New restaurant area @ Fort Wilderness

[CaptainAmerica]

Awesome. If you've seen the proposed DVC plans then you should know why people have concerns. I don't think those concerns are petty...

All I know is that my favorite spot at all of Walt Disney World is Animal Kingdom Lodge. I am not a member, but the presence of DVC has added to my enjoyment of Animal Kingdom Lodge through the addition of Sanaa and a great pool area. It has not detracted in any way. I disagree with the premise that Fort Wilderness is so different from other resorts that DVC would be uniquely detrimental.

 

[danlb_2000]

You "missed it" because that permit is from 2011, and was part of a Fort Wilderness DVC near where River Country was... I believe there's an old thread on here somewhere about it...

The reason it showed back up in permit searches is because new documents were recently added to it (the withdrawal documents). If the author of the BizJournal article had bothered to check dates or do just a simple Google search for the project number, they could have avoided reporting on an old/abandoned project...

EDIT: Here's a thread from 2014 with a nice rendering/video from a construction company showing off the planned construction timeline. The "new dining area" (BBQ Pavilion) even makes a small cameo at beginning:

http://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/fort-wilderness-dvc-video.888767/

Thanks! Show's you how close I was looking, totally missed the 2011 dates on there.

 

[sxeensweet]

All I know is that my favorite spot at all of Walt Disney World is Animal Kingdom Lodge. I am not a member, but the presence of DVC has added to my enjoyment of Animal Kingdom Lodge through the addition of Sanaa and a great pool area. It has not detracted in any way. I disagree with the premise that Fort Wilderness is so different from other resorts that DVC would be uniquely detrimental.

Agree with all your responses. DVC is not the issue. People just don't want any expansion ever but that is not going to happen. Expansion is always going to happen due to increased visitors each year to WDW.
Like you said even if they added campsites, cabins, eateries etc it would do the same. DVC presence should not be an issue. I am now a DVC member since 2013 but prior to joining we enjoyed all the DVC Expansions and new or updated resorts and find it adds to things not takes away anything. Even if we never joined I would still feel the same.

 

[Virtual Toad]

All I know is that my favorite spot at all of Walt Disney World is Animal Kingdom Lodge. I am not a member, but the presence of DVC has added to my enjoyment of Animal Kingdom Lodge through the addition of Sanaa and a great pool area. It has not detracted in any way. I disagree with the premise that Fort Wilderness is so different from other resorts that DVC would be uniquely detrimental.

That comparison is as disingenuous as it is totally inaccurate. DVC at AKL is farther away from the main building (read: heart of the resort) than any other DVC expansion at WDW. It was built in a remote corner of the AKL property and is literally a 5-10 minute walk away from the main lodge!

It is entirely possible to enjoy a stay at-- and the amenities of-- the AKL without DVC intruding on or affecting the experience. DVC expansion nearly everywhere else on WDW property is not at all like what they did at AKL, and indeed, most if not all recent DVC activity has intruded blatantly on the host resorts' property and guest experience. Contemporary, Poly, and new WL DVC expansions come to mind immediately.

For the record, I am not at all opposed to responsible expansion. The original Villas at the Wilderness Lodge enhanced that resort's guest experience without literally overshadowing it. But as another poster previously stated, a simple look at what WDW had planned for DVC at Ft. Wilderness would show that the expansion as planned would not only be irresponsible but would severely and irreversibly impact the property.

 

[*Q*]

How optimistic of you. You must be fun at parties. Everyone knows how charmless and ordinary Animal Kingdom Lodge is, after all. And that 100% DVC Old Key West? Trash.

Apples and oranges. Those resorts were designed with DVC in mind from the ground up. Fort Wilderness has certain character to it that gives it a more laid back, quaint experience than many other modern areas of WDW, something of an intangible quality very much of the era in which it was built. DVC could very well add some fantastic facilities to it, but it would also add hustle and bustle and homogenize it somewhat to fall in line with the other resorts, e.g. a large structure made with modern design sensibilities. You seem to get the impression that I'm just hating on DVC in general when in fact I'm a member and more or less love all of the DVC properties with the exception of the additions to the Polynesian and Contemporary. I am talking about the SPECIFIC changes that DVC would bring to that SPECIFIC resort. It would be one thing if they just added a bunch of cabins, but that's not what we're talking about here.

All I know is that my favorite spot at all of Walt Disney World is Animal Kingdom Lodge. I am not a member, but the presence of DVC has added to my enjoyment of Animal Kingdom Lodge through the addition of Sanaa and a great pool area. It has not detracted in any way. I disagree with the premise that Fort Wilderness is so different from other resorts that DVC would be uniquely detrimental.

Kidani Village is great, but the entirety of Animal Kingdom Lodge was designed with that addition in mind. DVC at Fort Wilderness would be grafting on something that runs contrary to one of the main appealing factors of the resort which is its relatively quiet and quaint personality.

 

[sxeensweet]

That comparison is as disingenuous as it is totally inaccurate. DVC at AKL is farther away from the main building (read: heart of the resort) than any other DVC expansion at WDW. It was built in a remote corner of the AKL property and is literally a 5-10 minute walk away from the main lodge!

It is entirely possible to enjoy a stay at-- and the amenities of-- the AKL without DVC intruding on or affecting the experience. DVC expansion nearly everywhere else on WDW property is not at all like what they did at AKL, and indeed, most if not all recent DVC activity has intruded blatantly on the host resorts' property and guest experience. Contemporary, Poly, and new WL DVC expansions come to mind immediately.

For the record, I am not at all opposed to responsible expansion. The original Villas at the Wilderness Lodge enhanced that resort's guest experience without literally overshadowing it. But as another poster previously stated, a simple look at what WDW had planned for DVC at Ft. Wilderness would show that the expansion as planned would not only be irresponsible but would severely and irreversibly impact the property.

There is DVC rooms in the main lodge Jambo House not just at Kidani. Just like Boardwalk and Beach club has added DVC areas as well. Same as GF and Poly, etc that you mentioned. This did not take anything away at any of these in my opinion. They converted a group of regular rooms to DVC at AKL including some on the concierge floor. That was done before Kidani was added.

 

[Virtual Toad]

There is DVC rooms in the main lodge Jambo House not just at Kidani. They converted a group of regular rooms to DVC including some on the concierge floor. That was done before Kidani was added.

Yes, but if you didn't know that, you wouldn't even be aware that there was DVC in the main building at all. And that's the point. This isn't a knock on DVC itself (although that argument can and has been made elsewhere, and don't get me started on a recent sales attempt our family was subjected to at the MK). AKL is one of my favorite resorts on property, and the original DVC at the Wilderness Lodge was a tasteful addition that enhances the experience.

What I (and others) are objecting to in this case is the recent trend of more blatant and intrusive DVC additions. The proposed DVC addition to Ft. Wilderness certainly falls into that category.

For the record, I'm not objecting to it because it's DVC. I'm objecting to a project (whatever its source or affiliation) that would have an immediate, direct and irreversible negative impact on the resort in question.

 

[sxeensweet]

Yes, but if you didn't know that, you wouldn't even be aware that there was DVC in the main building at all. And that's the point. This isn't a knock on DVC itself (although that argument can and has been made elsewhere, and don't get me started on a recent sales attempt our family was subjected to at the MK). AKL is one of my favorite resorts on property, and the original DVC at the Wilderness Lodge was a tasteful addition that enhances the experience.

What I (and others) are objecting to in this case is the recent trend of more blatant and intrusive DVC additions. The proposed DVC addition to Ft. Wilderness certainly falls into that category.

For the record, I'm not objecting to it because it's DVC. I'm objecting to a project (whatever its source or affiliation) that would have an immediate, direct and irreversible negative impact on the resort in question.

Unfortunately they will expand eventually whether it's DVC reasons or not so this would eventually happen. Still don't think it will ruin FT. Wilderness or make it less appealing in my opinion. And like noted expansion is inevitable as WDW keeps bringing in more and more people that more rooms are needed etc. And even if it's a DVC expansion regular guests can book it and enjoy it as well. We often stayed in DVC rooms/ or full on DVC resorts by booking direct with discounts, many times before we decided to join. So whether DVC or adding other areas to stay at Ft. Wilderness like more cabins , campsites etc it will cause the need to clear land but I am very optimistic Disney will leave the feel of Ft.Wilderness intact as its a fave of many. We love still visiting FW each trip to go eat, and shop, and other activities, etc. and it would be awesome to be able to stay there now as a DVC member.

 

[CDavid]

I disagree with the premise that Fort Wilderness is so different from other resorts that DVC would be uniquely detrimental.

You are correct - it isn't unique in that regard. DVC additions have also been detrimental at some other resorts where they have been added.

Accusing those who are critical in any way of the Disney Vacation Club as merely being opposed to any expansion (absolutely untrue) belittles and unfairly dismisses legitimate concerns about the (over) expansion of DVC within Walt Disney World.

 

[danlb_2000]

Didn't see this posted anywhere.

http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/blog/2016/08/new-additions-in-the-works-for-disneys-fort.html

Looks like the story has been removed.

 

[Horizons1]

How optimistic of you. You must be fun at parties. Everyone knows how charmless and ordinary Animal Kingdom Lodge is, after all. And that 100% DVC Old Key West? Trash.

Actually, Old Key West is pretty dumpy...

 

[GrumpyFan]

Looks like the story has been removed.

I contacted the writer, didn't hear back. I guess that's her answer.

 

[danlb_2000]

I contacted the writer, didn't hear back. I guess that's her answer.

I did too.

 

[jbolen2]

I know it isn't happening but my family would enjoy a quick serve in the settlement area instead of having to make a trip to the contemporary for a light meal at the contempo cafe