Four Seasons Land Deal

[SeanC]

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The Walt Disney Co. said on Monday it has sold 298 acres of land to Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts for a hotel and golf course to anchor a previously announced luxury development in Florida.
Disney did not disclose the terms of the deal but said the facility would enable the company to tap into
the luxury travel market. The deal was the first for the two companies.
The plans call for a 445-room Four Seasons hotel, an 18-club championship golf course, and Residence Club time shares, as well as custom single and multi-family vacation homes.
The expansion will be located on the northeast border of Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando, Florida. (Reporting by Gina Keating)

we knew it, but now its official

 

[DisneyRoxMySox]

I remmber this announcement a few months back. But does this mean, there's going to be even more!?

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

I remmber this announcement a few months back. But does this mean, there's going to be even more!?

This is related to that same announcement. Back in 2007 when Disney announced that a Four Seasons would be built by the Eagle Pines golf course, we didn't know much about the plans besides a few minor details and a cool piece of concept art. Now, we know about the land deal that went through.

But 298 acres?! Isn't that about the same size as Epcot (300 acres)? That seems like a lot of land to me.

 

[SidneyLawter]

This is related to that same announcement. Back in 2007 when Disney announced that a Four Seasons would be built by the Eagle Pines golf course, we didn't know much about the plans besides a few minor details and a cool piece of concept art. Now, we know about the land deal that went through.

But 298 acres?! Isn't that about the same size as Epcot (300 acres)? That seems like a lot of land to me.

Of course WDW is in the 27,000 acre range so 300 acres is not all that much.

 

[Donfan]

And, they're going to put an 18-hole golf course on that land, too.

 

[marni1971]

Are we sure this is the same project already mentioned, and not in addition to?

to anchor a previously announced luxury development in Florida

- as already announced the original development is a 900 acre one. The latest press release states 298 acres.

 

[speck76]

And, they're going to put an 18-hole golf course on that land, too.

It is the Bonnet Creek golf club - one course will be renovated, the other course will be removed for the houses.

 

[hokielutz]

Of course WDW is in the 27,000 acre range so 300 acres is not all that much.

Yes.... but Disney has sold or ceded land off a number of different times in the last 10 years from their holdings. If they keep this up, you are going to see a ring of hotels surrounding the property, while in the parks. #00 here, 250 there, 500 more later.... it adds up over time.

What happened to the darn buffer zone? Does anyone really want to see the 4 seasons peeking over the trees while teeing off on Eagle Pines? Or does someone in the Wilderness lodge want to see a non-Disney view of an outsider 5-star resort?

I know it sounds like I am being selfish, but Walt saw the opportunity to build for the future, and bought enough land with the initial purchase to handle future plans. But if you keep chipping away at the outer boundaries, you are not going to have much left to put in another golf course, or resort, or 6th gate, or new night-life entertainment featuring the re-born Adventurers Club, etc...

Yes, additional land can be a tax burden, but I'd rather hold onto that real estate than save a few bucks on Property taxes.

 

[jt04]

Yes.... but Disney has sold or ceded land off a number of different times in the last 10 years from their holdings. If they keep this up, you are going to see a ring of hotels surrounding the property, while in the parks. #00 here, 250 there, 500 more later.... it adds up over time.

What happened to the darn buffer zone? Does anyone really want to see the 4 seasons peeking over the trees while teeing off on Eagle Pines? Or does someone in the Wilderness lodge want to see a non-Disney view of an outsider 5-star resort?

I know it sounds like I am being selfish, but Walt saw the opportunity to build for the future, and bought enough land with the initial purchase to handle future plans. But if you keep chipping away at the outer boundaries, you are not going to have much left to put in another golf course, or resort, or 6th gate, or new night-life entertainment featuring the re-born Adventurers Club, etc...

Yes, additional land can be a tax burden, but I'd rather hold onto that real estate than save a few bucks on Property taxes.

I agree 100%! I don't mind Disney contracting with 5 star resorts but I hate it when they sell the land too for the very reasons you mention. It is a negative trend in the long run if you ask me. I am so glad I have memories of the resort when it was so isolated. That really was one of it's greatest assets but that is ebbing away now.

 

[hokielutz]

I agree 100%! I don't mind Disney contracting with 5 star resorts but I hate it when they sell the land too for the very reasons you mention. It is a negative trend in the long run if you ask me. I am so glad I have memories of the resort when it was so isolated. That really was one of it's greatest assets but that is ebbing away now.

Since I am not intimate with the details of the deal Disney inked with Four Seasons, I would like to know how this deal would benefit the guests that visit WDW? Will Disney use an unspecified amount of cash it received from this sale for the building of a major project?

Or is this move just to benefit the shareholders (myself included in this pool) by dumping some taxable assets that are not planning to be directly utilized by WDW, thus improving the bottom line for the company and positively impacting the price per share by less than one cent?


One recent move that still really irks me is the Bonnet Creek resort, and the development of that property to accomodate high-rise Hilton and Waldorf-Astoria hotels that can/will be seen from the neighboring Carribean Beach and Pop-Century resorts.
On the bright side... if you are staying at Pop-Century, next year if you are hard-up for some golf balls... just cross the access road, go into the woods buffer, and you may find a treasure trove of errantly hit Pro-V1 balls from the neighboring golf course.

 

[marni1971]

One recent move that still really irks me is the Bonnet Creek resort, and the development of that property to accomodate high-rise Hilton and Waldorf-Astoria hotels that can/will be seen from the neighboring Carribean Beach and Pop-Century resorts.

You can`t compare Bonnet Creek to the Four Seasons deal. With the former, legally they had no choice. With the latter is was entirely their choice.

 

[Master Yoda]

Since I am not intimate with the details of the deal Disney inked with Four Seasons, I would like to know how this deal would benefit the guests that visit WDW? Will Disney use an unspecified amount of cash it received from this sale for the building of a major project?

Or is this move just to benefit the shareholders (myself included in this pool) by dumping some taxable assets that are not planning to be directly utilized by WDW, thus improving the bottom line for the company and positively impacting the price per share by less than one cent?


One recent move that still really irks me is the Bonnet Creek resort, and the development of that property to accomodate high-rise Hilton and Waldorf-Astoria hotels that can/will be seen from the neighboring Carribean Beach and Pop-Century resorts.
On the bright side... if you are staying at Pop-Century, next year if you are hard-up for some golf balls... just cross the access road, go into the woods buffer, and you may find a treasure trove of errantly hit Pro-V1 balls from the neighboring golf course.

Disney did not have choice one with Bonnet creek as they never owned the property. In fact Disney fought the project for years by denying them right of way access.

 

[captainkidd]

I agree 100%! I don't mind Disney contracting with 5 star resorts but I hate it when they sell the land too for the very reasons you mention. It is a negative trend in the long run if you ask me. I am so glad I have memories of the resort when it was so isolated. That really was one of it's greatest assets but that is ebbing away now.

I'm with you guys. As I always say, none of us knew Walt personally, but unless absolutely everything ever published about him was a lie, this is the exact opposite of what he wanted. He didn't buy all this land so that it could be sold off for a profit. Shame on the company.

 

[valorus]

I'm with you guys. As I always say, none of us knew Walt personally, but unless absolutely everything ever published about him was a lie, this is the exact opposite of what he wanted. He didn't buy all this land so that it could be sold off for a profit. Shame on the company.

Excuse me. Epcot as envisioned by Walt was a city. It was a development - the very definition of selling land off for a profit. What Walt wanted was enough land to do want he wanted, and it happened to be development. The Magic Kingdom was the funding mechanism not the goal.

 

[LaughingGravy]

Lex Luthor

From the first Superman movie with Christopher Reeve:
"Son, stocks may rise and fall, utilities and transportation systems may collapse. People are no damn good, but they will always need land and they will pay through the nose to get it!"

Granted, I don't know all the details of the transaction, but...
I see this as another example of shortsightedness in order to boost quarterly shareholder profit.
Once that land is sold and developed to capacity, it can only take away from the guest experience, and ultimately the real value of WDW having that much land to begin with.
And, they'll never get it back.

This is much different than choosing to run buses compared to building more monorail due to cost. That could be changed. Maybe a better system will be developed. But once that land is gone, it's gone.

It would be one thing if shareholders were actually long term holders with a vested interest in the company's long term goals and profit, but a lot are likely people with short term profits in mind. If Disney doesn't look good, sell and buy Microsoft or Google, or Exxon.

By all accounts, that land was purchased by Walt for long term, much longer than now.
There's the camp of "that's not the way Walt would have done it" to be sure, and that can be argued about many attractions, infrastructure, hotels, the original concept of Epcot, etc. and there are always other ways of doing things.

But this is just so fundamentally different and obviously wrong, it's almost painful.

 

[MMFanCipher]

When they say Northeast of the property, they don't mean the NE side of Bay Lake do they? :shrug: That would really inhale deeply! :fork:

 

[Fun2BFree]

Check back in twenty years and who knows how different the landscape of WDW will be.

 

[captainkidd]

Excuse me. Epcot as envisioned by Walt was a city. It was a development - the very definition of selling land off for a profit. What Walt wanted was enough land to do want he wanted, and it happened to be development. The Magic Kingdom was the funding mechanism not the goal.

Yes - Developement by the Walt Disney Co. Not by the Four Seasons.

 

[aero029]

I agree 100%! I don't mind Disney contracting with 5 star resorts but I hate it when they sell the land too for the very reasons you mention. It is a negative trend in the long run if you ask me. I am so glad I have memories of the resort when it was so isolated. That really was one of it's greatest assets but that is ebbing away now.

I agree. Even during my recent visit, it seems like WDW is a way different place than when I used to go there in the 1990's. I think that the development of these other companies' properties will take away from the immersive feel of the theming of each area in WDW. It is one of the reason why I loathe the WDW Swan and Dolphin Resorts.

I am sad that my daughter will not get to experience the "coziness" and immersion that I got to experience... I guess times are changing. It feels like less of a special place then before...

 

[hokielutz]

I agree. Even during my recent visit, it seems like WDW is a way different place than when I used to go there in the 1990's. I think that the development of these other companies' properties will take away from the immersive feel of the theming of each area in WDW. It is one of the reason why I loathe the WDW Swan and Dolphin Resorts.

I am sad that my daughter will not get to experience the "coziness" and immersion that I got to experience... I guess times are changing. It feels like less of a special place then before...

I don't think Disney has lost the coziness and full immersion experience... but I really don't want them to continue down that degrading path any further.

Like someone said earlier... once it is sold and developed, barring disaster striking that outside company, there is little to no chance of getting it back.