Ft. Wilderness Cabins becoming DVC?

[ehh]

If they did this, i would be a strong advocate that the deluxe properties that currently exist have a longer home resort period.

This is a really interesting idea to kick around. I could see one opportunity for DVC to dip into the moderate market is to create and market a more "affordable' DVC experience. They would need to restrict how those points could be used and at which resorts, but it could open up a whole new market.

I might be missing something...why would CFW or Moderate DVC points need to be restricted in usage or have lesser home resort periods?

Moderate DVCs can just have a points chart commensurate with the much lower cash rates and it should all work itself out. Reduce the minimum buy-in for those resorts, too. Maybe introduce the concept of a half point?

New buyers can pay the same $217-230/pt no matter where they buy, but if they buy at a hypothetical 'Moderate Springs', 'Port Moderate', or 'Moderate Beach' resort it might only be 50-60 points for a week. At current prices that's a $11k-14k buy-in for a week every year for 50 years, which I think is pretty affordable, as would be dues on just 50-60 points.

The rooms are smaller, use inferior materials, have fewer amenities (in-room and at the resort), maybe aren't eligible for deluxe perks at the parks like extended evening hours, etc. I'm failing to see a need to make the points inferior on top of that.

As for CFW, the current cash rates definitely don't justify a high points chart. Even if the new cabins are significantly nicer and have a 50% higher cash rate, IIRC the math works out to something like a SSR 1BR points chart at most. So I could totally see CFW being the first unofficial foray into the 'Moderate DVC' space, even if the cabins are not quite as moderate-y as CSR/CBR/POR are since they're 2x the size, have room dividers, are isolated, have their own parking space, etc. But I don't know if they'd go as far as saying CFW is a 'Moderate DVC' the way they would with a CSR/CBR/POR conversion.

 

[Sandisw]

I might be missing something...why would CFW or Moderate DVC points need to be restricted in usage or have lesser home resort periods?

Moderate DVCs can just have a points chart commensurate with the much lower cash rates and it should all work itself out. Reduce the minimum buy-in for those resorts, too. Maybe introduce the concept of a half point?

New buyers can pay the same $217-230/pt no matter where they buy, but if they buy at a hypothetical 'Moderate Springs', 'Port Moderate', or 'Moderate Beach' resort it might only be 50-60 points for a week. At current prices that's a $11k-14k buy-in for a week every year for 50 years, which I think is pretty affordable, as would be dues on just 50-60 points.

The rooms are smaller, use inferior materials, have fewer amenities (in-room and at the resort), maybe aren't eligible for deluxe perks at the parks like extended evening hours, etc. I'm failing to see a need to make the points inferior on top of that.

As for CFW, the current cash rates definitely don't justify a high points chart. Even if the new cabins are significantly nicer and have a 50% higher cash rate, IIRC the math works out to something like a SSR 1BR points chart at most. So I could totally see CFW being the first unofficial foray into the 'Moderate DVC' space, even if the cabins are not quite as moderate-y as CSR/CBR/POR are since they're 2x the size, have room dividers, are isolated, have their own parking space, etc. But I don't know if they'd go as far as saying CFW is a 'Moderate DVC' the way they would with a CSR/CBR/POR conversion.

My thought is that the resorts that are currently part of DVC are all deluxe villas and so when having an exchange, you are choosing from resorts of the same caliber…assuming you want to trade.

If someone hasn’t booked home resort during the priority, at least right now, the places that would be left to chose are comparable in nature being deluxe set ups.

If you start making moderate level rooms part of the system, then I, as an owner, want more time to get my home resort booked.

Now, I am not referring to just location because RIV is top for me and being right next to CBR doesn’t change its deluxe status as the building itself matches other deluxe type rooms.

But, if you are going to have rooms at a moderate resort location that are constructed similar to a moderate level cash resort, then I don’t see that as a similar resort into the system.

As I said, would they be required to make them different? I don’t think so but the contract does mention that they will consider all those factors in terms of desire, use, etc, to create trading rules that are beneficial to all.

 

[DonMacGregor]

My concern with them being reclassified as deluxe is shared amenities with the rest of fort wilderness. Would they really build new pools and such for dvc to have their own that campers cant use? I just can’t see how they could justify calling it a deluxe resort when others are staying there for value resort price.

All you'd really be sharing (if anything at all), would be the pools, and pools are about the only thing that's consistently parallel across almost all WDW resorts (with the exception of Stormalong Bay as a standout). The pools at POR, POFQ, and Coronado Springs (Cibola Pool) are pretty fantastic, and the Big Blue Pool at the value Art of Animation Resort is pretty amazing as well (and massive). There really isn't much difference between any of those pools and the typical deluxe resort pools (again, Stormalong Bay being the exception).

 

[Mikey15]

My thought is that the resorts that are currently part of DVC are all deluxe villas and so when having an exchange, you are choosing from resorts of the same caliber…assuming you want to trade.

If someone hasn’t booked home resort during the priority, at least right now, the places that would be left to chose are comparable in nature being deluxe set ups.

If you start making moderate level rooms part of the system, then I, as an owner, want more time to get my home resort booked.

Now, I am not referring to just location because RIV is top for me and being right next to CBR doesn’t change its deluxe status as the building itself matches other deluxe type rooms.

But, if you are going to have rooms at a moderate resort location that are constructed similar to a moderate level cash resort, then I don’t see that as a similar resort into the system.

As I said, would they be required to make them different? I don’t think so but the contract does mention that they will consider all those factors in terms of desire, use, etc, to create trading rules that are beneficial to all.

IMO, I agree with ehh that you can manage the “introducing more points into the existing system of Deluxe-only DVCs!” problem by simply managing the amount of points that are actually being introduced.

Granted it’s all speculation based on cabin footprints and existing cash rates, but the points per night/week for DVC CFW should be lower than any one bedroom in the system, and potentially under many existing Deluxe Studios. Also, since the current cash cabins are by most accounts popular, they have the potential to mainly be booked by points and not have a high breakage percentage like, say, the PVB bungalows. I really don’t think it would mess with the overall deluxe DVC economy to add in the points for these. Certainly not worth creating a different point tier or some of the more creative thoughts out there.

And there is still the potential for them to make the cabin loops stand out a bit from the rest of the Fort. They are at one extreme of the Fort and in theory could even have their own entrance/parking/amenities the way Riv was separated from CBR.

 

[Sandisw]

IMO, I agree with ehh that you can manage the “introducing more points into the existing system of Deluxe-only DVCs!” problem by simply managing the amount of points that are actually being introduced.

Granted it’s all speculation based on cabin footprints and existing cash rates, but the points per night/week for DVC CFW should be lower than any one bedroom in the system, and potentially under many existing Deluxe Studios. Also, since the current cash cabins are by most accounts popular, they have the potential to mainly be booked by points and not have a high breakage percentage like, say, the PVB bungalows. I really don’t think it would mess with the overall deluxe DVC economy to add in the points for these. Certainly not worth creating a different point tier or some of the more creative thoughts out there.

And there is still the potential for them to make the cabin loops stand out a bit from the rest of the Fort. They are at one extreme of the Fort and in theory could even have their own entrance/parking/amenities the way Riv was separated from CBR.

I wasnt specially referring to the cabins as they will be a unique product as a tiny room.

. It was about expanding moderate resorts to DVC and being different.

There is no way that the cabins will be the cost of a studio but may be closer to the less expensive 1 bedrooms.

But, if they are going to expand the DVC program into moderate level accommodations then I would certainly hope they would consider that when deciding on demand and make booking windows match thst.

What they did with RIV would be fine as that is a deluxe level property.

Personally, I own where I want to stay and book early..it’s not a huge deal..but in practice if future resorts associated with DVC are not of the same caliber of resorts then I would advocate for a change to increase that 4 month window.

Just my opinion.

 

[Nursemanit]

There is no way the cabins will be marketed as moderate

They are larger than the Poly studios - and they have more amenities

DVC can simply call them Deluxe - and update the pool and restaurants as needed.

if DVC can pass off OKW / SSR as deluxe then it will have no issue making a resort with boat access to MK deluxe.

 

[kristenrice]

I might be missing something...why would CFW or Moderate DVC points need to be restricted in usage or have lesser home resort periods?

Moderate DVCs can just have a points chart commensurate with the much lower cash rates and it should all work itself out. Reduce the minimum buy-in for those resorts, too. Maybe introduce the concept of a half point?

New buyers can pay the same $217-230/pt no matter where they buy, but if they buy at a hypothetical 'Moderate Springs', 'Port Moderate', or 'Moderate Beach' resort it might only be 50-60 points for a week. At current prices that's a $11k-14k buy-in for a week every year for 50 years, which I think is pretty affordable, as would be dues on just 50-60 points.

I agree with your point...but don't forget, there is a 150-point minimum to be considered a "full" member. If a week in a cabin is only 50 points, a person would have to commit to 3 weeks per year for 50 years to be eligible for benefits. In addition, that 50 points is not going to go very far at any other resort, so they would truly be committed to using them only at CFW. From a new owner's perspective, this would be a very tough sell. Either buy 150 points (when you only need 50 for a week) to have the full usage/benefits of ownership, or save money and buy only the 50 points needed for a week, with the good chance that the CFW is the only place you will stay AND you will not be eligible for any "perks".

The kicker might be the MF's. IF they are low enough (which I doubt), in combination with a low points chart, then it would be a little easier to justify owning here. If the points needed for a week was really only 50 (for example), then it could be a decent option to buy 150 IF the dues are the lowest of all the WDW resorts. You could argue that purchasing 150 points could get you stays at other resorts at 7 months for a lot "cheaper" (MF-wise) than if you owned at another property. They could become the ultimate SAP's.

 

[maui22]

Back in 2014, I recall many on disboards were adamant that any DVC (even a deluxe) built at a moderate resort would ruin the product. Today, I think most would agree RIV (which was built on the land of a moderate) was an excellent addition to the system.

2014 article on DVCNews.com that first talked about DVC coming to moderate resorts

 

[ehh]

I agree with your point...but don't forget, there is a 150-point minimum to be considered a "full" member. If a week in a cabin is only 50 points, a person would have to commit to 3 weeks per year for 50 years to be eligible for benefits. In addition, that 50 points is not going to go very far at any other resort, so they would truly be committed to using them only at CFW. From a new owner's perspective, this would be a very tough sell. Either buy 150 points (when you only need 50 for a week) to have the full usage/benefits of ownership, or save money and buy only the 50 points needed for a week, with the good chance that the CFW is the only place you will stay AND you will not be eligible for any "perks".

The kicker might be the MF's. IF they are low enough (which I doubt), in combination with a low points chart, then it would be a little easier to justify owning here. If the points needed for a week was really only 50 (for example), then it could be a decent option to buy 150 IF the dues are the lowest of all the WDW resorts. You could argue that purchasing 150 points could get you stays at other resorts at 7 months for a lot "cheaper" (MF-wise) than if you owned at another property. They could become the ultimate SAP's.

Sorry for lack of clarity, the 50pt/wk thing is about a hypothetical 'true moderate', like a conversion of POR/CBR/CSR (not a Riviera-type demolition and new building). Lack of Blue Card in this hypothetical is a real downside though, agreed. That's something a hypothetical buyer would need to weigh.

I have zero expectation that the Cabins will be anywhere near 50pts/wk, 150-200 is more like it. Cabins are 2x the size of a regular room at POR/CBR/CSR, have a kitchen-ish, have a separated bedroom, no wall-neighbors, etc.

I don't even think DVC is going to lean into the Moderate-ness of the Cabins at all. They might call them an affordable 1BR or something, but the M-word will be nowhere in their marketing.

 

[Stargazer65]

Back in 2014, I recall many on disboards were adamant that any DVC (even a deluxe) built at a moderate resort would ruin the product. Today, I think most would agree RIV (which was built on the land of a moderate) was an excellent addition to the system.

2014 article on DVCNews.com that first talked about DVC coming to moderate resorts

Riviera, though was built stand-alone with a whole slew of deluxe level on-site amenities separate from CBR (restaurants, stores, Skyline transportation, pools, etc...). I don't know that any such upgrades are happening with CFW.

 

[Cybertruck]

I agree on the marketing piece. Marketing as deluxe cabins with unique experiences not anywhere else on property for adventurous guests.

With the unique ability to sleep 6 quests DVC will not position these as discounted 1 bedroom. I suspect these will be a premium 1 bedroom category. See RR point chart equivalent not SSR/OKW. If they had true 2 bedroom cabins I would consider this as an option for the 2070 succession planning. What kids would not love a loft experience and a view of the stars at night while on vacation.

In my view RR was the start of the great point chart reset that members will see with deed expiration dates and new DVC proprieties moving forward.

 

[Cfabar1]

I agree on the marketing piece. Marketing as deluxe cabins with unique experiences not anywhere else on property for adventurous guests.

With the unique ability to sleep 6 quests DVC will not position these as discounted 1 bedroom. I suspect these will be a premium 1 bedroom category. See RR point chart equivalent not SSR/OKW. If they had true 2 bedroom cabins I would consider this as an option for the 2070 succession planning. What kids would not love a loft experience and a view of the stars at night while on vacation.

In my view RR was the start of the great point chart reset that members will see with deed expiration dates and new DVC proprieties moving forward.

We will have to see. Yes it is nice that they sleep six, but they do that with by really squeezing people in. Most 1 BR spaces allow for 5 people, and even many studios can sleep 5. Additionally, the way they are designed right now is simply not anywhere near the level of Riviera in terms of in-room amenities. Maybe the new units will be different, but right now they really are quite rustic, which is fine, but to me people will be comparing Riviera to the property, especially if the points charts are similar.

Having the boats is a good point in terms of accessibility, and may be worth a small premium.

If they price it right, and find a way to keep the dues relatively affordable (which I imagine will not be easy - these are going to be extremely abused, and the fact they are spread out is also not good) they may work out.

I'm also curious about the amount of time they will have the contract run. I believe they have replaced these units once every 30 or so years. Does that mean owners will have to cover the replacement of all the cabins in their dues/assessments? I believe someone shared 40 years is the minimum in FL timeshare law, so maybe that's how they'll write it up and replace the units after 20 years?

This is so different from the rest of DVC, the devil will really be in the details.

 

[Bo1203]

I'm thinking 150points for a week in a cabin, little less, little more depending on time of year.

 

[zavandor]

I am pretty sure they're going to classify the new DVC FW cabins as deluxe, for all perks and purposes. They are already building a table service restaurant and they're probably going to build a new pool (haven't they announced fewer DVC cabins than the current number? That implies some sort of structural work).

Regarding a moderate DVC, I'm not against in principle, but it has to be done right.
I'll make an example: I adore VGF and I very much enjoyed my stay there a few years ago. Now with the walking path to MK it's even better.
If you ask me if, without any cost consideration, I'd rather stay at VGF or SSR (my home resort), the answer would be VGF, without a doubt. But...
If I rent out the points I'd save booking SSR standard over VGF LV (standard is very hard to book at 7 months), I would be able to pay for park tickets and meals for my stay (I travel solo, numbers for a family would be different).
Now, if you ask me if I'd rather get a room only at VGF or stay at SSR with free park tickets and dining plan, well, it's not that straightforward.

Would a DVC conversion at CBR work? Tempt me with rooms at 6 points per nights and I'm immediately interested.

However, would I trust DVC to design a point chart that would not create imbalance? No, I don't.

 

[maui22]

Riviera, though was built stand-alone with a whole slew of deluxe level on-site amenities separate from CBR (restaurants, stores, Skyline transportation, pools, etc...). I don't know that any such upgrades are happening with CFW.

I realize. Back then, no one had a clue what the product would eventually be, but were still criticizing it.

 

[Amyunder]

I am pretty sure they're going to classify the new DVC FW cabins as deluxe, for all perks and purposes. They are already building a table service restaurant and they're probably going to build a new pool (haven't they announced fewer DVC cabins than the current number? That implies some sort of structural work).

Regarding a moderate DVC, I'm not against in principle, but it has to be done right.
I'll make an example: I adore VGF and I very much enjoyed my stay there a few years ago. Now with the walking path to MK it's even better.
If you ask me if, without any cost consideration, I'd rather stay at VGF or SSR (my home resort), the answer would be VGF, without a doubt. But...
If I rent out the points I'd save booking SSR standard over VGF LV (standard is very hard to book at 7 months), I would be able to pay for park tickets and meals for my stay (I travel solo, numbers for a family would be different).
Now, if you ask me if I'd rather get a room only at VGF or stay at SSR with free park tickets and dining plan, well, it's not that straightforward.

Would a DVC conversion at CBR work? Tempt me with rooms at 6 points per nights and I'm immediately interested.

However, would I trust DVC to design a point chart that would not create imbalance? No, I don't.

I agree.... I'm waiting for them to announce a storm along bay caliber pool that will service both the cabins and a new reflections tower... boat distance to MK. This moderate talk will vanish and no one will remember they were associated with the campground.

 

[Leight19]

For everyone saying the boats are a selling point for deluxe aren’t the cabins like a 20 to 30min walk to the docks? It will be interesting to see what amenities they build and how they justify it as deluxe when the other half of resort is value (cabins are what made it moderate imo).

For me point charts would have to be less then all 1br to justify the cost just based on size alone (smallest 1br is 120 ft bigger then cabins). This is extra true when you consider it’s a value to moderate resort (currently cash price is cheaper then every dvc studio I believe).

Additionally what is unique here is the units have to be a good value themselves. All other resorts have multiple room categories and by booking patterns it’s clear many people buy into it assuming they will stay studio (e.g. value of studio drive sales for some of the 1br points). It really needs to be priced right since only one booking category.

 

[zavandor]

For me point charts would have to be less then all 1br to justify the cost just based on size alone (smallest 1br is 120 ft bigger then cabins). This is extra true when you consider it’s a value to moderate resort (currently cash price is cheaper then every dvc studio I believe).

I agree and I've written this before: to make this a success DVC should make those cabins "a 1BR for the cost of a studio". If they're really greedy it could still make some form of sense to have them in the region on VGF studios, even if the current cash rate doesn't remotely support this.
Anything greater than a 1BR AKV value would be a folly. I don't know why people are expecting a 2BR chart or even worst, it would really damage the DVC system.

 

[Cfabar1]

I agree and I've written this before: to make this a success DVC should make those cabins "a 1BR for the cost of a studio". If they're really greedy it could still make some form of sense to have them in the region on VGF studios, even if the current cash rate doesn't remotely support this.
Anything greater than a 1BR AKV value would be a folly. I don't know why people are expecting a 2BR chart or even worst, it would really damage the DVC system.

I agree a high studio/low 1 br price is where these should be to be successful. Especially if they are selling Poly at the same time.

 

[DVCsloth]

I would guess they will be equivalent to the newer 1br. DVC charts. Not sure how the transportation to the parks will work out though. Seems like it's a pretty good distance to the bus loop and the boat dock.