News Disney Riviera Resort announced

[lazyboy97o]

It’s intent was NOT a deluxe hotel, but a DVC resort.

These are two distinct products with two distinct clientele. There is certainly overlap, don’t get me wrong, but it was never intended to be a deluxe hotel.

I just don’t feel this vitriolic hate it warranted for it. It’s not any more offensive than Saratoga Springs or any other DVC property, other than just that: it’s DVC.

Accepting the idea that DVC should not be associated with Deluxe hotels, that then makes the chosen subject another poor design decision. Beaux Arts architecture is highly articulated and ornamental requiring a level of finish that only makes sense at a Deluxe property. If DVC is not supposed to have that level of finish then another subject matter should have been chosen, one more in line with the not-Deluxe offerings of DVC instead of building something that bears no real resemblance to it’s supposed inspiration.

You’ve been provided a few of the poor design decisions, but you haven’t actually defended any of them as good design decisions. Instead you either say “DVC is not supposed to be that good” (an odd point of pride for something so expensive) or “Well that other thing isn’t very good either.” That is not much of a defense.

 

[MisterPenguin]

As is Bay Lake Tower, Gran Destino, or any of the countless resorts beyond the boundaries of Disney.

How about the obnoxious dolphin and swan resorts??? Art for the sake of art...

Destino and Swolphin, I'll defend. Art for the sake of art is... art.

Not gonna for Riviera. It is devoid of anything pleasing to the eye.... IMO.

 

[LSLS]

It’s intent was NOT a deluxe hotel, but a DVC resort.

These are two distinct products with two distinct clientele. There is certainly overlap, don’t get me wrong, but it was never intended to be a deluxe hotel.

I just don’t feel this vitriolic hate it warranted for it. It’s not any more offensive than Saratoga Springs or any other DVC property, other than just that: it’s DVC.

Ok I'm trying to follow the argument. So the argument is that the Deluxe Villas are supposed to be a step down thematically from the Deluxe Resorts? Or that DVC buyers hate theming so this is built just for them?

 

[xdan0920]

Ok I'm trying to follow the argument. So the argument is that the Deluxe Villas are supposed to be a step down thematically from the Deluxe Resorts? Or that DVC buyers hate theming so this is built just for them?

It’s hard to follow, makes It hard to even respond intelligently. Not sure where to go.

 

[Rinx]

I think they nailed Riviera to today's standards. That being said, I hate today's standards and, like many, do not like the way this building looks. I cannot comment on specific architecture as I have zero knowledge in that area but I have been exposed to way too much HGTV, unfortunately. All those flipping and remodeling shows do the same thing and same style over and over and over again - and that style is "modern" which seems to be bland, boring, no character, neutral shaded, sharp edges geometry. And Disney's most recent room refurbs also resemble that.

 

[trainplane3]

It always felt like WL DVC wing was pretty well done. The outside may not be as grand as the original building but the inside lobbies are beautiful. The hallways off the lobby going to the rooms aren't spectacular though. Not sure why DVC wings need to lack (or the thought of) the personality of the original buildings.

I think they nailed Riviera to today's standards. That being said, I hate today's standards and, like many, do not like the way this building looks. I cannot comment on specific architecture as I have zero knowledge in that area but I have been exposed to way too much HGTV, unfortunately. All those flipping and remodeling shows do the same thing and same style over and over and over again - and that style is "modern" which seems to be bland, boring, no character, neutral shaded, sharp edges geometry. And Disney's most recent room refurbs also resemble that.

Look at most cars on the road or a parking lot. Instead of fun colors you mostly see black, white, or silver. Everyone goes towards a more neutral tone nowadays. I want people to get exciting tastes again.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Look at most cars on the road or a parking lot. Instead of fun colors you mostly see black, white, or silver. Everyone goes towards a more neutral tone nowadays. I want people to get exciting tastes again.

Color Challenge Round!!!...

As a young adult male, do you wear colorful clothes when you go to a park, or are you wearing black, white, and washed out blue?

 

[trainplane3]

Color Challenge Round!!!...

As a young adult male, do you wear colorful clothes when you go to a park, or are you wearing black, white, and washed out blue?

Usually colorful with black or beige cargo pants because you can never have too many pockets. White socks with blue-ish/gray-ish shoes.

Any other fashion questions?

 

[Incomudro]

The Riviera is such a low effort design, which is even more apparent because it supposedly aims high - which really shows how far off of the mark it is.
It's little more than a box with some contoured roof elements.

 

[Creathir]

Accepting the idea that DVC should not be associated with Deluxe hotels, that then makes the chosen subject another poor design decision. Beaux Arts architecture is highly articulated and ornamental requiring a level of finish that only makes sense at a Deluxe property. If DVC is not supposed to have that level of finish then another subject matter should have been chosen, one more in line with the not-Deluxe offerings of DVC instead of building something that bears no real resemblance to it’s supposed inspiration.

You’ve been provided a few of the poor design decisions, but you haven’t actually defended any of them as good design decisions. Instead you either say “DVC is not supposed to be that good” (an odd point of pride for something so expensive) or “Well that other thing isn’t very good either.” That is not much of a defense.

I guess I just fail to see how the provided design decisions were negative or really that poor to begin with.

Look, sure, of course I’d love something decked to the nines, something truly unique and exquisite.

But I don’t find the property to be overtly offensive in the slightest, I don’t find the architectural details to be of any particular note (good or bad), it serves its intended purpose, to allow folks that wish to buy at the property and consequently into the DVC program an ability to do so.

Dislike it if you will, it’s not going anywhere, it’s the second fastest selling DVC property in their history, and will be right there on the north end of the lake for the next 50 years.

But to what end does constantly rehashing the same old opinions (window treatments, colors, and fire escape structures oh my) every time someone comes along and mentions how they like it? The opinion has been expressed and noted, why keep harping on it? Does it really offend that much?
Lord help anyone that offended on the drive from the airport with the monstrosities lining I-4.

I understand and totally respect one person may like something while another does not. To each their own. I just don’t understand the vitriol, that’s all.

 

[xdan0920]

I guess I just fail to see how the provided design decisions were negative or really that poor to begin with.

Look, sure, of course I’d love something decked to the nines, something truly unique and exquisite.

But I don’t find the property to be overtly offensive in the slightest, I don’t find the architectural details to be of any particular note (good or bad), it serves its intended purpose, to allow folks that wish to buy at the property and consequently into the DVC program an ability to do so.

Dislike it if you will, it’s not going anywhere, it’s the second fastest selling DVC property in their history, and will be right there on the north end of the lake for the next 50 years.

But to what end does constantly rehashing the same old opinions (window treatments, colors, and fire escape structures oh my) every time someone comes along and mentions how they like it? The opinion has been expressed and noted, why keep harping on it? Does it really offend that much?
Lord help anyone that offended on the drive from the airport with the monstrosities lining I-4.

I understand and totally respect one person may like something while another does not. To each their own. I just don’t understand the vitriol, that’s all.

When did you buy into DVC?

 

[kwoodfan1]

I guess I just fail to see how the provided design decisions were negative or really that poor to begin with.

Look, sure, of course I’d love something decked to the nines, something truly unique and exquisite.

But I don’t find the property to be overtly offensive in the slightest, I don’t find the architectural details to be of any particular note (good or bad), it serves its intended purpose, to allow folks that wish to buy at the property and consequently into the DVC program an ability to do so.

Dislike it if you will, it’s not going anywhere, it’s the second fastest selling DVC property in their history, and will be right there on the north end of the lake for the next 50 years.

But to what end does constantly rehashing the same old opinions (window treatments, colors, and fire escape structures oh my) every time someone comes along and mentions how they like it? The opinion has been expressed and noted, why keep harping on it? Does it really offend that much?
Lord help anyone that offended on the drive from the airport with the monstrosities lining I-4.

I understand and totally respect one person may like something while another does not. To each their own. I just don’t understand the vitriol, that’s all.

Completely agree, the level of disgust is hard to comprehend. That being said, some say my level of hatred towards the Green Bay Packers is hard to fathom, so maybe building design irregularities is their Packers. Everybody needs a thing.

 

[LSLS]

I guess I just fail to see how the provided design decisions were negative or really that poor to begin with.

Look, sure, of course I’d love something decked to the nines, something truly unique and exquisite.

But I don’t find the property to be overtly offensive in the slightest, I don’t find the architectural details to be of any particular note (good or bad), it serves its intended purpose, to allow folks that wish to buy at the property and consequently into the DVC program an ability to do so.

Dislike it if you will, it’s not going anywhere, it’s the second fastest selling DVC property in their history, and will be right there on the north end of the lake for the next 50 years.

But to what end does constantly rehashing the same old opinions (window treatments, colors, and fire escape structures oh my) every time someone comes along and mentions how they like it? The opinion has been expressed and noted, why keep harping on it? Does it really offend that much?
Lord help anyone that offended on the drive from the airport with the monstrosities lining I-4.

I understand and totally respect one person may like something while another does not. To each their own. I just don’t understand the vitriol, that’s all.

You are honestly proving the point for people. Sure, it can be the same as the "Monstrosities lining I-4." I mean, if you want me to say it looks like a very nice generic hotel, I can't argue. But is that really what you want from Disney? Looking just like every other nice giant hotel around? The theme being simply a name and nothing more? I think a common thread you will see is the people really mad are the ones who remember when Disney spent and wanted to be far above all others. You are right, it's selling, so those of us that think it's terrible are in the minority. Not sure what else to say about it.

 

[surfsupdon]

It always felt like WL DVC wing was pretty well done. The outside may not be as grand as the original building but the inside lobbies are beautiful. The hallways off the lobby going to the rooms aren't spectacular though. Not sure why DVC wings need to lack (or the thought of) the personality of the original buildings.

THIS exactly. I don’t understand how differently the main deluxe building can feel compared to the DVC wing.

Once our Yacht Club water view room was overbooked and they ‘upgraded’ us to the BC villa side in 2 studios. But we didn’t want the villa side, and overlooking a service rd. A DVC is not a deluxe resort experience and not for us. We made them find us a Deluxe Resort room. Ha.

In regards to Riviera, this is what the majority of people now want. People are lazy and overweight and hate to be outside so they don’t sweat. So build a Tower, include everything in the tower, and don’t worry about the resort experience or feel, because marketing is now solely theme park commando-ing and not a ‘Vacation Kingdom.’

 

[Creathir]

When did you buy into DVC?

Honestly, within the last week.
My folks have been members for years though.

It’s not for everyone, it works for my wife and I and we’re excited about it.

 

[kwoodfan1]

In regards to Riviera, this is what the majority of people now want. People are lazy and overweight and hate to be outside so they don’t sweat. So build a Tower, include everything in the tower, and don’t worry about the resort experience or feel, because marketing is now solely theme park commando-ing and not a ‘Vacation Kingdom.’

Fat and lazy people dig towers? That's one unique take, but are you sure people don't want to be near the stuff that's fun to be near? Isn't this why the rooms near Hospitality House at OKW are taken first, or why Tokelau is more desired than Moorea, or why no one wants to be anywhere in SSR? I never considered myself fat or lazy, but I hate walking for 20 minutes from my BW room next to the Studios to the Pizza place at 11PM for a slice. Pretty wide brush on the tower fans, some of us just like to party.

 

[xdan0920]

Honestly, within the last week.
My folks have been members for years though.

It’s not for everyone, it works for my wife and I and we’re excited about it.

At Riviera?

 

[Creathir]

At Riviera?

Yup.

We like the property, it’s amenities, and the access it has to our most favorite park.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I guess I just fail to see how the provided design decisions were negative or really that poor to begin with.

Look, sure, of course I’d love something decked to the nines, something truly unique and exquisite.

But I don’t find the property to be overtly offensive in the slightest, I don’t find the architectural details to be of any particular note (good or bad), it serves its intended purpose, to allow folks that wish to buy at the property and consequently into the DVC program an ability to do so.

Dislike it if you will, it’s not going anywhere, it’s the second fastest selling DVC property in their history, and will be right there on the north end of the lake for the next 50 years.

But to what end does constantly rehashing the same old opinions (window treatments, colors, and fire escape structures oh my) every time someone comes along and mentions how they like it? The opinion has been expressed and noted, why keep harping on it? Does it really offend that much?
Lord help anyone that offended on the drive from the airport with the monstrosities lining I-4.

I understand and totally respect one person may like something while another does not. To each their own. I just don’t understand the vitriol, that’s all.

I care because I sincerely believe in the Architecture of Reassurance.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Accepting the idea that DVC should not be associated with Deluxe hotels, that then makes the chosen subject another poor design decision. Beaux Arts architecture is highly articulated and ornamental requiring a level of finish that only makes sense at a Deluxe property. If DVC is not supposed to have that level of finish then another subject matter should have been chosen, one more in line with the not-Deluxe offerings of DVC instead of building something that bears no real resemblance to it’s supposed inspiration.

You’ve been provided a few of the poor design decisions, but you haven’t actually defended any of them as good design decisions. Instead you either say “DVC is not supposed to be that good” (an odd point of pride for something so expensive) or “Well that other thing isn’t very good either.” That is not much of a defense.

I'm still trying to comprehend why ANY hotel (regardless of room category) that charges several hundred dollars a night can't at least look attractive on the outside?

I feel like the hotel was designed by an outside firm that scammed Disney by cutting down on "details", but still charged for them and then pocketed the difference.