Plans have been filed for DVC expansion at Caribbean Beach Resort

[Josh Hendy]

Is access to that particular corner of Epcot such a prize? For dining and drinking maybe but otherwise, it would be a bit of hike to the most worthy rides in Epcot (such as they are).

Is the walking access only attractive only in comparison with the generally slow bus service from moderate and budget resorts? Any improvement is a good thing ... but is it worth going into debt to acquire the points and actually stay there?

It feels like Disney is fairly desperate to find attractive (ish) appearing places to build and flip condos - err, I mean pre-sold vacations - but without marring the brand/marketplace for their other "actually attractive" condo locations.

With the usual disclaimer, "this is all speculation".

 

[Golfjbc89]

And look at the rooms at the resorts. Compare a OKW room to a VGF and Poly room. OKW/SSR is practical and comfortable, but by no means luxury.

I 100% agree with this, that being said i think the new CBR DVC rooms will be nicer than OKW/SSR. Whenever disney spends new money they do it right.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

The sarcasm is not necessary. I know you like to think you're the only one with a valid opinion, but others are entitled to express theirs too.

As for your question, when did I ever suggest that they wouldn't predetermine the number of points to be sold?

It's not an opinion...the development is sold according to the number of "units" and the total nights available determined by the point chart.

I mean...I did read that contract...been a few years though.

I own 3.6% of unit 27A at my home resort...what does that mean? I honestly haven't the foggiest...but it's based on finite math.

So...to build 200 units but only 5 points per night limits the contracts and limits the value of the development. And if you just "build more"...it increases the overhead and then decreases the longterm profit potential.

That's how it works. They don't look and say "we'll sell 1000"...it doesn't work that way. They have to adhere to a structure/balance it. Those units are taxed like property - albeit low- you can't oversell it. There have to be predetermined amounts based on math.

 

[Golfjbc89]

Is access to that particular corner of Epcot such a prize?

I think for the person that visits Disney often thats a nice plus, spend the day at park1, hop over to epcot for dinner. go "home" and watch the fireworks on the rooftop before heading to bed. that sounds like a pretty nice day to me

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I 100% agree with this, that being said i think the new CBR DVC rooms will be nicer than OKW/SSR. Whenever disney spends new money they do it right.

Since when? Generally speaking I would agree...but most recent DVC have had a lot of existing "deluxe" class amenities in place because they were add ons/conversions...

Not the case at Caribbean. If you think they're gonna add a pool, a quickserve, a bus stop on the Jamaica loop and then sell it for $180+ per point...then that would represent a new low for the disney consumer.

Caribbean doesn't hold up here unless they're gonna change the math.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Is access to that particular corner of Epcot such a prize? For dining and drinking maybe but otherwise, it would be a bit of hike to the most worthy rides in Epcot (such as they are).

Is the walking access only attractive only in comparison with the generally slow bus service from moderate and budget resorts? Any improvement is a good thing ... but is it worth going into debt to acquire the points and actually stay there?

It feels like Disney is fairly desperate to find attractive (ish) appearing places to build and flip condos - err, I mean pre-sold vacations - but without marring the brand/marketplace for their other "actually attractive" condo locations.

With the usual disclaimer, "this is all speculation".

You're more right than wrong...

Epcot access would be nice...but I'm not sure that's enough...

Do they figure out how to link it to Boardwalk?

Will they continue to let epcot rot (its now the most neglected park by far)?

I thought a link to mgm near pop would make a hell of a lot more sense...it would be more "unique" from the family perspective.

 

[Missyrose]

Whenever disney spends new money they do it right.

Except that hasn't been their MO in years. Disney wanted to build a big tower for BLT and cheaped out on the decor and items in the villa. Then Disney turned around and built nicer villas at VGF, but shrunk the size of the building by laughable proportions. There were grand plans for Poly DVC that got thrown out the window to convert existing longhouses.

 

[mab2012]

It's not an opinion...the development is sold according to the number of "units" and the total nights available determined by the point chart.

I mean...I did read that contract...been a few years though.

I own 3.6% of unit 27A at my home resort...what does that mean? I honestly haven't the foggiest...but it's based on finite math.

So...to build 200 units but only 5 points per night limits the contracts and limits the value of the development. And if you just "build more"...it increases the overhead and then decreases the longterm profit potential.

That's how it works. They don't look and say "we'll sell 1000"...it doesn't work that way. They have to adhere to a structure/balance it. Those units are taxed like property - albeit low- you can't oversell it. There have to be predetermined amounts based on math.

I'll ask again - where did I ever suggest that the total number of points wouldn't be predetermined?

Instead of building 750 units at 20 points per unit, you shrink the rooms, put 1000 rooms into the same space, and set the per-night point cost at 15. Same total number of points. Of course there will likely be different room categories and seasons, so the arithmetic is not quite that simple, but the concept is. I don't know whether scaling room size down by 25% to fit 33% more rooms into the same footprint is achievable, either structurally or functionally, but the actual numbers are just intended as an illustration of the concept. And if it's not achievable, that's where I suggested that a somewhat lower profit point might be acceptable. So they build 900 units at 15 points per night. The total number of points is 10% lower, profit is reduced proportionally, and maintenance fees are set at $6.50/pt instead of $6.00/pt in order to make up the difference in operating costs.

The reference to having an "opinion" was not about the predetermination of total points, but on the general plausibility of the concept. You're suggesting that existing owners won't like it, so Disney won't do it. That is an opinion, not a fact. Of course there's no reason for DVD to do this if you assume they can continue to sell $50,000+ contracts indefinitely. But if you assume that there's a finite pool of buyers who are both willing and able to pay those kind of prices, then maybe opening the "prepaid accommodation" concept to a wider market becomes worthwhile.

Nobody would ever sell a cell phone for $300 if they could sell just as many units of the same phone for $1000 and make an extra $700 profit. But not everyone can or will pay $1000 for a phone. So they cut some corners, reduce the margin, and hope to make up the difference (or at least some of it) on volume. And yes, I know it's not quite the same thing, but the same financial principles apply.

And just to be crystal clear, I will repeat (again): I am not suggesting that this is either likely or desirable. Only possible.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Except that hasn't been their MO in years. Disney wanted to build a big tower for BLT and cheaped out on the decor and items in the villa. Then Disney turned around and built nicer villas at VGF, but shrunk the size of the building by laughable proportions. There were grand plans for Poly DVC that got thrown out the window to convert existing longhouses.

Hard to argue with any of that

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I'll ask again - where did I ever suggest that the total number of points wouldn't be predetermined?

Instead of building 750 units at 20 points per unit, you shrink the rooms, put 1000 rooms into the same space, and set the per-night point cost at 15. Same total number of points. Of course there will likely be different room categories and seasons, so the arithmetic is not quite that simple, but the concept is. I don't know whether scaling room size down by 25% to fit 33% more rooms into the same footprint is achievable, either structurally or functionally, but the actual numbers are just intended as an illustration of the concept. And if it's not achievable, that's where I suggested that a somewhat lower profit point might be acceptable. So they build 900 units at 15 points per night. The total number of points is 10% lower, profit is reduced proportionally, and maintenance fees are set at $6.50/pt instead of $6.00/pt in order to make up the difference in operating costs.

The reference to having an "opinion" was not about the predetermination of total points, but on the general plausibility of the concept. You're suggesting that existing owners won't like it, so Disney won't do it. That is an opinion, not a fact. Of course there's no reason for DVD to do this if you assume they can continue to sell $50,000+ contracts indefinitely. But if you assume that there's a finite pool of buyers who are both willing and able to pay those kind of prices, then maybe opening the "prepaid accommodation" concept to a wider market becomes worthwhile.

Nobody would ever sell a cell phone for $300 if they could sell just as many units of the same phone for $1000 and make an extra $700 profit. But not everyone can or will pay $1000 for a phone. So they cut some corners, reduce the margin, and hope to make up the difference (or at least some of it) on volume. And yes, I know it's not quite the same thing, but the same financial principles apply.

And just to be crystal clear, I will repeat (again): I am not suggesting that this is either likely or desirable. Only possible.

Ok...I get your general premise...did you see the part of "increased overhead/reduced revenue"?

That's part of the thinking

200 rooms at 25 a night is more valuable than 250 at 20 a night...from a purely operational standpoint.

But...I usually reject that because the point of dvc is to lock in longterm ancillary spending...

But...people around here swear that the contracts and dues are "big money makers"...

Which do you think is more correct?

I would say more rooms is better...but the actions of dvc in their recent developments seems counter to that...they've gone kinda "small"

 

[Sweettears]

I realize all that and that's why I continually state something similar when the silly "Star Wars hotel next to the tower of terror at the price of port orleans" ideas get discussed...

But there are two difference here:
1. Caribbean has neither the facilities nor the footprint to support a dvc. And a "standalone compound" kinda like bay lake doesn't work because they still have the monorail, chef Mickey's and the California grill. Dvc is a prickly sort...you're not gonna swap "shutters" for yachtsman steakhouse and get very many smiles or bookings.
2. The suite at moderate prices idea is a little different...because they do blatanly rip off the suites at AoA that they've proven that there is a market for bigger rooms with little amenities. Those are $400 a night...$550 caribbean suites would probably sell. That might change the operational perspective.

I'm not as familiar with DVC as most here. But I was wondering along the same lines of making this a suite resort. I know the others have multiple room options but making these rooms into suites might allow them to charge more at the lower point level. I.e. A suite at CBR equals a standard at YC or BC.

 

[Sweettears]

A couple things just do not compute.
I find it very odd, they'd take down Barbados, to create additional lodging, when there is possibly and open spot in the same complex across from South Trinidad.

So the only thing that makes sense within the picture of this resort, is they want to be closer to epcot. Fireworks viewing could happen from a tower at South Trinidad for DHS and Epcot. I guess the advantage is that maybe you could see the globe through the corridor of African outpost and Germany. You'd end up with more beds and no destruction costs. You'd end up with food service in that location which would be a welcome convenience for much of the resort as it's more spread out.

Can't think of why that location makes more sense in the complex unless the location gives it direct walking access to Epcot. Any other transportation connection works just as well from the open building spot.

Factors could be that open spot in the complex is NOT suitable for building. It could also mean that something else is earmarked for the spot. I'm not sure why they wouldn't build there first, unless they need the infrastructure of the Barbados building first.

Could it have something to do with the condition of the existing rooms? Maybe the cost of rehab exceeds the potential return once completed. It might make sense to tear them down and replace them with a higher earning room base.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I'm not as familiar with DVC as most here. But I was wondering along the same lines of making this a suite resort. I know the others have multiple room options but making these rooms into suites might allow them to charge more at the lower point level. I.e. A suite at CBR equals a standard at YC or BC.

Dvc doesn't have "suitesl per se...

The closest direct comparison - a 2 bedroom - runs about 3 times the price of a standard room.

At beach club it's 15-18 for a standard and probably 45-60? Or so for a 2 bedroom.

I like your idea...but the math doesn't really work for dvc. If they put 25 point "suites" at Caribbean...there'll be fistfights for them...even if the food and buses suck.

 

[LaidBackDad]

Exactly. The two biggest problems with CBR stem from it's size. It's too spread out for easy access to it's central food court/pool area, and the bus service is pretty terrible because there are SEVEN bus stops. A DVC only build would eliminate both of these problems for the DVC members. (There's little likelyhood that a DVC resort would share amenities though they may allow access as a secondary allowance...I just don't but the "moderate DVC" concept.



In a previous post I dismissed a few of those options, saying the only conceivable ones IMO are the moderate level DVC, the deluxe "lower level" DVC with no park access, and a regular deluxe DVC with park access. Some posters are dismissing the importance of that park access to what it would mean to pricing structure.



You mentioned in an earlier post you bought at the VGF and the Poly, so you are correct, using your points at lesser resorts are a poor value for you. But think of the bargain that someone that bought at OKW in the 90s is getting to stay at YOUR resort. They are paying only about $6.50 per point and can stay at the Poly for less than $150 a night, whereas it costs you double that. Not all DVC owners are created equally.

Keep thinking about it folks. A person that bought 300 points at OKW is 1995 paid $18,000 for that contract. The same person today buying 300 points at the Poly $51,600. I don't care what you say, those two families are not in the same income bracket. (For laughs - I calculated the $18,000 adjusted for inflation - and it came to $28,000 - so yes not even close.) And then those 300 points at OKW will get you 20 nights in a studio during Magic Season. But only 12 nights in a studio at the Poly at the same time of year. So way more money for way less. (The middle class can still get in thought resale - but Disney recently made sure those customers aren't treated the same anymore by changing the resale rules,)

And look at the rooms at the resorts. Compare a OKW room to a VGF and Poly room. OKW/SSR is practical and comfortable, but by no means luxury.

The point of that little discussion - DVC is not remotely selling to same people that it used to sell to. Like Disney World itself, it's not going after the middle class, but the upper middle/wealthy. Now suddenly people think they might shift back to a more middle class by making a "moderate" DVC? I just don't buy it. They are going to find a way to make it special. To be sure they can still charge $200 a point and rent rooms at 16-25 points a night for a studio.

And there's only one way they do that at a CBR location - through access to Epcot and their own amenities. The more I think about it, the more I think they'll find a way.

This hit the nail on the head. They are going to copy the BLT / Contemporary model. I consider them 1 resort; but I guess the are technically 2 resorts. The DVC expansion portion will get the amenities needed to bring it to a deluxe level and the rest of the resort will remain the same. Some people will always consider it a moderate/deluxe hybrid, but it will sell / rent for the same price as BW / BC / YC.

 

[Sweettears]

Dvc doesn't have "suitesl per se...

The closest direct comparison - a 2 bedroom - runs about 3 times the price of a standard room.

At beach club it's 15-18 for a standard and probably 45-60? Or so for a 2 bedroom.

I like your idea...but the math doesn't really work for dvc. If they put 25 point "suites" at Caribbean...there'll be fistfights for them...even if the food and buses suck.

So a 25 point suite with no additional amenities and no park access would be that attractive?

 

[lockedoutlogic]

So a 25 point suite with no additional amenities and no park access would be that attractive?

I would guess because of the price difference...but dvc would never allow that...I would guess.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

This hit the nail on the head. They are going to copy the BLT / Contemporary model. I consider them 1 resort; but I guess the are technically 2 resorts. The DVC expansion portion will get the amenities needed to bring it to a deluxe level and the rest of the resort will remain the same. Some people will always consider it a moderate/deluxe hybrid, but it will sell / rent for the same price as BW / BC / YC.

Perhaps...but what a Pandora's box. Caribbean is the least attractive of the moderates...perhaps all spots.

So if they build a "really nice" dvc...what do you charge for the 1,500 original, non ada complaint rooms next to it? More than wilderness lodge?

Can't figure how any of this makes sense...

 

[LaidBackDad]

Perhaps...but what a Pandora's box. Caribbean is the least attractive of the moderates...perhaps all spots.

So if they build a "really nice" dvc...what do you charge for the 1,500 original, non ada complaint rooms next to it? More than wilderness lodge?

Can't figure how any of this makes sense...

Not to repeat myself but that is exactly the point and what they want. Those same crappy rooms will remain exactly the same only their rates go up. Probably not to WL level but who knows. CBR goes from (arguably) one of the least desirable resorts to one of the most desirable practically overnight. A moderate resort with access (5 -10 minute trip) to Epcot and F&W or whatever the festival is for that particular time of year, are you kidding me, those rooms fill so fast you will never hear of "free dining plan" at CBR ever again.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

\

Not to repeat myself but that is exactly the point and what they want. Those same crappy rooms will remain exactly the same only their rates go up. Probably not to WL level but who knows. CBR goes from (arguably) one of the least desirable resorts to one of the most desirable practically overnight. A moderate resort with access (5 -10 minute trip) to Epcot and F&W or whatever the festival is for that particular time of year, are you kidding me, those rooms fill so fast you will never hear of "free dining" at CBR again.

Still convinced they're tunneling and putting in a gate, huh?

 

[Q-man]

View attachment 216035

Haven't read all 15 pages but from what I've skimmed no one has suggested improve/widen the Epcot backstage canal and a bridge/walk way over/under BVD and you could deliver people via boat to the present EP IG boat dock or near the bridge between the Boardwalk and IG and they'd have to walk across to change boats there to get to HS.