Flamingo Crossing timeshare

[seascape]

Now that there are two hotels going into Flamingo Crossing what will be next. The original plans called for 1000 to 1500 timeshare units. who will be the company building these? DVC seems unlikely at least using the DVC name. So will they allow a 3rd part company to build timeshares on Disney property and compete with DVC or what is going to happen?

 

[GoofGoof]

Now that there are two hotels going into Flamingo Crossing what will be next. The original plans called for 1000 to 1500 timeshare units. who will be the company building these? DVC seems unlikely at least using the DVC name. So will they allow a 3rd part company to build timeshares on Disney property and compete with DVC or what is going to happen?

I can't see them building a DVC resort there. It's possible they would allow another developer to build one if the price was right.

 

[lazyboy97o]

There are Marriott timeshares at Disneyland Paris.

 

[seascape]

I don't understand why the timeshares are listed. The only thing that makes sense to me is that Disney builds a low cost timeshare under a different name with no trading other than RCI. I have a hard time thinking they would allow another timeshare company in but you never know. As a stockholder I don't like the idea of another company making the profit on these.

 

[GoofGoof]

I don't understand why the timeshares are listed. The only thing that makes sense to me is that Disney builds a low cost timeshare under a different name with no trading other than RCI. I have a hard time thinking they would allow another timeshare company in but you never know. As a stockholder I don't like the idea of another company making the profit on these.

There is already another company making a profit from the hotel rooms. It's not much different. Disney will get some sort of payment for the use of the land just like the hotels.

There are Marriott timeshares at Disneyland Paris.

Good point, but there are no DVC timeshares so not direct competition. The whole idea of carving out a piece of WDW property to lease to a third party to build either hotel rooms or timeshares seems very short sighted.

 

[seascape]

I do not mind the hotels as much as another company selling the timeshares. DVC'S are right to use for a period of time where as most other timeshares are forever. In 2042 DVC can start reselling Boardwalk, Beach Club, Wildness Lodge and most of Old Key West. I think they should build a few more major resorts and sind some way to spend out the ending dates of each resort so that some date in the future they will not have to build new ones but just do a major renovation and rebuild and then resell them. That would be great for the bottom line and better than most other timeshare companies. Plus since most other timeshare lose all their value anyway and no one wants to buy them on resale. I just bought a Wyndham timeshare on resale for less than the 299 Wyndham transfer charge just so I could get a low cost week vacation in the winter and get the 199 RCI deals. Finally I love my DVC and 3 vacations to WDW I take every year. I may even buy more points but I am actually glad they expire because I will not have to worry about them after I am no longer here.

 

[tjkraz]

The entire Flamingo Crossings development is designed to give the appearance of run-of-the-mill off-site facilities. It's outside of the "main gate" on that side of property. For all intents and purposes, it will be no different than any other non-Disney shopping and hotel complex located a mile or two from the nearest theme park.

The only distinction is that it does actually sit on Disney-owned land. Disney will have full control over design elements and (obviously) collect rent on anything built there.

Disney may allow timeshares to be built at Flamingo Crossing. But if they do, it will be essentially the same as Marriott Grande Vista or Marriott Cypress Harbor which are located "off site". Geographically the buildings will be close to Disney theme parks, but it's extremely unlikely that Disney will offer any sort of "on site" benefits to hotel guests and timeshare owners staying at Flamingo Crossing.

 

[slappy magoo]

In 2042 DVC can start reselling Boardwalk, Beach Club, Wildness Lodge and most of Old Key West.

More than likely, they will renovate or perhaps raze and rebuild something that would be state-of-the art and THEN resell, passing the costs of rebuilding/renovating to the new or renewing DVC members. One of the negatives associated with other timeshares is that since you own your share forever, you also become responsible for all repairs or renovations, forever. Something you don't think of in your 20s or 30s when you first get married and you think about a lifetime of treasured vacation memories with your family, but when you're in your 80s or later, and your family isn't as interested or can't afford the upkeep on the maintenance fees, you're potentially boned.

Disney may allow timeshares to be built at Flamingo Crossing. But if they do, it will be essentially the same as Marriott Grande Vista or Marriott Cypress Harbor which are located "off site". Geographically the buildings will be close to Disney theme parks, but it's extremely unlikely that Disney will offer any sort of "on site" benefits to hotel guests and timeshare owners staying at Flamingo Crossing.

I'd say that's the same problem as I describe above. Sure, the issue of some other company's timeshare on Disney property getting dated is an issue more than half a century away, IF they ever build timeshares at all. But if those timeshares do get dated or worn, and start to potentially effect the overall look and desirability of the shopping component of Flamingo Crossing, and owners can't afford the upkeep, then it's Disney that looks bad, it's Disney that takes the heat and the bad press.

 

[GoofGoof]

More than likely, they will renovate or perhaps raze and rebuild something that would be state-of-the art and THEN resell, passing the costs of rebuilding/renovating to the new or renewing DVC members. One of the negatives associated with other timeshares is that since you own your share forever, you also become responsible for all repairs or renovations, forever. Something you don't think of in your 20s or 30s when you first get married and you think about a lifetime of treasured vacation memories with your family, but when you're in your 80s or later, and your family isn't as interested or can't afford the upkeep on the maintenance fees, you're potentially boned.



I'd say that's the same problem as I describe above. Sure, the issue of some other company's timeshare on Disney property getting dated is an issue more than half a century away, IF they ever build timeshares at all. But if those timeshares do get dated or worn, and start to potentially effect the overall look and desirability of the shopping component of Flamingo Crossing, and owners can't afford the upkeep, then it's Disney that looks bad, it's Disney that takes the heat and the bad press.

I wonder if they would make the land lease contingent on a certain minimum level of upkeep. It would be a slippery slope for a company like Marriott since the owners dues would have to cover upkeep costs.

Of course this is assuming there is anyone on the Disney side actually looking more than 5 years out.

 

[tjkraz]

I'd say that's the same problem as I describe above. Sure, the issue of some other company's timeshare on Disney property getting dated is an issue more than half a century away, IF they ever build timeshares at all. But if those timeshares do get dated or worn, and start to potentially effect the overall look and desirability of the shopping component of Flamingo Crossing, and owners can't afford the upkeep, then it's Disney that looks bad, it's Disney that takes the heat and the bad press.

Respectfully, I don't think that series of worst-case scenarios is enough to scare them off the concept.

Timeshares around the world have to deal with local laws, building codes and appearance standards. Even small communities dictate the maximum height for signage, exterior color schemes and landscaping requirements. Disney would certainly be among the most dictatorial landlords and RCID gives them the proverbial "stick" they need to enforce any guidelines they wish to enact.

Disney wouldn't haphazardly get into bed with any fly-by-night timeshare developer who thinks he can turn a quick buck. Deep pockets are required. And Disney will use its own financial resources to enforce standards, pursuing all legal remedies if necessary.

 

[dreamfinder]

Good point, but there are no DVC timeshares so not direct competition. The whole idea of carving out a piece of WDW property to lease to a third party to build either hotel rooms or timeshares seems very short sighted.

That hasn't stopped them in the recent past has it? Current management philosophy seems to be trending toward the short term growth, damn the bigger picture. Golden Oaks and Celebration anyone?

 

[slappy magoo]

Respectfully, I don't think that series of worst-case scenarios is enough to scare them off the concept.

Timeshares around the world have to deal with local laws, building codes and appearance standards. Even small communities dictate the maximum height for signage, exterior color schemes and landscaping requirements. Disney would certainly be among the most dictatorial landlords and RCID gives them the proverbial "stick" they need to enforce any guidelines they wish to enact.

Disney wouldn't haphazardly get into bed with any fly-by-night timeshare developer who thinks he can turn a quick buck. Deep pockets are required. And Disney will use its own financial resources to enforce standards, pursuing all legal remedies if necessary.

I'm certainly not saying these things WILL come to pass. But a timeshare on Disney property, even a "value" timeshare that's not owned by Disney...well, there's going to be a premium for location, compared to other less traveled places with timeshares. Roll out will probably be fine. If it's a company that allows trading I'm sure tons of people who are already members will try to trade so the rooms will be booked even before the shares are sold out. But long-term, if there's a downturn in the economy, if some of the new members who didn't understand the costs get sticker shock by the maintenance fees (especially if they increase quickly), then Marriott or whatever company it would be would have to cover the costs of upkeep while they lien their members for what's owed, so any company would have to weigh those potential long-term costs (as well as the cost of construction in the first place) against the short-term profits which I'm sure would be sizable...

Actually, I just thought of something that might make all of this moot. Even if a company like Marriott or some other non-DVC entity built timeshare in Flamingo Crossing, whether it was high-class or low-budget timeshare...they're still building it on Disney property which they're leasing. So how could it be "timeshare" in any other way beyond the DVC model, where at some point the deed of the land reverts back to Disney? That company doesn't own the land.

So either Marriott would adopt the DVC approach to long-term not-actual-ownership, or it would be a DVC property.

I actually wonder if it would be a "Value DVC" property. Rooms that are nice but small with fewer amenities than the other "Deluxe DVC Villa" properties, but would require fewer points for a stay. Let's face it, lots of people (not everyone) say it's the initial cost of DVC that makes them balk, they like the concept but they don't want to finance and shelling out 15-30K for points is daunting and beyond many people's budget, to say nothing ot annual MFs. What if DVC makes smaller simpler hotel-style rooms (no 1/2/3BR Villas, just "studios" with some connecting doors for families with more than 4 people) that are still on Disney property, require less maintenance because they're along or perhaps above shops whose rents cover a lot of the cots associated with upkeep of the property (but not the rooms), and as a result you can have a week for an average of 45-80 points depending on the season. By comparison, Value studios in Animal Kingdom Lodge go between 69 and 118 points per week depending on season. Considering the idea that an alternate timeshare company could never own the land they're building on, so if there are issues with upkeep Disney could eventually sue and/or take over the property anyway, perhaps this makes the most sense. I don't know. I'm spitballing. If I knew what I was talking about I'd be wheeling and dealing right now, not associating with you commoners

 

[GoofGoof]

I actually wonder if it would be a "Value DVC" property. Rooms that are nice but small with fewer amenities than the other "Deluxe DVC Villa" properties, but would require fewer points for a stay. Let's face it, lots of people (not everyone) say it's the initial cost of DVC that makes them balk, they like the concept but they don't want to finance and shelling out 15-30K for points is daunting and beyond many people's budget, to say nothing ot annual MFs. What if DVC makes smaller simpler hotel-style rooms (no 1/2/3BR Villas, just "studios" with some connecting doors for families with more than 4 people) that are still on Disney property, require less maintenance because they're along or perhaps above shops whose rents cover a lot of the cots associated with upkeep of the property (but not the rooms), and as a result you can have a week for an average of 45-80 points depending on the season. By comparison, Value studios in Animal Kingdom Lodge go between 69 and 118 points per week depending on season. Considering the idea that an alternate timeshare company could never own the land they're building on, so if there are issues with upkeep Disney could eventually sue and/or take over the property anyway, perhaps this makes the most sense. I don't know. I'm spitballing. If I knew what I was talking about I'd be wheeling and dealing right now, not associating with you commoners

If they build a timeshare here it would most likely need to have larger rooms and nice amenities to compete with the other off property timeshares. I've stayed a few times at the Hilton Grand Vacation Club resorts near Sea World and they are very nice with rooms that were much larger than your average DVC room. With DVC you are paying a steep premium for being on property and having access to Disney transportation and resort amenities and being "inside the bubble". For me it was worth paying the premium or I would have bought at the Hilton for less money. Unless they plan to integrate these resorts into the Disney system (offer DME, Disney buses, DDP, etc..) they won't have an easy time selling them with the DVC premium. The fact that the land is technically on property won't matter without the other benefits. If they offer the other benefits then they wouldn't be able to make them cheaper than the existing DVCs.

I would not be surprised if they tried to negotiate a limited lifetime for the timeshares similar to DVC.

 

[slappy magoo]

If they build a timeshare here it would most likely need to have larger rooms and nice amenities to compete with the other off property timeshares.

Maybe. But honestly, I think if DVC made a studio-only timeshare, room sizes comparable to the mods, that was themed in that Disney kinda style, with free transportation to the parks like every other WDW resort, and a buy in of only 6-7K, they'd get a lot of takers. I think with an average 50-70 points per week range, a lot of current DVC members would add on 25-35 points, and plan on banking or borrowing each home resort's points so every other year they have a simpler stay at Flamingo Crossing and then on the alternate years have a real mother of a blowout at a Deluxe resort. Or current DVC members will look to extend their vacations instead of banking any leftover points by staying extra nights at FC. Do something kinda unique (since you wouldn't want shoppers or looky-loos bothering members, maybe instead of a main pool each building has a quiet pool on the roof, and holy crap it's the only DVC with pools on the roof!). A restaurat above ground that, like Top of the World lounge, is only accessible to DVC members (also convenient to DVC members who are just at FC to shop), you know, to keep the riff raff away. And now DVC has a location for yet more kiosks where they can insist "it's never been affordable to get in on Disney's best kept secret!" Pimp the heck out of a demo room, people who just went to FC to get a smoothie suddenly become members.

 

[seascape]

Maybe. But honestly, I think if DVC made a studio-only timeshare, room sizes comparable to the mods, that was themed in that Disney kinda style, with free transportation to the parks like every other WDW resort, and a buy in of only 6-7K, they'd get a lot of takers. I think with an average 50-70 points per week range, a lot of current DVC members would add on 25-35 points, and plan on banking or borrowing each home resort's points so every other year they have a simpler stay at Flamingo Crossing and then on the alternate years have a real mother of a blowout at a Deluxe resort. Or current DVC members will look to extend their vacations instead of banking any leftover points by staying extra nights at FC. Do something kinda unique (since you wouldn't want shoppers or looky-loos bothering members, maybe instead of a main pool each building has a quiet pool on the roof, and holy crap it's the only DVC with pools on the roof!). A restaurat above ground that, like Top of the World lounge, is only accessible to DVC members (also convenient to DVC members who are just at FC to shop), you know, to keep the riff raff away. And now DVC has a location for yet more kiosks where they can insist "it's never been affordable to get in on Disney's best kept secret!" Pimp the heck out of a demo room, people who just went to FC to get a smoothie suddenly become members.

I agree. I already have DVC points and am very happy but I would probably buy some DVC points here if they were reasonably priced. I would also probably buy directly from Disney if the price were right. The 3 contracts I have were all purchsed on the resale market.

 

[slappy magoo]

I agree. I already have DVC points and am very happy but I would probably buy some DVC points here if they were reasonably priced. I would also probably buy directly from Disney if the price were right. The 3 contracts I have were all purchsed on the resale market.

I'm figuring the cost of the points would be in line with current costs of points, since they could still be used in the other DVC resorts - if you bought 30 points at this value timeshare, conceivably you could still bank and borrow and then use the 90 points every three years at another resort. Or use them to balance out another reservation. But the AMOUNT of points you'd need to stay there, and the minimum buy-in they'd require for new members or add-ons, wouldn't be as high.