Spirited Spring Break News, Observations & Thoughts ...

[CDavid]

The difference is you enjoyed a stay there. I think some people have a hard time separating their hatred for DVC from the look of the hotel. IMHO if BLT was just another wing of CR there would be less complaining about it.

You have to be careful labeling posters who are often critical of DVC as "hating" DVC. Critical is not the same thing as hate. For almost everyone, I suspect, that's simply not true, but there are many who recognize that Vacation Club expansion within WDW is getting out of hand.

My criticism of Bay Lake Tower has absolutely nothing to do with what type of accommodations are contained within, but rather everything to do with the style of architecture, theme, and location of the tower. It clashes with the A-frame tower next door and stands badly out of place along the shores of Bay Lake. It might be right at home in Miami Beach (or maybe even International Drive), but where its located it is about as much out of place as Space Mountain would be in Adventureland. It is simply an ugly tower in the midst of what should be an elegantly styled vacation kingdom.

Frankly, had they just built the thing farther north, past the (left intact) North Garden Wings where the tennis courts used to be located, I would have far, far less of a problem with it. Nor would I have had a problem (though it wouldn't have been my first choice) with putting DVC into renovated North Garden Wings (such as the Polynesian DVC expansion). But Bay Lake Tower just looks bad where it stands.

 

[Omnispace]

I did!

NP-- I'm getting my Goofys mixed-up.

Edit: To explain, my point wasn't that one was ugly because of the other. And it's not to say that Gwathmey Siegel didn't do a good job replicating the details from the original building. It's just that the building is pretty nondescript, and honestly I would have expected a more inspired addition to the Contemporary. Even the original design for the Polynesian was turned down because it looked too much like something someone would see in Miami. When I see competing towers along a beach I think of all those tropical places where every hotel or condo owner is trying to outclass the one next door. It's something from the real world that the former Disney Co. tried to steer away from.

 

[GoofGoof]

You have to be careful labeling posters who are often critical of DVC as "hating" DVC. Critical is not the same thing as hate. For almost everyone, I suspect, that's simply not true, but there are many who recognize that Vacation Club expansion within WDW is getting out of hand.

My criticism of Bay Lake Tower has absolutely nothing to do with what type of accommodations are contained within, but rather everything to do with the style of architecture, theme, and location of the tower. It clashes with the A-frame tower next door and stands badly out of place along the shores of Bay Lake. It might be right at home in Miami Beach (or maybe even International Drive), but where its located it is about as much out of place as Space Mountain would be in Adventureland. It is simply an ugly tower in the midst of what should be an elegantly styled vacation kingdom.

Frankly, had they just built the thing farther north, past the (left intact) North Garden Wings where the tennis courts used to be located, I would have far, far less of a problem with it. Nor would I have had a problem (though it wouldn't have been my first choice) with putting DVC into renovated North Garden Wings (such as the Polynesian DVC expansion). But Bay Lake Tower just looks bad where it stands.

Fair enough that hate is an extreme word and may be too harsh. I'll call it a strong dislike.

I'm not saying that you are not entitled to a negative opinion of the look or architecture and I'm not trying to single anyone out. It just seems to me that the general consensus opinions on both BLT and the GF villa building are skewed by the fact that people don't like DVC. In this case they messed with one of the iconic, original WDW hotels and that's part of the problem too. I'm not saying you specifically, but that's the general vibe I get. I understand it too. If you are not likely to ever benefit from the construction than it seems like a waste of money. Disney spent a few hundred million to build BLT. They could have built Radiator Springs Racers for that kind of money.

Here's my 2 cents. I don't think BLT looks bad next to CR. They matched the concrete color and the horizontal lines. I like that they didn't go with a cloned, A-frame style and instead went with the curved look. It stand out as a building that fits in, but isn't trying to be the same as CR. There are very few places in WDW where a vertical building like this is appropriate and next to CR is one IMHO. I fully admit that my opinion is probably biased by the fact that I have stayed there and will again in the future.

 

[Omnispace]

Fair enough that hate is an extreme word and may be too harsh. I'll call it a strong dislike.

I'm not saying that you are not entitled to a negative opinion of the look or architecture and I'm not trying to single anyone out. It just seems to me that the general consensus opinions on both BLT and the GF villa building are skewed by the fact that people don't like DVC. In this case they messed with one of the iconic, original WDW hotels and that's part of the problem too. I'm not saying you specifically, but that's the general vibe I get. I understand it too. If you are not likely to ever benefit from the construction than it seems like a waste of money. Disney spent a few hundred million to build BLT. They could have built Radiator Springs Racers for that kind of money.

Here's my 2 cents. I don't think BLT looks bad next to CR. They matched the concrete color and the horizontal lines. I like that they didn't go with a cloned, A-frame style and instead went with the curved look. It stand out as a building that fits in, but isn't trying to be the same as CR. There are very few places in WDW where a vertical building like this is appropriate and next to CR is one IMHO. I fully admit that my opinion is probably biased by the fact that I have stayed there and will again in the future.

The language of the building sets it apart from the rest of the resort: it's on a more prominent location on the lake shore; the curve faces away from the public, it is not diminished in height but equal to the Contemporary, you can't enter any lobby though it looks like it should have one. Perhaps because it portrays these qualities of being exclusive that people use it as justification for their dislike for DVC. It's something that is highly visible but off limits to the general public. It can also be viewed as a metaphor for the new WDC diminishing the old.

On the upside, it's round.

 

[GoofGoof]

The language of the building sets it apart from the rest of the resort: it's on a more prominent location on the lake shore; the curve faces away from the public, it is not diminished in height but equal to the Contemporary, you can't enter any lobby though it looks like it should have one. Perhaps because it portrays these qualities of being exclusive that people use it as justification for their dislike for DVC. It's something that is highly visible but off limits to the general public. It can also be viewed as a metaphor for the new WDC diminishing the old.

On the upside, it's round.

If you want to get in the front doors are always open. The skybridge connection door is usually open too. The problem is there isn't anything inside for the public to see or do. There aren't any restaurants or shops in the lobby. Top of the World is exclusive to DVC, but it's not too hard to get up there either.

 

[RSoxNo1]

It's very different though. It's one thing for resort guests to be in the parks before/after you when you aren't there. It's "out of sight, out of mind". It's another thing to see resort guests with these MBs on getting on rides while you wait in a slow standby line.

That's why I think any implimentation of greater FP+ use for resort guests should allow for all guests to have some level of baseline access to FP+. That way, it would be tougher for an off site guest to really be bothered since the onsite are simply getting "more" of the same perk, not getting an entirely new perk altogether.

Personally, I think the best options might be:
1. Given 4 FP+ pre-bookings to onsite guests maybe limited to Moderates and Deluxes). Or conversely, give 2 FP+ reservations to off-site and keep it at 3 for onsite.
or
2. Make the "get more than 3 FP+ once you have used them" perk to onsite guests only. Off site only get 3 FP+ a day period.
or
3. Remove tiers for onsite guests (probably wouldn't be that valuable on its own, but may be used in combination with one of the previous 2)

IMO, the best option is reduce advanced bookings to 1 FP+, everyone gets an additional FP+ they can book day of. Once either is used you can get a new one. This would allow for the elimination of tiers, while still allowing guests to reserve the one marquee attraction they want. Suffice it to say, 3 of the 4 parks can't accommodate 3 FP+ reservations per guest per day.

 

[Bairstow]

As mentioned in the title, MHI / 1000.

Essentially, for its first 25-30 years, the price of a one-day ticket was about 1/1000th of Median Household Income.

All WDW ticket types show similar pricing patterns.

Relative to family income, WDW ticket prices remained constant to family income until the late 1990s.

The chart looks similar for inflation or CPI.

As I suggested earlier in my post that started this particular exchange, WDW has never been a cheap vacation. Even when relative prices were much lower in the 1970s and 1980s, most families had to save to pay for WDW. People who remember WDW being expensive 40 years ago are not imagining it. However, it's much more expensive today.

In recent years, price increases have become considerably more aggressive. Comparing families of similar means in the 1970s to today, it's much more difficult for today's typical family to afford WDW.

It's a want, not a need. Disney can charge whatever they feel is justified by the market. I'm simply noting that the current trend cannot continue forever. At some point, Disney needs to focus on adding value back into the parks rather than focus most of its attention on squeezing pennies from its paying customers.

Wait, so the blue line doesn't represent MHI (which is what it's labeled as), but instead represents ticket prices relative to MHI?

 

[jlsHouston]

We really need a "required reading" list for these forums with the graduate level financial dissertations going on.

Gotta start with "Disneywar."

Anyone else have any business, guest service or Disney books that are a must read?

That was my first Disney book. Actually only one so far. I read it in November when we were there for Thanksgiving. I loved it. I bought "An American Original" and I am starting it on the plane on May 18th.

 

[Kman101]

Because it's brought up often in here, ABC renewed SHIELD and also picked up "Marvel's Agent Carter" which will center on Peggy Carter.

Gotta have Marvel in the title.

 

[RandySavage]

The problem with the Bay Lake Tower is its architecture. Each building was was a product of the architectural era of its construction. The Contemporary represents Brutalism of the 1960s-70s. Despite a couple nods to the original building, the BLT is not a Brutalist structure in the slightest. It represents the Late Modernism (recent) architectural movement with some Post-Modernist elements. The two buildings are from totally different styles and thus look completely discordant. It would be like putting an Edwardian DVC wing on the Poylnesian.

Contrast this to other DVC expansions that at least try to mimic the same style, such as the Beach Club Villas or Poly Cabanas or Grand Flo (as critical as I am of its height and long-axis massing). Architecturally, BLT looks like a completely separate hotel (Disney's Middling Miami Mid-rise Resort) from the Contemp, but built way too close.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Because it's brought up often in here, ABC renewed SHIELD and also picked up "Marvel's Agent Carter" which will center on Peggy Carter.

Gotta have Marvel in the title.

You'd think it would be Marvel Agents of Shield and Marvel Agent Carter given Disney's aversion to the possessive.

 

[Phil12]

We really need a "required reading" list for these forums with the graduate level financial dissertations going on.

Gotta start with "Disneywar."

Anyone else have any business, guest service or Disney books that are a must read?

Building a Company: Roy O. Disney and the Creation of an Entertainment Empire by Bob Thomas is a must read. It details some of Walt Disney's ethical lapses.

 

[Funmeister]

So please forgive me....I take back everything I said about ticket price increases.

EVERYTHING.......IS.......JUSTIFIED!

https://shine.yahoo.com/photos/cust...y-world-monsters-inc-photo-1399561378736.html

 

[Next Big Thing]

The problem with the Bay Lake Tower is its architecture. Each building was was a product of the architectural era of its construction. The Contemporary represents Brutalism of the 1960s-70s. Despite a couple nods to the original building, the BLT is not a Brutalist structure in the slightest. It represents the Late Modernism (recent) architectural movement with some Post-Modernist elements. The two buildings are from totally different styles and thus look completely discordant. It would be like putting an Edwardian DVC wing on the Poylnesian.

I get what you are saying here to an extent, but The Contemporary was built when that 60-70's architectural style would be relevant, some might even say Contemporary, for it's time. You said yourself that BLT represents Late modernism. Wouldn't that in turn mean that it is capturing what a modern day contemporary would look like? Maybe I just have been awfully unlucky, but I haven't stumbled across any A-Frame buildings in the wild recently and I don't expect to. Why should they have had to build the new hotel to look dated right from the start just because it doesn't mesh perfect architecturally?

 

[RandySavage]

I get what you are saying here to an extent, but The Contemporary was built when that 60-70's architectural style would be relevant, some might even say Contemporary, for it's time. You said yourself that BLT represents Late modernism. Wouldn't that in turn mean that it is capturing what a modern day contemporary would look like? Maybe I just have been awfully unlucky, but I haven't stumbled across any A-Frame buildings in the wild recently and I don't expect to. Why should they have had to build the new hotel to look dated right from the start just because it doesn't mesh perfect architecturally?

I see your point regarding each being Contemporary for its time, but the end result remains unpleasant:

People don't need to know architectural styles to recognize the awkwardness, just as they don't need to understand musical theory to hear when two tones don't harmonize. A jumble of styles from different eras can work in city skylines, but when it's just two big, lakeside monoliths with nothing else around, it's not a vista that pleases the eye. The original is an iconic building - not overly beautiful, IMO, but its concrete A-frame & monorail are what make it an icon. If there had to be a DVC tower, the answer was not to build a run-of-mill mid-rise the same size, but in a different shape & style right next to it.

It should have deferred to the original building in size and emulated the original's style. Yes it would be dated (retro) from the start, but it would harmonize. Retro can be a selling point, too. Universal just opened a retro hotel.

 

[Funmeister]

I see your point regarding each being Contemporary for its time, but the end result remains unpleasant:

People don't need to know architectural styles to recognize the awkwardness, just as they don't need to understand musical theory to hear when two tones don't harmonize. A jumble of styles from different eras can work in city skylines, but when it's just two big, lakeside monoliths with nothing else around, it's not a vista that pleases the eye. The original is an iconic building - not overly beautiful, IMO, but its concrete A-frame & monorail are what make it an icon. If there had to be a DVC tower, the answer was not to build a run-of-mill mid-rise the same size, but in a different shape & style right next to it.

It should have deferred to the original building in size and emulated the original's style. Yes it would be dated (retro) from the start, but it would harmonize. Retro can be a selling point, too. Universal just opened a retro hotel.

Can anyone photoshop the Contemporary in the bottom picture where BLT is in the top picture?

 

[truecoat]

I guess it isn't all screens over at Universal.

 

[bhg469]

I guess it isn't all screens over at Universal.

His face would look so much better if it was a screen.

 

[truecoat]

Can anyone photoshop the Contemporary in the bottom picture where BLT is in the top picture?

Here you go.

 

[Soarin' Over Pgh]

We really need a "required reading" list for these forums with the graduate level financial dissertations going on.

Gotta start with "Disneywar."

Anyone else have any business, guest service or Disney books that are a must read?

Agreed. I'd like to throw mine into the mix...

Any/All by Jim Korkis. He's long winded, for sure, but has very interesting insights and perspectives on the parks, the business itself, and the people who run/ran it.

I'd put Rolly Crump in this category too, but with a slight hesitation.

Also, I'd like to add:

It's not a read, per say, but it serves as a fascinating look at what can happen when art and design collide. Maybe I'm biased, because I'm an art junkie and I love (LOVE LOVE LOVE) this book, but the attention to detail is the 'Disney difference' that seems to lack so much as of lately.