So what is your take on this building? Your last post left me confused
You say no general rooms, no demand for suites, and even if we add the 88 suites you mentioned above to the 220 DVC rooms - that still makes it a pretty small DVC. And there is the lack of DVC in the later documents - could be a distraction, but still worth noting. And suites? Why call them suites? To avoid Villas and speculation about DVC? Didn't work.
I said no general rooms. I didn't say "no demand for suites", I said "I don't think there's enough demand to fill BOTH the 4S resort and about a 450% increase in units at CR" There's a bit of a difference.
300+ DVC rooms would be about 50% bigger than Beach club (204 units), and about 25% smaller than Boardwalk villas. It would be big enough to avoid some of the demand problems at BCV, I think, and not be completely overwhelmed, but small enough to justify a points premium and make ownership (ie: the 11 month window) compelling. Remember, we're talking 300+ 2 BR units, probably mostly lockoffs...and hopefully preserving the "sleeps 5 in a 1BR" precedent set by AKV.
Why call them suites AFTER using the DVC moniker in earlier paperwork? Don't know. Neither explanation possible is 100% "satisfying". Maybe they simply haven't (or hadn't) come up with a DVC specific moniker that they liked. Maybe they switched over when it became apparent it wouldn't be "the next" DVC, while still evaluating what the building would become. Maybe, maybe, maybe....the truth is there's lots of ways to explain it, but NONE of them "fit" perfectly. We'll have to wait and see what comes of it to see if there was any real discernable rhyme or reason to it.
There is plenty of evidence from the past 2 years that Disney wants to go upscale. They've moved consumer lines toward upscale (partner with Drexel-Heritage, clothing, wedding dresses, etc). They've talked about putting 'themed' hotels in cities in lieu of expanding resorts. And other comments related to capturing the premium dollar client.
There's years (many more than 2...this is just the latest attempt) worth of evidence that Disney would LIKE to do this. They've had varying degrees of success at it, but mostly those "varying degrees" are at the lower end of the spectrum. Which begs the question: IF Disney was going to chase this same demo, internally, why partner with 4S. That's the million(aire) dollar question. Because, from a business perspective, it makes zero sense to fracture a market you want by allowing your competitor to set up shop, on land you own, right across the lake. If ANYONE could explain that inconsistency away, it would go a long way toward supporting the assertion this is a "mixed use" building.
And it makes sense. Who else is going to do it? Don't millionaires have kids? Don't millionaires take vacations? There's a whole class of 'closet' millionaires that don't jet set around the world, but rather just like their space. But if a DVC room isn't "up to standards" as far as upkeep - why not put in suites? I'm not necessarily talking about italian marble suites here - just well maintained, high quality 1, 2, and 3 bedroom hotel suites. And what better way than to put them on a monorail resort?
It makes sense to you. It makes little to me, in light of the 4S deal. You ask who else is going to do it...that's your answer: Disney brought in a known commodity to do it, to cater to a "discerning" (and you can read that however you want.
) clientele who has proven they favor specific "branding" when making many of their purchases. That's just the observed behaviors when dealing with that demo....
And even if you assume otherwise, and follow your line of logic, then where are they currently staying at WDW? And why would they consider a move to these suites if they're currently willing to book existing properties? Or do you think Disney's building this on pure speculation that they MIGHT be able to attract this new market? See, that's where, from a business standpoint, mixed use doesn't make sense to me. "Build it and they will come" is a poor justification for doing something, IMHO, especially in a case like this where you're dealing with a notoriously fickle demographic. And, again, that's why the 4S resort deal makes so much sense: You get their name, which is a draw unto itself, and can lure the market into your theme parks to get your hand in their wallets there. All while risking little to no capital.
As far as differentiating DVCs... I have no inside knowledge of this - but to me its a possibility. You talk about demand at a smaller, more desirable resort. Well one way you manage that is to control ownership. There are 2 ways to control ownership. Essentially charge double the points for the rooms - but if the buy in is still the same you'll have add-on galore. I can see people adding on 50 point contracts for CRV even if that means they only get 1 weeknight. They just make it their little treasure at the end of a trip to stay one night at the CRV. Lots of mini-owners, lots of churn, lots of mousekeeping for the check-in/check-out. Yuck.
Again, more points per night (though I highly doubt it will be double)....absolutely a possibility, I think. Charging more per point OR creating a "new category" of DVC? I think there's little to no chance of that for the reasons I mentioned before. Logistically, sales wise, public relations wise, and current member satisfaction wise it would be a nightmare. There's just so many "nightmare" factors to consider if they were to try doing this. Disney has a product that currently "works"...I don't think they will make a fundamental change that could alienate both current and prospective members when the benefit from doing so would be negligable. They'll just charge a premium number of points and/or maint fees (gotta cover the DVC portion of the monorail service, after all!!!).
The other way is to make the buy-in price high and the maintenance high. But to do that you have to offer more. So you make the CRV a DVC Suites 'class'. And people with DVC Suites pay more to buy-in. But a DVC Suite point is worth 2 regular DVC points. And regular DVC points are worth 1/2 DVC Suites point. So you can control the buy-in to CRV, you get the higher maintenance to "keep the rooms up", but you still have the flexibility of DVC.
Unlikely? maybe. Possible? Yes. Completely based on a guess/opinion? Yes.
Couldn't have said it better. Anything is possible. But it's pretty unlikely, IMHO.
On the maintenance...they can't really jack it up artificially. I think it would be higher based on taxes, the inevitable monorail maintenance, etc, but....it has to tie out to the budget and be justifiable based on expenses, etc. I'm pretty sure they can't just set it at, say, $7 per point, simply because they want to.
All of this is speculation. Anyone that says otherwise is kidding themselves or at risk of being fired. We do know a couple facts though:
1) There is a building going there and its 95+% a C-shaped tower for accomodations.
2) Its connected to the Contemporary by a walk-way.
3) You don't have the demand for $1000/night rooms to fill the entire tower.
4) You wouldn't put your $1000/night people in a separate building that requires walking or other transportation to get to. Thats not acceptable for that cost/class.
5) The documents are contradictory as to what it is, but it uses the term 'suites'.
I still think this is a mixed use building. And it depends on what class of "suites" go into this building as to whether or not we see a segmentation of DVC for a "higher class" accomodation.
Chris
We'll have to wait and see. I don't see us getting anything "official" for awhile yet....maybe once vertical construction starts in earnest, but....maybe not until closer to completion. We'll have to revisit this thread once we get official word to see which scenario plays out....
... sounds like a bit of a PR mess.
