New DVC Resort

[Buried20KLeague]

Also at the combined resorts, some of the cost of common areas of that resort are paid by DVC members. If not for DVC the resort would have to cover all of this cost.

DVC resorts do not take away money from the parks, they make money every year for Disney. This is money that Disney could spend on adding things to the parks if they wish. The problem is not DVC or adding more DVC to WDW; it is management not wanting to spend the money on the parks at this time.

Yep. My guess is some of that profit is helping fund DCA, hong kong, and Shanghai. Ironic, considering where the revenue was generated.

 

[jt04]

They'd have to move the Poly's parking across the street to the Golf Course to fit another building. Or maybe ONE more small building between the west longhouses and the dinner show building.

I'm not on board with the TTC idea. The obvious location for a monorail resort is where the Mediterranean one was supposed to go, between TTC and Contemp. There's no reason to go to the immense trouble or expense of doing anything with the TTC. It's fine as it is, and the space it's sitting on isn't that valuable. It's way too close to the Poly for another resort, and the logistics of moving the monorail platform just make it absurd.

Disagree completely. Why would they need to move the platform? I think there is a reason the TTC continues to look so 1971-ish. It has only received cosmetic upgrades even when the Epcot station was added. The logistics of parking at the MK are expensive to operate (extremely high overhead) and contribute to a poor guest experience (lose-lose). Especially during extremely hot or rainy periods. It has become very poor show. On top of that the reasons for creating the journey from the parking lot to the MK no longer work with today's guests who want quicker and more convienent service. The current set-up does not work at all. I believe Disney has had an eye on the TTC area for a long time and I think we could see big changes sooner than anyone would guess. And I think I have figured out how they would reconfigure things. Or at the very least, how they should change everything. I will share my ideas soon in the Imagineering section.

 

[Buried20KLeague]

Disagree completely. Why would they need to move the platform? I think there is a reason the TTC continues to look so 1971-ish. It has only received cosmetic upgrades even when the Epcot station was added. The logistics of parking at the MK are expensive to operate (extremely high overhead) and contribute to a poor guest experience (lose-lose). Especially during extremely hot or rainy periods. It has become very poor show. On top of that the reasons for creating the journey from the parking lot to the MK no longer work with today's guests who want quicker and more convienent service. The current set-up does not work at all. I believe Disney has had an eye on the TTC area for a long time and I think we could see big changes sooner than anyone would guess. And I think I have figured out how they would reconfigure things. Or at the very least, how they should change everything. I will share my ideas soon in the Imagineering section.

Is it possible that it just doesn't "work" for YOU anymore??

Spend your next journey from parking to the front gate paying attention to those guests you can tell have never been to the MK before... Kids especially. That's what we do, and it helps that 30 minute journey from becoming annoying, which it had become for us. Now we just watch other peoples' reactions, and it makes that build up great again.

The build-up works exactly as intended for those people... The ones who don't go there often and don't take it for granted.

As for the TTC, becoming a resort... Ha. Think about how TWDC operates. Think about how they spend money. What makes more sense... Small add-on wings to other resorts, building on open land, or completely having to re-engineer traffic flow that has existed for 40 years so they can somehow involve the TTC in a new resort?

While maybe a cool idea... It would be full of unneccessary costs that they wouldn't incur just by changing location. And I'm sure there's no shortage of resort ideas floating around WDI.

 

[jt04]

Is it possible that it just doesn't "work" for YOU anymore??

Spend your next journey from parking to the front gate paying attention to those guests you can tell have never been to the MK before... Kids especially. That's what we do, and it helps that 30 minute journey from becoming annoying, which it had become for us. Now we just watch other peoples' reactions, and it makes that build up great again.

The build-up works exactly as intended for those people... The ones who don't go there often and don't take it for granted.

As for the TTC, becoming a resort... Ha. Think about how TWDC operates. Think about how they spend money. What makes more sense... Small add-on wings to other resorts, building on open land, or completely having to re-engineer traffic flow that has existed for 40 years so they can somehow involve the TTC in a new resort?

While maybe a cool idea... It would be full of unneccessary costs that they wouldn't incur just by changing location. And I'm sure there's no shortage of resort ideas floating around WDI.

I understand what you are saying. I really do. But consider that the percentage of guests traveling from the parking lot to the MK for the first time is small. And of course 'the effect' is lost on very young guests. Also consider that everything must be done in reverse on the way out when everyone is tired and I'm afraid it leaves a very poor lasting impression on many by the time they reach the car. I think it would be shocking if Disney surveyed guests to find out the exact number of people who are positively impacted by the journey each day. If that number is compared against the cost of the current system I think the cost/benefit ratio would be extremely poor.

As for using the TTC location, if there is one thing WDW has too few of and could sell many more of, it is rooms with an unobstructed view of the MK. That is a hint of where I am going with my idea. :animwink:

 

[Buried20KLeague]

I understand what you are saying. I really do. But consider that the percentage of guests traveling from the parking lot to the MK for the first time is small. And of course 'the effect' is lost on very young guests. Also consider that everything must be done in reverse on the way out when everyone is tired and I'm afraid it leaves a very poor lasting impression on many by the time they reach the car. I think it would be shocking if Disney surveyed guests to find out the exact number of people who are positively impacted by the journey each day. If that number is compared against the cost of the current system I think the cost/benefit ratio would be extremely poor.

As for using the TTC location, if there is one thing WDW has too few of and could sell many more of, it is rooms with an unobstructed view of the MK. That is a hint of where I am going with my idea. :animwink:

I might toss this out in Eddie's thread to see what he thinks. I argue that Disney is trying to cater to that first time guest... I'd also argue that the long trip back to the car has existed for 40 years. I don't see why it would be viewed differently now than then.

It seems to me, also, that the build up is actually MOST suited for those that are very small. We just took our littlest one down there in October, and she just turned two. she spent the whole ride on the monorail in amazement as she got closer and closer to the castle, talking and pointing at it. She loved the ferry as well, if for no other reason than she really hasn't been on many boats in open water.

 

[jt04]

I might toss this out in Eddie's thread to see what he thinks. I argue that Disney is trying to cater to that first time guest... I'd also argue that the long trip back to the car has existed for 40 years. I don't see why it would be viewed differently now than then.

It seems to me, also, that the build up is actually MOST suited for those that are very small. We just took our littlest one down there in October, and she just turned two. she spent the whole ride on the monorail in amazement as she got closer and closer to the castle, talking and pointing at it. She loved the ferry as well, if for no other reason than she really hasn't been on many boats in open water.

I think there is a way to provide that magical element while eliminating the negative aspects, especially poor weather factors and long lines. I'm talking very user friendly. Similar to how Universal gets guests to the parks (which is awesome) but even more magical.

 

[MysticOrient]

This piece of land is quite large, and was previously going to be the site of Disney's Venetian Resort and Disney's Mediterranean Resort. The former was canceled due to the oil crisis of the 70's, with the latter being shelved either due to a case of "negative skin friction", reportedly making it prohibitively expensive to build, or that the Med resort was part of a plan to add two five-star resorts to Walt Disney World - The Grand Floridian and the Mediterranean. When the Grand Floridian never reached five-star status, they decided to scrap the Mediterranean concept.

Personally, I'd much rather see a resort built between the TTC/Contemporary rather than Fort Wilderness, but that's just me.

I'm curious, what makes a hotel 5 versus 4 stars? And I always thought GF was a 5 star, but I guess that's not the case?

That lot that you refer to (between the TTC and Contemporary) is a bit desolate, but I don't know if I'd want to see another hotel plopped there. We were there last week and we saw a deer hanging around in that very spot. I'd hate to see more of the natural beauty pushed aside for just another place to stay... which would mean even MORE people in the parks and the need to schedule our dining even further out than 6 months!!

Woops... sorry... went off on a tangent there!!

Judy

 

[Biff215]

I don't have any insider sources, but I would be shocked if DVC came to Poly anytime in the near future. It's not that it wouldn't sell well, because I think most of us would agree that it would sell out in record time, especially considering how small it would have to be. The main reason I don't see it happening is the loyalty of return guests at the Poly. I don't think any other resort has the loyal following that they do. Disney has no reason to mess up a good thing when they already have cash-paying guests, very few open rooms, and very little land to build on.

Again, I have no numbers to back this up, but the GF may be in a different situation. Sure it has its loyal guests, but many people who once stayed there may not be able to afford to anymore. If they are having issues with occupancy, and the GF has to be an expensive resort to run, then it's an easy call to DVC to take over some rooms. It already happened (and might be working) at AKL, and in a different way at CR as well.

If DVC starts another project soon, it would have to be an indication that BLT and AKL are selling well. They will want to make sure there is still inventory in WDW to sell. Personally I believe sales are way down recently, so a smaller add-on like GF might make sense simply to offer something new and generate interest.

Just my two cents!

 

[MysticOrient]

1) Agreed but there are other things that could be done besides DVC.
2) I guess this is an opinion or preference but I don't think so. AKL was better before that second building. I think they could have done a lot better with that money. Now the bus service stinks, the check in at the second building stinks, the so called merchandise shop has nothing. You have to walk a mile in public to reach the pool. Keep Sanna and the Animals and get rid of the rooms. I just stayed in a DVC there and will not stay in that area again.

3) I really don't know what Disney does but its not uncommon to use profits from on business unit for another business unit. DVC as a startup had to get money from somewhere. If DVC needs money, where do they get it? I not sure DVC is self sufficient at this point. Maybe later, but they just built the DVC Hawaii.

I don't think we know DVC = expansion. What is Disney incentive to expand if they already have yearly income coming in from DVC members? I think the opposite, DVC has caused expansion to slow. What can a DVC member do to force Disney hand to expand? DVC members can sell as long as there is a market. Can DVC members with hold yearly payment?

I don't expect people to agree with me and I respect your opinions.

This is not a knock against DVC members, I think DVC has it's place just not at every resort.

2. I agree with this. We were there last week and found the check-in overcrowded, the shopping mostly worthless, and the pool (once we found it by NOT following their terrible directions) weirdly placed (across the street from the hotel???). However, I did like the resort itself; the room was spacious and loved the decor.

I also agree with your statement that DVC has its place -- just not at every resort. We're very happy DVC members, but, as you said, there doesn't have to be a DVC resort attached to every-single resort on WDW property.

 

[FigmentFreak]

Wait I think I have it. The whole Fantasy Land Refurb is really a cover up for......DVC Land.

 

[_Scar]

<3 DVC

The more options, the merrier imo.

I'd love one at GF! It'd be a whole lot less expensive to stay there then xD

 

[disneydata]

I'm curious, what makes a hotel 5 versus 4 stars? And I always thought GF was a 5 star, but I guess that's not the case?

5 diamonds has been attempted, but never achieved. Being a family resort kind of hinders the ability to reach 5. This site has some information about the award criteria and a list of locations.

 

[go3epcot]

Wait I think I have it. The whole Fantasy Land Refurb is really a cover up for......DVC Land.

I really wish that I didn't believe this to be possible...

 

[SeaCastle]

I'm curious, what makes a hotel 5 versus 4 stars? And I always thought GF was a 5 star, but I guess that's not the case?

That lot that you refer to (between the TTC and Contemporary) is a bit desolate, but I don't know if I'd want to see another hotel plopped there. We were there last week and we saw a deer hanging around in that very spot. I'd hate to see more of the natural beauty pushed aside for just another place to stay... which would mean even MORE people in the parks and the need to schedule our dining even further out than 6 months!!

Woops... sorry... went off on a tangent there!!

Judy

No matter where they build, they are going to have to push out wildlife, but plans to build in this area would leave the thick wetlands alone. Most of what you see on that plot is very recent growth, as the land has been cleared (and I mean really cleared) several times since WDW's construction. Being in an isolated area surrounded by development on all sides, you would be affecting less wildlife by building there than say, the STOLPort area, which would require ripping out acres and acres of growth.

Disagree completely. Why would they need to move the platform? I think there is a reason the TTC continues to look so 1971-ish. It has only received cosmetic upgrades even when the Epcot station was added. The logistics of parking at the MK are expensive to operate (extremely high overhead) and contribute to a poor guest experience (lose-lose). Especially during extremely hot or rainy periods. It has become very poor show. On top of that the reasons for creating the journey from the parking lot to the MK no longer work with today's guests who want quicker and more convienent service. The current set-up does not work at all. I believe Disney has had an eye on the TTC area for a long time and I think we could see big changes sooner than anyone would guess. And I think I have figured out how they would reconfigure things. Or at the very least, how they should change everything. I will share my ideas soon in the Imagineering section.

How is operating the parking lot prohibitively expensive? There's nothing "magic" about places where cars are parked, so it's bad show anyway. The whole entrance to the Magic Kingdom was designed so that you leave a mundane place and are slowly but surely engrossed in the show. If the Magic Kingdom parking situation was as bad as you are implying, how come they haven't done anything about it in the past 40 years?

Is it possible that it just doesn't "work" for YOU anymore??

Spend your next journey from parking to the front gate paying attention to those guests you can tell have never been to the MK before... Kids especially. That's what we do, and it helps that 30 minute journey from becoming annoying, which it had become for us. Now we just watch other peoples' reactions, and it makes that build up great again.

The build-up works exactly as intended for those people... The ones who don't go there often and don't take it for granted.

As for the TTC, becoming a resort... Ha. Think about how TWDC operates. Think about how they spend money. What makes more sense... Small add-on wings to other resorts, building on open land, or completely having to re-engineer traffic flow that has existed for 40 years so they can somehow involve the TTC in a new resort?

While maybe a cool idea... It would be full of unneccessary costs that they wouldn't incur just by changing location. And I'm sure there's no shortage of resort ideas floating around WDI.

This. Building north of the TTC? Relatively feasible. But demo'ing the entire TTC (how are people going to get to the parks?) and putting a hotel there seems a bit out there.

I understand what you are saying. I really do. But consider that the percentage of guests traveling from the parking lot to the MK for the first time is small. And of course 'the effect' is lost on very young guests. Also consider that everything must be done in reverse on the way out when everyone is tired and I'm afraid it leaves a very poor lasting impression on many by the time they reach the car. I think it would be shocking if Disney surveyed guests to find out the exact number of people who are positively impacted by the journey each day. If that number is compared against the cost of the current system I think the cost/benefit ratio would be extremely poor.

What is the percentage? Where are the numbers? This is dealing completely in hypotheticals. When I'm reading trip reports and hearing from friends that are visiting, I have not heard any complaints about how hellish the parking lot was, at any park. The Transportation and Ticket Center is meant to be exactly that - a Transportation and Ticket Center, not Main Street or anything else. It's meant to get guests in and out to and from their cars as quickly and as orderly as possible, and does so by using trams, monorails, and ferries. It's not supposed to be a "positive" or "negative" experience - it suits its purpose fine. Of course, it could be aesthetically pleasing, but if you're insinuating that people are leaving the parks angry at how bad the aesthetics of the TTC are, then I think you have a poor basis for an argument.

As for using the TTC location, if there is one thing WDW has too few of and could sell many more of, it is rooms with an unobstructed view of the MK. That is a hint of where I am going with my idea. :animwink:

Actually, the TTC has plenty of obstructed views. It is nestled in the extreme southeast of Seven Seas Lagoon, surrounded by the Polynesian to the west, and a dense wetlands area just to the north that blocks any views to the Magic Kingdom.

 

[flavious27]

Leemac over at LaughingPlace indicated that a proposal for a Grand Floridian DVC was being looked at, though I'm almost positive we'll see another one before that.



The only person claiming the source is valid is you and the original poster. We have no way of knowing if what he said was true or not.

The rumors floating around for a new DVC surround the River Country area, where what appeared to be buildings jutting out into the bay were included in a permit. According to other permits, there have been (and will be) modifications to the Fort Wilderness site, perhaps to accomodate a new timeshare resort. There are already survey flags in the waters of Bay Lake, and the project is reportedly greenlit.

For a resort to be built on the monorail, it would have to be built on the plot of land between the Transportation and Ticket Center and Contemporary. This piece of land is quite large, and was previously going to be the site of Disney's Venetian Resort and Disney's Mediterranean Resort. The former was canceled due to the oil crisis of the 70's, with the latter being shelved either due to a case of "negative skin friction", reportedly making it prohibitively expensive to build, or that the Med resort was part of a plan to add two five-star resorts to Walt Disney World - The Grand Floridian and the Mediterranean. When the Grand Floridian never reached five-star status, they decided to scrap the Mediterranean concept.

Personally, I'd much rather see a resort built between the TTC/Contemporary rather than Fort Wilderness, but that's just me.

Same here, the next resort should be in the lot between the ttc and cont. If this is going to be a dvc resort, why not a village setup with french or alpine theming? It would be setup in the same manner as poly: main building with monorail station, hotel rooms are in buildings scattered throughout the site.

 

[jt04]

No matter where they build, they are going to have to push out wildlife, but plans to build in this area would leave the thick wetlands alone. Most of what you see on that plot is very recent growth, as the land has been cleared (and I mean really cleared) several times since WDW's construction. Being in an isolated area surrounded by development on all sides, you would be affecting less wildlife by building there than say, the STOLPort area, which would require ripping out acres and acres of growth.



How is operating the parking lot prohibitively expensive? There's nothing "magic" about places where cars are parked, so it's bad show anyway. The whole entrance to the Magic Kingdom was designed so that you leave a mundane place and are slowly but surely engrossed in the show. If the Magic Kingdom parking situation was as bad as you are implying, how come they haven't done anything about it in the past 40 years?

Wow. Where to start? You say there is nothing magic about the parking lot and then explain it is part of the show. :brick: Personally, I think they came up with the "show" angle to match what they built. Because frankly it is a stretch. Remember WDW only had the MK for the first 10 years and they were forced to build a massive parking lot and they choose not to have it right next to the park as they decided to use that area for resorts. Which they have and will continue to do. It is expensive because they have to pay for CM's to guide cars in and out, tram maintenance costs, fuels costs (which keep rising) security costs and the added wear and tear on the monorail systems. They also have to man the TTC ticket booths when automation would be much cheaper.

Notice Universal engineered a way too avoid many of these pitfalls. It is a much cheaper system over time and much more user friendly. And it does not require a strained 'backstory'. Compare/contrast the expenses I have outlined to Universal's situation and you can easily answer your own questions.


This. Building north of the TTC? Relatively feasible. But demo'ing the entire TTC (how are people going to get to the parks?) and putting a hotel there seems a bit out there.



What is the percentage? Where are the numbers? This is dealing completely in hypotheticals. When I'm reading trip reports and hearing from friends that are visiting, I have not heard any complaints about how hellish the parking lot was, at any park. The Transportation and Ticket Center is meant to be exactly that - a Transportation and Ticket Center, not Main Street or anything else. It's meant to get guests in and out to and from their cars as quickly and as orderly as possible, and does so by using trams, monorails, and ferries. It's not supposed to be a "positive" or "negative" experience - it suits its purpose fine. Of course, it could be aesthetically pleasing, but if you're insinuating that people are leaving the parks angry at how bad the aesthetics of the TTC are, then I think you have a poor basis for an argument.

Any good business wants to provide the best experience it can for their customers. Disney has always prided itself on doing this. And if they can do so while saving money, so much the better. Perhaps they could even pass those savings on to guests. :lookaroun Watch people sometime once they are exiting the trams to return to their vehicles. It is not a magical sight. There is a reason Disney has not configured their other three parks in the same manner. They know the MK configuration has problems. Universal also learned from the mistake at the MK and came up with an expensive solution. But one that has certainly paid for itself many times over. Now before someone says Uni had to do what they did because they did not have enough land, well that is only part of the story. And they certainly did not have to create such a user friendly configuration as they did. And it works perfectly. And Disney could do something similar at the MK.


Actually, the TTC has plenty of obstructed views. It is nestled in the extreme southeast of Seven Seas Lagoon, surrounded by the Polynesian to the west, and a dense wetlands area just to the north that blocks any views to the Magic Kingdom.

The view from the Contemporary parking lot also has obstructed views of the MK but up in the tower, not as much. So, I think there could be a similar solution for the grounds of the TTC if they choose. Cha-ching. From bleeding money to making money. That makes the mouse house happy.

 

[Brian Noble]

I'm curious, what makes a hotel 5 versus 4 stars? And I always thought GF was a 5 star, but I guess that's not the case?

The top-of-the-line Disney resorts are more or less comparable to a nice Westin, Marriott, or Hilton, but not the flagships of those chains. And, that's not even the high end of the hotel industry---that's occupied by places like Four Seasons, Ritz Carlton, etc. Disney is no where near that level, even at the Grand.

There are a lot of potential explanations for this. One that you sometimes hear is that the sort of people who typically stay at (and pay the prices of) a top-shelf hotel are not the sort of people who come to downmarket tourist-trap Orlando, and so it is not worth it for Disney to reach for that market. Personally, I don't buy that; there are plenty of high-end places that do just fine in the area, including a brand new Waldorf=Astoria, an existing Ritz, and the under-construction Four Seasons that Disney just sold a bunch of land to. Instead, I think it's just that Disney doesn't really know how to offer that sort of experience, and they are content instead to offer superior location combined with good, but not great, service, amenities, and furnishings.

Edited to add: even their timeshares, viewed *strictly* as timeshares (as opposed to "part of Walt Disney World") pale in comparison to the better properties in Orlando---including the top-end properties developed by Marriott, Hilton, Starwood, and even Wyndham. Of course, they *are* "part of Walt Disney World", so in Disney's favor, the comparison is moot.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

The top-of-the-line Disney resorts are more or less comparable to a nice Westin, Marriott, or Hilton, but not the flagships of those chains. And, that's not even the high end of the hotel industry---that's occupied by places like Four Seasons, Ritz Carlton, etc. Disney is no where near that level, even at the Grand.

There are a lot of potential explanations for this. One that you sometimes hear is that the sort of people who typically stay at (and pay the prices of) a top-shelf hotel are not the sort of people who come to downmarket tourist-trap Orlando, and so it is not worth it for Disney to reach for that market. Personally, I don't buy that; there are plenty of high-end places that do just fine in the area, including a brand new Waldorf=Astoria, an existing Ritz, and the under-construction Four Seasons that Disney just sold a bunch of land to. Instead, I think it's just that Disney doesn't really know how to offer that sort of experience, and they are content instead to offer superior location combined with good, but not great, service, amenities, and furnishings.

I also think that part of it that Disney room prices are in an area that only Disney can charge. No one would spend the money it costs to stay at some of these Disney resorts if they weren't blatantly labeled Disney and offered the ammenities that only Disney can offer. However, there has to come a point where even that branding can only go so far and Disney would have a hard time marketing the resort.

The Waldorf Astoria, which is right in the middle of Disney property has a standard room during their upcoming January offseason for about 259 a night. A standard room at the Grand Floridian is 440 a night. I don't believe that Disney doesn't have the ability or resources to deliver a 5 star hotel, but I don't think people would stay there if value season prices cost them 700 a night, and that is the only way they could charge unless they slashed prices at their other resorts across the board.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Notice Universal engineered a way too avoid many of these pitfalls. It is a much cheaper system over time and much more user friendly. And it does not require a strained 'backstory'. Compare/contrast the expenses I have outlined to Universal's situation and you can easily answer your own questions.

A parkind deck has significantly higher construction and maintenance costs than a lot.

 

[wm49rs]

A parkind deck has significantly higher construction and maintenance costs than a lot.

Ditto for an underground garage. The parking lots at the parks may be an eyesore and "mundane," but as was pointed out leaving them and getting on the monorail, ferry or even a bus to the parks simply helps to enhance the experience when entering the gates, be it the first time or the 100th.