Villa design question for DVC vets

[bicker]

I suspect the elevators were added (1) because no one would buy into a timeshare where they had to walk up four flights of steps to get from the pool to their room; (2) because it would be much harder to get people to apply to be bellstaff if part of the job was dragging heavy luggage up three flights of stairs all the time; and (3) because (as I alluded to earlier) 4% of the Villas are rented by DVD, thereby bringing ADA into play.

 

[DebbieB]

Originally posted by bicker
I suspect the elevators were added (1) because no one would buy into a timeshare where they had to walk up four flights of steps to get from the pool to their room; (2) because it would be much harder to get people to apply to be bellstaff if part of the job was dragging heavy luggage up three flights of stairs all the time; and (3) because (as I alluded to earlier) 4% of the Villas are rented by DVD, thereby bringing ADA into play.

The 3 buildings with elevators at OKW were built in 1999, the rest of the buildings do not have them. The rest of the resort without elevators was sold out before then. So thousands of people bought into it knowing that they may have to walk up to their third floor room, many people even request them. I don't think they had a problem with hiring bellstaff either. I think the majority of people staying at OKW have a car so they carry the luggage up themselves, not the bell staff. The 3 new buildings were built when they dismantled the sales model & office, so maybe new construction did have an ADA requirement.

 

[SamR]

That still reduces the hotel's flexibility. There is a cost to that, a cost that I'm not willing to bear...

In one of my posts, I acknowledged that there would be a loss of flexibility, but I would not have expected the cost to be that great. Based on some of your posts in this thread, it sounds like you have some experience in this area. As I do not, I will defer to your knowledge here. I am but a software engineer...We think any problem can be fixed by throwing more lines of programming code at it.

I don't see a problem with making a small percentage of rooms guaranteed non-handicapped. With a small-enough percentage (probably close to 10%), there wouldn't be much loss of flexibility.

The percentage approach might be a reasonable compromise, although 10% sounds much too small to me. (Do I hear 30? Do I hear 50? ... ) I have wondered in the past if Disney doesn't already take this approach in other situations. For example, when staying at POR one time, I booked two rooms and asked that they be connecting. My confirmation said "Connecting rooms guaranteed." On another stay there, I requested connecting rooms, and that was just another preference noted...No guarantee given. Perhaps they will guarantee some number before they stop (and the rest just become preferences).

Now, how would you feel if you called to make your reservation at the 10 month point and they were all already reserved, and all you were offered was whatever-was-available? Would that be okay?

I would consider that situation preferable to the current one. If I got the guarantee, great! If not, I would decide whether the room type issue was a big enough concern to cause me to change my plans. Maybe if I could get the guarantee for a week later, I would change my plans...If not, maybe I would just take my chances.

I'm just saying that the inconvenience you're highlighting is really quite limited, both in terms of how many people are affected, and the harm that each one actually experiences.

I have no idea how many people have been affected by this. Ironically, on my first (and only, so far) stay at BCV, I had recently read a thread about handicapped/non-handicapped rooms on the DIS. At check-in, I asked the CM, "Were my preferences of non-smoking and non-handicapped met?". The answer: "Oh, yes sir." I rolled my suitcase to my studio, took one step inside, and realized I was looking at a roll-in shower. (They did find me another room after I rolled my luggage back to the front desk.)

As far as the inconvenience being "quite limited", it is best not to trivialize the concerns of others. Like you, I am playing a bit of Devil's advocate in this thread: The handicapped room issue is a relatively minor concern to me, especially as compared to the non-smoking issues. However, past threads have shown that this does bother some people, and different aspects, such as the gender of the guest, the number and age of their children, etc. may affect how much of an "inconvenience" this truly is.

Sorry for the length of this post...Thanks to all for listening!

 

[SueM in MN]

The roll in shower is only a consideration for studios. The one bedroom and bigger rooms still have the whirlpool tub in them. I don't know about OKW, but other WDW resorts have some fully wheelchair accessible rooms that have roll in showers and some that are handicapped accessible which have tub/showers with grab bars and a fold down seat or a sitting area made by an extension of the tub at the end opposite the control.
The ADA was approved in 1990, so it was already in effect when OKW was built. The original buildings had fully wheelchair/handicapped units available in the first floor. We were told by our DVC guide that elevators were added to the new buildings because of member interest in having buildings with elevators and also so that people with disabilities that prevented them from climbing stairs would have access to 2nd and 3rd floors.

 

[bicker]

Originally posted by DebbieB
The 3 buildings with elevators at OKW were built in 1999, the rest of the buildings do not have them. The rest of the resort without elevators was sold out before then. So thousands of people bought into it knowing that they may have to walk up to their third floor room, many people even request them.

First, there is a different between walking up to a third floor room (i.e., two flights of steps) and walking up to a fourth or fifth floor room. Regardless, I believe there is a big difference between the type of experience the typical BWV owner is looking for and the typical OKW owner. Many people have noted the difference in this forum, and I don't believe they can be under-stated.

 

[bicker]

Originally posted by SamR
The percentage approach might be a reasonable compromise, although 10% sounds much too small to me.

If the watermark is to not incur a significant opportunity cost due to loss of flexibility, the number has to be way less then 1/3. Just think about airline tickets (where yield management is really critical). Most of the seats are inflexible -- as soon as you provide a measure of flexibility the price QUADRUPLES!!!

As far as the inconvenience being "quite limited", it is best not to trivialize the concerns of others.

I'm not. I'm looking at it objectively, and comparing it specifically to the alternative. Contrast the inconvenience of being in a handicapped room vs. being unable to use your points because there isn't a room available during a time-period you are able to get vacation time.