Thoughts on the newly announced DVC resort? About This Page:

[NanaTink]

I"m concerned with them adding another DVC at a bigger price point and probably a bigger point level. I think the problem we are having getting into resorts now at 7 months or for last minute trips has to do with the point cost and points needed at the newer resorts, specifically Poly bungalows and CC cabins. I believe that people who bought at these resorts are staying at the lower point resorts because they don't have the points needed to stay at their resort. I may be off base, but SOMETHING has changed.

I'm for a fifth park as well, they have the Riviera under construction, the new rumored Star Wars hotel, and now this one, plus adding the DS hotels into the Magic Hours, Fast Passes, and ADR queues....we need more places for these people.

[Thomhazel]

Personally I'm more drawn to this idea than to Riviera however we don't need any more points.

I don't think more DVC rooms automatically means more people in the parks as I think you just end up with people who would have been in the parks anyway staying in a different resort, The parks are the main draw the resorts draw people who already go in my opinion.

At the current price point though I do wonder how close Disney are to bursting the DVC bubble. I don't know where the value is now.

[tjkraz]

Originally Posted by MayraLR

With so many new rooms that are going to be added, that means more people visiting.

Nah. The theme parks will always be the primary draw. More hotels just gives those park guests additional lodging options.

A huge percent of all WDW guests on any given day is staying at non-Disney resorts. When they build new hotels, the goal is simply to lure people to stay in Disney hotels instead of non-Disney.

[tjkraz]

Originally Posted by NanaTink

I'm for a fifth park as well, they have the Riviera under construction, the new rumored Star Wars hotel, and now this one, plus adding the DS hotels into the Magic Hours, Fast Passes, and ADR queues....we need more places for these people.

Pandora
Toy Story Land
Star Wars Land
Ratatouille
Guardians of the Galaxy
Tron coaster

Those are the expansions. Yes, some of them replaced older attractions but you really can't compare the popularity. GOTG =/= Ellen's Energy Adventure. Star Wars =/= Backlot tour.

In 2018 dollars, a new park would likely cost $3-4 billion before adding a single attraction. That's just for ground clearing, roads, utilities, sewage, backstage infrastructure, restrooms, gift shops, etc. And since Disney wouldn't break the bank on immediately adding attractions, it would bear the vaunted "half day park" label for a decade or two.

An entirely new park sounds sexy but the money is much better spent on expansions to the existing parks. More bang for the buck.

[Thomhazel]

Originally Posted by Her Dotness

Is it being DVC members as much as having been so often that the parks aren’t that enticing anymore?

I know if we lived closer, we’d likely parcel out DH’s vacation to go more than once a year. I could see getting a bit burnt out on the parks after a year or two of multiple trips.

I think we are getting there.

We have been having conversations this week about going in the future with our golf clubs and our books and having afternoons on the balcony with a bottle of wine and our books a game of golf a few mornings, some swimming some shopping and a nice meal out per day maybe an evening parade or fireworks. I could see us real enjoying that

[NanaTink]

Originally Posted by tjkraz

Pandora
Toy Story Land
Star Wars Land
Ratatouille
Guardians of the Galaxy
Tron coaster

Those are the expansions. Yes, some of them replaced older attractions but you really can't compare the popularity. GOTG =/= Ellen's Energy Adventure. Star Wars =/= Backlot tour.

In 2018 dollars, a new park would likely cost $3-4 billion before adding a single attraction. That's just for ground clearing, roads, utilities, sewage, backstage infrastructure, restrooms, gift shops, etc. And since Disney wouldn't break the bank on immediately adding attractions, it would bear the vaunted "half day park" label for a decade or two.

An entirely new park sounds sexy but the money is much better spent on expansions to the existing parks. More bang for the buck.

But if you are going to keep growing the hotel rooms and also allow DS hotels to get the perks of 60 day FP+ and ADRs and EMH, you better have somewhere for them to go.
Of all those you listed, only two are complete. yet the DS hotels are already making FP+ and ADRs.

I loved Backlot Tour and every time we went it was full
Great Movie Ride...not sure that the new Mickey ride will compare.
I don't think the new expansions are a bad thing...but it doesn't expand the FOOTPRINT of the park. You are just cramming in more people into the same space.

I'd just like to breathe a little air in the parks. I don't go during high times, I can't even imagine trying to be there then.

[tjkraz]

Originally Posted by NanaTink

But if you are going to keep growing the hotel rooms and also allow DS hotels to get the perks of 60 day FP+ and ADRs and EMH, you better have somewhere for them to go.
Of all those you listed, only two are complete. yet the DS hotels are already making FP+ and ADRs.

I'm not sure I understand your point. ALL Walt Disney World guests have full access to dining reservations and FastPass+. Doesn't matter if they are staying at a WDW hotel, Disney Springs, off-site or driving from their home in Central Florida.

They changed the FP booking window for Disney Springs hotel guests, giving them an extra 30 days. But with or without that extra time, all of those guests are still entitled to FastPasses. And dining reservations.

The reason nearly all guests are coming to WDW is for the theme parks. Hotels do not cause an uptick in theme park attendance, rather they simply provide another lodging alternative for those who choose to visit the parks. When Disney builds more hotels and timeshares, it's simply their way of trying to capture more market share from off-site lodging.

[NanaTink]

If you have more rooms available, you have more people. there is a limit to the number of people the parks can hold. When Disney builds more hotel rooms, the DS hotels aren't going to disappear.

What once was perks for staying on property is no longer a perk for staying on property...extra 30 days for FP+ is my point. Extra people in the parks for EMH.

This is way off my original point I don't even remember my original point. I still think a fifth park is the way to go. IMHO. You don't agree, that is your opinion.

[Thomhazel]

Originally Posted by NanaTink

If you have more rooms available, you have more people. there is a limit to the number of people the parks can hold. When Disney builds more hotel rooms, the DS hotels aren't going to disappear.

What once was perks for staying on property is no longer a perk for staying on property...extra 30 days for FP+ is my point. Extra people in the parks for EMH.

This is way off my original point I don't even remember my original point. I still think a fifth park is the way to go. IMHO. You don't agree, that is your opinion.

I still disagree that more hotels = more people in the parks. The parks are the draw, hotels are just a means to stay nearby. I can't see anyone saying oh look lets go stay at those hotels oh and while we do lets go to the parks.

[guerns17]

I’m glad they are building something there! I’m not impressed with the first image of it...doesn’t seem too nature-like. I wish they would go the opposite way with DVC and offer a “moderate” DVC Resort.

[tjkraz]

Originally Posted by NanaTink

If you have more rooms available, you have more people.

Think about the sequence of events. How many families say to themselves: "Hey, there's a new Nature Themed resort in Florida. Let's go spend a week, and since it's so close to the Magic Kingdom we'll visit that too!"

Not many, if any at all.

The sequence is: "Let's go to Disney World! Now we just need to pick a hotel to stay at."

New hotels simply give WDW guests more options for their lodging. They don't attract additional guests to the WDW parks.

[Her Dotness]

Actually, I think what primarily may be bringing more people to the parks is how much more extensive Disney’s marketing is than it was 5-10 years ago.

We see lots more tv ads for DVC than we did four years ago when we first considered buying in. That could not only increase demand for ownership but could result in more people in the parks—devout Disney fans who now have impetus to come more often.

I agree that some DVCers spend much less time in the parks but believe these to be a minority. I suspect, as some on this thread indicated, they are primarily DVC longtimers who’ve done WDW so often that they’re not as interested in lots of park time anymore. And, they may be empty nesters whose kids are grown and no longer accompanying them to WDW. Until or unless they’ve grandkids to bring, they are satisfied with much less park time or none at all.

In contrast, I think that DVC newbies could increase park numbers because they can now afford to go more often or feel inclined to go more regularly since they’ve points encouraging that.

Yes, you can bank points as we know, but I suggest that “must be banked or used by X date each year” encourages people to go yearly whereas they didn’t formerly. Add to that the impetus to go more than once per year, and you’ve more people in the parks.

More DVC resorts and more parkgoing newbie members could be a factor, I think, in the gradual increase in park crowding we ourselves have observed at previously low-crowd times of year. Not as much as heftier marketing, but a factor nevertheless.

[weroosl]

Interesting article, it sounds like a massive resort. I wish Disney would invest in a 5th park rather than more hotel rooms, that way maybe the crowds would have some place to go.