October82
Well-Known Member
If only it cost "All-Star" prices...
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Toy Story Hotel Planned to replace Paradise Pier Hotel?
- Thread starter mickEblu
- Start date
If only it cost "All-Star" prices...
Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
Their final thoughts:
My thoughts:
They ride out this redo for a decade, and then they tear this puppy down.
My thoughts:
They ride out this redo for a decade, and then they tear this puppy down.
PiratesMansion
Well-Known Member
Counterpoint: Do they realize that there's no saving this property in the long term? Perhaps they do, and I should be giving them more credit, but I'm skeptical. I also wonder if this is a situation where they will be unwilling to do anything about PP until they have added additional lodging capacity to make up for the lost revenue that would inevitably occur if the building was to be fully razed. Perhaps as a result of DL Forward on the Toy Story Lot?
I feel like there's also a sizable gulf between the resorts they used to build and the resorts that they're building now (see: the gulf between the MiraCosta and the new TDS hotel they're building as part of Fantasy Springs). While it's probably difficult to do worse than PPH, the days of gorgeous, appealing, highly themed resort hotels seems to be behind them.
Last edited:
TP2000
Well-Known Member
I couldn't quite put my finger on what I was feeling about this hotel redo, and then I realized what it was...
I feel kind of badly for them. They wanted to redo this ugly, generic hotel obviously. But they didn't really get the money they needed to do it correctly. So instead they did this.
Is there new paint and carpet and furniture? Yes, and it looks nice. But it also looks exactly like any mid-level Marriott or Sheraton in the USA that's been recently remodeled with the latest corporate decor package.
Is there Pixar artwork and icons placed about? Yes, and it looks nice. But it also looks fairly bland and oddly downscale for some reason. It's not an oil painting behind the check-in desk or around the lobby, it's vinyl printouts in shockingly low-resolution. The entire visual design package looks like stuff you could get with a Google search and a nice color printer.
And the ball with the lamp on it as the Big Wow! in the lobby? Okay. But would you rather spend the same money and stay at the nicer Westin across the street with better service and better food?
I feel kind of badly for them. They wanted to redo this ugly, generic hotel obviously. But they didn't really get the money they needed to do it correctly. So instead they did this.
Is there new paint and carpet and furniture? Yes, and it looks nice. But it also looks exactly like any mid-level Marriott or Sheraton in the USA that's been recently remodeled with the latest corporate decor package.
Is there Pixar artwork and icons placed about? Yes, and it looks nice. But it also looks fairly bland and oddly downscale for some reason. It's not an oil painting behind the check-in desk or around the lobby, it's vinyl printouts in shockingly low-resolution. The entire visual design package looks like stuff you could get with a Google search and a nice color printer.
And the ball with the lamp on it as the Big Wow! in the lobby? Okay. But would you rather spend the same money and stay at the nicer Westin across the street with better service and better food?
Disney Irish
Premium Member
This is what I suspected also after having looked over the DLForward proposals. I would say the same about any DL Hotel redo as well. None of the existing hotels gets a major overall (or razed completely) until they build out a new hotel complex likely on Toy Story lot.
I couldn't quite put my finger on what I was feeling about this hotel redo, and then I realized what it was...
I feel kind of badly for them. They wanted to redo this ugly, generic hotel obviously. But they didn't really get the money they needed to do it correctly. So instead they did this.
Is there new paint and carpet and furniture? Yes, and it looks nice. But it also looks exactly like any mid-level Marriott or Sheraton in the USA that's been recently remodeled with the latest corporate decor package.
Is there Pixar artwork and icons placed about? Yes, and it looks nice. But it also looks fairly bland and oddly downscale for some reason. It's not an oil painting behind the check-in desk or around the lobby, it's vinyl printouts in shockingly low-resolution. The entire visual design package looks like stuff you could get with a Google search and a nice color printer.
And the ball with the lamp on it as the Big Wow! in the lobby? Okay. But would you rather spend the same money and stay at the nicer Westin across the street with better service and better food?
The Westin is our Go-To for now but if Pixar Place prices are comparable I may stay there to avoid the death defying walk across the Katella/ DL Drive crosswalk and having to run to the Grand Californian pedestrian gate at the hotel entrance when someone is walking in or out before it shuts in my face and we have to backtrack and go all the way around through DTD. You need a hotel key to enter the hotel from DL Drive now. Not sure why a park reservation isn’t enough. Well, I do know. They need to add value to those $800 standard rooms somehow.
Last edited:
PiratesMansion
Well-Known Member
And only now, somewhat embarassingly, has it occured to me that they could theoretically go so far as to demo BOTH hotels in that area and use it for park expansion if they so chose, unless I'm not fully understanding the limits of DLForward.
I doubt they'd ever actually do that with the Disneyland Hotel, and there's undoubtedly an appeal to staying at the end of DTD that any TSL property would have a difficult time replicating. But I imagine there are (or could be) limitations with the existing DLH that they're not thrilled about having to deal with.
mlayton144
Well-Known Member
Impossible , DLH just opened a new timeshare building there, looking at 50 years before they could repurpose it
PiratesMansion
Well-Known Member
I'm no expert on how such contracts would work, but I imagine there'd be some sort of legalese in there allowing Disney to reassign units if deemed necessary due to (insert reasons here). Presumably, as long as those timeshares are replicated elsewhere and not lost entirely, Disney would be fine. I don't imagine Disney's lawyers would have permitted a contract in which buildings are obligated to stay in place for 50 plus years simply because of timeshare contracts, not when needs can change and buildings can be deemed expendable for a whole host of reasons. If there isn't a clause in the contract that states something to the effect of "this contract can change or be revoked at any time at Disney's discretion", I imagine such units wouldn't be built. Certainly not now, when they've been in the DVC business for more than 30 years and would know exactly how to word those contracts to allow for Disney to have at least some agency if they decided to go in a different direction.
Even with the new building, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to relocate basically the entirety of the DLH if they deemed it in their best interest to do so. The only loss would be the history, but even that is only to a point, because the entirety of the original hotel and many of its amenities are long gone.
I have no knowledge of whether or not Disney actually considers anything about DLH to be a problem, and perhaps they're fine with it exactly as it is. But it is worth noting that it is by far the least interesting or grandiose of the hotels bearing variations of the Disneyland Hotel name, and I want to say that one of the proposed hotels under the original 90s resort expansion plan was to be called The New Disneyland Hotel, potentially suggesting an awareness that the hotel as it existed wasn't quite what the company wanted at that point in time. And now, with Disneyland Forward, if they have greater flexibility than previously to develop their entire site as they see fit, and there were already things about the hotel that frustrated Disney (keeping in mind too that Disneyland didn't have control of the hotel until the late 80s), I could see circumstances aligning so that it might move or be otherwise reimagined. Not a huge chance, in my view, but a slight possibility nonetheless.
Last edited:
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I haven’t looked at the actual DVC contract but I can’t imagine that it guarantees access to the same room every single time, only access to an equivalent room level. So as long as they allocate the same type of rooms levels and number of rooms in any new hotel as replacement they should be fine from a legal standpoint.
Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
The most likely scenario I see with the DLH is the demolition and rebuilding of towers, to match the new DVC tower.
Phroobar
Well-Known Member
Yup, the DVC tower doesn't match the old towers. I see them demoing them one at a time over time.
mlayton144
Well-Known Member
I’m not defending this tower even a little bit, but think about - they just spent hundreds of millions on new construction, not gonna tear it down and rebuild all over again - that would be a complete loss for them. Also, DVC units have a deed for each unit and a ground lease , reason #1 is the real kicker though. Maybe the new DVC tower could be the new tower of terror
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I'm going to expand upon this further as I might not have been as clear as I could have been in my previous post.
The way I understand it is that while DVC ties to a home resort and "ownership" is based on a "portion" of a "unit". A "unit" in this case I believe is just a group of rooms of the same level within that resort that Disney sets aside for DVC bookings. I also believe the reservations aren't for a specific room within that "unit", just a room of the same level within that resort based on your points. In fact I believe DVC members buy up more points all the time in order to get room upgrades, negating the whole "I own a specific room for 50 years" thing. Again I haven't read the actual contract but based on my looking into DVC at one point, again as I understand it, there is nothing about the "ownership of a unit" that prevents it from being transferred to another "unit" at Disney's discretion. Now maybe there is verbiage in the actual contract that states otherwise, but that is how I understand it. Maybe someone who has an actual DVC at DLR can chime in here. But as long as Disney makes available the same number of rooms for a "unit" in any new hotel as replacement they have met their legal obligation.
Also Disney will likely have made back their money on the new construction probably within the first 5 years of operation of the new tower, provided bookings remain high. So that is also not going to be a factor long term either.
Now with all that said no one is claiming Disney is going to tear down DLH or its new DVC tower this year, next year, or even 10 years from now. What is being said is that at sometime in the future Disney could consider tearing it down to gain more space for expansion or even rebuild it in it entirety in the future to modernize it. This could be any time within the next 40 years which is the time period of the current DisneylandForward proposal.
NobodyElse
Well-Known Member
I enjoyed reading the dozen or so comments on Twitter formerly known as X.
Particularly the repeated use of the word "Amazing!" to describe this...
Your observation is "damn near perfection".
mlayton144
Well-Known Member
I don’t know exactly either, but good luck finding an executive that would green light tearing down a brand new building to just build another for a loss no less.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Once again no one is saying they are going to tear down the building now, or even that they would do it at all. It was only wondered if they could consider it for more expansion space. But I would guess if it was going to be done it would be in the late 2030s at the earliest. Remember that DisneylandForward is planning for the next 40 years, not just this year or next year.
Also as I stated they would likely already recoup any cost of construction within the first 5 years of operation. So it wouldn't be for a loss if done anytime after that.
mlayton144
Well-Known Member
Not to beat a dead horse, but How would they recover the loss of construction, these are largely timeshare units. The money is all collected as points are sold up front , ongoing maintenance is paid via dues by the owners. Disney doesn’t make any money on these after that , other than management fees and renting the small percentage of units they’ll retain until the 50 years are up. Just an FYI in case you didn’t know
Disney Irish
Premium Member
If it really took 50 years of the lease to not only recoup construction costs but to make additional profit off a timeshare hotel, then no one would get into that business. And there are hundreds if not thousands of these properties across the world run by many companies, DVC isn't the only one.
Also there are something like ~90 rooms set aside for regular guests bookings. That is money coming in monthly over and above any DVC lease. That would end up being something like $60-75M after just 5 years and that is just on the conservative side of something like 80% occupancy. So they aren't taking a loss on this even if they do decide to demo it in 2034.
Besides lets be real, Disney doesn't have an issue with completing construction only to turn around and do something else only a couple years later if things don't work out, ie see Starcruiser as an recent example.
mlayton144
Well-Known Member
it doesn’t take 50 years to recoup the costs of the existing build. And I highly doubt Disney is keeping 90 rooms for cash sales. From what I understand Disney retains 2% of rooms when all is said and done. They probably have to sell less than half of all units (guesstimate 2 years) to recoup the cost and then its profit from then on out. You are asking Disney to forgo these profits to tear down and rebuild the same thing half a mile away? Why would they do that? What about Disney , or any other profitable business would you point to as a model for this idea? With due respect , It would get people fired for malpractice