aladdin2007
Well-Known Member
agree, pave charm and paradise and put up a massive dvc.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Wilderness Lodge DVC additions - Copper Creek Villas & Cabins
- Thread starter danlb_2000
- Start date
agree, pave charm and paradise and put up a massive dvc.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
Yeah because Kidani Village is such a poorly themed suckfest that totally ruins the aesthetic brilliance of DAKL.
Give me a break. There's NOTHING about the architecture or execution of any DVC resort that should give anyone apprehension about Disney's ability to faithfully deliver within an established theme.
janoimagine
Well-Known Member
While I agree to an extent ... in the case of the WL I honestly can't see how they can accomplish those plans with out removing a substantial portion of the surrounding trees on both waterfronts, which in the case of the lodge would detract from the theme of the resort.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
No doubt trees would have to be cleared during construction itself, but I have to imagine they'd be filled back in. The cabins at Fort Wilderness still have a very woodsy feel to them.
Rodan75
Well-Known Member
Certainly during construction you are probably right. But since these aren't on the water I suspect they will look appropriately like lake cabins nestled into the trees. Probably double wide versions of the Fort Wilderness cabins.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
There's no reason why a balcony would be a necessary feature. Sure, they're nice, but the absence of one would be part of the reason any "moderate DVC" would likely have both a lower price-per-point and also lower point-per-night cost.
ETA: I'd never buy DVC myself but I love staying in the villas as a cash guest. The standard two-queen-and-one-bathroom of a Disney hotel room is rarely the most appropriate option for my travel party. It'll be nice to have that option at a lower price point.
Horizons1
Well-Known Member
GF DVC looks atrocious and kills the look of the lagoon. Poly Pizza Hut bungalows look like Pizza Huts and kill the look of the lagoon. A WL DVC will most likely remove a lot of woods. Don't event get me started on a FW DVC.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
DVC has nothing to do with it then. You're saying it's DVC you have a problem with but it's really resort expansion, period. All those things you said would still be the case regardless of whether the new building were filled with points rooms or cash rooms.
If the BBBs look like Pizza Huts then so do the longhouses built 45 years ago.
mouse_luv
Well-Known Member
And say goodbye to the beach (if it turns out like it looks) and that's just sad.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
I've been going to WDW for 20 years and I don't think I've seen a single person on any of those resort beaches, ever.
Agree. I've only seen a handful, usually child playing in sand with accompanying parent(s). And that includes resorts that have evening marshmallow roasts - still only a handful present. I guess the presence of beach but not being allowed to use water makes beach unattractive to many. That said, attendance is probably higher during fireworks.
Horizons1
Well-Known Member
Did you ever bother looking?
Horizons1
Well-Known Member
DVC is the problem. It's becoming a plague upon WDW. Everywhere you go you see DVC. And no, the long houses do not. Just the bungalows.
But if resorts have average occupancy rates of 70-75% and DVC resorts are constantly booked, either by members or cash guests, it makes sense financially to either add new DVC buildings or convert existing cash rooms to DVC rooms to meet the demand for that type of room. And VWL is one if the smallest DVC resorts. It's my home resort and if I don't plan ahead and make a reservation at my 11 month window, the chances of me getting one later is small. While I'm not pleased about the new cabins, especially if they ruin the ambiance of the resort as a whole (yes, they can replant, but it will take years for the new trees to reach the height of the existing stand), I understand the decision financially.
SpaceMountainUK
Active Member
There is also a 3D fly through of the scheme here
http://www.m2studio.net/index.php#mi=1&pt=0&pi=2&s=0&p=-1&a=0&at=0
It's the last video on the page..
Last edited:
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
Come on man. "A plague upon WDW"? We can't even have a serious conversation if you're going to spout nonsense like that.
I'm always amazed by the number of posters on this board who don't understand the basic marketing principle of "give the customer what they want". After you've told them what they want, lol. Which is the function of marketing.
For goodness sakes, Disney isn't like other developers in Florida who clear cut. After all, when developing plans for WDW (can't remember if it was Walt's or Roy's idea), 1/3 of the approximately 27,000 acres purchased were set aside for conservation. I live in Florida and I've seen the land rape developers do. Just look at the developments being built on either side of 429 as you approach WDW.
River Country is abandoned and thus a magnet for idiots to enter and explore. I'm sure Disney does some upkeep so it isn't completely overgrown (here in Florida, especially during summer, if you don't mow at least once a month, you will quickly have a jungle). Would you rather River Country become the Disney version of urban blight? Or put that land, that already has some of the necessary infrastructure, to use? For something that visitors want?
What, pray tell, is so charming about an abandoned water park?
aladdin2007
Well-Known Member
I dont recall mentioning the water park at all in my statement. Im not even talking about the water park,,,you guys are on two different topics here, the wilderness lodge cabins and the so called fort wilderness dvc....I Was referring to to prior comments about the addition of the cabins and the clearing of trees and shoreline in general.