, you gain access to dozens of locations spread over the US and abroad.

Creating an offsite DVC tier (Hawaii, Vero, HHI) would have a terribly small market. Being able to market the Hawaii DVC as granting access to the theme park destinations is what makes Disney from other timeshares. That's their niche.

 

[phyllisnnj]

Disney can't compete with offsite timeshare programs. When you buy into a Wyndham or Marriott timeshare, you gain access to dozens of locations spread over the US and abroad.

Disney is branching out beyond the theme park destinations with Disney Cruise Line and Adventures by Disney. I don't see this as being anything different. I think folks will buy the Disney brand. DVC also offers one of the most flexible timeshare point reservation system.

Yes with Wyndham & Marriott you gain access to dozens of locations but that is not the case for all of the brand named timeshares such as Hilton, Hyatt and Starwood. I believe Disney can compete with those brands especially if they offer a hotel and timeshare combo locations where timeshare owners can share the same hotel amenities.

I also believe Disney has stated plans for more offsite locations other than Disneyland and Hawaii. The new tier could also partner with other timeshare companies expanding their existing Buena Vista Trading Company offerings.

Creating an offsite DVC tier (Hawaii, Vero, HHI) would have a terribly small market. Being able to market the Hawaii DVC as granting access to the theme park destinations is what makes Disney from other timeshares. That's their niche.

Yes, I agree that access to the theme park destination should be included.
My definition of the new tier includes DisneyWorld (Contemporary Villas), Disneyland (Grand Californian Villas), Hawaii and any other new offsite location. The separate new tier could still have the various DVC options such as the Disney Collection, World Passport Collection, Adventure Collection, etc.

I believe Vero and HHI should be included with the existing tier since those owners bought with the expectation that they could trade into the existing onsite resorts. New Owners could be told that they are buying into a separate system so there are no surprises that they can't get a direct trade into the existing resorts but they could get an exchange via Interval International.

 

[tjkraz]

Yes, I agree that access to the theme park destination should be included.
My definition of the new tier includes DisneyWorld (Contemporary Villas), Disneyland (Grand Californian Villas), Hawaii and any other new offsite location. The separate new tier could still have the various DVC options such as the Disney Collection, World Passport Collection, Adventure Collection, etc.

I still fail to see the benefit to Disney. Being able to tell new customers that they have equal access to the BoardWalk, Beach Club, Animal Kingdom Lodge and so on is a big part of the appeal of the program.

Yes, they COULD try to sell people points in two systems if they created two tiers. But how many customers would be lost outright because they don't want the hassle of two systems or are simply disenchanted over the inability to stay at AKV or BWV with a "tier two" purchase?

Besides, I don't see them being interested in a system that would encourage add-ons at older properties. DVC has the most to gain when people buy the latest and greatest. They don't want people saying "Oh, I need some BoardWalk points to go with my Grand Californian." They want people to add at the Contemporary or Hawaii or whatever future resorts are in the pipeline.