GF DVC Site Plan?

[DVCOwner]

I generally stay way from the DVC threads; I don't really understand the whole process, and I'm never going to buy-in, so it doesn't affect me much. But what I don't understand is, why is Disney building these additions on existing resorts instead of a DVC-only brand new resort? I would think it would be a major selling point: "Hey, look at this incredible brand new themed resort that you can only stay at if you buy into our timeshare."

The reason Disney builds DVC at existing resorts is to take some of the cost of running a resort and pass that on to the DVC membership in the way of dues. Disney wins to way, sells more DVC and reduces cost of running a exisiting resort.

 

[DVCOwner]

i really wish disney would stop building dvc resorts.

it's incredibly disappointing to see wdw being overbuilt with resorts.

Everyone wants to see new rides added to the parks and maybe some years from now a 5th gate. How is Disney going to pay for all of this without adding additional resorts for people to stay at. DVC is the best bang for the buck when it comes to adding resorts to WDW. More resorts = more people staying on WDW = more ticket sales = more revenue.

 

[wannabeBelle]

Aerial overlay:

Great job, thank you so much!!!! Interesting!!! Marie

 

[Horizonsfan]

I agree with the view of the main GF being destroyed. Like others I don't have a coment one way or another on the pro-con of adding DVC to GF but the site couldn't be more poorly chosen.

While a small detail, the entry road to the Wedding Pavilion will be destroyed by this. As it is now, you have a grand approach to the pavilion down a tree-lined lane, now you'll be making a "grand" journey through the parking lot looking at concrete and license plates.

This seems dumb. They couldn't repurpose the existing PL? They couldn't use the land to the north at all? They couldn't just repurpose one of the existing hotel buildings? (I really don't like that option but, its bette than the current one)

Just seems like they didn't think about the site enough.

 

[menamechris]

I am sure I will be clobbered by DVC members and fans, but as an outsider, I can't help but find these DVC plans to be short-sighted. I walk by that patch of land every week - and it is SMALL. It may seem large on a map, but its not. I am sure Disney is doing their research and will do what is best for them financially (well, during the tentures of those currently reporting to shareholders anyways). But I can't help but think they will be leaving a mess for the next generation of management for the resort. I see a lot of empty resorts now. The fact is that I, as a non-DVC member, can have my pick of any resort (include DVC ones), so what is my incentive to become a DVC member? I have a feeling that oversaturating the resort options will further this mentality with a lot of people.

The way I see it - Disney does everything it can now to fill the resorts up as much as they can - and frankly, there is always availability at any given one. Resort and park attendance has nothing to do with there not being enough resorts, but rather - many people are not willing to pay the Disney premium to stay onsite when they can rent a room for $50 a night up the road.

Just some thoughts and opinions. :wave:

 

[Master Yoda]

I am sure I will be clobbered by DVC members and fans, but as an outsider, I can't help but find these DVC plans to be short-sighted. I walk by that patch of land every week - and it is SMALL. It may seem large on a map, but its not. I am sure Disney is doing their research and will do what is best for them financially (well, during the tentures of those currently reporting to shareholders anyways). But I can't help but think they will be leaving a mess for the next generation of management for the resort. I see a lot of empty resorts now. The fact is that I, as a non-DVC member, can have my pick of any resort (include DVC ones), so what is my incentive to become a DVC member? I have a feeling that oversaturating the resort options will further this mentality with a lot of people.

The way I see it - Disney does everything it can now to fill the resorts up as much as they can - and frankly, there is always availability at any given one. Resort and park attendance has nothing to do with there not being enough resorts, but rather - many people are not willing to pay the Disney premium to stay onsite when they can rent a room for $50 a night up the road.

Just some thoughts and opinions. :wave:

Not even remotely close to correct. There are many times of the year where every value and moderate resort are booked solid save for maybe the $600 a night suits as CS. It is not uncommon to find zero availability at the deluxe resorts as well. About the only resorts that have a consistent, always available status are OKW and SSR and even that is far from guaranteed. Disney is not completing Pop century because they feel like it. They are completing it because there is an unmet demand for the rooms.

 

[wannabeBelle]

I have to agree with Yoda. On top of his statement, last year I traveled with a DVC owner in December and there was no availability at ANY DVC resort at all for the time frame she wanted to travel, which was in the beginning of December. She ultimately transferred her points to stay at a regular resort (Caribbean Beach to be exact) but as we all know that is certainly not inexpensive point wise for the stay. The bottom line is, regardless of if we agree with it or not, DVC is profitable for Disney and until it stops being so, plan to see more development of that product. I am not a DVC member, nor would I buy into it as it doesnt work for the way I travel or my usual traveling party makeup, but there are many people for who this does work and work well. So hence here we are. Marie

 

[menamechris]

Not even remotely close to correct.

I must just be getting lucky when I search then. Obviously during peak seasons you may have some trouble getting "the" resort you want. This last year though, I got a room at Animal Kingdom during the week of New Years Eve, and booked it the week before. The thing is - if you tried to use any sort of discount, it would say sold out - but when I searched (and was willing to pay rack rate) I had my choice of rooms...

 

[Pioneer Hall]

I am sure I will be clobbered by DVC members and fans, but as an outsider, I can't help but find these DVC plans to be short-sighted. I walk by that patch of land every week - and it is SMALL. It may seem large on a map, but its not. I am sure Disney is doing their research and will do what is best for them financially (well, during the tentures of those currently reporting to shareholders anyways). But I can't help but think they will be leaving a mess for the next generation of management for the resort. I see a lot of empty resorts now. The fact is that I, as a non-DVC member, can have my pick of any resort (include DVC ones), so what is my incentive to become a DVC member? I have a feeling that oversaturating the resort options will further this mentality with a lot of people.

The way I see it - Disney does everything it can now to fill the resorts up as much as they can - and frankly, there is always availability at any given one. Resort and park attendance has nothing to do with there not being enough resorts, but rather - many people are not willing to pay the Disney premium to stay onsite when they can rent a room for $50 a night up the road.

Just some thoughts and opinions. :wave:

The advantage to DVC is long term cost savings. Just because you can stay at a DVC resort on cash doesn't mean you are going to save money by doing so. On my last trip when I spent a week at a studio at Kidani Village I saved over 1,000 dollars by using my points. I also factored in the best available discount at the time to determine the savings. Granted, these savings are realized if I keep my contract over it's entire life (which for now I see no reason why I wouldn't).

DVC is a proven system for Disney. If it wasn't, then there wouldn't be such aggresive expansion with the resorts. Imagine what Disney is about to do with these plans...they are going to build a new (and likely small) wing to a resort that already has existing infrastructure in place. They are going to sell the points for many many times more than that the construction cost. Then for as long as those points exist, they are going to have members paying the cost of everything associated with it. Disney can now take the initial capital they made from the project and (hopefully) use it for expansion in other areas. At the same time, you are now basically guaranteeing that these people will be visiting the resort for the next 50 years, and paying for all the upkeep and operating costs that their resort requires. At the same time these people are going to pay for food, entertainment, souveniers, etc.

I might be perceived as biased since I am a member of DVC. However, if I look at this from a strictly business standpoint I cannot in any way argue what Disney is doing with the program. These villas are going to be in extrememly high demand due to their location and size and I am sure they will sellout with ease (as long as they don't try to charge you about 30 points a night for a studio in value season overlooking a parking lot). I also don't see a big problem with it's location. Sure the beach area is nice as a big empty space now...definitely a very peaceful environment. However, I don't think that the addition of a new building is going to destroy the atmosphere. The building will fit in with the rest of the resort, and probably look like it has been there since 1989.

 

[Master Yoda]

I must just be getting lucky when I search then. Obviously during peak seasons you may have some trouble getting "the" resort you want. This last year though, I got a room at Animal Kingdom during the week of New Years Eve, and booked it the week before. The thing is - if you tried to use any sort of discount, it would say sold out - but when I searched (and was willing to pay rack rate) I had my choice of rooms...

As you might expect I search for room far more frequently than the average person and I am often shocked at how frequently rooms are hard to come by. Early December of 2010 was one such time. The values were pretty much gone by October, the moderates at rack rate held out until about mid November and DVC availability had been next to non existent for quite some time. Sure you would occasionally get lucky and time your search with a cancellation but they never lasted long. Disney is far form being at 100% resort occupancy 356 days a year but at times it seems like the DVC side of things is getting pretty close to it.

 

[menamechris]

As you might expect I search for room far more frequently than the average person and I am often shocked at how frequently rooms are hard to come by. Early December of 2010 was one such time. The values were pretty much gone by October, the moderates at rack rate held out until about mid November and DVC availability had been next to non existent for quite some time. Sure you would occasionally get lucky and time your search with a cancellation but they never lasted long. Disney is far form being at 100% resort occupancy 356 days a year but at times it seems like the DVC side of things is getting pretty close to it.

Well, I have to concede to your points, because (obviously not being a DVC member), I don't search specifically for those - and I am pretty flexible when it comes to a resort to stay at. I hope I am not being misunderstood - I want Disney to do everything possible to expand and become better. I am not a DVC hater in the least - if it brings in significant revenue for the company (which it does), that is great - as long as it enhances the resort. I just hope someone is looking out for the long-term. No matter what happens with the DVC, these buildings will need to be properly kept up, managed and filled 100 years from now. With that said, I really DO hope they are... :wave:

 

[eilie]

Roughly 35,000sf footprint.

EDIT: Just did a quick area calculation on BLT. The 4th floor came out to right at 40,000sf.

I stand corrected - thanks very much for the calculations!

I wonder what the final room count will be for this new DVC. At 15 stories, BLT has 295 two-bedroom villas. The GF has 867 rooms in 6 buildings, for an average of ~145 rooms per each 4- or 5-story building.

If the new building is 6 stories (which makes sense) with a slightly smaller footprint than BLT, it will have roughy 1/3 the total square footage of BLT. So the new building likely will have less than 100 new villas - my best guess is that it will hold about 90 two-bedroom villas. Of course, many of these can be split into studio and one-bedroom units for occupancy purposes, but it still seems like a small number of units. I imagine the GF DVC will sell out fairly quickly, despite what is sure to be a high cost. It will also likely be difficult to get into.

 

[eilie]

For comparison purposes, here are the total units for other DVC resorts:

Resort: Total # of units / Max. Available Rooms
Old Key West: 531 / 761
Boardwalk Villas: 383 / 532
Wilderness Lodge Villas: 136 / 181
Beach Club Villas: 208 / 282
Saratoga Springs: 828 / 1260
Animal Kingdom Villas: 458 / 708
Bay Lake Tower: 295 / 428

 

[Pioneer Hall]

I stand corrected - thanks very much for the calculations!

I wonder what the final room count will be for this new DVC. At 15 stories, BLT has 295 two-bedroom villas. The GF has 867 rooms in 6 buildings, for an average of ~145 rooms per each 4- or 5-story building.

If the new building is 6 stories (which makes sense) with a slightly smaller footprint than BLT, it will have roughy 1/3 the total square footage of BLT. So the new building likely will have less than 100 new villas - my best guess is that it will hold about 90 two-bedroom villas. Of course, many of these can be split into studio and one-bedroom units for occupancy purposes, but it still seems like a small number of units. I imagine the GF DVC will sell out fairly quickly, despite what is sure to be a high cost. It will also likely be difficult to get into.

I think you are going to see a very small addition here...something along the lines of Wilderness Lodge or Beach Club if not even smaller.

 

[Tom]

As you might expect I search for room far more frequently than the average person and I am often shocked at how frequently rooms are hard to come by. Early December of 2010 was one such time. The values were pretty much gone by October, the moderates at rack rate held out until about mid November and DVC availability had been next to non existent for quite some time. Sure you would occasionally get lucky and time your search with a cancellation but they never lasted long. Disney is far form being at 100% resort occupancy 356 days a year but at times it seems like the DVC side of things is getting pretty close to it.

I will concur with everything you've just said. Of course, there are only a handful of DVC rooms held for cash bookings (required by law), so of course those go fast - but as a DVC member, I can attest that it's hard to get a DVC reservation for many times of the year (including off season) if you wait too much beyond your 7-month booking window.

I think the trend in construction of the types of resorts is very telling. When was the last time they built a new V/M/D resort? It was Pop, wasn't it? And now Animation, but only because of the extremely high demand for the family suites....so they're only building it to meet a specific need, not because they have run out of rooms.

But on the flip side, they continuously build new DVC Resorts...because they're cash cows and are continually booked. There is a significant demand for DVC accommodations, and they're meeting that need.

Well, I have to concede to your points, because (obviously not being a DVC member), I don't search specifically for those - and I am pretty flexible when it comes to a resort to stay at. I hope I am not being misunderstood - I want Disney to do everything possible to expand and become better. I am not a DVC hater in the least - if it brings in significant revenue for the company (which it does), that is great - as long as it enhances the resort. I just hope someone is looking out for the long-term. No matter what happens with the DVC, these buildings will need to be properly kept up, managed and filled 100 years from now. With that said, I really DO hope they are... :wave:

Other than BLT (which is arguably the wrong look for where it sits), I haven't seen another DVC Resort that wasn't perfectly themed for its setting/environment/location. And they use our dues wisely to maintain the buildings and grounds.

I'm one of the apparently few people who think the SSL shoreline needs a bit MORE to look at. It's a huge body of water, and the buildings provide eye candy. I'd much rather look at another pristine white victorian manor than a parking lot, pine trees and a cell tower (which is what you see in that area right now).

And to clarify, it appears as if they're pushing the beach out with the new building and shoreline, so there will still be beach.

 

[eilie]

I think you are going to see a very small addition here...something along the lines of Wilderness Lodge or Beach Club if not even smaller.

Agreed. This will be their smallest DVC addition yet (at least at WDW, as DL's Grand Californian only has some 48 units).

 

[Pioneer Hall]

Agreed. This will be their smallest DVC addition yet (at least at WDW, as DL's Grand Californian only has some 48 units).

Right, but I don't think it will be that small. I think Disney regrets creating such few units there now. They definitely have the demand to have added more to that resort. However, I think that it was really just a test for DL and within the next 7 years or so when they can tell if DCA can stand on it's own feet, you will see a larger and more DVC oriented resort.

 

[Tom]

Right, but I don't think it will be that small. I think Disney regrets creating such few units there now. They definitely have the demand to have added more to that resort. However, I think that it was really just a test for DL and within the next 7 years or so when they can tell if DCA can stand on it's own feet, you will see a larger and more DVC oriented resort.

Based on what little is shown on the site plans, the rooms will face out on both sides of each wing - unlike most of BLT which has a hallway on the inside and rooms only on the outside.

Granted, square footage is square footage - and you can still only fit X number of rooms in a given space. Eilie's numbers make sense.

I have plans showing the layout of typical DVC rooms at home and can scale a 3-room module and compare it to the length/width of the new GF wings.

 

[dreamfinder]

I generally stay way from the DVC threads; I don't really understand the whole process, and I'm never going to buy-in, so it doesn't affect me much. But what I don't understand is, why is Disney building these additions on existing resorts instead of a DVC-only brand new resort? I would think it would be a major selling point: "Hey, look at this incredible brand new themed resort that you can only stay at if you buy into our timeshare."

Because those don't sell. Or attract guests. Look at OKW and SSR. Both are usually partially booked, and also routinely serve as bump hotels for values/moderates. And even HHI/VB don't have much demand at this point. Many people buy those points as they are cheaper on resale, and hope to be able to stay at a deluxe.

Unless it has some killer hook, no one will want to stay there/buy points. People are buying DVC because of the perceived value. The same way that people buy the dining plan. If you tell someone you can buy the dining plan to save money, but need to eat at a new restaurant over there, when they really want to eat at CRT or Le Cellier, no one would buy it. If you can use points you got for cheap to stay at at deluxe on the monorail line, you can save a bundle.

 

[Tom]

Because those don't sell. Or attract guests. Look at OKW and SSR. Both are usually partially booked, and also routinely serve as bump hotels for values/moderates. And even HHI/VB don't have much demand at this point. Many people buy those points as they are cheaper on resale, and hope to be able to stay at a deluxe.

Unless it has some killer hook, no one will want to stay there/buy points. People are buying DVC because of the perceived value. The same way that people buy the dining plan. If you tell someone you can buy the dining plan to save money, but need to eat at a new restaurant over there, when they really want to eat at CRT or Le Cellier, no one would buy it. If you can use points you got for cheap to stay at at deluxe on the monorail line, you can save a bundle.

Good explanation.