News Disney Lakeshore Lodge (Project 89 - Development near Fort Wilderness)

[Monorail_Orange]

If I recall correctly, the soil under this piece of land was found to be unsuitable for supporting the weight of a large hotel. Pending some kind of technological breakthrough in building material, we'll likely never see anything substantial constructed here.

It's not a matter of technological breakthrough, per se - the entire city of New Orleans, including the tall buildings downtown, is built on "unsuitable" land. It is a matter of increased cost to build on "unsuitable" land. For WDW, the answer so far had been it's cheaper to build on suitable land elsewhere. Eventually, that cost may change - either construction costs go down through technology (agreeing with you on that), or the profits generated will justify the increased construction cost.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

DVC wasn’t doing too hot in the last year-ish either. I wouldn’t be surprised to see no more new DVC builds for the next few years at WDW as they work to see off Riviera. Maybe one more conversion/expansion of an existing property before Reflections would be restarted.

They’ve made bad decisions...I think this one at fort wilderness was ok...but not a great move either.

DVC needed a punch in the gut. They have been thinking of themselves a little too high lately.

They need a beating out back.

But this is just where Iger was always gonna take it. He had no “restraint” on pricing like the previous regimes. Sign of the times.

He shrunk his target audience for DVC...and priced under the premise fast increasing gobs of money will always be there...because he’d be gone if it doesn’t happen.

Part of Disney pricing should always allow safeguards against recessions (or worse...because the gambling is higher stakes now)...but bob hasn’t done that with DVC or parks. There will always be a reckoning and we’ll hold the bag.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Im kinda happy about this. What I wonder then, are the stables, maybe Mickeys Backyard BBQ at Fort Wilderness etc going to come back if this is shelved for a year or more?

The food at that barbecue was horrific...so I’m good there

 

[Club Cooloholic]

They’ve made bad decisions...I think this one at fort wilderness was ok...but not a great move either.

They need a beating out back.

But this is just where Iger was always gonna take it. He had no “restraint” on pricing like the previous regimes. Sign of the times.

He shrunk his target audience for DVC...and priced under the premise fast increasing gobs of money will always be there...because he’d be gone if it doesn’t happen.

Part of Disney pricing should always allow safeguards against recessions (or worse...because the gambling is higher stakes now)...but bob hasn’t done that with DVC or parks. There will always be a reckoning and we’ll hold the bag.

Listen as a card carrying(no not the blue one) DVC member, I will shed no tears for DVC slowing down. Disney wants that captive audience and consistent dollars, but it allowed them to jack up rates for regular hotel rooms(and even take away some rooms altogether) and basically we have people scalping Disney rooms on the secondary market through DVC rentals.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Listen as a card carrying(no not the blue one) DVC member, I will shed no tears for DVC slowing down. Disney wants that captive audience and consistent dollars, but it allowed them to jack up rates for regular hotel rooms(and even take away some rooms altogether) and basically we have people scalping Disney rooms on the secondary market through DVC rentals.

...my blue card hates this. Mainly the new “clientele” (search around here) that talks about their existence in this “renters” market that was never intended to exist. It’s not good for Disney, the rack business, or most especially those in DVC that bought to use.

I get that if you occasionally have points and want to offload them...fine. But the secondary market is quickly getting out of control.

 

[note2001]

Listen as a card carrying(no not the blue one) DVC member, I will shed no tears for DVC slowing down. Disney wants that captive audience and consistent dollars, but it allowed them to jack up rates for regular hotel rooms(and even take away some rooms altogether) and basically we have people scalping Disney rooms on the secondary market through DVC rentals.

The higher room rates Disney has artificially created have increased demand in the second hand market for DVC rooms. Not scalping when they're still considerably cheaper than renting a deluxe or DVC hotel room through Disney directly.

This is all on Disney corporate for creating a fake little inflation bubble.

I do, however, agree that it's a slimy practice to be profiting off of points I'd love to own.

 

[Club Cooloholic]

...my blue card hates this. Mainly the new “clientele” (search around here) that talks about their existence in this “renters” market that was never intended to exist. It’s not good for Disney, the rack business, or most especially those in DVC that bought to use.

I get that if you occasionally have points and want to offload them...fine. But the secondary market is quickly getting out of control.

I like the option of being able to rent it out(never have done it, and honestly more likely to just use RCI) but at the same time I am no fool to know that it also creates less availability for actual owners with everyone renting out points. Maybe the solution is to limit the amount of rentable points, or number of non-owner reservations?

 

[note2001]

I like the option of being able to rent it out(never have done it, and honestly more likely to just use RCI) but at the same time I am no fool to know that it also creates less availability for actual owners with everyone renting out points. Maybe the solution is to limit the amount of rentable points, or number of non-owner reservations?

Can't do that. We own the contract to those points and are allowed to use them as we see fit so long as they're within the rules set by the contract and aren't causing other problems (bad renters could push an owner in this direction).

Now, they could add some verbiage to the contract for newer sales, but I've not heard of them doing so.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I like the option of being able to rent it out(never have done it, and honestly more likely to just use RCI) but at the same time I am no fool to know that it also creates less availability for actual owners with everyone renting out points. Maybe the solution is to limit the amount of rentable points, or number of non-owner reservations?

It’s not the occasional rental that bugs me...it’s “buyers to rent”. There’s a growing number of that and it’s driving the prices up for everything. When you give Disney more...they’re gonna charge you more. Pretty simple algorithm.

I have acquaintances who bought DVC before it was insane...circa 2007, and then bought some awful new construction townhouse in like BVL right before the housing bubble burst a year later and then rent the points. Spend their time going to Orlando and spot going to sweet tomatoes (rip), sea world, Halloween parties, and bad value cruises...

That throws all the consumer dynamics off...so I have to subsidize that with higher prices across the board at wdw.

Just a complaint...I’ll move along

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Can't do that. We own the contract to those points and are allowed to use them as we see fit so long as they're within the rules set by the contract and aren't causing other problems (bad renters could push an owner in this direction).

Now, they could add some verbiage to the contract for newer sales, but I've not heard of them doing so.

This came up recently...

I hear that “dvc can’t do that...” a lot and it never seems to stick. That contract is a typical one sided Swiss cheese laden Florida swamp deed.

If you had told me they could arbitrarily slash the borrow provision and keep dues 4 months ago I bet. “They can’t do that” woulda come up.

My point: “the leverage is on one side and near limitless”

 

[rle4lunch]

...my blue card hates this. Mainly the new “clientele” (search around here) that talks about their existence in this “renters” market that was never intended to exist. It’s not good for Disney, the rack business, or most especially those in DVC that bought to use.

I get that if you occasionally have points and want to offload them...fine. But the secondary market is quickly getting out of control.

You know what grinds my gears? Spending 40k on Poly and SSR contracts only to have to pay extra for daily towels. Lol.

Seriously though, it kinda blows.

AFWIW, I took a solo day trip to the parks in March and took the skyliner to Riviera for a quick walkabout. Result? Meh. Felt like a mix of a Hilton and Vegas casino resort.

 

[note2001]

This came up recently...

I hear that “dvc can’t do that...” a lot and it never seems to stick. That contract is a typical one sided Swiss cheese laden Florida swamp deed.

If you had told me they could arbitrarily slash the borrow provision and keep dues 4 months ago I bet. “They can’t do that” woulda come up.

My point: “the leverage is on one side and near limitless”

It was made very clear to me when I bought at SSR how borrowing, banking, making reservations at DVC locations outside our own home resort etc worked and that those features are simply perks that could be reduced or taken away, but most likely would not. Although renting never came up as a topic while I was forking over the money, I had asked about family using my points and was met with pretty much the same language, that it is my contract to make reservations for whomever I'd like.

 

[UNCgolf]

So is the thought here cancelled or delayed?

I would guess cancelled, at least as far as the current Reflections goes. If they had plans to restart construction any time in the near future, they wouldn't be undoing the little bit of work they've already done.

I'm they'll build something there eventually, but I don't think it'll be in the next few years. That means it's very unlikely they'll just pull out the old Reflections plans and plop it down as is; at the very least they'd make changes to it, and more likely they'd just decide to design/build something new (especially if there's new leadership).

 

[CastAStone]

DVC wasn’t doing too hot in the last year-ish either. I wouldn’t be surprised to see no more new DVC builds for the next few years at WDW as they work to see off Riviera. Maybe one more conversion/expansion of an existing property before Reflections would be restarted.

At some point Riviera will sell out and all those folks in those dozens of booths across WDW will have no WDW properties to sell, unless they pull something together. Without all those folks they will never sell out Aulani, but they can't reasonably employ them if they don't also have something to unload at WDW.

I am expecting something like you note along the lines of a BLT2 or a (separately deeded) expansion to BC/BW/GF/Poly, so that they aren't creating another cash-DVC hybrid, the existence of which I imagine they are cursing today. Those ideas come with the added bonus of pulling Deluxe inventory off the market in a recession.

This came up recently...

I hear that “dvc can’t do that...” a lot and it never seems to stick. That contract is a typical one sided Swiss cheese laden Florida swamp deed.

If you had told me they could arbitrarily slash the borrow provision and keep dues 4 months ago I bet. “They can’t do that” woulda come up.

My point: “the leverage is on one side and near limitless”

Disney's ability to change or end banking and borrowing is explicitly noted in the contract.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The higher room rates Disney has artificially created have increased demand in the second hand market for DVC rooms. Not scalping when they're still considerably cheaper than renting a deluxe or DVC hotel room through Disney directly.

This is all on Disney corporate for creating a fake little inflation bubble.

I do, however, agree that it's a slimy practice to be profiting off of points I'd love to own.

Oh I completely agree here...

Most even DVC owners don’t know the backstory of “copper creek”(still can’t believe people fell for that either)...

The occupancy at wilderness fell to 50%!! They overpriced it and had To convert to DVC.

And what do the “members” do? Reward them buy buying points at insane increases...not even noticing that a unit is 100 feet away that sold for 1/3 the cost.

“Nothing to see here”

 

[note2001]

Oh I completely agree here...

Most even DVC owners don’t know the backstory of “copper creek”(still can’t believe people fell for that either)...

The occupancy at wilderness fell to 50%!! They overpriced it and had To convert to DVC.

And what do the “members” do? Reward them buy buying points at insane increases...not even noticing that a unit is 100 feet away that sold for 1/3 the cost.

“Nothing to see here”

Absolutely. but...
shhhh.... let's leave VWL-BR out of this. I like that it's invisible.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It was made very clear to me when I bought at SSR how borrowing, banking, making reservations at DVC locations outside our own home resort etc worked and that those features are simply perks that could be reduced or taken away, but most likely would not. Although renting never came up as a topic while I was forking over the money, I had asked about family using my points and was met with pretty much the same language, that it is my contract to make reservations for whomever I'd like.

...until they don’t let you do it anymore.

I view every part of that contract as available to be altered by decree. The list of things that have happened that don’t fit with the framework of the program I worked with 99-02 or bought in 2005 is quite long at this point.

I’m guessing we don’t actually disagree with this point at all.

 

[note2001]

...until they don’t let you do it anymore.

I view every part of that contract as available to be altered by decree. The amount of things that have happened that don’t fit with the framework of the program I worked with 99-02 or bought in 2005 is quite long at this point.

I’m guessing we don’t actually disagree with this point at all.

I'm just glad that we do have a number of jerks who own thousands of points and are renting them out.

Why? Becuase they're bored, retired lawyers who won't allow Disney to pull any crap on the owners.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'm just glad that we do have a number of jerks who own thousands of points and are renting them out.

Why? Becuase they're bored, retired lawyers who won't allow Disney to pull any crap on the owners.

Good point

 

[LuvtheGoof]

It’s not the occasional rental that bugs me...it’s “buyers to rent”. There’s a growing number of that and it’s driving the prices up for everything. When you give Disney more...they’re gonna charge you more. Pretty simple algorithm.

I have acquaintances who bought DVC before it was insane...circa 2007, and then bought some awful new construction townhouse in like BVL right before the housing bubble burst a year later and then rent the points. Spend their time going to Orlando and spot going to sweet tomatoes (rip), sea world, Halloween parties, and bad value cruises...

That throws all the consumer dynamics off...so I have to subsidize that with higher prices across the board at wdw.

Just a complaint...I’ll move along

From the DVC site:

Q.
As a Disney Vacation Club Member, can I rent my Vacation Points?
A.
Members may rent their Vacation Points. However, the use of your Vacation Points for commercial purposes is expressly prohibited. Commercial purpose includes a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by a Member that the Board of Condominium Association, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice.

Of course, the problem is simple. Is DVC actually enforcing this rule? I think I read somewhere that DVC considers someone that rents their points out 20 times in a year to be conducting it as a business. I would have set the bar far lower - like no more than 3.