The Spirited 8th Wonder (WDW's Future & You!)

[alphac2005]

To be fair - not only did JC Penny change their pricing structure, they also changed the type of clothing they were selling to attract a younger, hipper clientele, and that was a failure. Their current shopping base didn't want that type of clothing and trendy, hip people aren't necessarily shopping at JCP. We have a stand alone store that opened up in our area a couple of years. A lot of the merchandise they have offered in the last couple of years was just downright ugly, and they couldn't sell no matter how they priced it. (Now, I will go put on my jorts and go sit in the corner).

I also think it's the idea of perceived value. If someone buys an $8 shirt, they perceive that it's a cheaply made and not very valuable. If someone buys the same shirt that was once priced at $40, but they pay $8 for it, they feel that they are getting a better quality product that is actually worth $40. It's no longer a cheap piece of crap shirt - it's a nicely made shirt that was discounted for whatever reason. Of course, being the savvy shopper that I am, I buy most of my clothes at Goodwill and bypass the middleman. I have a wardrobe full of awesome clothes for next to nothing.

I think the bigger lesson is to know your core audience and know who spends money. It was a good idea for JCP to go after the younger dollars, but they alienated their current customer base in the process. I think this is exactly what is happening at WDW. They are going after the big spenders (Brazilian tourists, the one-timers who blow a huge wad of money) while alienating their bread and butter who may not spend as much but who provided a consistent revenue stream - the DVCers who are loyal who may not spend as much, they AP holders, the families who visit every year but may not necessarily stay deluxe, etc.

Good post. Well, what jcpenney did was more perception than reality. Hm, let me try this one out... Our business has relations with firms that did work for them. Their marketing campaign was completely changed to appeal to exactly what you said, a younger, hipper demographic, however, that didn't translate into the reality of the physical store square footage of the types of clothing that they stocked. Then head of jcpenney Ron Johnson brought in the concept of stores within stores from Martha Stewart to Ulta, but they had multiple issues going on at once:

The younger graphic that they were appealing to went to try them out and they were sorely disappointed that the stores didn't match what was being advertised, their core audience felt completely abandoned for a variety of reasons including the ad campaign and lack of gimmick pricing. There wasn't much of an an actual change in the clothing that they've stock for ages, rather, it was all about their marketing from item pricing signage to their air, online, and print campaigns.

I was given a study that was done about jcpenney by a consulting group after everything fell apart and they brought back their old CEO. The data was amazing to me and a study in human psychology. Examples would include that they would show people the new bottom line price in the store and then showed them the same product with a higher price with coupons. Of those surveyed, the vast majority preferred the sale pricing along with coupons... even though they would be paying more!! It was unreal. They complained about the updating and changes in some of the stores that received partial face-lifts, although one of the biggest dings on jcpenney is how out of date their stores are.

 

[ParentsOf4]

On the topic of how the DVC presence theoretically dumbs down a resort itself. I don't buy it. I've been a guest of a DVC member many times, one who I'd say is not in the program because they were duped into spending their last pennies and are upside down in a mortgage, but because they liked WDW so much and were paying out the nose each year to visit, so figured they'd maximize their money spent on the visit and find it a worthy investment. In the past they've paid for Grand Plan packages, so the DVC cost was reasonable. I think that with or without the DVC present in any resort, deluxe or otherwise, you'd still have people staying in a deluxe resort who normally may not be able to afford it. Even before all the free meal discounts and other sales, there have been people staying in those resort through cast member discounts, comps due other unforeseen events at other resorts where people were relocated from value X to deluxe Y, etc... It just sounds to me that so many assume that ever knucklehead that wears pajamas out and about town each day is able to buy into DVC when it's just not the truth. Those same folks are just as likely to drop the 400+ per day for a room at the BWI during F&W if they have the credit available at any given moment. It may make it possible for a small percentage of people that otherwise wouldn't own DVC, but not 50%+ of all DVC owners. I have ZERO stats to back up that claim, but I don't think anyone has another to refute it either.

The 'dumbing down' caused by DVC has nothing to do with "every knucklehead that wears pajamas out and about town each day is able to buy into DVC". It has to do with the revenue stream generated by each room.

Let's reconsider the simple BWV vs. BWI example I described earlier.

For F&WF, the occupied BWV Standard View Studio generates $67/night running at over 95% occupancy. So, overall Revenue Per Available Room (RevPAR) is ~$64/night.

A similar BWI room is $405/night with an occupancy of about 75%, with a resulting RevPAR of about ~$304/night. (Actually, BWI occupancy is very high for F&WF but I'm looking at the entire year's average to be fair.)

In general, over the course of an entire year, the cash BWI rooms generate significantly more revenue on a per-room basis than the DVC rooms.

Disney simply cannot afford to offer guests paying $67/night the experience that might be expected by someone paying $405/night. Since BWV and BWI share common facilities, compromises must be made.

To the person paying $405/night, their experience has been cheapened (or 'dumbed down') because of DVC.

Please note this is a simplistic examination of the problem. The math for an entire year is much more complicated. However, hopefully this simplistic example makes clearer why the DVC price structure (which pays a lot upfront) has a 'dumbing down' effect on those paying cash for Disney's Deluxe Resorts.

When DVC members make their initial purchase, that cash does not get set aside to be used to make up the difference in lost revenue at the hotel. Corporate Disney uses that money elsewhere, leaving the hotel management with trying to have to figure out how to run its operations with two sets of clientele paying incredibly different prices.

I'm running a hotel where some customers are paying $405/night while others are paying $67/night. What am I going to do?

I'm not going to give those paying $405/night the same service I would if all my customers were paying $405/night. I'm going to need to 'dumb down' my product so it remains profitable. Those people paying $405/night are not going to receive a $405/night experience.

 

[jlsHouston]

Okay I will finally bite. I like DVC. I doubt if I will ever buy into it...but I might...at some point when VGF or POLY hit the resale market maybe...
I think DVC buyers are mainly those who are in the middle-upper wage earning brackets. I would be shocked if what I consider "rich" were buying DVC.
I think the worse thing about DVC conversions is Disney doesn't expand amenities like the qs restaurants and pools enough when they convert deluxe rooms over to DVC
I agree with @crispy that at least with DVC, you have WDW reaching for what I consider a core customer base. And your core customer base keeps you going. Year after year.
So if Disney is set to convert rooms to DVC at all the deluxes except YC and CR, I am not against it and I hope they do the buildouts with quality materials, NOT using the cheapest contractors and expand resort amenities too.
Speaking of DVC buildouts, is it just me or @wdwmagic picture quality but are those bungalows over the water at the POLY hideous or what? Somehow I just don't get an "Island" type feel from them

 

[ABQ]

The 'dumbing down' caused by DVC has nothing to do with "ever knucklehead that wears pajamas out and about town each day is able to buy into DVC". It has to do with the revenue stream generated by each room.

Let's reconsider the simple BWV vs. BWI example I described earlier.

For F&WF, the occupied BWV Standard View Studio generates $67/night running at over 95% occupancy. So, overall Revenue Per Available Room (RevPar) is ~$64/night.

A similar BWI room is $405/night with an occupancy of about 75%, with a resulting RevPar of about ~$304/night. (Actually, BWI occupancy is very high for F&WF but I'm looking at the entire year's average to be fair.)

In general, over the course of an entire year, the cash BWI rooms generate significantly more revenue on a per-room basis than the DVC rooms.

Disney simply cannot afford to offer guests paying $67/night the experience that might be expected by someone paying $405/night. Since BWV and BWI share common facilities, compromises must be made.

To the person paying $405/night, their experience has been cheapened (or 'dumbed down') because of DVC.

Please note this is a simplistic examination of the problem. The math for an entire year is much more complicated. However, hopefully this simplistic example makes clearer why the DVC price structure (which pays a lot upfront) has a 'dumbing down' effect on those paying cash for Disney's Deluxe Resorts.

When DVC members make their initial purchase, that cash does not get set aside to be used to make up the difference in lost revenue at the hotel. Corporate Disney uses that money elsewhere, leaving the hotel management with trying to have to figure out how to run its operations with two sets of clientele paying incredibly different prices.

I'm running a hotel where some customers are paying $405/night while others are paying $67/night. What am I going to do?

I'm not going to give those paying $405/night the same service I would if all my customers were paying $405/night. I'm going to need to 'dumb down' my product so it remains profitable. Those people paying $405/night are not going to receive a $405/night experience.

Which common facilities are shared in the DVC attached to another resort environment? I'm not trying to be wise, just trying to understand if these shared items have always been that way or did WDW morph things over time. Obviously front desk staffing, including bell services and concierge. Have housekeeping always been shared? Are they now? Or do they operate independently? Parking is shared, always has. But with a DVC villa addition, typically a second pool is installed. In the case of the WL, I believe the only gym on premises is actually within the villas itself, unless there is one in the main building I'm unaware of, but that is open to the main building guests.
If I can indulge you, though I'm sure you did elsewhere, but please give me the simple math that comes up to the $67 per night at the BWV's.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Which common facilities are shared in the DVC attached to another resort environment? I'm not trying to be wise, just trying to understand if these shared items have always been that way or did WDW morph things over time. Obviously front desk staffing, including bell services and concierge. Have housekeeping always been shared? Are they now? Or do they operate independently? Parking is shared, always has. But with a DVC villa addition, typically a second pool is installed. In the case of the WL, I believe the only gym on premises is actually within the villas itself, unless there is one in the main building I'm unaware of, but that is open to the main building guests.
If I can indulge you, though I'm sure you did elsewhere, but please give me the simple math that comes up to the $67 per night at the BWV's.

Generally, DVC members have access to all facilities offered to cash guests, whereas cash guests don't always have access to DVC facilities. (For example, some pools are DVC-only.)

The one exception is daily Mousekeeping, which DVC members have to pay extra for. (Sorry, I don't have the number; it's something like $10 to $30 per night.)

Regarding the simple math:

A Standard View BWV Studio costs 78 DVC points per week in October (prime F&WF season). 2014 BWV Maintenance Fee (MF) is $6.01/point.

78 X $6.01 / 7 = $66.97/night

 

[jlsHouston]

The 'dumbing down' caused by DVC has nothing to do with "ever knucklehead that wears pajamas out and about town each day is able to buy into DVC". It has to do with the revenue stream generated by each room.

Let's reconsider the simple BWV vs. BWI example I described earlier.

For F&WF, the occupied BWV Standard View Studio generates $67/night running at over 95% occupancy. So, overall Revenue Per Available Room (RevPAR) is ~$64/night.

A similar BWI room is $405/night with an occupancy of about 75%, with a resulting RevPAR of about ~$304/night. (Actually, BWI occupancy is very high for F&WF but I'm looking at the entire year's average to be fair.)

In general, over the course of an entire year, the cash BWI rooms generate significantly more revenue on a per-room basis than the DVC rooms.

Disney simply cannot afford to offer guests paying $67/night the experience that might be expected by someone paying $405/night. Since BWV and BWI share common facilities, compromises must be made.

To the person paying $405/night, their experience has been cheapened (or 'dumbed down') because of DVC.

Please note this is a simplistic examination of the problem. The math for an entire year is much more complicated. However, hopefully this simplistic example makes clearer why the DVC price structure (which pays a lot upfront) has a 'dumbing down' effect on those paying cash for Disney's Deluxe Resorts.

When DVC members make their initial purchase, that cash does not get set aside to be used to make up the difference in lost revenue at the hotel. Corporate Disney uses that money elsewhere, leaving the hotel management with trying to have to figure out how to run its operations with two sets of clientele paying incredibly different prices.

I'm running a hotel where some customers are paying $405/night while others are paying $67/night. What am I going to do?

I'm not going to give those paying $405/night the same service I would if all my customers were paying $405/night. I'm going to need to 'dumb down' my product so it remains profitable. Those people paying $405/night are not going to receive a $405/night experience.

Honestly I don't want to start gushing on a Monday morning but I love how you just 1-2-3 bullet style concepts and theories....

 

[ABQ]

Generally, DVC members have access to all facilities offered to cash guests, whereas cash guests don't always have access to DVC facilities. (For example, some pools are DVC-only.)

The one exception is daily Mousekeeping, which DVC members have to pay extra for. (Sorry, I don't have the number; it's something like $10 to $30 per night.)

Regarding the simple math:

A Standard View BWV Studio costs 78 DVC points per week in October (prime F&WF season). 2014 BWV Maintenance Fee (MF) is $6.01/point.

78 X $6.01 / 7 = $66.97/night

I think the DVC only pool thing went away a while ago, started reading into that when the WL pool maintenance was announced and can't seem to find any concrete info, but all accounts were that all pools at each resort were open to all resort guests (within the same resort).
I think I might have to question the math a little, but as I'm not a DVC owner, please correct me at will. Do not DVC owners have to foot a hefty cost up front when joining? Is 6.01 per point the cost after the entire life of the commitment has played out? Certainly I cannot walk up to one of the hundreds of DVC booths and drop down 66.97 and stay in the BWV's for the 2nd week of September.

 

[jlsHouston]

Good post. Well, what jcpenney did was more perception than reality. Hm, let me try this one out... Our business has relations with firms that did work for them. Their marketing campaign was completely changed to appeal to exactly what you said, a younger, hipper demographic, however, that didn't translate into the reality of the physical store square footage of the types of clothing that they stocked. Then head of jcpenney Ron Johnson brought in the concept of stores within stores from Martha Stewart to Ulta, but they had multiple issues going on at once:

The younger graphic that they were appealing to went to try them out and they were sorely disappointed that the stores didn't match what was being advertised, their core audience felt completely abandoned for a variety of reasons including the ad campaign and lack of gimmick pricing. There wasn't much of an an actual change in the clothing that they've stock for ages, rather, it was all about their marketing from item pricing signage to their air, online, and print campaigns.

I was given a study that was done about jcpenney by a consulting group after everything fell apart and they brought back their old CEO. The data was amazing to me and a study in human psychology. Examples would include that they would show people the new bottom line price in the store and then showed them the same product with a higher price with coupons. Of those surveyed, the vast majority preferred the sale pricing along with coupons... even though they would be paying more!! It was unreal. They complained about the updating and changes in some of the stores that received partial face-lifts, although one of the biggest dings on jcpenney is how out of date their stores are.

I will tell you who likes JC Penney...size 12 or less women in their 50's who are pretty fit and earn under 40K/year. They want to buy outfits that flatter their smaller frames, and doesn't make them look matronly. They love Penneys clothing lines.
And the stand alone Sephoras'? Cash cows....Penneys' may not know how to take advantage of that business line but I am telling you it don't matter what the economy is, women are going to buy beauty products.

 

[ParentsOf4]

I think the DVC only pool thing went away a while ago, started reading into that when the WL pool maintenance was announced and can't seem to find any concrete info, but all accounts were that all pools at each resort were open to all resort guests (within the same resort).

I think I might have to question the math a little, but as I'm not a DVC owner, please correct me at will. Do not DVC owners have to foot a hefty cost up front when joining? Is 6.01 per point the cost after the entire life of the commitment has played out? Certainly I cannot walk up to one of the hundreds of DVC booths and drop down 66.97 and stay in the BWV's for the 2nd week of September.

I believe (for example) that the DVC pools at AKV Kidani Village, BCV, and BLT are for DVC members only. In most cases, the pools for hotel guests are better (IMO) so I don't think this restriction has much of an effect on cash guests.

Regarding the initial purchase price, that money does not get set aside to make up for lost future revenue. Each hotel is managed based on the revenue produced annually for that hotel, not based on moneys collected in the past.

BWV opened in 1996. Disney did not set aside the money it collected in 1996 from selling DVC points to make up for the revenue lost in 2014 by DVC members paying $67/night for a Standard View Studio during F&WF. The money made in 1996 was spent elsewhere long ago. The person running BWI/BWV today needs to budget based on today's revenue, not based on revenue from decades ago.

Don't look at the problem from the buyer's perspective. Look at the problem from the seller's perspective.

 

[spacemt354]

I think the DVC only pool thing went away a while ago, started reading into that when the WL pool maintenance was announced and can't seem to find any concrete info, but all accounts were that all pools at each resort were open to all resort guests (within the same resort).
I think I might have to question the math a little, but as I'm not a DVC owner, please correct me at will. Do not DVC owners have to foot a hefty cost up front when joining? Is 6.01 per point the cost after the entire life of the commitment has played out? Certainly I cannot walk up to one of the hundreds of DVC booths and drop down 66.97 and stay in the BWV's for the 2nd week of September.

From my limited knowledge of the DVC system from a few years back when our family was contemplating joining, DVC tends to be short term cost, with a long term reward. For a typical plan starting in the year 2014, you are an owner until January 31, 2042, and for some places like Saratoga Springs, January 31, 2054.

The points that were being discussed earlier can be purchased on a year to year basis and you're given a 'use year' to illustrate when the points need to be used by within that year. And if points are not used in that year, you can bank your points over to the next year.

The difference between a $67 per night room and a $405 per night room seems staggering, but the reason our family chose to not enter into the DVC plan was the monetary effort it took up front for a long term 10-15 year later reward...and that's after years of traveling to Disney.

But as a side note, many people we've spoken to in the DVC love the program and its amenities. So it's really a personal preference. We did not want to be locked into to Disney because as we get older, we might not be able to travel to the same place every year. So we were not going to take fully advantage of the program's offerings.

It's tough for a family of 4 to travel down in September or October with school and all, when the points are cheap per day. So if you go in the summer or on school breaks, you'll end up spending more points per night.

And if you or I went up to the DVC booth, we wouldn't get the rate of $67 per night. More like the typical Deluxe price of $400-500 per night. When we had many people come on a trip we thought of having everyone stay in a DVC villa. But the prices were just too high and it was cheaper to get a few standard rooms.

 

[doctornick]

The one exception is daily Mousekeeping, which DVC members have to pay extra for. (Sorry, I don't have the number; it's something like $10 to $30 per night.)

This is a significant cost, though, isn't it? DVC points stays get limited Mousekeeping -- trash removal a few days in, new bedsheets after a week. That's got to be a significant decreased expense for the hotel over a cash guest -- not only less staff, but less cost to clean the sheets and have replacements, etc.

I wonder also if DVC rooms tend to have shorter or longer stays than cash rooms. It "seems" like a timeshare would elicit longer stays but I'm not sure that happens in practice; longer stays are better for the resorts because you don't have to change over the room as often.

Also, DVC tends to get limited supplies of stuff like coffee and shampoos. I think that DVC owners are supposed to get charged to get those items outside of their normal "cleaning" day when it is scheduled, unlike cash guests where they would be complimentary.

I don't disagree with your basic point, of course, about the far less revenue for the hotel for a DVC stay than cash but I think this is a significant difference between DVC and cash stays that shouldn't be glossed over.

 

[jlsHouston]

I think the DVC only pool thing went away a while ago, started reading into that when the WL pool maintenance was announced and can't seem to find any concrete info, but all accounts were that all pools at each resort were open to all resort guests (within the same resort).
I think I might have to question the math a little, but as I'm not a DVC owner, please correct me at will. Do not DVC owners have to foot a hefty cost up front when joining? Is 6.01 per point the cost after the entire life of the commitment has played out? Certainly I cannot walk up to one of the hundreds of DVC booths and drop down 66.97 and stay in the BWV's for the 2nd week of September.

Well I bought points in March from a DVC owner for BLT and that pool only allowed entry into it if you were staying DVC. It is gated. You were allowed to use the CR pools but the CR people were not allowed access to the BLT pool

 

[ABQ]

Well I bought points in March from a DVC owner for BLT and that pool only allowed entry into it if you were staying DVC. It is gated. You were allowed to use the CR pools but the CR people were not allowed access to the BLT pool

Ah, I will admit, I hadn't dug into BLT's details.

 

[wdisney9000]

Long-time lurker/reader here, and I just have a simple, perhaps stupid, but none the less a honest question:

Why is it that the DVC conversion "dumbs down" the hotels? Reading through a lot of the posts here, I get that there is negativity surrounding the DVC conversions, but I still fail to understand why it actually makes the specific hotels worse to stay at and make the Deluxe resorts less deluxe.

Since @ParentsOf4 and others have given the financial answers to the question, I would like to follow up with what I believe to be an example of the cosmetic, wal-mart style "dumb down" you get with DVC. Lets compare the original Grand Floridian with its DVC counterpart. Here is a picture of the original Grand Floridian. Its marvelous, exquisite, and extremely detail oriented. It is their "flagship resort", as they like to call it.

Now, lets take a look at the DVC version. I have placed arrows in areas that show the extreme LACK of detail when compared to the original GF design. Please keep in mind that this building is an addition to the most expensive and what Disney calls their "flagship resort". Also keep in mind the original was built decades ago when the compnay had less money to work with and technology and materials were not as advanced as today.

Lets go from top to bottom. Look at the spires on the DVC building. No windows, no layered roofing effect and much smaller. Also notice the roof is flat on DVC compared to the original which is layered. Now look at the covered windows on the roof (above the rooms) There isnt even a window on the DVC version, theyre not even sunk in and on the original building there is a window (on the roof) above EVERY room, on the DVC, there is just a few, and again, extremely less detailed. Next we move onto the side of buildings, IMO, the worst part. What were they thinking? Look at the sides of the original building, there are top to bottom bay window style towers with windows and coned rooftops. The side of DVC is just flat and white. They didnt even put faux windows in to create a decent look. Just a wall. It makes it look like a slightly upgraded
Red Roof Inn. Also notice the lack of trees. Theres very few compared to the original and the original has much better landscaping all around the resort, not just near the entrance. I will say that the rooms are excellent in both style and design, but that doesnt make up for the wal marting of the outside. Is this seriously the best they could do? Or is it the cheapest they could do while still maintaining somewhat of a resemblance to the original? I feel bad for all the people staying at the Poly who have to look at Disneys flagship pile of hot, steaming pooh (exterior wise).

 

[roodlesnouter]

I think the way Disney does fast pass is fair and the right say to do it. If they were ever to eliminate the 3 fast passes for everyone I would complain about that just like I do about universal giving unlimited front of line passes to people that stay in their deluxe resorts. People staying on property get extended hours as do Universal guests and that is fair but anything more is wrong.

Like anything in life, if you pay more you get more.

 

[roodlesnouter]

Very good photos that do indeed show cost cuttings through lack of detail, probably cheaper materials too. But what proof that it is because of DVC?.

Things have been produced cheaper across site for the last few years, napkins, drinks cups, one year i purchased a Mickey kitchen mat the next year i got the Minnie one, the difference in quality in just a year was like chalk cheese.

Are all these cutbacks due to DVC too?

Since @ParentsOf4 and others have given the financial answers to the question, I would like to follow up with I believe to an example of the cosmetic, wal-mart style "dumb down" you get with DVC. Lets compare the original Grand Floridian with its DVC counterpart. Here is a picture of the original Grand Floridian. Its marvelous, exquisite, and extremely detail oriented. It is their "flagship resort", as they like to call it.


View attachment 60210


Now, lets take a look at the DVC version. I have placed arrows in areas that show the extreme LACK of detail when compared to the original GF design. Please keep in mind that this building is an addition to the most expensive and what Disney calls their "flagship resort". Also keep in mind the original was built decades ago when the compnay had less money to work with and technology and materials were not as advanced as today.


View attachment 60211

Lets go from top to bottom. Look at the spires on the DVC building. No windows, no layered roofing effect and much smaller. Also notice the roof is flat on DVC compared to the original which is layered. Now look at the covered windows on the roof (above the rooms) There isnt even a window on the DVC version, theyre not even sunk in and on the original building there is a window (on the roof) above EVERY room, on the DVC, there is just a few, and again, extremely less detailed. Next we move onto the side of buildings, IMO, the worst part. What were they thinking? Look at the sides of the original building, there are top to bottom bay window style towers with windows and coned rooftops. The side of DVC is just flat and white. They didnt even put faux windows in to create a decent look. Just a wall. It makes it look like a slightly upgraded
Red Roof Inn. Also notice the lack of trees. Theres very few compared to the original and the original has much better landscaping all around the resort, not just near the entrance. I will say that the rooms are excellent in both style and design, but that doesnt make up for the wal marting of the outside. Is this seriously the best they could do? Or is it the cheapest they could do while still maintaining somewhat of a resemblance to the original? I feel bad for all the people staying at the Poly who have to look at Disneys flagship pile of hot, steaming pooh (exterior wise).

 

[Magenta Panther]

Since @ParentsOf4 and others have given the financial answers to the question, I would like to follow up with I believe to an example of the cosmetic, wal-mart style "dumb down" you get with DVC. Lets compare the original Grand Floridian with its DVC counterpart. Here is a picture of the original Grand Floridian. Its marvelous, exquisite, and extremely detail oriented. It is their "flagship resort", as they like to call it.


View attachment 60210


Now, lets take a look at the DVC version. I have placed arrows in areas that show the extreme LACK of detail when compared to the original GF design. Please keep in mind that this building is an addition to the most expensive and what Disney calls their "flagship resort". Also keep in mind the original was built decades ago when the compnay had less money to work with and technology and materials were not as advanced as today.


View attachment 60211

Lets go from top to bottom. Look at the spires on the DVC building. No windows, no layered roofing effect and much smaller. Also notice the roof is flat on DVC compared to the original which is layered. Now look at the covered windows on the roof (above the rooms) There isnt even a window on the DVC version, theyre not even sunk in and on the original building there is a window (on the roof) above EVERY room, on the DVC, there is just a few, and again, extremely less detailed. Next we move onto the side of buildings, IMO, the worst part. What were they thinking? Look at the sides of the original building, there are top to bottom bay window style towers with windows and coned rooftops. The side of DVC is just flat and white. They didnt even put faux windows in to create a decent look. Just a wall. It makes it look like a slightly upgraded
Red Roof Inn. Also notice the lack of trees. Theres very few compared to the original and the original has much better landscaping all around the resort, not just near the entrance. I will say that the rooms are excellent in both style and design, but that doesnt make up for the wal marting of the outside. Is this seriously the best they could do? Or is it the cheapest they could do while still maintaining somewhat of a resemblance to the original? I feel bad for all the people staying at the Poly who have to look at Disneys flagship pile of hot, steaming pooh (exterior wise).

It's laughable. It looks like a mid-level hotel with a couple of turrets glued on top. I'd never ever buy a DVC timeshare at that place. Just looking at it makes me feel insulted.

 

[asianway]

Well I bought points in March from a DVC owner for BLT and that pool only allowed entry into it if you were staying DVC. It is gated. You were allowed to use the CR pools but the CR people were not allowed access to the BLT pool

This is so they can charge all of the BLT pool costs plus a good share of the main pool expenses to the BLT dues

 

[flynnibus]

Lets go from top to bottom. Look at the spires on the DVC building

Where are the railings, the flags, etc

 

[GLaDOS]

Very good photos that do indeed show cost cuttings through lack of detail, probably cheaper materials too. But what proof that it is because of DVC?.

I don't think the poster is saying "DVC cheaped out on construction", though they clearly didn't put their all into the design. I think what he was trying to say is that the cheap build and look of the GF DVC wing taints the terrific design of the original Grand Floridian.