People interested in Poly2: are you hoping for new association or same?

[Sandisw]

Which is another reason why I leans towards the same... what will happen with ROFR? Is Disney going to want to buy back points that will be harder to sell? Wonder how low they would let prices drop?

If it is a new association, wouldn't they have to sell both? Well I understand they don't have to do anything, but I don't see why they would want to stop selling Poly1. I understand with VGF... the points work the same at both buildings, or at least they will once the new building is open.

I agree... it will be a bit before we know anything, but it is fun to speculate!

DVD just won’t ROFR any Poly when they put the new points on sale.

If it’s a new association, they will simply treat Poly 1 like they do current sold out points. Sell what they have to someone who wants 11 month access to the current rooms.

But the push will be Poly tower and those are the points they will want to sell, just like they are selling points deeded to BPK, even though they do have VGF1 points that they have taken, but are not selling…

It really comes down to whether or not they want something that is restricted from resale points bought since 2019 being used there.

That was the plan when they built RIV so if that remains the goal, then it will be a new association.

IMO, they will go that way because it just makes the most sense in terms of wanting to separate resale and direct.

 

[Paul Stupin]

DVD just won’t ROFR any Poly when they put the new points on sale.

If it’s a new association, they will simply treat Poly 1 like they do current sold out points. Sell what they have to someone who wants 11 month access to the current rooms.

But the push will be Poly tower and those are the points they will want to sell, just like they are selling points deeded to BPK, even though they do have VGF1 points that they have taken, but are not selling…

It really comes down to whether or not they want something that is restricted from resale points bought since 2019 being used there.

That was the plan when they built RIV so if that remains the goal, then it will be a new association.

IMO, they will go that way because it just makes the most sense in terms of wanting to separate resale and direct.

I’m thinking Poly2 might need something equivalent to the Volcano pool to distribute pool crowds evenly, and serve as a selling point. On the other hand, I’d love a quiet infinity pool with no kids!

 

[BrianR]

The only building that has 2 associations on one property is WL, and the delta between those offerings was pushing 20 years so it forced DVC's hand a bit. It's additional overhead and headache that doesn't really provide any material benefit as seen with how well out of the gate VGF2 has done. The playbook was just written, and it looks like it's a great model to run with. I still think the resort infrastructure would need to add some dining and a pool to make it not overtly constrained since it's an addition and not a conversion like VGF2 is.

 

[Paul Stupin]

The only building that has 2 associations on one property is WL, and the delta between those offerings was pushing 20 years so it forced DVC's hand a bit. It's additional overhead and headache that doesn't really provide any material benefit as seen with how well out of the gate VGF2 has done. The playbook was just written, and it looks like it's a great model to run with. I still think the resort infrastructure would need to add some dining and a pool to make it not overtly constrained since it's an addition and not a conversion like VGF2 is.

I think that might be wishful thinking. The playbook was changed years ago when resale restrictions were instituted for new build DVC properties, starting with Riviera, and its been a very effective strategy for jump starting direct point purchases...not just at Riviera, but other DVC properties as well. VGF2 was a quick hotel wing flip, and since DVC wanted to market one and two bedrooms as well, the only way was to include it in the existing association.

I don't think resale restrictions are going away. They're really just starting. And if buyers want a fancy new build, they're going to have to accept them. You'll see them part of the DL Tower, and its hard for me to believe they won't be a part of Poly2 as well. Using VGF2 as an example for DVC eliminating resale restrictions isn't a strong enough argument. And plenty of buyers, myself included, won't buy at Poly2 if it isn't a new association.

 

[Sandisw]

The only building that has 2 associations on one property is WL, and the delta between those offerings was pushing 20 years so it forced DVC's hand a bit. It's additional overhead and headache that doesn't really provide any material benefit as seen with how well out of the gate VGF2 has done. The playbook was just written, and it looks like it's a great model to run with. I still think the resort infrastructure would need to add some dining and a pool to make it not overtly constrained since it's an addition and not a conversion like VGF2 is.

While I agree that the expiration of BRV made it necessary for them to make CCV a new resort, I am not sure that DVD will use the close expiration of the two as a reason to not make it new. And, if VGF is selling well with 6 years less, then as I have mentioned, DVD could be very well see that as a plus for offering Poly tower for less than 50 years and make the expiration date match PVB but still keep it new with restrictions.

I just don't think what was done for VGF is enough to know which way they will go...but, RIV and the restrictions were set after CCV was done, and was doing nicely in sales prior to the pandemic...enough so that I have no doubt Reflections would have stayed on target and would have included them.

IMO, VGF was a place holder, quick flip, for the time being while it gets ready to do this new build. It will be nice to see the specific plans as we move forward for what will show up for resort amenities beyond what the "picture" showed because, it will certainly make the resort more crowded.

 

[BrianR]

I think that might be wishful thinking. The playbook was changed years ago when resale restrictions were instituted for new build DVC properties, starting with Riviera, and its been a very effective strategy for jump starting direct point purchases...not just at Riviera, but other DVC properties as well. VGF2 was a quick hotel wing flip, and since DVC wanted to market one and two bedrooms as well, the only way was to include it in the existing association.

I don't think resale restrictions are going away. They're really just starting. And if buyers want a fancy new build, they're going to have to accept them. You'll see them part of the DL Tower, and its hard for me to believe they won't be a part of Poly2 as well. Using VGF2 as an example for DVC eliminating resale restrictions isn't a strong enough argument. And plenty of buyers, myself included, won't buy at Poly2 if it isn't a new association.

You'll absolutely see them as part of the DLT association. I just think Poly2 is such a unique outlier like VGF2 is that the amount of rooms in that lone building isn't enough to set up a separate association. You're looking at 5 floors with one lone hallway, so 50% lake 50% standard, plus a few rooms on the 6th/7th in the middle. This is based on the assumption that the ground floor will be communal space / shops / restaurant / fitness etc. and the top center could be a signature restaurant with views of the castle. That would put you into the equivalent of 1.5 / 2 of the current DVC longhouses worth of rooms. CCV had millions of points in the Cabins to dwarf what BRV had plus the 20 year gap. Like I mentioned a good while back, if you're seeing a bunch of 1BR / 2BR / 3BR GV with no real ratio of studios in the submitted plans to the county it will lead me to confirm it would be the same association.

 

[kandlsutton]

You'll absolutely see them as part of the DLT association. I just think Poly2 is such a unique outlier like VGF2 is that the amount of rooms in that lone building isn't enough to set up a separate association. You're looking at 5 floors with one lone hallway, so 50% lake 50% standard, plus a few rooms on the 6th/7th in the middle. This is based on the assumption that the ground floor will be communal space / shops / restaurant / fitness etc. and the top center could be a signature restaurant with views of the castle. That would put you into the equivalent of 1.5 / 2 of the current DVC longhouses worth of rooms. CCV had millions of points in the Cabins to dwarf what BRV had plus the 20 year gap. Like I mentioned a good while back, if you're seeing a bunch of 1BR / 2BR / 3BR GV with no real ratio of studios in the submitted plans to the county it will lead me to confirm it would be the same association.

Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but I hope it’s the same association. The knock on PVB1 has always been the lack of each room type and the glut of points associated with the bungalows. At least CCV has every room type plus the unique cabins. A new building with 1, 2, and. 3 BRs would “fix” that issue at PVB.

The similarities in expiration dates at VGF2 (2064-2022) and PVB1 (2066-2024) keeps my hopes up for the same association. DVD still “wins” because they are selling points over a shorter time frame at full price (whatever that is when they go on sale) and they can again back off the resale restrictions that have arguably impacted sales at Riviera.

 

[aoconnor]

Poly already has SO many studios, I don't think it would really make sense to build this new tower as its own association and add a bunch more. The new tower should be predominantly 1/2/3 bedrooms, perhaps with a few new-type studios like resort studios (2 real beds) or tiny tower studios.

 

[DVChris]

Based on permits filed, here is the proposed layout of Poly2.

https://wdwnt.com/2022/04/permits-r...nd-more-at-disneys-polynesian-village-resort/

 

[SLThomas318]

Well it looks like they are going to add a decent pool!

 

[BrianR]

https://my.sfwmd.gov/ePermitting/MainPage.do if you want to figure out an archaic filing system to see the plans yourself. Just search for application 220411-33929
Since it's water management don't expect interior building pics, but do see underground work and trees that they're removing (pretty much all of them including that amazing banyan tree).

 

[Paul Stupin]

You'll absolutely see them as part of the DLT association. I just think Poly2 is such a unique outlier like VGF2 is that the amount of rooms in that lone building isn't enough to set up a separate association. You're looking at 5 floors with one lone hallway, so 50% lake 50% standard, plus a few rooms on the 6th/7th in the middle. This is based on the assumption that the ground floor will be communal space / shops / restaurant / fitness etc. and the top center could be a signature restaurant with views of the castle. That would put you into the equivalent of 1.5 / 2 of the current DVC longhouses worth of rooms. CCV had millions of points in the Cabins to dwarf what BRV had plus the 20 year gap. Like I mentioned a good while back, if you're seeing a bunch of 1BR / 2BR / 3BR GV with no real ratio of studios in the submitted plans to the county it will lead me to confirm it would be the same association.

The tower looks pretty big to me. It’s just very difficult for me to believe that DVC would undertake such a huge new build, only to have direct sales forced to compete immediately with Poly1 resale, and have availability limited by Poly1 owners‘ bookings. They’re also not going to spend the money required to build this, only to immediately undermine their long term resale restriction strategy and confuse every new buyer. Why didn’t DVC announce Poly2 was going to be the same association, like they did with VGF2? That doesn’t bode well for it being in the same association either.

 

[BrianR]

The tower looks pretty big to me. It’s just very difficult for me to believe that DVC would undertake such a huge new build, only to have direct sales forced to compete immediately with Poly1 resale, and have availability limited by Poly1 owners‘ bookings. They’re also not going to spend the money required to build this, only to immediately undermine their long term resale restriction strategy and confuse every new buyer. Why didn’t DVC announce Poly2 was going to be the same association, like they did with VGF2? That doesn’t bode well for it being in the same association either.

When CCV was announced they named it a separate association in the initial announcement, and they didn't here. The other big item is based on the plan they are tying into the common amenities framework of PVB. Why is this big? Because MFs are determined with a percentage of rooms of the resort total for common items like transport, front desk, housekeeping costs. If they would for some reason think it would be separate, this MF could actually go down for PVB1 and in turn make PVB2 higher. So now you would have a sold out PVB1 on the resale market for cheaper with cheaper MF vs. PVB2 direct for more up front and more every year. Conversely if you combine it you would be in fact taking on more of the % stake of the common amenities but hedging it with either a) providing amenities back such as the new pool and a possible restaurant (or two+) and b) on site fitness on top of c) adding enough points so the current PVB owners don't see a material increase in their MF.

 

[Sandisw]

When CCV was announced they named it a separate association in the initial announcement, and they didn't here. The other big item is based on the plan they are tying into the common amenities framework of PVB. Why is this big? Because MFs are determined with a percentage of rooms of the resort total for common items like transport, front desk, housekeeping costs. If they would for some reason think it would be separate, this MF could actually go down for PVB1 and in turn make PVB2 higher. So now you would have a sold out PVB1 on the resale market for cheaper with cheaper MF vs. PVB2 direct for more up front and more every year. Conversely if you combine it you would be in fact taking on more of the % stake of the common amenities but hedging it with either a) providing amenities back such as the new pool and a possible restaurant (or two+) and b) on site fitness on top of c) adding enough points so the current PVB owners don't see a material increase in their MF.

And when they made it the same for VGF it was also announced immediately. They have now done it both ways so that may not mean anything.

Separate association could mean lower dues for PVB1 , but there will be increased expenses for Poly tower that will need to be split between PVB and Poly tower too so it will depend on what those are and how they could compare.

I think the lack of details is more telling than what we know.

The new drawings do confirm this is going to be part of the Poly Village Resort. Just no new info of how it all play into DVC.

 

[Paul Stupin]

When CCV was announced they named it a separate association in the initial announcement, and they didn't here. The other big item is based on the plan they are tying into the common amenities framework of PVB. Why is this big? Because MFs are determined with a percentage of rooms of the resort total for common items like transport, front desk, housekeeping costs. If they would for some reason think it would be separate, this MF could actually go down for PVB1 and in turn make PVB2 higher. So now you would have a sold out PVB1 on the resale market for cheaper with cheaper MF vs. PVB2 direct for more up front and more every year. Conversely if you combine it you would be in fact taking on more of the % stake of the common amenities but hedging it with either a) providing amenities back such as the new pool and a possible restaurant (or two+) and b) on site fitness on top of c) adding enough points so the current PVB owners don't see a material increase in their MF.

Yes, I think it could very well be a sold out Poly1 on the resale market for cheaper, with maybe or maybe not cheaper maintenance fees, with Poly2 for more direct and maybe or maybe not higher maintenance fees. If Poly2 is a separate association, I would expect points to cost more because the accommodations and tower will be brand new and more contemporary, while I would expect Poly1 resale pricing to go down because there will be less demand for it on the resale market. I don’t think DVC would care about Poly1 resale pricing. I guess we agree on this, but I don’t think it’s very good for Poly1 owners.

But, if Poly1 owners are allowed to use the Poly2 amenities, their maintenance fees might be adjusted upward.

 

[Nabas]

Based on permits filed, here is the proposed layout of Poly2.

https://wdwnt.com/2022/04/permits-r...nd-more-at-disneys-polynesian-village-resort/

Based on the proposed layout, Poly Tower seems more likely than not to be in the same association as PVB. Its much smaller than I expected, while its footprint is just jammed into three existing Poly buildings.

It would be one thing if PVB was expiring in 20 years but PVB ends in 2066, more than 40 years from now.

 

[DebbieB]

I may consider buying points but only if no resale restrictions. I just came back from Riviera, loved it, but the resale restrictions are a deal breaker. I’m 62, so will have to sell at some point, so losing money on it isn’t an option.