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

[havoc315]

Correct, VGF can not because VGF is not located at the Poly resort. This new tower IS being built at the Poly resort. That information was included in the announcement so there is no question is it part of that complex.

Obviously, you are correct they could change things and not make this part of Poly. IMO, I see no reason for that to change if that is how it has been announced....if they wanted it to be something not even associated with Poly, or wanted that option... the title would not have said "New DVC Villas coming to the Poly Village Resort" but rather something like "New DVC Villas coming to the Seven Seas Lagoon"....

RIV was never advertised as part of CBR.

The only thing in question right now...because the announcement did not include it.... is whether DVC will classify it as a new association so they can apply new rules, or if it is absorbed into the current PVB association.

We shall see how it plays out as we have 2 years before sales begin.

That is all correct. And it is, by far, the most likely outcome. But things do change, especially as designs get finalized, new problems crop up, new realizations.
Whole projects can get cancelled even after work has started -- ie, Reflections.
Other projects could see wholesale changes.

I wonder, in the initial planning that led to this announcement, whether there was any consultation and consideration regarding the current capacity of the Poly pool and amenities. I can certainly see the type of situation of left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. (like when they offered free dining to people with Covid re-booking... without any thought that dining was going to be impacted for a long time even after re-opening).
As planning continues, a realization that an additional 200-300 units would overwhelm the Poly infrastructure, could lead to a significant change in the plan. (such as turning it into a separate resort, as opposed to a Poly addition).

Again, it's unlikely -- It would be inconsistent with the announcement. But I wouldn't say it is impossible.

 

[Duckbug.Ducktales]

Sorry, changing my vote now: I think it should/will be the same association.

1. Mainly because this could allow them to fix the bungalow glut gradually over the years after the resort goes on sale by slightly raising the other room type costs. The new Poly2 buyers might be unhappy with that if they bought mostly to book in the new tower, but making the bungalows more attractive would occur to the overall benefit of the membership everywhere (or at least across WDW).

2. The second compelling reason I see is that in 2066, they may have issues reselling Poly1 if it's permanently separate from Poly2, especially if the latter is deemed more desirable generally.

 

[ProudMommyof2]

They could restrict it for sure. BRV and CCV share the pools though, right? But they may have no choice but to separate them since the PVB pool is already an issue.

CCV didn’t really add much in guests on property. It simply converted rooms from hotel to DVC. In fact it likely reduced density (2 rooms became a one bedroom).
This tower will greatly increase density to the resort.

 

[Nabas]

I voted same association. We've already cancelled plans to add points at VGF2 in the hope that these will be in the same association.

PVB1 and PVB2 will be different hotel experiences. It would be amazing to be able to book either PVB1 or PVB2 at 11 months.

 

[Sandisw]

CCV didn’t really add much in guests on property. It simply converted rooms from hotel to DVC. In fact it likely reduced density (2 rooms became a one bedroom).
This tower will greatly increase density to the resort.

That is true, but as long as this new tower is added to the Poly resort, all pools will be available.

They would have to not only make it a new condo association for DVC but also make it a brand new property, nor associated with Poly at all.

 

[ProudMommyof2]

Yes! I am not a huge fan of the restrictions and not defending DVC for implementing them. I wish they would go away. Having said that, I also struggle with understanding the reticence of folks who use this as the primary reason to not buy direct from DVC. The restrictions have no impact on the direct buyer. None.

I disagree they have no impact on direct buyers for two reasons:
1. Resale value may be impacted especially if..
2. As the ratio of resale to direct owners begins to shift (typical buyer sells at around 7 years right?) all those resale owners will only be able to book at RIV. Over time, that will make it harder for any owner to book their home resort because all those resale owners will be sure to book as early in the priority booking window as possible. They have nowhere else to go. It could get cutthroat for home resort availability at 11 months

 

[BeachClub2014]

I disagree they have no impact on direct buyers for two reasons:
1. Resale value may be impacted especially if..
2. As the ratio of resale to direct owners begins to shift (typical buyer sells at around 7 years right?) all those resale owners will only be able to book at RIV. Over time, that will make it harder for any owner to book their home resort because all those resale owners will be sure to book as early in the priority booking window as possible. They have nowhere else to go. It could get cutthroat for home resort availability at 11 months

A lot of things could happen, so it's hard to argue about possibilities. There is seemingly an active resale market for RIV points now, but I suppose that could change down the road. Not sure how many years down the road, if ever, the room scenario you describe becomes a reality. I suppose it's possible. But to my point, neither of these things are true today.

 

[Sandisw]

I disagree they have no impact on direct buyers for two reasons:
1. Resale value may be impacted especially if..
2. As the ratio of resale to direct owners begins to shift (typical buyer sells at around 7 years right?) all those resale owners will only be able to book at RIV. Over time, that will make it harder for any owner to book their home resort because all those resale owners will be sure to book as early in the priority booking window as possible. They have nowhere else to go. It could get cutthroat for home resort availability at 11 months

Except that already occurs at some resorts for some rooms and there are no restrictions.

Also, a contract only goes from direct to resale once, no matter how many times it’s sold. If I sell my resale RIV contract, the new buyer simply replaces me as a resale buyer, but it doesn’t increase the number who own.

Over the years, it’s been reported a resort is about 10 to 15% resale.

Now, where you will see a potential change is at 7 months as resale owners have no place to go.

But, resale value only impacts the direct buyer who wants or needs it to stay high. We have never considered resale value as part of the equation so honestly, the restrictions are not a concern for us. Worst case, we sell for less and chalk it up to it is what it is.

 

[theMoreDisneytheBetter]

I'm not that interested in Poly studios and the Bungalows are almost always available 7 months out, so selfishly I voted for a new association so as not to increase competition for the new Tower rooms from current owners. BUT being the same association wouldn't keep us from buying. Also if Disney feels like it can build MORE 1/2/3BD in the Tower if they can balance that with Studios in Poly 1 then that would also make me change my vote to the same association.

If the Tower ends up being mostly studios or guests can't use the Volcano pool (we're a big pool family) I will regret having only bought a small VGF contract.

 

[Paul Stupin]

I vote for new association. It looks like there aren’t going to be too many one bedrooms, so I’d rather not compete with all the Poly1 folks.

 

[Jelly563]

If there is an infinity pool, I would think 99% of the people would go to that pool. Kids have to go where mommy says, and mommy wants the infinity

 

[Nabas]

If there is an infinity pool, I would think 99% of the people would go to that pool. Kids have to go where mommy says, and mommy wants the infinity

I dunno. The Poly's Lava Pool is pretty great!

If it were up to me, I'd like to do both!

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Except that already occurs at some resorts for some rooms and there are no restrictions.

Also, a contract only goes from direct to resale once, no matter how many times it’s sold. If I sell my resale RIV contract, the new buyer simply replaces me as a resale buyer, but it doesn’t increase the number who own.

Over the years, it’s been reported a resort is about 10 to 15% resale.

Now, where you will see a potential change is at 7 months as resale owners have no place to go.

But, resale value only impacts the direct buyer who wants or needs it to stay high. We have never considered resale value as part of the equation so honestly, the restrictions are not a concern for us. Worst case, we sell for less and chalk it up to it is what it is.

I like your attitude! Actually, that is a great motto with DVC. Because changes can and will happen, in the end it “ is what it is”.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I vote for new association. It looks like there aren’t going to be too many one bedrooms, so I’d rather not compete with all the Poly1 folks.

But new association probably means “ restrictions”.

 

[GGGT]

As a current PVB owner, I would prefer "Same Association"

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

Yes! I am not a huge fan of the restrictions and not defending DVC for implementing them. I wish they would go away. Having said that, I also struggle with understanding the reticence of folks who use this as the primary reason to not buy direct from DVC. The restrictions have no impact on the direct buyer. None.

Not necessarily true. There are no immediate impacts on direct buyers. And there might never be any if that direct buyer keeps the contract until it expires.

However, if a direct buyer decides to sell that contract, the restrictions will apply to the new owner. That could certainly impact the price the direct owner is able to get for the contract compared to what they might have gotten if the buyer was able to use their points at other resorts and not just at that home resort ONLY.

 

[Marionnette]

Yes! I am not a huge fan of the restrictions and not defending DVC for implementing them. I wish they would go away. Having said that, I also struggle with understanding the reticence of folks who use this as the primary reason to not buy direct from DVC. The restrictions have no impact on the direct buyer. None.

I disagree. The impact is minimal right now because of the newness if the resort. The number of resale owners as a percentage of the total number of owners is small. After it sells out and the number of resale owners increases, there will be increased competition at 11 months for high-demand seasons because those resale owners won't have any recourse at 7 months. I predict that a lot of walking will be seen for Fall Frenzy thru Marathon Weekend, and Star Wars Weekend because those resale owners will absolutely need to lock in their dates.

 

[BeachClub2014]

However, if a direct buyer decides to sell that contract, the restrictions will apply to the new owner. That could certainly impact the price the direct owner is able to get for the contract compared to what they might have gotten if the buyer was able to use their points at other resorts and not just at that home resort ONLY.

This could certainly prove true at some point down the road, but that isn't the case now.

After it sells out and the number of resale owners increases, there will be increased competition at 11 months for high-demand seasons because those resale owners won't have any recourse at 7 months. I predict that a lot of walking will be seen for Fall Frenzy thru Marathon Weekend, and Star Wars Weekend because those resale owners will absolutely need to lock in their dates.

Difficulty obtaining rooms at various resorts, even at 11-months, is a staple across all of DVC and is not, and will not be unique to the RIV. The RIV owner who buys directly is actually better positioned if availability becomes too tight as those points can be used at any resort. That is the primary benefit of purchasing directly. It is the RIV resale buyer that will potentially feel this impact the most.

 

[Sandisw]

I disagree. The impact is minimal right now because of the newness if the resort. The number of resale owners as a percentage of the total number of owners is small. After it sells out and the number of resale owners increases, there will be increased competition at 11 months for high-demand seasons because those resale owners won't have any recourse at 7 months. I predict that a lot of walking will be seen for Fall Frenzy thru Marathon Weekend, and Star Wars Weekend because those resale owners will absolutely need to lock in their dates.

That is already happening for SV rooms, especially studios. And, if the pattern follows, like I have said, you may see 10 to 15% of the points being restricted resale points.

It will take a long time to get to that % and I just don’t see even that being large enough to have long term impacts on direct buyers being able to book their home resort at 11 months.

Now, direct buyers who decide not to book before 7 months will struggle because of the lack of movement from resale buyers.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

The only reports so far are that it will be the same and I'd believe that makes the most sense. I'd also be in favor of it being the same. I wasn't in favor of the addition to VGF of the resort studios they designed. I believe it is unfairly going to put a crunch on the original villas. PVB has the studios and bungalows but would benefit from an addition other villa options as it should have had from the start.

However at this point it also would have been fine to leave Poly as is. I'm not a fan of the architecture nor the location impact of the proposed building.