But - that is sort of to my point, a 1-bedroom is twice the square footage of a studio, and a 2-bedroom is 3 times that of a studio. However, typically, a 1-bedroom COSTS 2.1- 2.2 times a studio, but a 2-bedroom is only 2.5-2,7 times a studio. Meaning, that 2-bedrooms are a much greater "value" than the 1-bedrooms.
What I was explaining is that total points for each room that could be sold were based on square footage. That thus became the starting basis for setting up the
point charts, i.e., when, like at BWV the 1BR was twice the size of the studio, the starting point for determining actual points on the
point chart was having the 1BR double that of the studio and the 2BR tripple. They then made some adjustments to the point charts for other reasons. One of those was actually to have total usable points in a year to be less than it would take to fill all the rooms for the entire year under normal circumstances. The point charts are set up so that the actual total points applicable to a resort are what it would take to fill all the rooms for the year if the 2BR lock-offs were reserved throughout the year only as 2BR lock-offs. The combined points it takes to reserve a studio and 1BR separately is usually more than what it takes to reserve a two bedroom. Thus, having a lot of separate studio and 1BR reservations actually increases the total availability for the year to greater than the total points applicable to the resort, a factor that favors members beyond what is legally required. In other words, a conscious decison was apparently made to have the 2BR be fewer total points than the combination of the studio and 1BR to favor creating more total availability in a year than total saleable points.
Also, your suggested percentages do not actually hold up at every resort. For example, at OKW, the 1BRs are actually about 2.7 times the size of studio, a 2BR is about 3.6 times a studio, and the 2BR is about 1.4 times the size of 1BR. The point charts indicate a 1BR typically costs only 2.1X the studio, while a 2BR is 2.4X the studio points and 1.4X the 1BR points (meaning the 2BR points are proportional via room size to the 1BR). Thus, in making the adjustments to allow the 2BRs to be less than the combination of studio and 1BR, DVC actually increased the studios and not the 1BRs from what was indicated by a square footage proportional spread. The same is indicated at BLT: the 1BR is 2.4X the size of a studio, and the 2BR 3.4X the size of the studio and 1.3X the size of a 1BR; the point charts show the 1BR is either a tad less or a tad more than double the cost of a stduio and the 2BR is typically about 1.3X the cost of the 1BR, indicating as with OKW that when adjusting from the square foot point basis to get the 2BR to cost less than the combination of 1BR and studio, DVC allocated greater points to the studios and not the 1BRs. At BWV, VWL, and BCV, they just allocated more points to both the 1BRs and studios to make them more than the 2BRs but keeping the 1BR, which was about double the size of the studio, at about double the points of the studios.
Bottom line, based on the square foot total point allocation, is that in setting up the point charts, DVC made the 2BRs less costly, and for some of the resorts (like BWV, BCV and VWL), made both the studios and 1BRs proportionally more expensive than the square foot model, and actually made only the studios at OKW and BLT more expensive than their square foot value. In other words, What Disney actually did was make the 2BRs a "bargain" in relation to the studios at OKW and BLT but not in relation to the 1BRs, and in relation to both the studios and 1BRs at BWV, BCV and VWL.