News New Polynesian Resort DVC villas building to open 2024

castlecake2.0

castlecake2.0

Well-Known Member
SpaceMountain77 said:
For me, the Final Jeopardy category and answer are Walt Disney World Resorts and This is the expected lifespan of a Walt Disney World Resort hotel, respectively.

Now, because of DVC conversions, we know that three Polynesian longhouses, one Grand Floridian lodge, and the entirety of Animal Kingdom Lodge (Jambo House) and Wilderness Lodge (Copper Creek) will be around for 40+ years. However, I doubt that any of these hotels were built with the expectation of achieving historical landmark status and some are certainly approaching the end of their lifecycles. Respectfully, the lobby may have been refreshed and reimagined but the island buildings of Caribbean Beach are over 30 years old and, in some places, the concrete and stucco show it. Personally, I think it was easy for decision-makers to raze Barbados and Martinique because the visible aging is known and, in time, the cost to maintain these buildings will exceed replacement.

Do we think that the juxtaposition of these additions with originals is because the originals may be razed in the future?

With the new DVC tower at the Disneyland Hotel, for example, could the stark difference be an indicator of the potential for three new towers at the resort? It does not seem to be designed to fit along with the existing towers as the Tomorrow Tower.
Click to expand...
This is exactly my line of thought, poly has nostalgia, but how much longer can they keep these long houses (which are just rectangle buildings with fancy roofs tbh) maybe this is the what they envision poly to look like going forward? Same with CBR, I can see them continuing to chip away at the outrer building ans create a tower district in that corner of property, complete with its own skyliner system...
 
J

JMcMahonEsq

Well-Known Member
Robbiem said:
The issue for me isn’t the style of the resort architecture which comes down to person taste but the overall resort design. The contemporary wasn’t to everyone’s taste but the original resort was its own thing And all the buildings worked in relation to each other. Adding the DVC tower and convention facilities spoiled the general aesthetics of the resort and made it look worse. Same with swan and dolphin- the hotels work well with each other but the new reserve tower doesn’t fit in at all
Click to expand...
Is that really a factor to the majority of potential guests? We took a (relatively) last minute trip to WDW in August and since we couldn’t get into the Contemporary we went with Swan and Dolphin. The new reserve was built and getting ready to open. We noted it definitely didn’t look like either the Swan or Dolphin….and that was the last we ever “saw” or thought of it. It didn’t effect our rooms, or our amenities. It didn’t effect our time in the parks, nor the one off resort day we spent in the cabanas. When we are choosing hotels in other cities, we choose location first, then amenities, the cost. We never worry about what the building to the right or left of the hotel we are staying in looks like.

Everyone’s choice on if something “looks good” or matches is going to be subjective. But I don’t think the majority of potential guests/owners are using that as their decision to make absolutely matching the exact existing poly look a factor. I would also think the acedotal evidence that apartment/condos is this general type being built across the country/world is evidence it is a popular structure that sells to a broad cross section of the public, which would further support the choice
 
harryk

harryk

Well-Known Member
Why are they considering erecting a building that has non-lagoon views? If I were to buy in I'd expect that every time I made a reservation I would know that I had a lagoon view. This style means that I'd have to select a preferred view, lagoon view, garden view, etc.
Not for that fee. Location is not always 'the thing', put at these rates - it is. That is why I would not consider booking into the GF DVC facility.
 
G

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
Bocabear said:
Hardly:
That A Frame was groundbreaking at the time...A vast light filled core, the added kinetic candy of a monorail running through...It was spectacular...Still is.
Click to expand...
The Contemporary was an advanced engineering and architectural exercise futuristic at the time. The cheap refurb did not help, still it is a unique construction to be appreciated. A back to the future style theming would work well for the Contemporary if ever a decision is made to undo the cheap refurb that was done.
 
G

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
Incomudro said:
This building manages to look less Polynesian than the Riviera looks Riviera.
Really bad.
Click to expand...
It is not about some sort of architectural design to do ohmage to anything Polynesian. It is about a multi-story generic hotel with minimal theming decor that is given a cool sounding title / name / label then pronounce it DVC Villas to get people to commit to long term contracts that will allow Disney to suck money out of them at Disney's pleasure.
 
J

JMcMahonEsq

Well-Known Member
GimpYancIent said:
The Contemporary was an advanced engineering and architectural exercise futuristic at the time. The cheap refurb did not help, still it is a unique construction to be appreciated. A back to the future style theming would work well for the Contemporary if ever a decision is made to undo the cheap refurb that was done.
Click to expand...
Contemporary is our home resort, and has been for all our trips in my adult/post kids life. We love the look of it not for any of its intrinsic architecture but more bc it IS the contemporary and is “our home.” To us the shape of the contemporary is almost as Disney as the Epcot golf ball.

That all being said, I go back to the main thing being “location, location, location.” You could build a giant grey cube or 4 bay lake tower type structures. If you are on the monorail, can walk to MK, and can sit in your hotel room and see MK and watch the fireworks, your selling out those rooms.
 
G

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
JMcMahonEsq said:
Contemporary is our home resort, and has been for all our trips in my adult/post kids life. We love the look of it not for any of its intrinsic architecture but more bc it IS the contemporary and is “our home.” To us the shape of the contemporary is almost as Disney as the Epcot golf ball.

That all being said, I go back to the main thing being “location, location, location.” You could build a giant grey cube or 4 bay lake tower type structures. If you are on the monorail, can walk to MK, and can sit in your hotel room and see MK and watch the fireworks, your selling out those rooms.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, the Contemporary IS a classic ICONIC Disney structure.
 
pdude81

pdude81

Well-Known Member
castlecake2.0 said:
This is exactly my line of thought, poly has nostalgia, but how much longer can they keep these long houses (which are just rectangle buildings with fancy roofs tbh) maybe this is the what they envision poly to look like going forward? Same with CBR, I can see them continuing to chip away at the outrer building ans create a tower district in that corner of property, complete with its own skyliner system...
Click to expand...
I believe those long houses are all concrete, which can have an incredibly long life if taken care of. Hell, I live in a wetlands area and there is a 200+ year old house with stone foundation and brick footings that people still live in. I believe the longhouses can stay as long as Disney wants them to stay.
 
J

JMcMahonEsq

Well-Known Member
CaptainAmerica said:
Something ugly doesn't become un-ugly just because it's old.
Click to expand...
Ugly is subjective. It’s an opinion, and like AHoles, everyone has one, and everyone else’s but mine stinks! Lol.

“Ugly” is also only an opinion based on one factor of the hotel, leaving aside location, amenities, ect. Some people won’t have the same opinion on it’s ugly-ness, some who do think it’s ugly won’t care because they value it’s other factors more, and some won’t consider ugly/beautiful as a factor at all.
 
G

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
JMcMahonEsq said:
Ugly is subjective. It’s an opinion, and like AHoles, everyone has one, and everyone else’s but mine stinks! Lol.

“Ugly” is also only an opinion based on one factor of the hotel, leaving aside location, amenities, ect. Some people won’t have the same opinion on it’s ugly-ness, some who do think it’s ugly won’t care because they value it’s other factors more, and some won’t consider ugly/beautiful as a factor at all.
Click to expand...
Thats ugly.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom