Disney announces a new Four Seasons Luxury Resort and Golf Community

It sounds as if Disney is going to be entering long-term lease agreements with each of these new developments. Just like the Swan and Dolphin, I'm sure Disney Imagineering will determine and sign-off on all plans.

The only land that will no longer be Disney-owned will be the land containing the "homes" that will be built. That will be de-annexed from RCID to Orange County as to avoid having anyone actually living on Disney property. (Aside from those Disney employees that sit on the RCID board.)
 

CBOMB

Active Member
I'm sure this all fits in nicely with the Disney Corp. move to go more globally. A partnership with the Four Seasons will go a long way to help them with that. You can stay at Four Seasons Hotels at several locations around the country for less than a stay at all of the luxury resorts at WDW, even during value season. I'm sure the one being built at WDW will not fall into this category. I'm just concerned with roads around the property lined with outlet mauls and motels. There's nothing wrong with that away from the Parks, but seriously does anyone honestly want the grounds of WDW to start looking like 192. Things could end up looking like Disneyland, with the exception of this getting the approval of the Disney Corp.I just don't see this as fitting in to the theme of WDW. Long term I think at least half of this project is going to turn out bad.
 

prberk

Well-Known Member
This is still crazy... the same reason that Eisner tried to stop the Swan and Dolphin from being built when became CEO in the '80s, but it was too late to back out of their deal. It gives control over to another company of land and development that would be better controlled by Disney.

It just seems like Disney is going for the short-term gain. Let's not forget that Disney created the golf courses there in the first place, and started with "Golf Resort Hotel" (now Shades of Green) in the '70s. All they would have to do is to get their imagineers together and create a brand new Disney Golf Club Resort. Disney already has (or had) Tiger Woods under contract for promotional work with their golf, and they own so much media and sports intereests, that it wouldn't take a genious to promote a new DISNEY golf resort as a great destination... And yet they would NOT be (a) sharing the revenues, or (b) competing with themselves on the resorts.

And I disagree with the luxury hotel purists who don't see Disney as competing well. Perhaps some snobs don't think so, but they are probably predisposed to think that no matter what. The truth is the WDW is THE biggest tourist destination for MORE reasons than just the MK. It is world-renowned for its SERVICE. And the fact that the Travel Channel and Food Network continually seek out the chefs and services of WDW to praise also is proof.

I just see another "outsourced" hotel (and the same for the other cheap outsourced hotels on the western side) as a complete sellout, and the start of the chipping away at WDW ... for short-term gain and easy, low-risk build-outs.

(Why go to WDW for Four Seasons when you can go to Four Seasons at any other golf area and not deal with the high prices and kids? But maybe we would want to go to a completely new, unique, DISNEY golf resort endorsed by Tiger Woods in the golf capital of the world.)

Paul
 

Gaston

New Member
Four Seasons on Bay Lake

No, the course comes about 1/2 mile from Bay Lake.

The hotel part will be over a mile away.

The link below is basically centered (roughly on where the actual buildings will go.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=...81.543746&spn=0.034353,0.06772&t=h&iwloc=addr

I'm assuming the buildings will go where the Bonnet Creek clubhouse is now, or in that area. Which means, as you can see, that all of Fort Wilderness is between this resort and Bay Lake.

**********************************************

Champ,

Even if the 4S property is developed within the Golf Course property,
nearby Bay Lake access would be easy to build upon nearby.
You would have to at least think that a Marina and water transporation
will be considered. Individuals paying for the high priced rooms will
certainally expect a boat ride to the MK, rather than bus transportation.

The next question is...
"How many rooms will be built??"

Here are the upscale Hotel Rooms on WDW Property
(all are on water)

Contemporary Resort - 1,053
Grand Floridian Beach Resort - 897
Polynesian Resort - 855
Wilderness Lodge - 728

You would have to figure that at least
700 to 1000 rooms will be built at minimum.
If the property is to be a "Convention Center Resort",
there could be over 1000 rooms.

The JW Marriott has 1000 rooms and the
Ritz Carlton has 580.
 

mhochman

Active Member
Just curious- What do people like that think when they are in the parks mingling with ordinary folks. The park is the same to everyone.
Tks.
:)

Great question, and one I can't answer. If you want to give me $250 million I'd be happy to research for you. ;)

In all honesty, I talk to everyone I know about their upcoming or previous trips to WDW. I love giving inside tips and pointers before they go and learning about updates and experiences when they return. I didn't talk to these cousins once before OR after the trip.
 

Raidermatt

Active Member
As a publically traded company, yes, they do. They must try to create the best value for their shaireholders. That includes opening new markets.
As a publically traded company, and a smart business, they should invest in areas that will bring the best long term returns. This does not automatically mean opening new markets. Sometimes, investing in current markets can yield greater results.



I don't understand your third statement here. This is the only segment they aren't really in yet. The high luxury segment. Everything else is covered, and with the WBP announcement as well, that covers the stuff below the values. They are also creating NEW segments between those, such as what they are doing with value suites.

They are only covered if you assume they can't grow the current markets. There are many companies that don't try to be all things to all people. In fact, the majority don't (including Four Seasons).




The point of buying 47 sq miles was to CONTROL what was built around the area. Yes, its a bubble. But that doesn't mean its 100% Disney inside it.
Outside brands damage the bubble. Control was not the only reason, nor are they retaining complete control with these types of deals.



And I see TONS of other things on the outside as well, including Disney and Disney hotels.
We are talking about WDW, not what's outside. Of course the outside world has lots of other things... that's why it's the outside world.



So the incessant crap about AT&T inside Spaceship Earth never happened, right? And who said that Disney doesn't have input on this project? Oh wait, they DO. In fact, it was Disney who created the plan.
Four Seasons is not going to enter this deal unless they call the majority of the shots. They have far more to lose being associated with Disney than vice-versa. I'm sure Disney has input, but that's simply not good enough.



Again, you have no idea. Disney brought this plan to the Four Seasons and said "Would you like to do this?" not Four Seasons asking if they could. As I said before, there is more to this partnership then this property inside WDW. And the other parts will help with your problem with Four Season's "fantasicallity".

I never said Four Seasons approached Disney. Disney has been trying to come up with ways to lease/sell assets for years. That is part of the problem.

Nothing outside WDW is going to help with the situation inside WDW. It will impact the finances of the deal, but it's not going to change what's inside.

You can spin this however you like, but the reality is that Disney is selling itself to various bidders, and the fact that it doesn't stop here is not a positive.
 

wedway71

Well-Known Member
At first I was upset thinking Disney lost it. As I look deeper into the whole deal I dont see it being all that bad.
Looking at where it will be it is away from the main entrance to the parks and resorts.Its not you drive by the WALT DISNEY WORLD RESORT main entrance sign to look and see the 4 Seasons.
As a Disney purist I would like to see only DISNEY owned hotels but realize in this day and age a business must be viable in the market and do things like this.
Like Disney, 4 Seasons is Guest Service crazy so I think its a great match.It could be worse and we could have seen Econo Lodge going there.

Also a great website that I found that has more on this with pics is
www.wdwpublicaffairs.com
 

Raidermatt

Active Member
As a Disney purist I would like to see only DISNEY owned hotels but realize in this day and age a business must be viable in the market and do things like this.
Like Disney, 4 Seasons is Guest Service crazy so I think its a great match.It could be worse and we could have seen Econo Lodge going there.

This has nothing to do with being this day and age. Disney must grow its business, yes, but thre is no business rule that says the only way to do that is to lease your assets to others.

If Disney is unable to grow it's business without selling off chunks of its most precious assets like this, then this is not the Disney we know. I'm not talking about classic attractions or any of that junk. I'm talking about what was the heart and soul of this company.

They have the assets and resources to do these things themselves. They are simply choosing not to.

I will grant one thing, and that is that Four Seasons has a fantastic reputation. Check out Businessweek.com and you can find their list of the top 25 service companies. Four Seasons is number two.

But to say they and Disney are both guest crazy is not really accurate. Certainly its not in Business Week's eyes. Disney is not even on the list, which is a direct result of their changing priorities and business philosophy.

That's another part of this that is so sad. One of the justifications for this is that Four Seasons brings things to the table that Disney has not been able to. They've tried, but simply haven't been willing to commit the resources necessary. Its simply easier for them to bring in another brand.

Not an irresponsible strategy by any means, but whether we realize it or not, its also not the kind of strategy that made us fans of this company.
 

tomm4004

New Member
I must be missing something but isn't there a row of hotels on Disney property near DD that are not owned by Disney? Aren't most of the restaurants and stores in EPCOT run by other companies? Isn't there a McDs in AK? Isn't DD mostly made up of other brands? I don't really see how the Four Seasons is different, other than that it will most likely be less intrusive. Disney's original plan before Eisner was to have Marriott run all of their hotels. The switch was made when Eisner realized the bottom line could flow directly to Disney. It was a money decision - not a purity of Disney decision, or a stay true to Walt decision.
 
I must be missing something but isn't there a row of hotels on Disney property near DD that are not owned by Disney?

Yes. Several of the Downtown Disney resorts are on Disney-owned land leased to these third-party hotels. They certainly are not as close to the MK as this new resort will be, however.

Aren't most of the restaurants and stores in EPCOT run by other companies?

Some of the restaurants are run by third-party vendors but not "most" of them. Even fewer of the stores are run by outside vendors.

Isn't there a McDs in AK?

No. You must be thinking of Restaurantsaurus. It is Disney-owned and has nothing to do with McDonalds other than featuring some of their products. And, no, none of the fry carts are owned by a non-Disney co. either. The ONLY McDonalds within a Disney park in the US is Burger Invasion at DCA.

Isn't DD mostly made up of other brands? I don't really see how the Four Seasons is different, other than that it will most likely be less intrusive. Disney's original plan before Eisner was to have Marriott run all of their hotels. The switch was made when Eisner realized the bottom line could flow directly to Disney. It was a money decision - not a purity of Disney decision, or a stay true to Walt decision.

Walt also had originally contracted with third-parties to run all food operations at Disneyland until he decided Disney could do it better and stay much truer to the Disney name.
 

MJMcBride

Member
You can spin this however you like, but the reality is that Disney is selling itself to various bidders, and the fact that it doesn't stop here is not a positive.

I agree to an extent. Hopefully, they won't turn Alfredo's into an Olive Garbage, but insteadtake the opportunity to creat an exceptional Italian place as opposed to the slightly above average Alfredo's. But this deveolpement is not a good sign.
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Walt also had originally contracted with third-parties to run all food operations at Disneyland until he decided Disney could do it better and stay much truer to the Disney name.

I've never heard of that before. Nowhere in any of the books I've read or material available about the early years of Disneyland was there mention of outside parties running restaurants at Disneyland, let alone running "all food operations" at Disneyland. There were certainly sponsors for some restaurants, and many remain, but the employees were "Cast Members". The lone exception could be Don Defore's Silver Banjo Barbeque, which operated in Frontierland from 1957 to 1961 and was a location Walt was thrilled to have his good friend Mr. Defore operate during that time. It opened two years after Disneyland opened and, so it wasn't an opening day neccesity on Walt's part by any stretch.

What Walt did however was let an outside third-party build a big hotel across the street from Disneyland. The Disneyland Hotel was run by the Wrather Corporation from 1956 to 1988. Walt let them use the Disneyland name and logo on all of their materials, and 99% of people didn't even know it wasn't run by Walt and his company. Walt even allowed the Disneyland Monorail to stop at the non-Disney-owned Disneyland Hotel when he expanded the beamway in 1961.

When Walt's brother Roy and hand-picked predeccesors shepherded Walt Disney World through design and construction in the five long years between Walt's death in '66 and WDW's opening in '71, they got into the hotel business rather reluctantly. They allowed national hotel chains to set up shop at the adjacent Lake Buena Vista development to beef up the number of rooms available to WDW visitors.

When those same Walt succesors set up Tokyo Disneyland in the late 1970's and early 80's, they followed the exact same model. They focused on the park, and they let Hilton and Sheraton and major Japanese hotel chains build massive hotels on Disney property directly adjacent to Tokyo Disneyland. Only with the opening of DisneySea in 2001 did a new generation of Disney executives finally get into the hotel business in Tokyo.

In the late 1980's Michael Eisner finally bought the Disneyland Hotel from the Wrather Corporation at great expense, as hotel ownership was an important part of Eisner's strategy for the parks.

And then we all know where that led Eisner a few years later, with the infamous story of Euro Disneyland radically overbuilding its hotel infrastructure to support a single park in Paris. The poor financial models that all of those unused hotels saddled the Euro Disney project with led to its quick financial crisis in the mid 1990's, and it still struggles today with massively refinanced debt and Arabian sheiks holding the reigns of that property.

I am in no way a fan of Jay Rasulo, let me make that clear. But when you look at this Four Seasons news historically, what he is doing here is more in line with how Walt and his immediate predecessors ran their resort properties. The Disney-owned hotel business on a huge scale is something that only came along in the late 1980's after Eisner had amassed great power within the company.

If anything, this will force the Grand Floridian and some of the other Deluxe resorts to kick it up a notch when it comes to service and polish. WDW's Deluxe properties need some help there, and if the Four Seasons sets a new standard for deluxe service on Disney property, then that will be a good thing.
 

tomm4004

New Member
Yes. Several of the Downtown Disney resorts are on Disney-owned land leased to these third-party hotels. They certainly are not as close to the MK as this new resort will be, however.

But will they be less intrusive? It appears so. Now if they stuck it on Seven Seas Lagoon that would be one thing. I doubt the average guest will even know that it's there.

I understand that people are objecting to this more as a symptom of overall Disney philosophy, but I think that ship sailed long ago and in fact was never actually in port.

As for any parallel to Alfredo's, the Four Seasons is one of the, if not the, preeminent hotel chain in the world. Maybe they will give Disney something to aspire to. And perhaps it means that Disney is looking upwards and will replace Alfredo's with something better. However, it would still have to be something that fits in the financial box and not a V&A-type $100 a plate.
 

Raidermatt

Active Member
I am in no way a fan of Jay Rasulo, let me make that clear. But when you look at this Four Seasons news historically, what he is doing here is more in line with how Walt and his immediate predecessors ran their resort properties. The Disney-owned hotel business on a huge scale is something that only came along in the late 1980's after Eisner had amassed great power within the company.

If anything, this will force the Grand Floridian and some of the other Deluxe resorts to kick it up a notch when it comes to service and polish. WDW's Deluxe properties need some help there, and if the Four Seasons sets a new standard for deluxe service on Disney property, then that will be a good thing.

Like ThreeCircles, it was also my understanding that Walt tried contracting out the food servicing at DL, but I'll have to do some research to find a source to either confirm or refute that.

There are also some important details about the DL hotel you left out, but I'll have to research that to so I don't mistate anything. One detail that doesn't require research however is that the company as struggling to fund the park itself. They hardly had capital to build a hotel.

I'm not sure at what point Roy and company "reluctantly" made the decision to get into the hotel business, but considering what they built, and what they had planned to build in the future, your version of this doesn't seem to be putting things in the right perspective.

Also, what are now the DTD area hotels were place where they were so they would be nowhere near the park or any planned park. It was also a mitigation strategy against rampant outside development. Perhaps they shouldn't have done it, but it's hardly the same as the current example.

The way WDW was originally planned and developed just doesn't back up your assertion that Eisner was the only guy wanting to build hotels. He just wanted to build them for different reasons, which is part of what lead to the EuroDisney problems.

I also can't see this doing anything to improve Disney's service level in their deluxes. If anything, it's a resignation on Disney's part that they are not going to provide that kind of service. The Four Seasons isn't going to compete with the WDW resorts. It's going to be priced higher and provide Four Seasons service. The Four Seasons has ALREADY set a new standard for service.

If Disney wanted to improve their service level, they only need to commit to doing it. Bringing in an outside brand to create competition would make no sense.
 

Raidermatt

Active Member
But will they be less intrusive? It appears so. Now if they stuck it on Seven Seas Lagoon that would be one thing. I doubt the average guest will even know that it's there.

I understand that people are objecting to this more as a symptom of overall Disney philosophy, but I think that ship sailed long ago and in fact was never actually in port.

The DTD hotels are where they are becuase it was an unobtrusive location, far away from any planned parks. We will have to see how obtrusive the 4S development is.

And you're probably right about that ship sailing, but as I said in my immediatly preceding post, it most certainly was in port at one time.
 

tomm4004

New Member
Remember too that when Eisner came along plans still called for 10,000 condo units and 10 industrial parks. Plans had also made Tishman, builder of EPCOT, official WDW hotel builder. It was Eisner that decided to go the Disney-owned hotel and more theme park route.
 

PoohsGang

New Member
Bottom line, theres nothing we can do about it whether we agree with it or not. It's a done deal. Only way I can see stopping it is to BUY DISNEY but Im not a Gates or a Saudi Prince, therefore all the complaing and moaning won't change anything.:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:
 

Champion

New Member
Bottom line, theres nothing we can do about it whether we agree with it or not. It's a done deal. Only way I can see stopping it is to BUY DISNEY but Im not a Gates or a Saudi Prince, therefore all the complaing and moaning won't change anything.:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

Doesn't mean that we can't discuss it.
 

slappy magoo

Well-Known Member
With all the Disney resorts, the MYW ticket structure, the Dining Plan and Magic Express, Disnet has done everything it can to get people from LEAVING Disney property. Apparently phase 2 will now get people who either never go to WDW, OR just visit the parks and DTD, to spend even more money on Disney property. Four Seasons will appeal to an upscale clientele, much the same way Vegas has tried (with some degree of success) to avail itself to families. People who might not want to set foot in a Disney park, but have no problem with sending their kids to the parks while they golf & drink & schmooze.

Meanwhile, Disney sees all their visitors who still leave property because they want to hit the outlet malls. They hear the complaints of some people that Disney resorts are too expensive. And their solution is to build the shops, and the less-expensive, less-themed hotels, to get those people either on property, or dissuade them from leaving.

I don't necessarily have a problem with any of this. What worries me though, is that by investing so much effort into creating these new revenue streams, it will come at the expense of the parks. Just like Walt liked to always remind people that it all started with a mouse, so, too does Disney never need to lose sight of the reason why most of us go to WDW in the first place. Spending an inordinate amount of money to attract people who might otherwise be ambivalent towards a Disney vacation, and then short change the parks, the Disney resorts, and the visitors who really look forward to going to WDW, could really wind up biting them in the corporate butt in the long run.

What I hope is that any revenue generated from these properties will first and foremost go back into the parks, newer attractions, explanding The Studios and AK into full-day parks.
 

PoohsGang

New Member
Doesn't mean that we can't discuss it.

Your right, what I should have said was I can't change it so Im not going to get worked up about it I'll just keep going to Beach Club twice a year like we do now. I'm sure 4 Seasons will have customers who love that as much as we love Beach Club.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom