DVC was Sears but it's become Saks . . . in case you wonder why you're feeling whiplash

[Memorymakerfor4]

No apology needed! I was kind of reacting to the "would not be caught dead buying a timeshare," which made me think that they were more concerned about appearances than about actual financial benefits.

Think of it as my attempt to temper the "Saks vs. Sears" analogy. There are people who would not consider DVC to be "Saks." I read the original post as saying DVC has more of a high end angle than it used to. It's always been deluxe, but people are demanding more extras, amenities, more everything. So I agreed with the general "plussing" of lifestyle by people. All based off of personal experience, all relative, so take all of that with a grain of salt!

 

[_auroraborealis_]

If Disney really wanted DVC to be luxury, they have some building blocks they could already play with. That they have chosen repeatedly not to says a lot to me - about approach, but also about long-term sustainability.

VGF was a fully-contained building when built out. RIV is fully contained. BLT is fully contained. All came online after AKV. Even if we discard Poly and CCV - because they'd strain existing resource - DVD could have built Club Lounges and had points (or cash buy-up) options at BLT, VGF and RIV. But they don't. While arguably Club Level is more like what you get in a business class Westin than a luxury offering, it is more luxe than "here is a toaster and a Mr. Coffee in your unit!"

But no. They did try that lame-o stuff at Reunion Station. But it was expensive and lame and failed.

Tells me that either they don't think the financials work for operations (dues support or buy up) - which would also explain the Reunion Station pricing and failout - or they don't want to commit to much beyond a 4-walls starategy for 50 years.

 

[moericus]

Maybe. But i think the old and modern definitions of luxury have changed a lot since OKW too.

Right now there are many middle-class families living in McMansions with HOA's pretending to be gated communities. Styles and norms change.

 

[keishashadow]

I think the direction that it is going is mostly positive (I don't like stories of drunk folks at EPCOT). I do think it is conceivable that prices there could rise to a point where there is a fundamental change in the place.

Epcot doesn’t have a monopoly on drunk folks. No matter where you roam will find a range of those who drink responsibly and sloppy drunks. I’ve yet to grasp the (over) drinking around the world appeal, especially when one has small children in their care.

There is no luxury property on Disney property.

But there are deluxe properties . Location, location (along with some nice amenities & a well-themed product with onsite guest specific entitlements) is the magical hook

The people I know who truly have a lot of disposable income would not be caught dead buying a timeshare - they pay cash

Or they buy a vacation home or condo in the area

Now they are offering the smallest and most condensed space possible, Unless you are getting a 1 or 2 bed, the DVC studio rooms are not an upgrade from a regular hotel room. For example, the new tower rooms are smaller than a value resort room, regular studios do not even have a table or desk anymore, and I know I am in the minority here, but to me murphy beds are a downgrade from a real hotel room with two beds. JMO.

I am not a fan of the Murphy beds or the laminate flooring trend, even though I understand their appeal.

We enjoy the DVC resorts, but unless we are poolside, rarely spend much time ‘there’. The parks consume the majority of our focus.

I've been a member over 20 years and couldn't be happier. Originally bought at BWV in 1999 and swore that was it and stayed that way for 20 years. Earlier this month, bought a VGC resale, love the place.

Nice, you basically need home field advantage to book there other than off-season/few mid week days, enjoy.

Have stopped by RIveria twice, just not feeling it and that’s okay, something for us all to favor,

 

[Coffee54]

Epcot doesn’t have a monopoly on drunk folks. No matter where you roam will find a range of those who drink responsibly and sloppy drunks. I’ve yet to grasp the (over) drinking around the world appeal, especially when one has small children in their care.


But there are deluxe properties . Location, location (along with some nice amenities & a well-themed product with onsite guest specific entitlements) is the magical hook

Or they buy a vacation home or condo in the area

I am not a fan of the Murphy beds or the laminate flooring trend, even though I understand their appeal.

We enjoy the DVC resorts, but unless we are poolside, rarely spend much time ‘there’. The parks consume the majority of our focus.

Nice, you basically need home field advantage to book there other than off-season/few mid week days, enjoy.

Have stopped by RIveria twice, just not feeling it and that’s okay, something for us all to favor,

Great posting. Well thought out.

 

[kboo]

Maybe. But i think the old and modern definitions of luxury have changed a lot since OKW too.

Right now there are many middle-class families living in McMansions with HOA's pretending to be gated communities. Styles and norms change.

This cracked me up. My mom got into real estate out west after she retired and it was always "gated community" this, "gated community" that. I guess I'cae lived in NYC too long... it used to be that "doorman building" was always >> "no doorman" or "video security," but that's not always the case any more. (And I for one would rather have our common charges paying for a super(intending) than someone who holds a door open for me or helps me get a cab. I can hail a cab on my own just fine, or use an app to get a car, but as long as it's not freezing or pouring, I'm fine just taking the subway.)

Or they buy a vacation home or condo in the area

But a vacation home or condo that is actually used by its owners is not necessarily more luxurious. Tying up all that liquidity in a residence (with all of the responsibilities for one, like homeowner's insurance, upkeep of furniture and appliances, etc) at a much higher cost, really isn't worth it unless it's somewhere you go a LOT (and I mean like every weekend in season). The same pay cash/rent/own analysis should be done.

 

[RoseGold]

RIV is not a "Saks" level hotel. I mean, it seems nice, but it's not the elite level of hotel you are trying to make an analogy to. If Disney had wanted to make that product, it would be club level, and it wouldn't look like a upscale business hotel with some tile details, which could be in any city.

Disney does have this product, with rooms like the Nantucket Suite, and of course the Four Seasons. If you're in that category, someone will gladly take your money and get you a concierge. It does exist, just not in DVC -- except I can make an argument for the bungalows, if you ignore their obviously not Saks-level service.

I still think it's possible Disney might make this "Saks" hotel in California, because their building has been so limited by the government, but RIV ain't it.

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

No apology needed! I was kind of reacting to the "would not be caught dead buying a timeshare," which made me think that they were more concerned about appearances than about actual financial benefits.

I am still curious, though. I live in the NYC metro area where anywhere you look, income disparity is incredible. There will always be someone who seems like they have lots more disposable income, but there are also a lot of people who live on credit, spend beyond their means, finance everything... what they're spending may not be disposable income, or even income at all. Here, obvious measures of "wealth" (rent v. own your home, do you own a car, do you take the subway regularly, etc.) don't really tell you anything about whether a person actually has means. I have spoken to people here who I know are wealthy by most people's definitions, and if they love Disney, they are actually listening to whether DVC makes sense for them over paying cash to stay on site.

No one we know owns dvc or any timeshare. I agree that the wealthy would not touch it. We are not in that group but many people we know are. They don’t even do Disney. Or if they do, it is once in a lifetime. In fact, they seem more inclined towards universal— but that too is a one time thing for them, and mostly to see HP. Dh and I go to a fair amount of dinners for his work where people look at us like they feel sorry for us when we say we are going to Disney on vacation. They are going to their homes in Spain or Cypress for summer vacation. They are going to their condos in Banff or Aspen for Christmas.

 

[Jenniebee]

RIV is not a "Saks" level hotel. I mean, it seems nice, but it's not the elite level of hotel you are trying to make an analogy to. If Disney had wanted to make that product, it would be club level, and it wouldn't look like a upscale business hotel with some tile details, which could be in any city.

Riviera is not a deluxe like GF or even Poly. In reality it is very similar to OKW and SSR, in that it is a stand alone time share property. This is why it does not have the grand lobby like hotel properties like GF or WL. OKW and SSR do not have grand lobbies either.

I think what they did with RIV was take the things they know people like and people don't like about SSR and OKW and tried to put those learnings into RIV. Complaints about OKW and SSR are it's too spread out, RIV is not. OKW only has a restaurant and the QS & pool bar were too small, RIV has a nicer QS & pool bar. People don't like the moderate vibe of the doors on the outside, RIV has interior hallways. People do not see the spacious OKW rooms as an advantage, only care about stretching points, RIV introduced tower studios. I think if you look at it for what it is, and who it is serving, it makes a lot more sense. But I think it can be agreed it is not luxury in the sense of a real luxury property.

 

[keishashadow]

But a vacation home or condo that is actually used by its owners is not necessarily more luxurious. Tying up all that liquidity in a residence (with all of the responsibilities for one, like homeowner's insurance, upkeep of furniture and appliances, etc) at a much higher cost, really isn't worth it unless it's somewhere you go a LOT (and I mean like every weekend in season). The same pay cash/rent/own analysis should be done.

Have worked in commercial real estate & as a residential realtor most of my life. I categorize a vacation home a luxury.

If you have to repeatedly run the numbers to make the idea of buying a vacation home (or TS for that matter) work, you probably shouldn’t go that route in the first place.

Those I know whom have purchased vacation homes in Florida do so with disposable income. They know exactly what they are getting into with the purchase. Hope springs eternal they can resale the property as their needs change. Others, ultimately, have the intent to retire and occupy the property at least half the year as snowbirds They aren’t purchasing fixer uppers by any means

Exception is of the beach resort/small converted condo type bought for the view & onsite amenities vs the square footage. They do take a lot of wear & tear. Rentals usually managed onsite to help cover monthly costs & maintenance fees Even then it’s dicey to rely upon rental income it to pay the associated costs of that sort of want, not need

 

[kboo]

If you have to repeatedly run the numbers to make the idea of buying a vacation home (or TS for that matter) work, you probably shouldn’t go that route in the first place.

I agree with you that having a vacation home at all, even a junky one, is a luxury, but it is not luxurious. I think this thread started with whether DVC resorts were "luxurious" (using the Saks analogy), and I would say that many of the vacation homes I've stayed in, using that analogy, trend more toward Sears than Saks.

That said - running the numbers to see whether a vacation home or a TS makes financial sense is something people of any means should do before plunking down a big chunk of $ for something that isn't super-liquid. (Note: I didn't say "to make the idea of buying ... work," which sounds more like trying to come up with a financial reason that a vacation home/TS is a good "investment") I may be able to pay cash for that DVC without feeling a pinch, but that doesn't mean that I still should or would want to. If you're repeatedly running the numbers to try to justify, say, taking out a mortgage or not fully funding your retirement accounts, etc., then I agree, probably not a great idea.

 

[Wakey]

It’s nothing to do with making it more expensive and points intensive to appeal to a market, it’s called pushing the envelope on what they can charge, to make as much profit as possible.
The tower mini studios are also part of this. The uninitiated look at the price per point. They think -‘That isn’t too bad, it’s much cheaper than buying Grand Floridian or Beach Club direct’. They don’t often consider the actual cost of a night’s stay which is determined by number of points required and dues. If they do have questions on that, the guides can quote the tower studios- all good because even the points per night are not much more than Boardwalk. What people don’t realise is that for the points per night of a glorified cupboard, they could have a nice studio at Boardwalk.
It doesn’t surprise me to see the new DL resort with mini studios. It is a headliner for points per night but for those that do work even that out, softens the psychological blow- ‘Don’t worry honey, we can always get the tower mini studio if short on points’.

 

[Sandisw]

Riviera is not a deluxe like GF or even Poly. In reality it is very similar to OKW and SSR, in that it is a stand alone time share property. This is why it does not have the grand lobby like hotel properties like GF or WL. OKW and SSR do not have grand lobbies either.

I think what they did with RIV was take the things they know people like and people don't like about SSR and OKW and tried to put those learnings into RIV. Complaints about OKW and SSR are it's too spread out, RIV is not. OKW only has a restaurant and the QS & pool bar were too small, RIV has a nicer QS & pool bar. People don't like the moderate vibe of the doors on the outside, RIV has interior hallways. People do not see the spacious OKW rooms as an advantage, only care about stretching points, RIV introduced tower studios. I think if you look at it for what it is, and who it is serving, it makes a lot more sense. But I think it can be agreed it is not luxury in the sense of a real luxury property.

I guess I don’t really understand what luxury is then, because RIV fits the bill for me.

 

[keishashadow]

I guess I don’t really understand what luxury is then, because RIV fits the bill for me.

When it comes down to it, that is all that matters, enjoy

 

[DebbieB]

Riviera is not a deluxe like GF or even Poly. In reality it is very similar to OKW and SSR, in that it is a stand alone time share property. This is why it does not have the grand lobby like hotel properties like GF or WL. OKW and SSR do not have grand lobbies either.

I think what they did with RIV was take the things they know people like and people don't like about SSR and OKW and tried to put those learnings into RIV. Complaints about OKW and SSR are it's too spread out, RIV is not. OKW only has a restaurant and the QS & pool bar were too small, RIV has a nicer QS & pool bar. People don't like the moderate vibe of the doors on the outside, RIV has interior hallways. People do not see the spacious OKW rooms as an advantage, only care about stretching points, RIV introduced tower studios. I think if you look at it for what it is, and who it is serving, it makes a lot more sense. But I think it can be agreed it is not luxury in the sense of a real luxury property.

i haven‘t been to Riviera yet, have a reservation for April. However, did a walkthrough of the model rooms last Month and I thought they were very nice. I wouldn’t call it similiar to OKW or SSR. I’ve stayed in a VGF studio and thought Riviera was similar. The split bathroom with 2 showers, sleeping spaces for 5.

 

[NoTime42]

The funny thing about the analogy is Sears is almost out of business.

If you look at the recent DVC openings, they fit different audiences. I think Poly and Copper Creek are more for the family crowd, GF and Riviera are more adult. Personally, I love the variety. Have stayed at all except SSR, CC, Riviera (will in April), Vero, Aulani, HH.

I've been a member over 20 years and couldn't be happier. Originally bought at BWV in 1999 and swore that was it and stayed that way for 20 years. Earlier this month, bought a VGC resale, love the place.

It would be great if I could buy DVC points at 70% off, like my local Sears

 

[TiggerBouncy]

I am neither young, nor wealthy. I have SOME disposable income that I work hard for, but I choose to invest in DVC. I have older contracts, but i have been eyeing newer ones too. Either Riv or Reflections.

Since I don't fit in your demographic, why would I choose to spend my limited disposal income on DVC despite the restrictions?

Because they do not matter to me. It's a very simple formula... I am not buying into DVC so I can sell it. I am buying it to use it. The price is reasonable given the benefits. It's what I am willing to spend for what I get in return (50 years of trips, although I don't expect to be alive in 50 years) and resale restrictions make no difference since I am not buying to sell it.

In the world of timeshares, I trust Disney more then most to protect the investment - that is, I believe there will always be a Disney worth going to.

In other words, I completely disagree with your base statements.

 

[kboo]

I’ve stayed in a VGF studio and thought Riviera was similar. The split bathroom with 2 showers, sleeping spaces for 5.

I've stayed at VGF a number of times now, and I also thought they were similar. RIV is bigger, of course, but it has everything I'd want with a standalone resort. Have I stayed in more luxurious resorts/hotels? Yes, but they are very different and under different circumstances. For one, most of the places that come to mind have over-the-top service, and that's something that I don't need or expect at WDW, except at V&A.

 

[RoseGold]

For one, most of the places that come to mind have over-the-top service, and that's something that I don't need or expect at WDW, except at V&A.

I mean Disney literally has a whole corporate mantra and training program based on service, called Creating Magic. So, yea, I was pretty surprised when I couldn't get anyone to give me a lei after 30 minutes in the Poly lobby.

RIV's lobby is also unfortunate IMO, and a big departure from current hotel trends (and existing DVC stock), which are heavily utilized lobbies.

 

[.landry]

No one we know owns dvc or any timeshare. I agree that the wealthy would not touch it. We are not in that group but many people we know are. They don’t even do Disney. Or if they do, it is once in a lifetime. In fact, they seem more inclined towards universal— but that too is a one time thing for them, and mostly to see HP. Dh and I go to a fair amount of dinners for his work where people look at us like they feel sorry for us when we say we are going to Disney on vacation. They are going to their homes in Spain or Cypress for summer vacation. They are going to their condos in Banff or Aspen for Christmas.

OR, they have those vacation houses AND dvc....