Expansion Coming?

[monothingie]

There are at least 4 expansion plots to go after before even thinking about taking over Saratoga, all though, whenever Strawberry does get developed, I sure wouldn’t be opposed to finally having a bridge over there.

Also, even if that area were to get developed for Springs, I see no reason why the existing structures couldn’t stay. The only thing that would likely need to go would be the pool.

At what point does the sprawl of DS become "too big" to manage.

 

[TikibirdLand]

At what point does the sprawl of DS become "too big" to manage.

It already has. We didn't really see half of Springs on this last trip. We hit the "big hitters" and skipped the others. In fact, I was surprised at the stores people mentioned; I really hadn't seen them!

 

[peter11435]

There are at least 4 expansion plots to go after before even thinking about taking over Saratoga, all though, whenever Strawberry does get developed, I sure wouldn’t be opposed to finally having a bridge over there.

There is already a bridge to Saratoga on the Strawberry side

 

[Disstevefan1]

I can’t see Disney Springs expanding any time soon. They are having a hard time keeping what they have. they still have to figure out what to do with the empty NBA experience.

Well, Disney LOVES to be the landlord and collect RENT. Don't worry, even when things fail like the NBA experience between all the upfront $$$$ Disney got and now all the write offs due to the NBA failure, they are fine.

I would not be surprised if Disney builds more space to rent out on speculation.

 

[Magic Feather]

There is already a bridge to Saratoga on the Strawberry side

To rephrase: A more direct bridge that doesn’t involve cutting through a golf course and OKW

 

[ToTBellHop]

To rephrase: A more direct bridge that doesn’t involve cutting through a golf course and OKW

One of these?

 

[HauntedPirate]

Yep, I've been thinking the same thing.

Perhaps Disney would go for it if they could do another Riviera type resort. They've shown already they're willing to get rid of a whole section of an already established resort. The Barbados and Martinique sections were demoed at Caribbean to build the new overly priced tower.

Besides they could always have their cake and eat it too and put the stores and restaurants on the 1st floor.

Was that resort a DVC property? Didn't think so. As far as I'm aware, they cannot simply demo existing DVC buildings that have active contracts without repercussions.

 

[Magic Feather]

One of these?
View attachment 630864

Exactly! One can dream.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

Exactly! One can dream.

We've walked multiple times from Grandstand to DS and it really isn't a bad walk at all. Took us less than 10 minutes. But, saying that, we wouldn't mind a more direct bridge at all, even though it would have to be tall enough for the boats to pass underneath, just like the current bridge.

 

[Magic Feather]

Was that resort a DVC property? Didn't think so. As far as I'm aware, they cannot simply demo existing DVC buildings that have active contracts without repercussions.

I have no idea as to the ins and outs of DVC, but would it be possible for them to convert the bottom floor of the waterside Carriage house buildings into retail if Springs ever wrapped around the lake (I have no knowledge of any plans along these lines, just curious)?

 

[Kamikaze]

I have no idea as to the ins and outs of DVC, but would it be possible for them to convert the bottom floor of the waterside Carriage house buildings into retail if Springs ever wrapped around the lake (I have no knowledge of any plans along these lines, just curious)?

As long as the available accommodations are the same in features (same number of bedrooms, very close to the same size, etc) then yes, they could do that.

Same goes if they demo'd parts of the resort. As long as they built replacements for the removed rooms, no issues. I think the new rooms would have to open before they removed the old ones, though.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

As long as the available accommodations are the same in features (same number of bedrooms, very close to the same size, etc) then yes, they could do that.

If they convert them to retail, removing the DVC rooms, how could they have the same number and type of accommodations?

 

[Kamikaze]

If they convert them to retail, removing the DVC rooms, how could they have the same number and type of accommodations?

The Carriage House is the 'main' building. No rooms.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

The Carriage House is the 'main' building. No rooms.

If that was the intended spot, then there isn't much they could do. The bottom floor under the main building has the golf pro shop, which is managed by the Arnold Palmer group. The other building has the spa and fitness center.

 

[Kamikaze]

If that was the intended spot, then there isn't much they could do. The bottom floor under the main building has the golf pro shop, which is managed by the Arnold Palmer group. The other building has the spa and fitness center.

He clearly was only asking a hypothetical which I was answering. It doesn't matter if the building was filled with flubber.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

He clearly was only asking a hypothetical which I was answering. It doesn't matter if the building was filled with flubber.

Sure, but since he doesn’t seem to know what is already there, I thought he might like to know.

Wasn’t expecting the condescending response.

 

[nickys]

As long as the available accommodations are the same in features (same number of bedrooms, very close to the same size, etc) then yes, they could do that.

Same goes if they demo'd parts of the resort. As long as they built replacements for the removed rooms, no issues. I think the new rooms would have to open before they removed the old ones, though.

Except that owners are deeded to specific “units” within the resort.

Now those units could be a single GV, a specific building or a group of rooms within a building. The unit is specified in the owner’s deeds. So I don’t think they can simply demolish a timeshare building in which someone has an active ownership. They would only be able to do that if they managed to buy back all the contracts with a share in the unit(s) which make up that building.

 

[HauntedPirate]

I have no idea as to the ins and outs of DVC, but would it be possible for them to convert the bottom floor of the waterside Carriage house buildings into retail if Springs ever wrapped around the lake (I have no knowledge of any plans along these lines, just curious)?

Except that owners are deeded to specific “units” within the resort.

Now those units could be a single GV, a specific building or a group of rooms within a building. The unit is specified in the owner’s deeds. So I don’t think they can simply demolish a timeshare building in which someone has an active ownership. They would only be able to do that if they managed to buy back all the contracts with a share in the unit(s) which make up that building.

I think this pretty much covers it. DVC units are "owned" by the deed holders, so to remove a building they'd have to buy back all the contracts that have an ownership stake in that building, or else build a new building of the same size/number of rooms and somehow figure out how to transfer those contracts to the new building. It all sounds like a lot of paperwork and legal mess that doesn't seem to be worth the headaches that would inevitably ensue - Those contracts would then own a newer building, so then member fees could be affected, which would anger the other owners, leading to lawsuits, etc.

 

[Kamikaze]

I think this pretty much covers it. DVC units are "owned" by the deed holders, so to remove a building they'd have to buy back all the contracts that have an ownership stake in that building, or else build a new building of the same size/number of rooms and somehow figure out how to transfer those contracts to the new building. It all sounds like a lot of paperwork and legal mess that doesn't seem to be worth the headaches that would inevitably ensue - Those contracts would then own a newer building, so then member fees could be affected, which would anger the other owners, leading to lawsuits, etc.

Except that owners are deeded to specific “units” within the resort.

Now those units could be a single GV, a specific building or a group of rooms within a building. The unit is specified in the owner’s deeds. So I don’t think they can simply demolish a timeshare building in which someone has an active ownership. They would only be able to do that if they managed to buy back all the contracts with a share in the unit(s) which make up that building.

As long as the replacement unit fits the definition as laid out in the deed, it can be replaced. It doesn't have to be the EXACT unit like a deed to a house would be. Else it would prevent things like structurally altering refurbishments from taking place. Or in the case of a 'disaster', what would happen? The owners would just be 'out' because their specific unit was destroyed? Its not how it works.

In other words, if building X got leveled in a hurricane, the replacement building X would be those owner's deeded spot. The only difference in the kind of situation where the timeshare operator was willingly replacing/changing buildings would be that the replacement building would probably have to be available before the closed/changed the old building.

 

[HauntedPirate]

I honestly don't think that matters. Disney is creating new DVC buildings and redoing rooms left and right.

It does matter. Building new DVC resorts and renovating existing rooms is not even in the same galaxy as what you think should happen.