Disney announces a new Four Seasons Luxury Resort and Golf Community

[Jose Eber]

Some more info:

1) Four Seasons has an established Residence Club (Scottsdale, San Diego, Vail etc.). So yes, Disney will have 'competition' on property against DVC.

2) Four Seasons has owned a large chunk of land for years in Celebration Florida. Just a few months ago it seemed like "the deal" to build something like what was just recently announced (yet in Celebration) was dead in the water per comments made by Matt Kelly, v.p. of Imagineering (literally and figuratively -- the land is extremely swampy, hard to develop).

3) Four Seasons is actually building residences as well (normal ones, not just time shares -- imagine living next to Magic Kingdom). See Four Season's work in Scottsdale and Miami.

4) And yes, much of the property does abut Bay Lake.

Some of you are complaining, criticizing company direction. If you REALLY don't like what is happening -- watch the second video located here. Its about all this announced series of proposed developments. :wave:

5) In regards to Western Way. This property is referred to 'outside of Disney' but it is technically on Disney property. Its outside the Disney sign archway. This is intended to be a new Downtown Disney area, just without the entertainment.

Kapish?

Oh and also, if you don't like all this sort of development, Disney was considering building an upscale Mall of Millennia type shopping development between the 4 and the 192 -- until Mall of Millennia was built. There is also room/zoning for a 5th gate there.

I've personally never seen Walt as favoring 'the common man'. The resorts on property have always been a broad mix. From camping (still the cheapest) to high end resorts like the Poly and Contemporary.

Also -- staffing wise: Disney can hardly fill their own staffing needs on property -- expanding at this time would be a bit dangerous. Perhaps its wise to bring in outside help? There is huge turnover within the company. Even for modest jobs ($500 bonuses for housekeepers right now guys!).

Food for thought

J.

 

[Hakunamatata]

Hey Jose....long time no see.:wave:

 

[Raidermatt]

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.

Very good point. I've got my issues with the strategic direction, but its pretty clear that some care about minimizing outside brands on property, and others don't. But no one can deny that the parks are the driver at WDW. One of Eisner's faults is that he sometimes didn't get that, and tried to draw people to WDW who weren't "park people", and those pieces of his strategy did not go well. Most notably the Disney Institute.

It's dangerous to think you can draw people to WDW who don't care about the parks. When the parks are taken out of the equation, there just isn't much there that resort vacationers can't get elsewhere.

We don't know exactly what Diseny and the Four Seasons are thinking in that regard, but it's something to watch out for.

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.

It's actually interesting you mention Vegas. The family strategy actually failed miserably for Vegas. They still tolerate them, but they do very little to cater to them. They know who their audience is, and that's who they go after now, with pretty good success.

This gets back to what someone said earlier about Disney having a responsibility to go after all markets. I made the point that sometimes putting that investment into current markets can be far more beneficial than trying to get into new ones, and Vegas is a perfect example of that.

It is nearly impossible to be all things to all people. Maybe this venture will succeed, but its also very possible that Disney would be better off investing in what they already have and who they already go after. That would include the parks and the family market they already serve.

You have to look at the Grand Floridian example and wonder... Did it fail to achieve its goal because people wouldn't accept Disney's brand in the luxury market? Was it because Disney simply didn't execute well? Or was it because that market is more interested in other resort destinations, like Hawaii, Las Vegas, the Caribbean and Europe?

 

[Raidermatt]

Oh, wanted to comment on this as well:

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 agree, clearly that's what Disney is trying to do with the Western Gateway development. I still think it's a mistake to develop the buffer like this, but that aside, there is another risk.

If these value conscious establishments are going to equal the values found off-property, then yes, it will clearly keep some people who currently go off-property from leaving. But at the same time, it could actually encourage those who DON'T currenly leave WDW for bargains to now go to the Western Gateway instead of the current, pricier on-property places they now patronize.

In other words, maybe I don't go off-property for bargains because I don't want to leave WDW. I use Magical Express, I don't rent a car, and I want my whole time to be "in the Magic". Well, now there's going to be a place that while outside the gates, is clearly going to be a Disney owned development close by. Certainly there will be Disney transportation to it, so maybe now I WILL go ahead and do some cheaper grocery shopping instead of eating out one or two nights, or buying those groceries at my resort. If I can buy Disney souvenirs at a better price, why buy them in DTD or in the parks?

Disney is going to have to do a fine balancing act between stealing away some outside business and cannibalizing their own business.

 

[tomm4004]

You have to look at the Grand Floridian example and wonder... Did it fail to achieve its goal because people wouldn't accept Disney's brand in the luxury market? Was it because Disney simply didn't execute well? Or was it because that market is more interested in other resort destinations, like Hawaii, Las Vegas, the Caribbean and Europe?

Just curious. How did it fail to achieve its goal? I haven't heard that occupancy is poor. The restaurants seem to do well. The profit margins for the place must be pretty high.

 

[donaldduck1967]

I usually don't take part in these conversations but here is why this deal may have hapenned,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal


His real estate holdings have included large stakes in the Four Seasons hotel chain and the Plaza Hotel in New York. He sold half of his shares in the latter in August 2004. He has made investments in London's Savoy Hotel and Monaco's Monte Carlo Grand Hotel. He holds a 10% stake, worth $30 million in 2006, in Euro Disney SCA, the organization which manages and maintains the Disneyland Resort Paris in Marne-la-Vallee, France.

Maybe he's willing to put more money into Disneyland Paris in exchange for him being allowed to build in Fla.

 

[DisneyMusician2]

I am concerned about what this resort might do to attendance at the parks. During peak seasons (the only time I can travel) the crowds can become HUGE. It seems that Disney is attracting more than enough people, and will all of this new resort and commerce construction bring an unwieldly number of people into the parks?

 

[slappy magoo]

I am concerned about what this resort might do to attendance at the parks. During peak seasons (the only time I can travel) the crowds can become HUGE. It seems that Disney is attracting more than enough people, and will all of this new resort and commerce construction bring an unwieldly number of people into the parks?

a possible slice o' irony. WDW tries to develop new opportunities so visitors have more to do than just visit the parks, which in turn brings in more visitors...who want to visit the parks...

But I suspect the logic is more along the lines of getting more money from people who are visiting the parks anyway, just not staying on-site.

When it comes to the Western shopping/hotel complex, what I'm curious about is how much of a Disney theme it will (or will not) have. Will it have Disney stores that might cannibalize sales anywhere else? Certainly, no bootleg merch, but what about discontinud merch that usually finds its way to Belz? Will it look like something Disney-ish? And will anyone staying there get Disney perks, like EMH, transportation, DME, dining plan options? And if those visitors get none of the perks, will it be used by agents as a bait-and-switch to get people to at least a Value resort? And if they do get all the perks, how "affordable" will the rooms be? How nice or spacious? Considering a value is about as expensive as a mod was ten years ago, and the mods about as much as at the Wilderbss Loge was ten years ago, will the Western property be like a "sub-value?" Even less theming but cheaper and with the perks?

 

[Raidermatt]

Just curious. How did it fail to achieve its goal? I haven't heard that occupancy is poor. The restaurants seem to do well. The profit margins for the place must be pretty high.

You're right, it probably does do fine. But Disney's original intent for the GF was to create a 5-star resort that would bring in the high-end luxury seeking market.

Basically, what the Four Seasons does.

It's in that context that the GF failed to achieve its goal, and that's where my questions were coming from.

Maybe he's willing to put more money into Disneyland Paris in exchange for him being allowed to build in Fla.

I've seen that speculation. If it's true, that would make things far worse than they already are.

 

[Raidermatt]

When it comes to the Western shopping/hotel complex, what I'm curious about is how much of a Disney theme it will (or will not) have. Will it have Disney stores that might cannibalize sales anywhere else? Certainly, no bootleg merch, but what about discontinud merch that usually finds its way to Belz? Will it look like something Disney-ish? And will anyone staying there get Disney perks, like EMH, transportation, DME, dining plan options? And if those visitors get none of the perks, will it be used by agents as a bait-and-switch to get people to at least a Value resort? And if they do get all the perks, how "affordable" will the rooms be? How nice or spacious? Considering a value is about as expensive as a mod was ten years ago, and the mods about as much as at the Wilderbss Loge was ten years ago, will the Western property be like a "sub-value?" Even less theming but cheaper and with the perks?

Yes, that's some of what I was trying to get at. If they do make it a truly cheaper option for shopping and lodging, they could cannibalize their own value resorts and on-property stores.

If they don't offer enough or make the pricing attractive enough, it still might not convince those who go off-property to change their ways.

 

[Champion]

I usually don't take part in these conversations but here is why this deal may have hapenned,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal


His real estate holdings have included large stakes in the Four Seasons hotel chain and the Plaza Hotel in New York. He sold half of his shares in the latter in August 2004. He has made investments in London's Savoy Hotel and Monaco's Monte Carlo Grand Hotel. He holds a 10% stake, worth $30 million in 2006, in Euro Disney SCA, the organization which manages and maintains the Disneyland Resort Paris in Marne-la-Vallee, France.

Maybe he's willing to put more money into Disneyland Paris in exchange for him being allowed to build in Fla.

Its a reasonable thought. However, no, that isn't the reason for the Four Seasons on property.

 

[tomm4004]

You're right, it probably does do fine. But Disney's original intent for the GF was to create a 5-star resort that would bring in the high-end luxury seeking market.

Basically, what the Four Seasons does.

It's in that context that the GF failed to achieve its goal, and that's where my questions were coming from.

Was the failure a matter of marketing or poor quality control in the operation of the hotel? Did the luxury crowd come, look and leave, or did they never materialize in the first place? I'm just curious what the difference will be in the two markets (GF vs. FS). Will the Four Seasons crowd visit the parks? Will they walk down Main Street in ascots and minks? It just seems to me that if there are rich people with kids clamoring to visit WDW the suites at the deluxe resorts will suffice. Is it possible that Disney is overrun with this niche? No, then they'd probably build another GF. Obviously, Four Seasons feels that the market it there.

I remember reading the Prince rumor months ago, but I forgotten about it. Thanks.

This is interesting: (from the Wik) Four Seasons is a publicly traded corporation headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Isadore (“Issy”) Sharp founded the company in 1960 and opened the first Four Seasons Hotel on Jarvis Street in downtown Toronto in 1961. Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates has a substantial holding in the company along with Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia. On November 6, 2006, Bill Gates, through his holding company Cascades Investment LLC, and Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal made an offer to take the company private for US$3.4 billion (excluding debt).[1][2] On Februrary 12, 2007, the deal was finalized, Gates and Al-Waleed paying $82 per share.

 

[Hakunamatata]

You're right, it probably does do fine. But Disney's original intent for the GF was to create a 5-star resort that would bring in the high-end luxury seeking market.

Basically, what the Four Seasons does.

It's in that context that the GF failed to achieve its goal, and that's where my questions were coming from.

My gut feeling is that there are two primary reasons GF did not live up to the expectations.

1. Its too excessible for foot traffic from people not staying there.

2. Its themed.

 

[slappy magoo]

Was the failure a matter of marketing or poor quality control in the operation of the hotel? Did the luxury crowd come, look and leave, or did they never materialize in the first place? I'm just curious what the difference will be in the two markets (GF vs. FS). Will the Four Seasons crowd visit the parks? Will they walk down Main Street in ascots and minks? It just seems to me that if there are rich people with kids clamoring to visit WDW the suites at the deluxe resorts will suffice. Is it possible that Disney is overrun with this niche? No, then they'd probably build another GF. Obviously, Four Seasons feels that the market it there.

Sadly, I suspect there is a "Jethro Factor" in play. First, I readily admit that there's snobbery in every walk of life, including some middle-income and lower-income people looking down on the insanely wealthy as being clueless about how "real people" behave. But when it comes to the GF, I think there are a lot of people who can easily afford to stay there, but would rather not associate themselves with people who scrimp and save to stay there. And let's not forget the fact that the lobby and restaurants are open to the public, dressed more appropriately for the parks (in other words, dressed down, way down) than for a "fancy" hotel. People show up just to eat at the character buffet, they go to try to pool hop, they go just to look around. If you're the type of person who is extremely "class-conscious" you'd probably feel like an exhibit at the zoo, which only creates a larger desire to insulate yourself from "those kinds of people"

The Four Seasons, having a little more distance (geographically AND socially) than the "average" Disneygoer, will have a better chance of catering to that kind of crowd. And an even better chance if they institute more-strict dress policies throughout the grounds than Disney resorts have (or enforce). They could, in theory, institute a no-shorts, no-t-shirts, men-must-wear-ties-at-dinner policy, throughout their restaurants and lounges. And of course, they could price those bars and eateries beyond the reach of many average-income citizens. In short, make it intentionally awkward for anyone to walk through wearing flip-flops and mouse ears and character t-thirts.

Let me add that I don't think everyone with some extra zeros in their bank statement behaves this way. Rather, I think some do, and WDW feels like they ought to do SOMETHING to keep them on-site. I think the Western property risks cannibalizing the Values & Mods (especially if they wind up getting on-site perks, which I suspect might eventually happen) than the Four Season risks cannibalizing the highest-end Deluxe resorts, because, as I said before, I suspect people staying at Four Seasons might not otherwise have stayed anywhere on-property if they could've found something nicer, more to their liking, more exclusive, elsewhere.

 

[prberk]

I usually don't take part in these conversations but here is why this deal may have hapenned,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal


His real estate holdings have included large stakes in the Four Seasons hotel chain and the Plaza Hotel in New York. He sold half of his shares in the latter in August 2004. He has made investments in London's Savoy Hotel and Monaco's Monte Carlo Grand Hotel. He holds a 10% stake, worth $30 million in 2006, in Euro Disney SCA, the organization which manages and maintains the Disneyland Resort Paris in Marne-la-Vallee, France.

Maybe he's willing to put more money into Disneyland Paris in exchange for him being allowed to build in Fla.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

The whole thing, including the Western development (which, they said, is in the same magnitude as the Animal Kingdom), will completely work to erode the Disney hotels and resorts -- not to mention land for future expansion for other attractions.

I still think that Disney should have re-developed its OWN golf resort again. The golf crowd is centered in Orlando and already sees WDW as a place to come -- a new, unique Disney-owned golf resort (especially with Tiger and others endorsing it) would be a natural, with no revenue-sharing or erosion of the other Disney properties....

Paul

 

[typhoonguy]

A few more points, didn't see them posted yet... Most importantly (to me, at least), closing dates for the golf courses...

As Walt Disney World plans for future growth, we are announcing the development of a luxury resort destination and golf community located on the northeast border of our property.
The new resort and golf course will sit on a 900-acre site that currently includes the Osprey Ridge and Eagle Pines golf courses.
We’re in negotiations with Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts to develop a luxury resort destination and golf community, which will include a five-star hotel and championship golf course as well as single-family and fractional ownership homes (similar to timeshare). This project is particularly exciting because it provides us with an opportunity to expand internationally in the luxury travel and leisure market with a well-known and admired brand.
The possibility of bringing these two, world-renowned brands together is very exciting since it builds upon what both Disney and Four Seasons already do well – delivering great, high-quality experiences through a very personalized and caring approach to Guest service.
Construction will take place in stages over the next three years. Eagle Pines will remain open until at least August 2007. Osprey Ridge and the Clubhouse will remain open until 2010.

 

[Teenchy]

A link to another interesting look at things with more of a financial look at things....sorry if its already been posted.

http://msn.fool.com/investing/gener...x?logvisit=y&source=eedmsnlnk0010001&bounce=y

 

[tomm4004]

Sadly, I suspect there is a "Jethro Factor" in play...

Interesting points. One is your assertion that a Four Seasons would not work for example on Seven Seas Lagoon because it would be too accessible to the public. That sounds possible.

I've never done this while travelling, but I suspect that there's nothing preventing people from entering grand hotels and poking around the lobby. I wonder if it's discouraged. I walked past the famed Peninsula Hotel in Hong Kong, but it never occurred to me to go in. I suspect people do though. In fact, now I wish I had.

Certainly Disney wants outside patrons eating at hotel restaurants. It will be interesting to see if Four Seasons caters to non-guests.

I have no idea how formal a hotel like the Four Seasons is, especially in a warm climate. No shorts. Is it that formal?

I don't think restaurants deliberately price themselves to keep certain people out, but I could be wrong. Even Disney restaurants are steps on a ladder price-wise.

 

[MJMcBride]

Certainly Disney wants outside patrons eating at hotel restaurants. It will be interesting to see if Four Seasons caters to non-guests.

Whats your defination of "caters"? They'll be allowed in.

 

[slappy magoo]

I've never done this while travelling, but I suspect that there's nothing preventing people from entering grand hotels and poking around the lobby. I wonder if it's discouraged. I walked past the famed Peninsula Hotel in Hong Kong, but it never occurred to me to go in. I suspect people do though. In fact, now I wish I had.

But that's different, you WALKED past the Peninsula. With the possible exception of day guests and locals golfing, few people will just happen to be walking past the Four Seasons.

Certainly Disney wants outside patrons eating at hotel restaurants. It will be interesting to see if Four Seasons caters to non-guests.

I have no idea how formal a hotel like the Four Seasons is, especially in a warm climate. No shorts. Is it that formal?

Pure speculation on my part, I've no idea. Just saying that, if you wanted to keep people from just walking around, a dress code might be one way to do it. If the Four Seasons have the right to do what it wants with the property they're leasing from Disney, I suppose they could exsclude anyone from entering the grounds unless they're either checking in, already have a room, or have meal reservations, or in the company of someone who has a room. That degree of exclusivity might bite 'em on the butt, but it's something they could try.

I don't think restaurants deliberately price themselves to keep certain people out, but I could be wrong. Even Disney restaurants are steps on a ladder price-wise.

It's a harsh opinion, but one I stand behind. Despite the fact that the wealthy and privilged can be just as ill-mannered and obnoxious as anyone else on the planet, many resturants have higher prices to create an air of exclusivity. You're paying for atmosphere as much as for food. And some people can't easily afford that atmosphere. Granted, if someone with a lower-income saves the 300 bucks necessary for a totally swank meal at Cali Grill, WDW is probably not going to refuse them entry. But the high prices in the first place make the odds of that happening the exception and not the rule. To that end, it's probably better to look at it the other, glass-half-full way. Maybe they're not trying to keep "certain people" out so much as they're trying to attract a more exclusive clientele. But again, when crotch chots of hotel heiresses are as common as the sun rising, and football heroes are sucker-punching strippers for picking up money off the floor before they get the football player's official say-so, who's to say what an "exclusive clentele" is anymore?