If it is similar to the original proposal, yes. It fills the space between WL and Ft Wilderness. It would not surprise me if you could walk from WL to Ft Wilderness through this resort.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reflections – A Disney Lakeside Lodge (Project 89 - Development near Fort Wilderness)
- Thread starter danlb_2000
- Start date
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
Disney hasn’t built a new moderate in 20 years. We could use a rest from DVCs.
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
I understand, but calling them "DVCs" is a bit of a misnomer. It implies that the only way to stay there is to be a DVC member. I've stayed at "Deluxe Villas" several times as a cash-paying guest.
ABQ
Well-Known Member
That's certainly accurate, and though the two may zero impact on one another, that original proposal was prior to the Copper Creek DVC addition, so things may have changed somewhat. All speculation, of course.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Biff215
Well-Known Member
True, but would never happen this close to the MK. Plus moderates will barely exist once CBR and CSR are finished.
Tom P.
Well-Known Member
Given the popularity of the moderates, and the truth of what you say about CBR and CSR, I wonder though if Disney won't look at some new moderates at some point. Despite what many here say, I don't believe that Disney is only interested in catering to the uber-wealthy, and there is a large segment of visitors who want something a step up from a value resort but can't afford a deluxe.
Agreed. Not having resorts across the pricing spectrum would be like Disney stepping over a dollar to pick up a quarter (or maybe more accurately, stepping over a $100 to pick up a $20). I feel they also need to be careful in not pricing out the bottom end, though, with prices at even Values hitting close to $150/night.
Last edited:
USofA scott
Member
And stepping over a quarter to get a dollar still nets you more money
Ugh... I messed that up. I'll go fix it.
Biff215
Well-Known Member
Not just close to $150, over it too. I just booked Pop for a night in August with an AP rate of $146. Even the discounted rate hurt.
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
I understand, but there’s a lack of more affordable rooms. Also, DVCs post Kidani have been exceedingly ugly despite their considerable costs to members and guests.
And just to remind everyone, Disney’s Wilderness Junction, a moderate resort, was planned for roughly the same area.
USofA scott
Member
More like stepping over 200.00 for $15,000
No. Not even close. The number of “rich” willing to drop that kind of huge cash at WDW vs. the number of “non-rich” willing to drop what would be considered moderate amounts of money, by comparison, at WDW tips mightily towards the latter, not the former. As much as I rail against the price increases outstripping inflation by a damn sight at WDW, they aren’t making it an exclusive, must-be-rich-to-visit club.
USofA scott
Member
One modetate hotel room will generate (assuming an average rate of 200 night) 73000 a year. DVC studio will generate (175 per point) with average of 120 points per week, 1,092,000 dollars. You tell me which one thatthey will want.
Be real, you are just making things up now.
Be real, you are just making things up now.
Please, just stop. Do you understand the premise of DVC and how it works? Anyone whose DVC membership is paid for who reserves a 120 point room, it would "generate" anywhere between $500-800 of revenue, but only if you want to consider annual maintenance fees as part of that equation. Removing that from the equation, I pay zero for a DVC room when using points. Those maintenance fees are paid whether or not you use your points at a DVC resort or not. DVC is all about the up-front expenditure, financed or not, not about on-going revenue once you're in. And again, there are far fewer people who can shell out the money for DVC vs. those who can pay for a moderate room once every other year.
Unplugged
Well-Known Member
They only want that because it's short sighted (initial) gains. Assuming a "measly" 3% increase per year on room rates, after 30 years the moderate hotel has brought in $3,473,005 where as the DVC contract may be for 30+ years has still only brought in the $1,092,000 for the initial point sales. Obviously there are many other variables such as buy backs. The big point is that the $1m covers the resort development costs up front with profit margins met. The fact that they put left over inventory into the resorts generates additional revenue annually should put it on par with a regular resort. I have no idea what percentage they are pulling from that, but as the DVC is deluxe, I'd venture a guess that it comes out about even.
Beyond that initial profit margin that bumps the books, I'm curious if there is that much of a difference over the long haul of the resort operation. I'd be interested to see the actual numbers that drive this model though.
Tom P.
Well-Known Member
I've made this point before but it's worth making again.
There are somewhere upwards of 30,000 hotel rooms on property at Walt Disney World. There are around 21 million visitors annually to Magic Kingdom.
If Disney is only catering to the uber-rich, there are way more uber-rich people than anyone is telling us about.
There are somewhere upwards of 30,000 hotel rooms on property at Walt Disney World. There are around 21 million visitors annually to Magic Kingdom.
If Disney is only catering to the uber-rich, there are way more uber-rich people than anyone is telling us about.
NiarrNDisney
Well-Known Member
Either there are more uber-rich people or there are a bunch of people living beyond their means to the point of putting themselves in debt and getting loans just to go on vacation.