Disney Riviera Resort

[MickeyMinnieMom]

I agree that an MK TP view is pretty valuable.

The silly view upgrades, to me, are the "garden" and "pool views" at the other resorts.

Might one day add the "backside of EPCOT" view to that list........

Agree with this!!

 

[Madonna3]

I don't necessary think you disagree...but what you said (paraphrased) was "if they do something like copper creek...I'm in!" About the new place? I might have gotten that wrong...

Assuming I'm not wrong...then what I'm saying is they CAN'T do something like that because they don't have the facilities in place already that they won't build and staff.

Wilderness has the facilities...you can't retheme a pool and add one of their weird mixed use restaurants if they didn't have the old facilities...it wouldn't work.

Ok now I see where we're misunderstanding each other. Yes, if they made an entire resort like Copper Creek, I'd be all over it and if they do, it would be a huge success imo. Correct, they would need to build/add infrastructure to keep DDR from using CBR as an "amenity". You're correct that the re-theme at WL worked because it already existed. It's not that they CAN'T, it's that they WON'T. They proved us wrong about CAN'T when they went vertical.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Agree with this!!

Which part?

That $150 a night surcharge for a fiberglass castle a mile out is worth it?

Or that $50 a night for a pool isn't?

Or that the back of Epcot...which is a "sure thing" worth an investment due to fireworks views and a rooftop restaurant...may be not be worth paying for the view?

What a tangled web we weave, huh?

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Ok now I see where we're misunderstanding each other. Yes, if they made an entire resort like Copper Creek, I'd be all over it and if they do, it would be a huge success imo. Correct, they would need to build/add infrastructure to keep DDR from using CBR as an "amenity". You're correct that the re-theme at WL worked because it already existed. It's not that they CAN'T, it's that they WON'T. They proved us wrong about CAN'T when they went vertical.

I think that they need a full - 1990's version class - delooxe hotel to go in to charge the cost and point charges That I have little doubt they will.

And I don't think they'll do it. It needs more than okw...probably more like a wilderness lodge as far as onsite amenities. We'll see

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Which part?

That $150 a night surcharge for a fiberglass castle a mile out is worth it?

Or that $50 a night for a pool isn't?

Or that the back of Epcot...which is a "sure thing" worth an investment due to fireworks views and a rooftop restaurant...may be not be worth paying for the view?

What a tangled web we weave, huh?

You're being a tad silly again.

BUSINESS REALITY -- NOT OPINION: Views have the value (in terms of what they can charge for them) that people are willing to pay for them. Period. This you don't seem to acknowledge, which is odd to me.

In my personal opinion, the value isn't there for ME to pay for a view of a busy, loud pool. For some people it is. Therefore that has more value than a parking lot view.

There isn't a "tangled web" here -- there isn't even a web. I've been entirely consistent -- perhaps did not EXPLAIN clearly above what I agreed with in that one post.

 

[dlavender]

Which part?

That $150 a night surcharge for a fiberglass castle a mile out is worth it?

Or that $50 a night for a pool isn't?

Or that the back of Epcot...which is a "sure thing" worth an investment due to fireworks views and a rooftop restaurant...may be not be worth paying for the view?

What a tangled web we weave, huh?

I'm going to use a term I usually despise, and I'm pretty sure I know where you land on it, but that MK TP view from Contemporary or BLT to me is probably the only thing I would dub "magical". There's nothing like it in the whole world. Now, would I pay an extra $150 for it? No, but I can see why those with larger bank accounts do it.

But, that can't be replicated anywhere. EPCOT is no MK. Can't argue attendance numbers. The ball is not the castle. If they tried to put a MK view type valuation on this EPCOT view from 8 floors high, they will be mistaken.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

But, that can't be replicated anywhere. EPCOT is no MK. Can't argue attendance numbers. The ball is not the castle. If they tried to put a MK view type valuation on this EPCOT view from 8 floors high, they will be mistaken.

Agree with this. It does not seem to me that they could extract BLT-MK-view $$ for a view of Spaceship Earth. However, I do think they could and should charge more for that view than no view at all... or a view of OKW. Consistent.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

You're being a tad silly again.

BUSINESS REALITY -- NOT OPINION: Views have the value (in terms of what they can charge for them) that people are willing to pay for them. Period. This you don't seem to acknowledge, which is odd to me.

In my personal opinion, the value isn't there for ME to pay for a view of a busy, loud pool. For some people it is. Therefore that has more value than a parking lot view.

There isn't a "tangled web" here -- there isn't even a web. I've been entirely consistent -- perhaps did not EXPLAIN clearly above what I agreed with in that one post.

I'm actually making the more numeric argument...as in that team of scientists from Sweden still haven't released that report with existence of "magic"...

We're arguing the value of the theoretical.

It's just rhetoric...nobody is gonna change in this debate.

And since it's all opinion: the best views of any castle are not in Orlando...

...It's the backside of the Disneyland hotel towards the castle at Euro...best castle, closest range

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

I'm actually making the more numeric argument...as in that team of scientists from Sweden still haven't released that report with existence of "magic"...

We're arguing the value of the theoretical.

It's just rhetoric...nobody is gonna change in this debate.

And since it's all opinion: the best views of any castle are not in Orlando...

...It's the backside of the Disneyland hotel towards the castle at Euro...best castle, closest range

But you're just WRONG here -- whether a view is something that can be assigned a value is NOT a matter of opinion -- it just isn't. It is worth what people are willing to pay. Simple. Not TO YOU, maybe.

This is a settled argument evidenced the world over at every hotel that has ANYTHING worth looking at outside its windows.

You keep seeking to make THAT FACT a matter of opinion. It just isn't. It's an extension of "location, location, location".

And not a soul said the view of MK was "the best view of any castle" -- odd to bring up.

You're confusing "whether a view is worth paying for FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL", with "does a given view have value based on what enough customers are willing to pay for it". The former is SUBJECTIVE; the latter is a FACT of how the hotel industry (actually, the entire real estate market) has always functioned.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

But, that can't be replicated anywhere. EPCOT is no MK. Can't argue attendance numbers. The ball is not the castle. If they tried to put a MK view type valuation on this EPCOT view from 8 floors high, they will be mistaken.

No...Orlando is the "best" of the magic kingdoms...and now there are 6.

Epcot is a one of a kind. And in many ways is the story of disney...as much as any park since Anaheim.

It can be argued that the magic kingdom is only the third best kingdom...I've seen 3 and hope to see at least 1 more...but the argument can be made.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

It can be argued that the magic kingdom is only the third best kingdom...I've seen 3 and hope to see at least 1 more...but the argument can be made.

Not according to worldwide theme park attendance.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

But you're just WRONG here -- whether a view is something that can be assigned a value is NOT a matter of opinion -- it just isn't. It is worth what people are willing to pay. Simple. Not TO YOU, maybe.

This is a settled argument evidenced the world over at every hotel that has ANYTHING worth looking at outside its windows.

You keep seeking to make THAT FACT a matter of opinion. It just isn't. It's an extension of "location, location, location".

And not a soul said the view of MK was "the best view of any castle" -- odd to bring up.

You're confusing "whether a view is worth paying for FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL", with "does a given view have value based on what enough customers are willing to pay for it". The former is SUBJECTIVE; the latter is a FACT of how the hotel industry has always functioned.

Why are you pitching an e-fit?

I fully acknowledge that people pay prices for views...no argument. But as a question of value it is entirely subjective...you said your castle view was worth it...but the pool isn't.

Unique? At akl you can see a giraffe past the pool on your balcony...where am I getting that?

Subjective.

To me...the backside or the frontside provides no tangible benefits. I've had the views and not had them...it's never changed my experience...crowds, food and grog do.

 

[jade1]

Good views aren't more points, bad view are less.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Not according to worldwide theme park attendance.

Jesus...

Half the population of the richest country in world history is on a 2 hour flight path between Maine and key largo...does attendance validate construction regardless of geography?

Have you ever been to another Disney park? They have good things too

 

[jade1]

Extension of the Magic (location) is exactly what it is. A view of a park Icon and/or fireworks is indeed theming itself, actually the best for many.

It also often relates to proximity to the whole point of why your in Central Florida, and not on the coast (which I would be without WDW) paying far more for an "Ocean View" than the back of the hotel there.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

e-fit... lockedout charming as always.

Your statement below argued against people being willing to pay for a view as a legitimate part of valuing goods and services. These are your words. Then you tried to cast that as a matter of opinion.

You kinda made my point...that is a 100% emotional answer... not anything close to a valuation of goods and services...which is really all a hotel is...

You have your way...I have mine. Agree to disagree.

In fact, intangibles like willingness to pay are precisely what factors into pricing hotel rooms and real estate the world over -- always has.

Now below you finally acknowledge the simple thing I was saying all along. Each individual decides whether the view is worth paying for, FOR THEM -- subjective. Whew.

Why are you pitching an e-fit?

I fully acknowledge that people pay prices for views...no argument. But as a question of value it is entirely subjective...you said your castle view was worth it...but the pool isn't.

Unique? At akl you can see a giraffe past the pool on your balcony...where am I getting that?

Subjective.

To me...the backside or the frontside provides no tangible benefits. I've had the views and not had them...it's never changed my experience...crowds, food and grog do.

The missing piece is that you don't seem to acknowledge the logical fact that: IF the hotel rooms in WDW have decent occupancy, and IF the DVC's sell out and stay booked, this is PROOF that the views ARE worth paying for and DO have the value Disney has currently assigned. TA DA!

Not value TO YOU -- but they do have the value that Disney has currently assigned. There isn't an argument to be had there unless occupancy is way down, DVC isn't selling at the premiums associated with #pts for views, etc.

 

[ucfknight]

Not according to worldwide theme park attendance.

Since when does popularity directly equate with quality?
I mean Avatar is the highest grossing film of all time, does that make it the best film of all time?

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Since when does popularity directly equate with quality?
I mean Avatar is the highest grossing film of all time, does that make it the best film of all time?

Didn't say that it equated with quality -- ever. Popularity factors into willingness to pay a premium for something. Just does. Not dispositive -- not on its own. But it does.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Extension of the Magic (location) is exactly what it is. A view of a park Icon and/or fireworks is indeed theming itself, actually the best for many.

It also often relates to proximity to the whole point of why your in Central Florida, and not on the coast (which I would be without WDW) paying far more for an "Ocean View" than the back of the hotel there.

And yet...there is a one second difference in travel time from the view side of the hall and the non-view to that castle, ocean, etc.

Again...it's subjective. No real way to "win". I actually used to like views...but after years on DIS I changed to realize that many consumers act like children and feed the pricing policies. This type of upcharge would seem to be in that bucket. That isn't a good reflection of value to me...but I can't begrudge anyone else if they want that. As always...I caution about the slippery slope.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Since when does popularity directly equate with quality?
I mean Avatar is the highest grossing film of all time, does that make it the best film of all time?

It doesn't...it never did. This particular point was made about volume...which actually doesn't make a point. WDW's popularity is a result of geography and economics...there's been good books written about it. The one by buzz price comes to mind.

This seems like "it's MINE...so it's the best"...but that's limited view.