Do the funky chicken?

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well, well, well! Once again the LandBaron has not been clear. I thought it was just Peter skimming over my posts, but more people are questioning the admittedly elusive concept. For example, Gcurling says:

Landbaron, I think the Golf Resort really breaks down your argument. Seems the only reason you believe it to qualify under the "Disney Standard" is because it's been there since your "glory days of WDW".

Absolutely not!! It falls under the standard because of the concept!! It was conceived, created and constructed within the philosophy. It was built with the idea in mind that some people would enjoy a 'golf' vacation, not a 'theme park' vacation. It was a retreat from the sometimes hectic amusement park crowd. It sat on the edge of the only two golf courses at the time. Tucked away in an isolated corner of WDW. It's 'theme' at the time (all but gone today) was a huge pro shop. I think it did a wonderful job of fulfilling it's mission statement.

Now we come to taste. Did the general population buy into it? Do I like the theme? Did the place fit into my personal taste? Sadly, no! I didn't care for it all. I didn't play golf at the time so the Pro Shop thing was kinda lost on me. I was a theme park enthusiast so the 'tucked away corner of the world' didn't fit into what I wanted on my WDW vacation. And by and large the general population agreed. It was a failed experiment. But a gallant try! Ergo, it fit within the Standard and the philosophy!! Now do you get it?

But since WL was built during the Eisner regime, you don't think it's Disney Standard.

I really want to know what lead you to that belief!! I don't think I ever inferred that WL isn't within Disney Standards. The price is too high, but it clearly falls within the standards!! One of the few things the Ei$ner regime has done right!! Remember I'm the guy that said that you necessarily need a monorail to fit the standard. In fact, now that I think about it, no one particular item could ever be a make or break for the standard. It all has to measured in context. And clearly WL is up to the measuring stick!

I can't possibly fathom how someone (despite how many times I re-read your posts) can call the Disney Inn "Magical" and the GF "not Magical."

OK. I'm gonna try this again. So far the only one that seems to grasp my concept is YoHo.

Listen carefully!!

I NEVER SAID THAT GF ISN'T MAGICAL! I SAID THAT GF DEVIATED FROM THE STANDARD!!

Sorry for shouting, but it is an important, if subtle, point. I personally think that GF is wonderful!!! My family kids me all the time for my "snobbish" attitude because I want to stay there someday. They do not!! I like the design and the ambience. But the construction of the place helped blur the line of the 'Standard'! The aim was too high. It was the first time that a goal was not to present quality, but to COMPETE with other hotels. And I find that disturbing. Just as disturbing, and maybe even more, as I find the economies. Again the goal was not to exceed expectations, but instead to capture a segment of the market for as many bucks as possible!! I really don't understand how everyone doesn't find that disquieting in the least and very un-Disney!

Peter,

If the philosophy is to 'create a resort that must be themed in a manner to entertain, enlighten and amaze' we can all understand & agree, right.

Not right!! So until we can agree on the basic premise the rest of the post doesn't apply!

I don't mean to dismiss it. My posts don't really apply to you either because we have a very different base line that we work from. I've spent a couple days trying to explain what this philosophy is and JJ and especial AV have said it much better than I could. Please, Peter. Go back and read those posts. Particularly the one that AV wrote concerning the movie set tie in.

Peter, JeffJewell gave the following example:

It's very possible to separate philosophy from taste: I like the approach they used when creating Tower of Terror, but I don't actually care for the ride experience, that much. On the other hand, I hate the approach they used when building Rock 'n' Roller Coaster, but I love riding it.

Perfect example!! Wonderful. And I have the exact same feelings!

Peter. Is that somewhat clearer?

 

[Another Voice]

After spending far too much time on this thread I’ve have come to the simple conclusion there are two sets of people here.

There are the ones the like the “classic” Disney as typified by early WDW, and the ones that like the “hyper” Disney era that opened later.

There are those see the past in context and who judge today’s actions against memories. There are see that past only in hindsight and find it lacks today’s sensibilities.

There are those that remember a time before hidden mickeys, the name with an apostrophy, pins and Pooh plush carts. There are others that are bored beyond a stupor by concrete A-frame towers, quiet places in the trees, and attractions that travel at less than 10 mph.

There are those want to see Walt, and those want to see Disney® .

 

[JeffJewell]

"But since WL was built during the Eisner regime, you don't think it's Disney Standard."
I really want to know what lead you to that belief!!

...I believe that's probably mostly my fault.

Early in the thread, I said AKL did not live up to "Disney resort" standards, and that WL barely did. Later in the thread, Greg referred to people questioning the status of WL and AKL, and rather than spend much time clarifying something that seemed kinda insignificant, I made a joke about it, which seems to have implied that I was saying WL did _not_ meet the standard. That was a misstatement on my part. I do not think _anyone_ here actually holds the belief the WL simply does not meet the standard.

So that's how the faux "WL isn't Disney" thing happened. And I've been just awful about poaching posts aimed at the 'Baron recently... so I can understand that some things I've said might have gotten munged up with the 'Baron's arguments.

As far as you all know, I'm hanging my head in chagrin about this misunderstanding...

Jeff

 

[raidermatt]

Jeff- Shame on you for your dishonest ways! "Dishonor on YOU, Dishonor on your COW..."

AV- I'm actually ok with parts of your breakdown, though certainly not your implications. Quiet places in the trees? Attractions that go less than 10 mph? LOVE 'EM! And they are still there.

Speaking for myself, I'm really not bothered by a Pooh plush cart. I don't have to buy if I don't want to, but I do enjoy shopping at Disney, including in the parks. So shoot me.

I believe I actually keep the past in context quite well. Walt was a great man, and I am thankful for his wonderful creations. And when I go to WDW or DL, it does not bother me one bit that there are people who get enjoyment out of different things than I do. Even thought the AS, and, 'gulp', PC go up, nothing has changed at the resorts I wish to stay.

This notion that every Disney resort must have everything the Poly and Contemp had is just poppycock. There were only two resorts! To say that all future resorts must have everything both of these have is simply shortsighted, for it would also follow that any improvements should be nixed.

It might be different if there weren't so many Deluxes, with so many different options. However, those of us who consider some or all of the Deluxes to be the true definition of Disney Magic have plenty of choices. If someone else has a different definition, more power to them.

 

[YoHo]

Just to bop Back to Planogirl's question that AV answered admirably.

Personally, to my tastes, I'd rather stay at the worst room at the Disneyland hotel facing the parking garage and local housing then any room and Pop Century and I'm tempted to say All Stars, but gcurling has convinced me they may have value.

It is a lovely resort and the Rebuild that has occured that improved the rooms and put in an excellent pool have done wonders to it.

The Hotel buildings are drab, but I love it none the less.

Scoop, I just want to say that I can agree with Landbaron on Fort Wilderness. If you think KOA and Jellystone compare, then you must see something I don't. That being said, you've made some cool suggestions, I like the Amazon theme.

Read what AV had to say. It sounds like the Golf Resort was intentionally built OUTSIDE the magic.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

If you think KOA and Jellystone compare, then you must see something I don't. That being said, you've made some cool suggestions, I like the Amazon theme.

Scoop, I used this quote because I didn't want to take the time to look up the original. And I agree with both you and YoHo that an Amazon theme would have been WAY COOL!!! But, I think we're talking about taste again, instead of standards! By this remark I know I have not made my point at all. By the mere mention of this you show me we're still talking apples and oranges. If we use that as a guide then I would say that all the recent resorts suck!! Why? They are ALL American (or at least western hemisphere) themes! Nothing exotic. No Venetian. No Persian. No Mediterranean. No Asian. No Bavarian. All good old USA!! (or very close neighbor!) My choices would have been…

Do you see where that leaves us? Arguing taste instead of standards. Style over substance. The point is they went with an American theme. A Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone type thing. Maybe an Amazon adventure would have been more to your liking, but that's personal taste. And it definitely has nothing whatsoever to do with the care and diligence that went into the concept!! Well within the "Standards"!!

 

[Another Voice]

Mr. Matt – I’m sorry but you’re being far too diplomatic for the tone in this thread. You must try to have a firmer opinion here.

Another way of looking at the split is that WDW used to be more “resort” and less “Disney”. Today, the place is very much about being as “Disney” as possible and less concerned about being a regular resort. The Golf Resort was never meant to be Disney in today’s sense of Disney®.

The “classic” Disney approach was to take a familiar experience and apply filmmaking techniques to it. An amusement park ride became a movie in three dimensions. Hotel décor was given a “movie set” sense of purpose and story flow. Even the boring old Golf Resort was (very intentionally) given a very dramatic, sweeping drive-up between the fairways so that it felt like a very secluded private club (the kind you only see in movies). This approach also saw the resorts in isolation – each was a self-contained entity (as far as themeing and the “experience”). There was less of a sense of how the resort tied into the rest of WDW.

This approach doesn’t have anything to do with the money. I find the Yacht and Beach Clubs to be very nice hotels and beautiful buildings. But they lack that classic Disney dramatic touch and fall rather flat for me. They’re nice, but I’ve seen plenty of “nice” hotels. It’s also interesting to note that the hotels were built by a traditional architect without and input from Disney creative. On the other hand, the views at Dixie Landings were all carefully laid out and plotted with a filmmaker’s eye, not an architect’s. The buildings and interiors are not as nice as Y&B, but I think the experience of the place is more interesting and more classically Disney.

Today’s Disney® is less about the having that kind of experience and more about having a brand experience. The décor on the outside of Pop Century is not there because someone had a great idea one day about a wonderful new hotel. The décor is there to establish a definite brand identity for the place, and to re-enforce the Disney Brand identity. A lot of companies have been very successful at it (think how much you pay for a pair of Nikes) and Disney is following business trends. Disney® is selling Disney and people want to buy.

The new resorts are more closely tied to WDW as a whole since the experience people want is the total of WDW, not just of one resort. The resort becomes a smaller part of the equation and therefore has to be “toned down” a bit in its approach. No resort pool can compete with Blizzard Beach, and no resort themeing can compete with the parks. The resorts are a supporting part and take a supporting role.

I think both approaches have their merits and their problems. Certainly people can rightly appreciate either one.

Okay, one problem is that it’s very easy for the “in-your-face” to overshadow the “subtle” elements. Yes, Main Street is still there just as it was in 1955 and 1971 – but you have to push aside the photographers chasing after your pocketbook to see it (they always give me a rather wistful regret that light sabers aren’t real which takes me a while to get over).

 

[YoHo]

AV just reminded me of the number one problem I had with the Disney Cruise. Every Time a character was out for pictures their was a professional Photographer there to take that picture. Now they Were great CMS. they would take their picture and then take a Picture with your camera, but never the less, they were always there. Very annoying.

 

[d-r]

So I get a out of a meeting and have a couple of minutes before I meet my wife, and I thought that I would check in and see how this was going.

I open up the browser, type in disboards, and scroll down the list looking for the link, and click on, of course "Debate Board." The page opens, and I'm excited to see all these new threads that I haven't read! But boy do they have some really weird subjects. OH, then I figure it out - I usuallly read the "RUMORS AND NEWS" board!!

I think it would be so over the top hilarious if sarangel moved this thread - all 11 pages of it - to the debate board. I wonder how the regulars there would react to getting all of this in one shot? I think it would be hella cool.

DR

 

[YoHo]

They used to try that. It never worked out. Louis and Sara can't stop us any more.

Actually, we've picked up a couple of Debate board regulars in the last 6 months. I think they got bored with the political debate.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Thank you again AV for crawling into my head putting in writing what I am 'feeling'. (There isn't a portal somewhere in LA that lets you get into my brain and then drops you on the Jersey Turnpike, is there?) Anyway…

Okay, one problem is that it's very easy for the "in-your-face" to overshadow the "subtle" elements. Yes, Main Street is still there just as it was in 1955 and 1971 - but you have to push aside the photographers chasing after your pocketbook to see it (they always give me a rather wistful regret that light sabers aren't real which takes me a while to get over).

Boy oh boy!! You got that one right. That is EXACTLY my concern. It is why the plush shops bother me. Why the 'Decorations' bother me. And everything else I'm always on about bothers me. The subtlety, cleverness and elegance is indeed lost. Maybe you just had to experience it to appreciate it. When I think about I realize that is what I miss most.

 

[raidermatt]

AV- Diplomacy shiplomacy...

Really, though, I have to say I agree with much of what you said, and more to the point, with the way you presented it. I'm not saying that if every resort were like the Poly and Contempo in everyway, that would be inherently wrong. I can see how some would prefer that. I just don't see going the current route bringing down the median level of Magic, and the current route has its merits, both from a Magic perspective, and a business perspective.

At first, the idea of the photographers bothered me as well. While I like to shop for things I am interested in, I don't want things sold to me. But when we had a group of 10 people, with at least 5 cameras, and the photographer took a group photo of us with each camera, how could I complain? Everybody gets a photo with their own camera, we actually get through quicker because we don't have to switch off to take the pictures, and each photo has the whole group in it. I've never had this happen anywhere else. And when we had no interest in stopping for a photo, I have to say that the Disney photographers are not pushy at all. Sure it would be nice in those cases to not even have them there. But because they are there, I have a wonderful group photo of friends and family that I probably wouldn't have had, (at least for free) and might never get the chance to have again.

I'm sure there are other examples that I might not have a different side for, I'm just saying that its just not all black and white. I've mostly held back on Dino-rama because I haven't seen it in person. But I am defintitely apprehensive...

d-r- On the debate board, this would have two camps. One would insist that the problems with the resorts are all the fault of the wicked Clinton administration, and that only tax cuts will solve the problem. The other would counter with Iran-Contra and that George W. Bush's Axis of Evil comments are responsible for Iraq deciding against a World Showcase pavilion. (At least that's how every other debate ends)

Baron- If we accept different standards with restaurants (and PLEASE do not try to tell me that Pecos Bill's is up to the same Disney standard as Cinderella's Royal Table), why can we not accept it with resorts? Surely you must see Pecos Bill's and Cosmic Ray's as you tour the Kingdom. They clearly have a lessor standard in service, themeing, food quality, presentation, you name it. But some prefer this type of dining, or simply cannot afford more.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

And it hurts!!!!!!

They clearly have a lessor standard in service, themeing, food quality, presentation, you name it. But some prefer this type of dining, or simply cannot afford more.

OK! Fair enough. Only one problem with that scenario as I see it. They are NOT different!! Oh sure they have different menus. They have different methods of preparation (chef vs. cook) and presentation (table service vs. self serve). But, and I'm kind of surprised you mentioned it, there is no difference in theme!! Each is themed to what it is supposed to 'feel' like. And that is important!! And I would assume the 'food quality' is the same for their particular venues. And even more important; they both give you a Disney Dining Experience. I suppose its like comparing Dumbo to Pirates! They are what they are, within the context of the Philosophy. (After re-reading this drivel I have to say - Please bear with me. I'm trying to articulate feelings here and that usually takes me two or three posts!! Keep asking questions. It'll come!!)

Anyway, I see a HUGE difference. I really think it's like trying to compare apples and oranges. Now! If you'd like to discuss Pecos Bill's as opposed to a McDonald's in Disney!! Well, get ready for at least four more pages!!!

 

[raidermatt]

Raidermatt forces LandBaron to THINK!!!

No fair. You can't start throwing rational thought into this discussion now. What if we all did that?

I certainly understand what you mean by sometimes having trouble articulating Disney-motions (emoitions, Disney style). But I still have to say I didn't read anything yet to make be re-think my position. (Actually, I can't re-think if I didn't think in the first place, can I?) (I think I'll start using MORE parenthesis in my posts. It seems to be thowing some of you for a loop!)

But, and I'm kind of surprised you mentioned it, there is no difference in theme!! Each is themed to what it is supposed to 'feel' like.

SSSSCCCCRRRRRREEEEEAAAAACCCCCHHHHH!!!!! (Raidermatt comes to a screaching halt, unable to believe he has actually read this comment from Landbaron.)

Ok, Cinderella's Table is themed to be like what we imagine Cinderella's dining room to be like, should we be ever so lucky enough to be her invited guest. We are referred to as m'Lord, and m'Lady (take your pick). Tapestries, stained glass, high backed chairs, and a bill for it all. Cosmic Ray's? Uhhh. Is this supposed to be a futristic eatery? What planet am I on? One that has solved that cosmic mystery of how to serve food in a recycled cardboard container? At least they have blackbirds and love bugs on this planet, so I will not feel homesick. Or perhaps this is Earth circa 2050? Too bad we still haven't figured out that Catsup packets should come in larger packets because NOBODY uses just one of those puny things. Granted, Cinderella's Table may not be authentic Medival dining, but at least I can go along with it. But if Cosmic Ray's is the eatery of the future, in the same vain as Cinderella's is the eatery of fantastical castles, YIKES!

 

[DC7800]

Originally posted by thedscoop
... I'll agree about the tower but those wings seem to represent the exact business philiosphy that you are complaining off. Put it up because you need the rooms and then worry about its theme...and this is why I at least try to get the baseline argeement that the PC issue we're discussing is not a new issue--maybe more prevalent these days for some--but this issue has affected Disney all the way back to the building of the garden wings (and arguably the Disney Inn)

Contemp Garden Wings presented by Days Inn and sponsored by Comfort Inn International=best evidence that bad decison like PC are not only within the realm of Michael Eisner...

Sorry to pick on thedscoop since, geographically speaking, we're practically neighbors, but I have to take up for the Contemporary Garden Wings. There is simply no comparison between those CR wings and Pop Century; not in theming, nor execution, and certainly not in underlying philosophy. Further, if the PC issue can truly be traced back to the Garden Wings construction, that takes us back to WDW's 1971 origins. Does anyone really believe that the watered-down, half-hearted Disney magic present in Pop Century was also part of the original plans for WDW?

The Contemporary - including the Garden Wings - are at least as well themed as the Boardwalk, or Yacht & Beach. In 1971, as the resort fit in with Tomorrowland, the theming was even stronger. But, like it's MK counterpart, the future has the nasty habit of catching up to the Contemporary, and there hasn't quite been enough updating to project the property into the future as far as it was in '71. Still, with a contemporary (present to near-future) theme, the result is still very effective. Even the atmosphere-heavy Polynesian shows its age in some aspects; that doesn't mean it has lost an ounce of pixie dust, however.

The Contemporary theming - identical in both tower and garden - is also far more subtle than the Wilderness Lodge or some other properties, but just as immersive. That's hardly a bad thing. Sure, Disney could add stronger "decorations", perhaps 50-foot Astro Orbiter style spaceship icons, and paint the concrete surface some bright color (wouldn't purple look good? ). This would indeed proclaim the future more boldly at the CR, but personally, I prefer the more obscure design!

As for PC and the All-Stars, I have mixed feelings. I'm grateful for their presence, for otherwise there would have been several years we would been forced to stay off-property (and All-Stars does - obviously - have more pixie-dust than Hampton Inn). However, I'll also agree that their prescence can diminish the "Disney magical" experience, much like the new under $30,000 offerings from Jaguar and Mercedes threaten to do for their distinguished reputations. Both are good cars, and the All-Stars are good resorts. Neither can be described as great, and neither really gives us the true Mercedes or Disney experience we really wanted. Again, each example above will benefit short-term sales, yet all will eventually be detrimental to long-term brand reputation and, in the end, profits.

 

[Another Voice]

Mr. Matt, I’m actually in agreement with you too about the fact that every resort should not be the Poly and Contemp. Not everyone wants that level of hotel, or at least wants to pay for it. I even have to admit that my favorite resort to stay at was the Golf Resort/Disney Inn exactly because it was the least “themed” resort on property. Traveling on business, even to WDW, one begins to crave “normalcy” and this place was as close as one could get. Still, I think when Disney goes after the “theme” hotel project they should do it right. Disney missed an excellent opportunity by taking the easy way out for Pop Century. A true “Disney experience” at budget prices would have been nice to see.

My comment about the photographers was really just an example of a concern. In an effort to promote “the brand” it becomes very easy to forget about “the show”. Way back there was a big meeting about “what to do with Disneyland”. There was a big effort to promote the park using special events – the County Fair, the 1950’s theme, the Circus (this one even made it to EPCOT if people remember the elephant act in the middle of CommuniCore). The park was strung will all kinds of special entertainment and booths and bunting and decoration – all on top of the existing park. As plans were being made to expand this program, a well known designer stood up absolutely furious. He yelled out a phrase that I wanted to have inscribed over the entrance the Team Disney Building: “People go to Disneyland to see Disneyland!”

In the effort to sell pins, Pooh plush, photographs, refillable mugs and all the rest – Disney is forgetting to sell the parks. That’s why people go to WDW in the first place. Having inexpensive motel rooms isn’t going to do any good if there’s nothing there that people want to see. And Disney found this out well before Sept. 11 when it first delayed the opening of Pop Century. Any way, I feel that’s probably another topic.

And in a year that’s already made me feel old, please remember that in 1971 the Contemporary was at the very cutting edge of themeing – it really was the most futuristic building anyone had ever put together (watch that old clip where David Brinkley talks about the opening of WDW). Clean lines, unornamented white concrete really was “neat” at the time. That was until the real world caught up and everyone found themselves locked in cubicle fields in suburban sprawl tilt wall buildings.

There have been many plans over the years to update the place; all of them have been shot down. The last refurbishment was really tacked onto the construction of the convention center and was all they could get away with under the budget they had. There was even an impressive 50’s retro look, but because the place makes so much money off conventions anything really “wild” is killed. Basic thought is that bland is an easier sell to moderate-rate conventions.

And lastly, Mr. Matt, the gratuitous use of parentheses (which I’m really very fond of) is part of my style. Baron’s got his quotes, Pirate has his split personality, and I’ve got my asides. We all have our own niche.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

SSSSCCCCRRRRRREEEEEAAAAACCCCCHHHHH!!!!! (Raidermatt comes to a screeching halt, unable to believe he has actually read this comment from Landbaron.)

Ladies and Gentlemen!! That’s style!! How can you not like reading a post like this!?!?

Anyway… Down to business! Reread my post. I specifically compared Cinderella’s to Pecos Bill’s! I never, ever mentioned Cosmic Ray. In fact I steered clear of it because it is themed… well… ah… “differently”. And I personally don’t know how to categorize it. Yet you avoid Bill’s and concentrate on Cosmic Ray. But my comparison still holds between Cindy’s and Bill’s. At least to me it does!!

But hold on raidermatt!! The LandBaron may be on the threshold of a new thought. I may even consider reassessing my position somewhat!! (See!! Even I can learn new tricks!!) Something you have said, in conjunction with AV’s post. So, a question for you. And my new way of thinking depends on your answer!! (How’s that for drama?!?!)

How is Pecos Bill’s vs. Cindy’s different than Pirates vs. Dumbo? In the context of that ever-elusive standard I’m always talking about, of course.

You see, I contend that there is no difference.

 

[airlarry!]

I hope I am not injecting too much of the original topic in here..but

I've been looking at the second installment of Marc's excellent tour of the MiraCosta resort at TDS.

Maybe you like AS, maybe you don't.

But, I would like to see the number of people who would have chosen instead the Mira Costa resort...at the AS prices.

Crazy? Doesn't make business sense?

If the resorts were designed with experience in mind, in other words, every Disney resort will give their guest the same level, the same kind of experience, but the pricing points would differ on the:
a. extent of in-resort amenities
b. extent of in-WDW transportation options (but hopefully all themed to take you away),

then wouldn't the Hoteleers have done their job? The caste system would be the perfect one...some people go to WDW and don't have the money to hit every sit-down restaurant. They eat from the fast-food places. Some don't have the money to stay at the GF. But they want to stay at a place that is similar in quality. They just don't need all the snobby stuff to go with it.

WDW does not scrimp in the parks, setting the guests against each other with some internal cast esystem. So why do that in the resorts? But, JJ that doesn't mean you don't build the AS. You just build them as nice as the Poly, without all the fancy schmancy do-dads that drive up the cost. Make 'em bigger, make 'em without sit down restaurants, make 'em without beautiful lounges or beaches or rental places.

Wow:
http://www.laughingplace.com/News-PID505470-505481.asp
http://www.laughingplace.com/ShowPi...raCosta02/big/P12-4.jpg&Caption=...Outside+it's+DisneySea...&ID=505470

 

[All Aboard]

airlarry, noble concept, but...

It's a fairly simple formula. Net annual profit (revenue less expenses) divided by capital cost = return on investment.

Can you build a Mira Costa, tend to the architecture and landscaping and charge $77 a night? What kind of return do you get?

In order to get the required return on a $77 a night hotel, you are limited in how much you can spend to build the place AND by how much you shell out in ongoing expenses. That's why you have smaller rooms, more rooms in each building, less expensive structures, more care-free landscaping, fewer CM's, etc.

The economics have to work.

Clearly, I realize that AS is "less" in every possible way than GF. However, that doesn't change my opinion that they are perfectly suited to WDW. I won't list the reasons why again.

 

[Another Voice]

“Can you build a Mira Costa, tend to the architecture and landscaping and charge $77 a night? What kind of return do you get?”

The question what kind of return do you need for it to make sense as a hotel, and what kind of return do you need to make sense for Disney.

Pop Century doesn’t look the way it does because of the margins dictated by being a budget hotel. It looks the way it does because of ABC Family, ABC in general, Go.com, ‘Pearl Harbor’, The Secret Lab, store remodeling, and all those other projects your money goes to instead of to landscaping, cast members and such.