Dr... Understand the analogy, but I think it is not a completely clean comparison. Taking OKW, BWV, BCV and VWL out of the system simultaneously takes a bunch of beds out of the WDW inventory. High-revenue beds at that. They didn't build them all at the same time, imagine it would be a challenge to re-build them all at the same time.
I disagree that in 2042 & 2054 the resorts will be wrecking-ball ready. We're all paying to maintain them, why wouldn't Disney keep them up? There are probably hundreds of resort/hotels in operation well in excess of 50 years of age and while they may have lost whatever made them "modern" in their day, they will mostly share that real estate beauty "location." Several years ago I made a number of trips to Victoria, British Columbia and stayed at the Empress (a grand old Victorian-era "railroad" hotel)... The rooms were small, outdated and very expensive. The location is wonderful. Ditto Crescent Lake.
My "interest" (legally and literally) in BWV may run out in 2042, but Disney's interest in the dirt BWV is built on won't. My hope (I'll be 74 come' 42) at this point is that they develop a recapitalization plan for all the resort locations and that in some manner sequence them so that they aren't all out of play at the same time. I imagine they won't sell "extensions," that would be an accounting nightmare.
Like I've read on another post... The exec who will make this decision is probably sitting in a grade school somewhere right now. Our "family" plan is to hold off any more add-ons until the "next" property is developed, which will hopefully leap-frog SSR in lease termination date.