Poly Tower Speculation

[Sandisw]

Where is the precedent for Disney adding on to an existing resort by name and making it a separate association? I'll wait.

I don’t really understand your question.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

Where is the precedent for Disney adding on to an existing resort by name and making it a separate association? I'll wait.

Villas at wilderness lodge got renamed got renamed boulder ridge ….
then the CCV cabins were built

 

[emchen]

.

 

[emchen]

Where is the precedent for Disney adding on to an existing resort by name and making it a separate association? I'll wait.

a simple theorem: a new DVC property at an existing one will be part of a new association when there is one or more new facilities built (refurb of existing ones don’t count as new facility).

What do you think of this? It is valid for all newly constructed Villas (excluding refurbs). It is premised on the high-probability that DVD made a long-term strategic decision over 4 years ago that resale restrictions is the remedy to the long-standing thorn in their side: resale points are not differentiated enough from direct points. Now with resale restrictions, the difference is so obvious that a blind person can see it.

Reiterate: PVB2 (Tower at Poly) will 99% be in a separate association from PVB1.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Villas at wilderness lodge got renamed got renamed boulder ridge ….
then the CCV cabins were built

That does not meet the criteria I outlined.

 

[tom1944]

That does not meet the criteria I outlined.

Has it officially been named yet?

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Has it officially been named yet?

The Poly Tower? Don't know. I don't think so.

 

[tom1944]

The Poly Tower? Don't know. I don't think so.

I wonder if it will even have Polynesian in the name when it officially goes on sale.

I think they will tie the Seven Seas Lagoon name into the official name somehow.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

I wonder if it will even have Polynesian in the name when it officially goes on sale.

I think they will tie the Seven Seas Lagoon name into the official name somehow.

You know? I get what you're saying, but the value of that Poly marketing in the name just can't be dismissed. It's a beloved resort and has been since it opened. I would be shocked if it isn't prominently featured in the naming. I'm personally expecting something simple like 'The Seven Seas Towers at Disney's Polynesian Resort.' Simple, yet effective for marketing as an extension of the Polynesian. It's going to be a little tricky though. It's not really a 'tower.' Even BLT pushes the classic definition of that.

 

[Sandisw]

You know? I get what you're saying, but the value of that Poly marketing in the name just can't be dismissed. It's a beloved resort and has been since it opened. I would be shocked if it isn't prominently featured in the naming. I'm personally expecting something simple like 'The Seven Seas Towers at Disney's Polynesian Resort.' Simple, yet effective for marketing as an extension of the Polynesian. It's going to be a little tricky though. It's not really a 'tower.' Even BLT pushes the classic definition of that.

If your question was when did DVD build a resort at a location that had a DVC component already and did not keep it the same?

The answer is they have not yet. But, when looking at precedent, there always has to be the first time.

Have they used the words this unnamed project is being built at the Poly Village Resort? Yes, but that is the name of the hotel side and not DVC.

PVB is also located at the Polly Village Resort.

What we know is that they seem to have gone out of their way to not tie it to PVB directly and only say they are expanding things at Poly Village Resort.

This is the very first extensive new build at WDW since they started down the restrictions path.

Saying this is being built at Poly doesn’t have any play into whether it’s added to PVB association or not, since that land has always been within the boundaries of the Poly.

It’s why we are 13 plus pages in and still all guessing which way it will go.

I do think it will have a unique name. I think they will incorporate Luau Cove into it.

If it’s rolled into PVB, then my guess is the entire association will get a new name to incorporate all of it.

 

[BeachClub2014]

This is the very first extensive new build at WDW since they started down the restrictions path.

This is key. Anything that happened pre-Riviera isn't relevant to the discussion on what DVC may do with Poly Tower and whether it becomes a new association or rolled into the current PVB association.

 

[KimMcGowan]

You know? I get what you're saying, but the value of that Poly marketing in the name just can't be dismissed. It's a beloved resort and has been since it opened. I would be shocked if it isn't prominently featured in the naming. I'm personally expecting something simple like 'The Seven Seas Towers at Disney's Polynesian Resort.' Simple, yet effective for marketing as an extension of the Polynesian. It's going to be a little tricky though. It's not really a 'tower.' Even BLT pushes the classic definition of that.

I do think it will have a unique name. I think they will incorporate Luau Cove into it.

Sandi came up with this name a long time ago and I think it is spot on, exactly what they will most likely choose. The may spruce it up a bit, say Luau Cove Resort at Disney’s Polynesian.

 

[hockeydad21]

The rooms are unavailable at 11m + 7d, before the owners can book them at 8am. I've tried to modify a 7-night reservation to an 8-night reservation during the midnight-8am time window and the site doesn't let me, so it's not owners.

Even if it were bookable by owners (which it's not), the rooms are gone when the rooms are first shown on the website right at midnight, before anyone would be able to complete a reservation/modification (not that anyone is extending reservations at that time), with no other change in inventory until 8am or later.

I check many resorts every night between midnight and 8am to monitor for refurbs, but Poly hasn't been one of them because it was last refurbed in 2021 (or maybe 2020? I forget). But once I saw the Poly disruption, I then did a non-scientific 'lookback' to see when the inventory disruption might have started. As you mentioned, owners could have booked and contributed to reduced inventory so the lookback is very fuzzy. Despite that, it's very likely the inventory disruption is on the order of at least days and even likely over 2 weeks so far. Theoretically it could have been going on even longer than that, depending on how they initiated the inventory disruption (I have seen other refurb-likely resorts do weird things).

This is interesting. Could very well be nothing of significance, but ya never know. Something to definitely keep an eye on.

 

[CarolynFH]

I wonder if it will even have Polynesian in the name when it officially goes on sale.

I think they will tie the Seven Seas Lagoon name into the official name somehow.

I do think it will have a unique name. I think they will incorporate Luau Cove into it.

I agree that they'll incorporate some tribute to Luau Cove - my guess is "The Aloha Tower at the Polynesian Village Resort" (Polynesian Village Resort being the current official name of the entire complex, per the sign at the entrance to the Poly parking lot). And I definitely believe it will be a separate condominium association, because I just can't see any benefit to DVD of allowing current PVB owners immediate 11 month booking rights to the new tower, instead of requiring them (and everyone else) to buy points and thereby pay for construction of the building. I also can't even imagine how much of the new building they'd have to declare immediately into the condominium, to give those pre-existing PVB owners the required 11-month access to what would be part of their home resort.

 

[hockeydad21]

I agree that they'll incorporate some tribute to Luau Cove - my guess is "The Aloha Tower at the Polynesian Village Resort" (Polynesian Village Resort being the current official name of the entire complex, per the sign at the entrance to the Poly parking lot). And I definitely believe it will be a separate condominium association, because I just can't see any benefit to DVD of allowing current PVB owners immediate 11 month booking rights to the new tower, instead of requiring them (and everyone else) to buy points and thereby pay for construction of the building. I also can't even imagine how much of the new building they'd have to declare immediately into the condominium, to give those pre-existing PVB owners the required 11-month access to what would be part of their home resort.

They're going to sell the same amount of points whether it is a new association or part of the existing PVB association. If they determine the building to be worth roughly 5million points, then that's what they're going with regardless of association, so I don't think has anything to do with determining an association.

Your point about how many units/rooms they'd have to declare on day 1 could definitely have an effect on their decision though. Never really thought about it like that, but you raise a very valid argument.

 

[CarolynFH]

They're going to sell the same amount of points whether it is a new association or part of the existing PVB association. If they determine the building to be worth roughly 5million points, then that's what they're going with regardless of association, so I don't think has anything to do with determining an association.

Your point about how many units/rooms they'd have to declare on day 1 could definitely have an effect on their decision though. Never really thought about it like that, but you raise a very valid argument.

Yes, the number of points they’ll assign to the resort will be the same, and eventually they’ll sell them all. My opinion is that they’ll sell them more quickly (and pay off those construction loans more quickly) if it’s a new association and everyone who wants to own there has to buy there, rather than becoming an owner by default and not contributing anything toward paying off construction debt. As Sandi and others have pointed out, they’ll do what benefits DVD the most. And yes, I know about VGF2, but to me that was an opportunistic flip. DVD needed something to sell in place of Reflections, and WDW Resorts had extra rooms they needed to offload at GF. Win-win!

 

[Brian Noble]

I think there are two considerations.

The first is that DVC believes that resale restrictions are in their best interests. So, all other things being equal, this will be a new association. The second consideration: Is there any reason why having it in the same association significantly improves their ability to sell points in a reasonable amount of time at a price they can be happy with?*

I believe the second question is not going to be driven by existing Poly owners---at least, not primarily. Current owners represent only abou 6-7% of the existing WDW ownership base on a per-point basis---that's before the GFV 2.0 points are accounted for, but assumes RIV is sold out, so figure that's close to a wash.

The second question might not even be driven by existing owners generally, though that question will matter more, because there are more of them. I don't know off the top of my head what the new owner/existing owner ratio is in point sales, but I will be surprised if it is less than 3:1.

So, why did they fold GFV2 into the existing association? My best guess: Because doing so helped them sell points. As a separate association, what are you selling? Hotel rooms. I mean, you can call them resort studios if you like. But they are hotel rooms. They are very nice, heavily gilded hotel rooms. But they are hotel rooms.

The DVC marketing message is not "save money on your hotel rooms," though that is in fact what a lot of people do. Instead, the DVC marketing message is aspirational: "Beyond the Traditional Hotel Room." That's a lot harder to do if all you are selling is hotel rooms.

They will not have that problem with Poly 2.0. Interestingly, even though they might have had that problem with VDH, they (a) did not put many larger rooms in that tower and (b) did not try to combine it with VGC. They might not have legally been able to do (b), but they still didn't bother with (a). Anaehim is not Orlando, blah blah blah. But still. And even so, there are a few larger rooms they can point to. You'll never be able to book them, but hey they are there!

----------
*: I don't think there is a third question. I don't think they care if it is studio-light (assuming it even is; that's not clear), and the Poly could fix that, unless being studio-light makes it harder to sell points to the average buyer. They certainly do not care if existing Poly owners would be happier if they had larger units. Those points are sold and are no longer in the mix.

 

[Brian Noble]

Note that that doesn't mean I think it has to be a new association. There might be reasons why they think it will sell better as one. But, "will it sell better as one association to everyone who comes in the door" is the only question---and it has to be unequivocally yes if they are going to give up restrictions on it.

So, my money is on New Association, though it's a hunch and not a strong bet.

 

[tidefan]

And yes, I know about VGF2, but to me that was an opportunistic flip. DVD needed something to sell in place of Reflections, and WDW Resorts had extra rooms they needed to offload at GF. Win-win!

It wasn't a win for existing VGF1 owners...

 

[RoseGold]

Where is the precedent for Disney adding on to an existing resort by name and making it a separate association? I'll wait.

Obvious example is CCV. They could have just done a flip and folded it into BR, like they did for VGF2. Instead, they kept the chart and extended the contract, both losers for Disney.