Is This Rumor Credible (This Time)?

[jt04]

What bothers me most about this thread (not that anyone asked, not that I care that no one asked) is that it is all about DVCing WDW ...

WDW was a better place and a more upscale one 20 years ago. Is DVC the cause of the decline? Of course not. Is it a factor? Absolutely.

The thought of where DVC units could be placed in/around EPCOT presupposes that it actually is a good idea ... as the park sits and rots year after year (beyond additional and lucrative food and beverage locations added).

I suppose everyone forgets that 20 years ago timeshare had a reputation akin to a Ponzi scheme today and was run out of boilerroom operations to hook rube tourists. Now, since Disney, Marriott, Hilton and the like have joined in, it has given the business a legitimacy it never had before.

But I don't know about you guys/gals, but I don't go to WDW to be impressed by the variety of timeshare options. Maybe there's something wrong with me!

Hmmm, about 20 years ago? What happened about 20 years ago? Hmmmmm *rubs chin* Hmmmmm. Oh yeah, sounds like you are refering to the B.M.E. era (before Michael Eisner). Now before anyone thinks I am bashing your hero I wan't to make it clear that I am not. I wish the WDC had gone in a different direction where WDW is concerned. More along the lines of where Eddie Sotto would have taken it. (bing ---I have an idea for him to discuss in his thread). ES experienced WDW when he was young and he too has an appreciation for what it was. And probably the only thing you and I agree on is how special the area was back then and the lost opportunity Disney had. But on the other hand I can understand why Eisner wanted to build out the way he did with all the new roads and parks and resorts and roads. Oh, did I mention all the new roads? :brick: That is the roots of where the so-called "walmarting" began to grow. Sorry if you are in denial about that.

Nooooooooooooooooo :lookaroun

(I know the quote is taken out of context, but it was too hard to resist.)

Heh! Love that. :lol:


Now excuse me please, I need to run to Eddie Sotto's thread. :wave:

 

[MichWolv]

I'm more concerned with the perspective... if you build something to overlook into the park.. it's gotta be up over the existing structures or inbetween them. How do you build full size inhabited structures right next to structures relying on forced perspective?

Not that I am suggesting this should be done in any way, but you can indeed play with window sizes, etc. Look at the Treasure Island hotel in Vegas. It is mocked up on the outside to appear to have about half as many floors and half as many rooms per floor as it actually has, through the way the windows are grouped, and throught he way the trim is applied. And of course, there are offices above Main Street and a suite in Cinderella's Castle despite the use of forced perspective there.

So it can be done. That doesn't mean it's easy, and it certainly doesn't mean it should be done, for goodness sake.

 

[flynnibus]

Not that I am suggesting this should be done in any way, but you can indeed play with window sizes, etc. Look at the Treasure Island hotel in Vegas. It is mocked up on the outside to appear to have about half as many floors and half as many rooms per floor as it actually has, through the way the windows are grouped, and throught he way the trim is applied. And of course, there are offices above Main Street and a suite in Cinderella's Castle despite the use of forced perspective there.

So it can be done. That doesn't mean it's easy, and it certainly doesn't mean it should be done, for goodness sake.

Yes, but ultimately the indoor space dictates how big the overall building is.. and that building size (mass) is what I was more concerned about. You can't hide the mass... when it needs to sit next to something much smaller. The problem is... what is big, you want small, and what is small you want to look big.

 

[Tim_4]

You are way over simplifying this. Much of the land is not developable. Much of the land has already been sold off. Much of the land has already been developed. Much of the land needs to stay as is to be a buffer between resorts, parks, facilities.

I am sure someone (definitely Martin) has a map showing what has been used, what can't be used, ect...

It's not specific land that can't be used. It's a specific AMOUNT of land that can't be used.

Roughly one third of the land is developed.
Roughly one third is reserved to stay in its natural state.

That leaves one third open to future expansion.

 

[Mike730]

It's not specific land that can't be used. It's a specific AMOUNT of land that can't be used.

Roughly one third of the land is developed.
Roughly one third is reserved to stay in its natural state.

That leaves one third open to future expansion.

Ehhhh not so much.

You are way over simplifying this.

I am sure someone (definitely Martin) has a map showing what has been used, what can't be used, ect...

Go to page 6B-22
taken straight from the document- "Development is not permitted in Class I wetlands. Class II wetlands may be used for passive recreation (i.e., trails) and, in special circumstances, for access and utility corridors. The loss of wetland acreage is strongly discouraged and must be mitigated according to the policies set forth in the Future Land Use Element and Land Development Regulations. "
All that green you see is not developable.

EDIT: For all the lazy people heres the image....
Green can not be developed
Yellow may be used for passive recreation (i.e., trails) and, in special circumstances, for access and utility corridors
So, if you see color, there most likely won't be any development happening there.

 

[Pentacat]

The loss of wetland acreage is strongly discouraged and must be mitigated according to the policies set forth in the Future Land Use Element and Land Development Regulations. "

That sounds like local government speak for "you need to add another zero to that check."

 

[Gregoryp73]

I suppose everyone forgets that 20 years ago timeshare had a reputation akin to a Ponzi scheme today and was run out of boilerroom operations to hook rube tourists. Now, since Disney, Marriott, Hilton and the like have joined in, it has given the business a legitimacy it never had before.

But I don't know about you guys/gals, but I don't go to WDW to be impressed by the variety of timeshare options. Maybe there's something wrong with me!

Nothing wrong there at all...I don't think that anyone would go to disney for the timeshare options...

I think that disney saw a huge market in companies trying to capitalize off the disney experience through timeshare. Not only that, but by bringing the guests in property, they can control the quality and keep people from having a bad disney experience because of a shoddy timeshare.

I know alot of people are down on the whole timeshare experience (rightfully so in most cases), which I believe has to do with the shady sales tactics of the past...Disney has never come off anything but professional to us when dealing with DVC.

but really, if you travel alot...this whole process equates to buying a share of an apartment on disney property (or elsewhere) on an occasional basis. I can't really afford one of those 3 million dollar homes on property that they are building...and really we go to on nice trips every 2-3 years (including cruises)...so why not get a deluxe spacious room for what equates to the price of one of the lower grade rooms?

 

[MichWolv]

Yes, but ultimately the indoor space dictates how big the overall building is.. and that building size (mass) is what I was more concerned about. You can't hide the mass... when it needs to sit next to something much smaller. The problem is... what is big, you want small, and what is small you want to look big.

Agreed. It'd be hard, but it could be done if they want to. Let's hope that it's hard enough that they don't want to.

 

[Gregoryp73]

Agreed. It'd be hard, but it could be done if they want to. Let's hope that it's hard enough that they don't want to.

It may be able to work in some cases, but not in others....It would look silly to see a builing behind france with the forced perspective tower...

I would much rather see a highrise modeled after walt's vision of EPCOT in or by the current bus parking lot. It would have access to the buses, monorail, and have walking paths right to EPCOT.

 

[Donfan]

Of course, the closest hotel to EPCOT right now is a DVC property, the Beach Club Villas, and no one complains about their being visible from the park. DVC has done a pretty good job of maintaining theming and sight lines with their properties.

 

[38053WDW]

Exactly ! First thing I thought of reading this that they need to build more parks ! You throwing more and more people on site so who wants to go when it takes the whole day to ride 4 rides ?

 

[828tnt]

any other pics/ renderings out there for any of the upcomming dvc projects, besides the earlier linked map?

 

[LuvtheGoof]

The size of the Hotel Frontenac (Canada) is only as wide as Le Cellier restaurant if you've ever been in there. It's VERY small. And this building is already being used for Illuminations lasers and air handling rooms for the restaurant below.

Good point. Guess it just looks bigger due to the forced perspective.

The area beside Germany that everyone always seems to think is a waste of space is a buffer zone for the fireworks/propane storage area on the marina and is required by law for safety reasons. No guests can occupy that area as long as explosives are stored in the area. I've explained this many times in threads and still no one will believe me.

Oops! I believe you, and have read those threads, and simply forgot about that.

As far as DVCs going into other places in WS, it has been looked at in many aspects.

I actually hope they DON'T add any DVC to the WS, but apparently, it isn't up to us.

 

[flavious27]

I know we read and discussed this a year or more ago, but at least 2 sites have reported permits being filed and work being done that might suggest a 'Fort Wilderness Area D.V.C.' is indeed in the works.

Not sure how credible this site/source is, but I'm sure some of you will let me know.

http://www..com/2012/04/02/walt-disney-world-fort-wilderness-dvc-files-to-start-construction-soon/

Also, any knowledge of permits 'danld 2000' or 'edwardtc'?

The pavilion listed would be just to the east of the trading post. It also is going to be small, it looks like a footprint of only 120 feet or so by 120 feet. That building is not going to be much larger than the trading post.

 

[Goofy6294]

In the case of TV, they have totally figured the whole thing out.
Make cheap and easy shows (like Dancing with the Stars) that appeal to a fairly broad demographic and advertisers will beat the door down. Then sit back and cash the checks.

I'm dreading the day when network execs figure out (some already have) that they can spend relatively little, like on some wretched "reality" show and reap huge profits from the ads. At that point, why would they bother making quality,expensive, long-form scripted shows anymore. Just let some nobodies compete for something and televise it with thirty minutes per hour of ads. Genius.

Hmmm...sounds familiar. Use a form of entertainment (theme park) to sell a revenue producing product (timeshares). Once the entertainment gets a solid long-term foothold, cut back on investment and continue to sell the revenue product until you run out. Then just build more.

cut back on investment = meet and greets