The Rumors Are True! Goodbye River Country and TCD Barn!

[retired and happy]

TCD and Shanta,

Good info and points to ponder. It seems like there will be a loss of isolation, especially around the 100 loop , and a loss of some privacy around 100-200 loops if the Pavilion goes there. Maybe some Disney magic can preserve the Fort somewhat as we know it.

Maybe the aroma of Kongaloosh wafting through the remaining trees will entice some of our new neighbors to infiltrate the Fort. We may need to build up a better fence.

But as they build more "civilization" there will be less room for wildlife....less "nature" around.

 

[Tri-circle-D]

As TCD has already said, there is PLENTY of room here to handle a pretty large resort. I was just playing around and discovered that the ENTIRE Wilderness Lodge and WL Villas can fit in the proposed site... including all necessary parking and recreation grounds, see:

Shan-man: Boy, have we missed you around here. That photo is pretty amazing. I knew that there was a lot of space, but not that much.

Looking at what they did over at BLT, I have my doubts that this new resort is going to have its own, separate, transportation. I would fully expect them to use the Fort Wilderness marina, and save the money on building a new one, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the Settlement Bus Stop incorporated into the design of this resort, with buses to the parks and other destinations arriving and departing from here. We would probably still share routes with Wilderness Lodge, and the buses would travel between the two resorts on the road that currently exists.

I also agree that they won't have traffic to this new resort travel through the Fort. They will build a new, separate, entry, or have them come in over by WL, and turn right toward the property.

I expect that whatever is built will look a lot in concept like your photo, with the guest accomodations on the lake, and parking inland. I believe that the guest rooms are going to be very close to the Clementine Beach area, so they will have a very short walk to the marina.

TCD

 

[becky1960]

Correct me as I may be wrong on this but I thought that I had read that the reason that 100-300 Loops and the area to the beach had been designated as a Wildlife area as the reason they were not upgraded.

 

[Tri-circle-D]

Correct me as I may be wrong on this but I thought that I had read that the reason that 100-300 Loops and the area to the beach had been designated as a Wildlife area as the reason they were not upgraded.

You may have read that, but I never heard anything about this. I think the only reason 100-300 didn't get switched to premium is because they are very small and tight loops to begin with. They would probably have lost campsites if they expanded the existing sites.

There are maps that we have looked at here in hte past which show the designated wetlands at WDW. The 100-300 loops are not designated wetlands.

While we are discussing the subject, I have heard similar things said about River Country- that the reason it hasn't been leveled is because it is preserve area. Not true. I think that the only reason it hasn't been leveled is because it will cost a lot to do this, and WDW probably didn't want to budget that expense until the time came to build something new.

TCD

 

[itch1]

With tears in my eyes I read on and part of my childhood memories are destroyed I knew this was coming bit am sad that the twins are not old enough to remember the way it is, and on the other hand I'm glad my 16 year old is! All the memories of the petting zoo when it had animals and the craft classes what about all of those Easters ! I look forward with intrebradation and hope the pixie dust is plentiful. I keep thinking I don't some huge eye sore
Itch

 

[ftwildernessguy]

Wetland designation was used as an excuse for not rennovating the old tree house villas, but that didn't hold true, either. I believe the only real stipulation is that Disney have a certain percentage of their property designated as wetland preserve. If they decide to develope an area previously designated as a preserve, they just designate another area. Obviously wetland designation has no impact on Disney's developing their property, since the whole place was a swamp at one time. A couple years ago we visited Disney's nature preserve which is several miles away. According to the employee, the whole reason that place exists is so Disney has a buffer for further development on the main property. They have already set aside more than enough as a nature preserve to cover future development. It would be a shame for all those deer, bear, armadillos, squirrels etc to lose their habitat in that area between FW and WL, though.

 

[I'mDownWithDisney]

Here in the US there is a "no net loss" policy regarding wetlands. This means that you can destroy wetlands in one area if you preserve/create and maintain wetlands in another area. There are ratios involved regarding the quality of wetlands destroyed. For example, a developer may be required to preserve 4 acres for every 1 acre destroyed. This is typically done by buying credits in a privately funded wetlands mitagation bank.

 

[des1954]

Wetland designation was used as an excuse for not rennovating the old tree house villas, but that didn't hold true, either. I believe the only real stipulation is that Disney have a certain percentage of their property designated as wetland preserve. If they decide to develope an area previously designated as a preserve, they just designate another area. Obviously wetland designation has no impact on Disney's developing their property, since the whole place was a swamp at one time. A couple years ago we visited Disney's nature preserve which is several miles away. According to the employee, the whole reason that place exists is so Disney has a buffer for further development on the main property. They have already set aside more than enough as a nature preserve to cover future development. It would be a shame for all those deer, bear, armadillos, squirrels etc to lose their habitat in that area between FW and WL, though.

You are "spot on", Jim. Disney owns a LOT of property to the north of my development in the Florida Green Swamp area. They could probably pave every square inch of WDW proper and still have enough land to call "wetland".

 

[Gatordad]

Hopefully the Seminole Tribe builds a casino near the Fort.

 

[BRDof3]

Hopefully the Seminole Tribe builds a casino near the Fort.

If it has a pool and a dining plan, I'm in.

 

[ntsammy5]

A couple years ago we visited Disney's nature preserve which is several miles away. .

I never knew that even existed. And what about the poor otters!

I think the plan is to turn everything into DVC

 

[islandtimect]

Wow, thanks for the BIG news. There are always rumors popping up as to where the next DVC resort is gonna be, but this sounds definite. I started staying at Fort Wilderness as a kid in 1972. Unfortunately my parents have gotted reclusive in their old age and sold their motorhome years ago. But my siblings and I have great memories of our trips there. As a DVC owner, I wish no more resorts were being built on property, but if just ONE more was built, this is the place I'd like to see it. Then maybe I could finally get my parents to do one last trip to WDW with my family...

 

[ftwildernessguy]

From what my Disney buddy tells me, Disney is not maintaining the DVC properties very well. Typical of new business school grads, they are after the short term profits. They may be expanding beyond their capabilities to take care of the existing DVC resorts. When they need another shot in the arm, they build another DVC resort. Disney reaps the most rewards on the initial sales of points at a resort, after that they get relatively small influxes of revenue in the form of "maintenance fees", which may be inadequate. At any rate, they will eventually have saturated the market. They also are going to reach a point where, without more themeparks, they will have too many guests on property to entertain, if they haven't reached this point already. Personally, I hope the very next DVC property the mouse builds is a miserable flop, sits half unsold, and the poor slobs who bought into it are crying in their Kungaloosh for making the worst investment of their lives.

 

[islandtimect]

New DVC resorts make Disney corporation a ton of money, so they keep building them. I agree that the older resorts aren't terribly well cared for. That's why I bought the newest resorts, even if I paid a tad more up front.

 

[ntsammy5]

Personally, I hope the very next DVC property the mouse builds is a miserable flop, sits half unsold, and the poor slobs who bought into it are crying in their Kungaloosh for making the worst investment of their lives.

You get the same emails I get from AFVC.... time sahres are super, super, super saturated in the Orlando area. Disney is selling theirs at premium prices in a depressed market. Something's gotta give.

 

[indimom3]

I'm actually glad they are clearing RC. Seeing it broken down like that seems wrong. It's very un-Disneylike to have a crumbling ruin sitting there.
The rest of it.... eek. I guess all we can do is wait and see. And hope that whatever positives a new resort brings, they outweigh the negative of losing the woods and the old barn.

 

[starbuc71]

From what my Disney buddy tells me, Disney is not maintaining the DVC properties very well. Typical of new business school grads, they are after the short term profits. They may be expanding beyond their capabilities to take care of the existing DVC resorts. When they need another shot in the arm, they build another DVC resort. Disney reaps the most rewards on the initial sales of points at a resort, after that they get relatively small influxes of revenue in the form of "maintenance fees", which may be inadequate. At any rate, they will eventually have saturated the market. They also are going to reach a point where, without more themeparks, they will have too many guests on property to entertain, if they haven't reached this point already. Personally, I hope the very next DVC property the mouse builds is a miserable flop, sits half unsold, and the poor slobs who bought into it are crying in their Kungaloosh for making the worst investment of their lives.

Good point, I hate getting into these debates about us trailer folk and the DVC people. Some DVC people are great people like us campers and some are just outright snobs. But I guess we can say there are some great fiends and campers and the obnoxious ones that ruin it for everyone. Back to the good point, I never thought of too many guest on property to entertain. At peak times I think this is a problem. Add the people who don't stay at the resorts that saturate our pools and it gets even worse. At times the boat docks at the fort are rediculous especially when the people are coming and going for the HDDR. It should be interesting how this all plays out

 

[AuburnJen92]

Just when you thought you were safe from the WL snobs calling you "the poor little campers who have to stay over there..." on the MK boat....

Now you get to hear it again from the DVC people who have the same attitude.


Fun, fun, fun in the sun

 

[mikeymouse1]

1. Agreed- it is good to see you post again Shan-man!

2. The word is that the Fort Wilderness Pavilion is going to be reconstructed along the lake to the East of the Settlement Trading Post. Based on some new stakes, which I will post photos of on my TR thread, I believe that the new pavilion will be in the area circled in red on this photo:

TCD

This is the perfect place for it! Blare the Hillbilly Country Bumpkin Music through the night as the folks in Golden Oaks try to relax and enjoy there money!

 

[ntsammy5]

This is the perfect place for it! Blare the Hillbilly Country Bumpkin Music through the night as the folks in Golden Oaks try to relax and enjoy there money!