New DVC Resort

[marni1971]

The T&TC parking lot would never go below ground due to the water table, let alone expense, and a lot of the area is considered by RCID a flood plain during a `perfect storm` 100 year rainfall event. So it is doubtfull anything would be built there aside from parking. Not to say decked parking hasn`t been looked at for DHS, and as an aside for the MK.

 

[Hoop Raeb]

My guess for the OP would be GF but I like the idea of the TTC resort. The TTC doesn't have the same level of importance anymore since it's not a huge bus hub like it used to be. They could build a resort just like DLP's Disneyland Hotel where the hotel could hover over the TTC. Day guests could just walk under the hotel on the way to the monorail/boat.

 

[PhilharMagician]

There is not much room for expansion to the Poly the way it is layed out, but I can see a few locations that may work for adding a DVC building to the GF. I thought that BLT, AKL-KV and SSR still have points to sell. I does not seem like a good idea to start another resort so fast. We have already seen FW modification permits and prelim plans that have been submited for enviromental permits on the RC/FW area DVC. This should be coming into the spotlight within the next 6 months or so.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

There is not much room for expansion to the Poly the way it is layed out, but I can see a few locations that may work for adding a DVC building to the GF. I thought that BLT, AKL-KV and SSR still have points to sell. I does not seem like a good idea to start another resort so fast. We have already seen FW modification permits and prelim plans that have been submited for enviromental permits on the RC/FW area DVC. This should be coming into the spotlight within the next 6 months or so.

BLT should sell out by spring. Disney is pushing this before the other resorts because they know it can sell faster. Once that sells out, expect AKL to get the bigger push with SSR still being a little left out. I think that if the FW project starts, you will see a similar situation as you did with BLT. The resort will be getting built, and people will clearly see what it is...but Disney won't say anything or start sales until enough inventory is sold on their remaining two resorts.

 

[flavious27]

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.

There are going to be alot of factors that go into a resort being that the 5 star level. I think that what keeps GF from that level is not enough high end dining on site and the compact nature of the hotel and location. Along with the resort not being gated off from non-hotel guests.

 

[DVCOwner]

I think that you could build a Poly by removing the Hula show and constructing a new building there with an indoor location for the dinner show. This would allow the dinner show to go on no matter what the weather.

 

[flavious27]

The T&TC parking lot would never go below ground due to the water table, let alone expense, and a lot of the area is considered by RCID a flood plain during a `perfect storm` 100 year rainfall event. So it is doubtfull anything would be built there aside from parking. Not to say decked parking hasn`t been looked at for DHS, and as an aside for the MK.

Disney has the room to expand their parking lots if need be, a garage would be an expense that is not needed.

 

[flavious27]

There is not much room for expansion to the Poly the way it is layed out, but I can see a few locations that may work for adding a DVC building to the GF. I thought that BLT, AKL-KV and SSR still have points to sell. I does not seem like a good idea to start another resort so fast. We have already seen FW modification permits and prelim plans that have been submited for enviromental permits on the RC/FW area DVC. This should be coming into the spotlight within the next 6 months or so.

Yes there is not enough room at poly for another hotel building unless they build out into the parking lot, but that would a logistical nightmare.

DVC has build AKL-KV, the Villas and BLT while SSR still has units available. I know that DVC has to have a level they will not go below for remaining units in WDW. I thought DVC's goal was a resort at every hotel on property expect for the values.

 

[jt04]

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

Construction cost yes but not maintenance cost. Asphalt has to be resurfaced which is not cheap. Concrete essentially lasts forever. But you are also ignoring the cost of labor in transporting guests from cars to the TTC. When you add in fuel, labor and insurance the Disney operation is extremely expensive. Not to mention the cost of the extra monorails and the ferry boats that otherwise might not be necessary. I think your statement is too narrowly focused and not 'big picture' enough by any stretch.

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.

Who suggested an underground garage? Certainly not me. And you don't normally leave your car and get on the monorail, bus or ferry. You have to deal with the tram. Well most people do. I found a workaround.

The T&TC parking lot would never go below ground due to the water table, let alone expense, and a lot of the area is considered by RCID a flood plain during a `perfect storm` 100 year rainfall event. So it is doubtfull anything would be built there aside from parking. Not to say decked parking hasn`t been looked at for DHS, and as an aside for the MK.

Thanks for confirming this. And I bet it gets more serious consideration as every year passes.

I think that you could build a Poly by removing the Hula show and constructing a new building there with an indoor location for the dinner show. This would allow the dinner show to go on no matter what the weather.

I think this is a real possibility at some point. Also the employee parking lot near the TTC seems like a likely possibility at some point.

Disney has the room to expand their parking lots if need be, a garage would be an expense that is not needed.

As I have explained a garage could save money over time. Potentially a lot of money. See above ^

Yes there is not enough room at poly for another hotel building unless they build out into the parking lot, but that would a logistical nightmare.

DVC has build AKL-KV, the Villas and BLT while SSR still has units available. I know that DVC has to have a level they will not go below for remaining units in WDW. I thought DVC's goal was a resort at every hotel on property expect for the values.

By reconfiguring the MK parking lot they could open up a large area to expand the Poly just south of the current resort and/or add convention facilities or something. A new convention hall could be a serious revenue generator. So Poly can expand quite a bit if they choose to add garages.

 

[wm49rs]

Who suggested an underground garage? Certainly not me. And you don't normally leave your car and get on the monorail, bus or ferry. You have to deal with the tram. Well most people due.

No one ever said you mentioned an underground garage, Jt. Take it easy with the paranoia. Last I checked, I wasn't even quoting your post.

And if you need CMs directing traffic in a flat environ as the current parking lots, then they would most certainly be needed for a parking deck.

The fluctuations of temperature and inclement weather would most certainly make a parking deck a greater expense, certainly more so than asphalt lots with dedicated means of drainage.

And the trams wouldn't go away, even with a new parking deck, because you would never be able to entirely eliminate the need for the parking lots, no matter how a solution is envisioned.

 

[Tom]

And if you need CMs directing traffic in a flat environ as the current parking lots, then they would most certainly be needed for a parking deck.

Indeed. People are stupid no matter what type of parking lot/facility they're using.

The fluctuations of temperature and inclement weather would most certainly make a parking deck a greater expense, certainly more so than asphalt lots with dedicated means of drainage.

Ehhhh, not entirely true. The INITIAL expense of building a parking garage is astronomical - especially if you're trying to build it on swampland AND make it blend in the with surroundings. The cost of maintaining a parking garage is almost 0 - as much as I hate to say jt04 is right - while asphalt lots require ongoing maintenance.

And the trams wouldn't go away, even with a new parking deck, because you would never be able to entirely eliminate the need for the parking lots, no matter how a solution is envisioned.

Right, the only place to put a garage is over behind pirates, and that would still require some trammage. Besides, they can't build a garage big enough to replace the parking required for the MK, so they'd really just be re-distributing the staff.

 

[jt04]

No one ever said you mentioned an underground garage, Jt. Take it easy with the paranoia. Last I checked, I wasn't even quoting your post.

And if you need CMs directing traffic in a flat environ as the current parking lots, then they would most certainly be needed for a parking deck.

Universal uses far fewer personal because of the way they can funnel traffic. The 'flat environ' makes keeping people from 'coloring outside the lines' much more difficult. I do not envy those poor CM's that have to herd cars at the MK parking lot. Plus it is a bit dangerous. The stories they could tell. You still did not say who was suggesting underground parking.:shrug:

The fluctuations of temperature and inclement weather would most certainly make a parking deck a greater expense, certainly more so than asphalt lots with dedicated means of drainage.

This just is not an accurate statement. The MK parking lot has had to be resurfaced although I am not sure how often they must do that. Properly built parking garages last many decades and only need an occasional steam cleaning. But again you are failing to consider the many extra costs Disney incurs with its current configuration.

And the trams wouldn't go away, even with a new parking deck, because you would never be able to entirely eliminate the need for the parking lots, no matter how a solution is envisioned.

Wrong again. My plan would eliminate the trams, the need for monorails for day guests and the ferry system. So, that alone would pay for my idea.


And my plan would allow for many more hotel rooms on the MK loop which is where the profit would be generated. But I'm drifting. Keep an eye on the Imagineering thread. I should be able to post my concept within a week. It is taking so long because it is the first step in explaining my ideas for a new transportation system. And I am trying to eliminate any deficiencies my critics would exploit.:lookaroun It is awesome though. :lol::king:

 

[wm49rs]

Wrong again. My plan would eliminate the trams, the need for monorails for day guests and the ferry system. So, that alone would pay for my idea.


And my plan would allow for many more hotel rooms on the MK loop which is where the profit would be generated. But I'm drifting. Keep an eye on the Imagineering thread. I should be able to post my concept within a week. It is taking so long because it is the first step in explaining my ideas for a new transportation system. And I am trying to eliminate any deficiencies my critics would exploit.:lookaroun It is awesome though. :lol::king:

"Your plan"? If only wishes were horses. But, for those living in their own world...

 

[marni1971]

Disney has the room to expand their parking lots if need be, a garage would be an expense that is not needed.

I agree. All I`m saying is decked parking (possibly only duel level) has been explored for the MK/T&TC, DHS and DTD.

 

[jt04]

"Your plan"? If only wishes were horses. But, for those living in their own world...

Yes it will be my idea which is why I will be adding it to the Imagineering section and not here. But as Mr Sotto has said, there probably are not any ideas we can add that have not already been thought of. Of course I would like to think I am the first.

BTW, way to change the subject. :lol:

Goodnight. :snore:

 

[wm49rs]

Yes it will be my idea which is why I will be adding it to the Imagineering section and not here. But as Mr Sotto has said, there probably are not any ideas we can add that have not already been thought of. Of course I would like to think I am the first.

BTW, way to change the subject. :lol:

Goodnight. :snore:

Then it would appear not to actually be your idea, as Martin has pointed out as well.

And the Imagineering forum is the best place for incessant drivel; I agree.

 

[flavious27]

Wrong again. My plan would eliminate the trams, the need for monorails for day guests and the ferry system. So, that alone would pay for my idea.


And my plan would allow for many more hotel rooms on the MK loop which is where the profit would be generated. But I'm drifting. Keep an eye on the Imagineering thread. I should be able to post my concept within a week. It is taking so long because it is the first step in explaining my ideas for a new transportation system. And I am trying to eliminate any deficiencies my critics would exploit.:lookaroun It is awesome though. :lol::king:

There will still be trams unless you built the garage next to the ttc, but that would defeat the purpose of the garage in the first place; the land that would be freed up will be in he wrong place.

The only way to really add more rooms on the loop, will be to use any land that is unused right now. This would be a resort on the land that was intended for the Mediterranean Hotel.

Also, are you sure that maintenance cost will decrease? When Eastern Illinois University was looking for solutions for their parking needs, their research showed that maintaining one parking spot would quadruple if they went from a parking lot to a parking structure.

 

[Tom]

Also, are you sure that maintenance cost will decrease? When Eastern Illinois University was looking for solutions for their parking needs, their research showed that maintaining one parking spot would quadruple if they went from a parking lot to a parking structure.

Really? That would be an interesting read, because it should cost more to maintain a parking lot than a garage.

Garages don't need salt or plowing in the winter. They never need re-paved because they're concrete. They don't require any more lighting than a parking lot would (in fact, often less). Except for occasional cleaning, and some routine maintenance on the elevator pumps and sprinkler compressor, they're virtually maintenance free.

Now, BUILDING one spot in a garage would easily cost 4x that of a lot....if not 10x more.

 

[SeaCastle]

Really? That would be an interesting read, because it should cost more to maintain a parking lot than a garage.

Garages don't need salt or plowing in the winter. They never need re-paved because they're concrete. They don't require any more lighting than a parking lot would (in fact, often less). Except for occasional cleaning, and some routine maintenance on the elevator pumps and sprinkler compressor, they're virtually maintenance free.

Now, BUILDING one spot in a garage would easily cost 4x that of a lot....if not 10x more.

The cost of the Mickey & Friends garage at Disneyland alone cost $100 million. To put that in perspective, that's in the ballpark of a typical "E-ticket" attraction.

 

[flavious27]

Really? That would be an interesting read, because it should cost more to maintain a parking lot than a garage.

Garages don't need salt or plowing in the winter. They never need re-paved because they're concrete. They don't require any more lighting than a parking lot would (in fact, often less). Except for occasional cleaning, and some routine maintenance on the elevator pumps and sprinkler compressor, they're virtually maintenance free.

Now, BUILDING one spot in a garage would easily cost 4x that of a lot....if not 10x more.

http://www.parking-net.com/News/36449/Maintenance-needed-for-campus-parking-lots

Well the parking deck would need need maintenance, not as much in Florida than Illinois but it is exposed to the elements and having vehicles placing forces onto it. It is the same as a highway bridge, they need to be checked and maintained or another i-35 could happen. Along with that, their will be the added cost to maintain multiple elevator shafts. And there will be more lighting needed because you can't place the lights 50 feet apart with a ceiling that is only 10 feet tall.