Sorry,Just not impressed with Bonnet Creek

[blitzkrieg048]

Thanks, Brian. We use the ironing board to iron rather than the table. Our last stay was in a one bedroom and WBC. We had much more living space than the one bedroom at the BCV in Bldg 5. Granted BCV had a larger balcony, but we enjoyed the kitchen and eating space at WBC. It's simply a matter of personal choice. Obviously, the OP does not prefer WBC.

thank u thats all i was saying.

 

[blitzkrieg048]

That's the first comment on this thread that made me openly chuckle. Thanks Brian!

Dick Taylor

it actually made me chuckle too, lol

 

[blitzkrieg048]

Maybe your problem is bringing the kids? lol... Just kidding here. I really can't see how any place on Disney could be better when you have all that extra room at WBC. I can't really talk though since we haven't been there yet but we booked our first stay at WBC for next May (only our second time to Disney). I'm actually looking forward to not getting talked to by ALL the workers of the resort... it gets annoying having to say hi to everyone (i think at least).

you may be right about the kids...lol

 

[blitzkrieg048]

I always appreciate reviews also, whether they are good or bad. I have also learned that if you search hard enough there is major build up on these threads of every resort or hotel, which always leads to disappointment. I learned that the hard way last year when we decided to spend a little less and stay 4 nights at the Pop because the threads really made it sound wonderful. We were still only in our rooms to shower and sleep and I still hated it. I swear it felt like I could hear the people outside the room and next door breathing. Super thin walls and super crappy beds and pillows and this comes from someone who is not a hotel snob. You wouldn't have thought that from the Pop century threads though. Lesson learned. I also find it amusing how upset people get when you say one negative thing about anything as if they all own stock in Disney.

Debbie

i have complaints bout disney too...why do i not get a discount on meal plans when people who do not own get it for free certain times of the year. your right u can find bad things bout every hotel. if u read my posts in MY opinon i wasnt impressed with it despite all the hype. the first post after my OP was an attck bout my cigar smoking even though i wasnt breaking any rules..that wasnt necessary at all. then i got stats on square footage and money thrown at me...good for all that, its still not changing my opinion of the place, sorry. i respected everyones opinion but alot of people didnt respect mine...i apprecciate the ones who did. thanx

 

[shalom]

if u read my posts in MY opinon i wasnt impressed with it despite all the hype.

That's exactly how I feel about DVC. I do like the DVC resorts, but I also have some major problems with them.

 

[blitzkrieg048]

That's exactly how I feel about DVC. I do like the DVC resorts, but I also have some major problems with them.

great then we agree to disagree on the resorts, not a problem unfortunately i have more cons about WBC than I do about DVC, and you like WBC better, again i was just stating my opinion

 

[JimMIA]

i have complaints bout disney too...why do i not get a discount on meal plans when people who do not own get it for free certain times of the year.

Actually you do get a discount, in effect. You can purchase DDP without buying park tickets you don't need.

Also, I haven't followed DDP much since they scuttled it a few years ago, so I don't know if folks paying rack rate at regular Disney resorts can do this or not -- but on a DVC points stay, you can "segment" your reservation and only get DDP for the days you want it. If the cash guests can't do that, that's a huge benefit for DVC owners.

 

[Brian Noble]

If the cash guests can't do that, that's a huge benefit for DVC owners.

Cash guests cannot---at least, not without making each dining-enabled segment a package, including a ticket purchase. Having to start over with a full-priced day ticket each time quickly negates any advantage.

I suspect that AP holders *might* be able to segment, as they do not need to buy tickets, but I am not sure.

 

[JimMIA]

That's exactly how I feel about DVC. I do like the DVC resorts, but I also have some major problems with them.

To me, there are a couple of issues here.

For one thing, I don't think it's possible to lump all DVC resorts together as a class and try to evaluate them compared to any one offsite resort. If you want to compare OKW to WBC, or BLT to WBC, fine. But there is so much difference in theming, villa type and size, cost, etc within the DVC family at WDW that generalized comparisons are pretty silly.

Another thing -- when I compare OKW (my favorite DVC resort) to WBC, there are things I like better about OKW, and there are things I like better about WBC. I like the villa size and the spread-out layout and peaceful ambiance of OKW better. I like the amenities MUCH better at WBC. I also like the variety of units at WBC better, including the Presidential units up to 4 bedrooms.

And then there's the difference between the DVC resorts and the concept of owning a DVC timeshare. Those are totally different concepts.

Enjoying a stay at a DVC resort is a very different animal from owning a DVC timeshare. DVC is a very expensive timeshare to own and use (as detailed above), and if you venture beyond WDW, it gets even more expensive and limited and the other options become much more attractive.

 

[shalom]

For one thing, I don't think it's possible to lump all DVC resorts together as a class and try to evaluate them compared to any one offsite resort.

I agree, but I was primarily referring to the whole "onsite or not going" mentality, DVC subcategory. I hang out here and on the Disney resort sub-board the most, so I suppose the onsite versus offsite debate is often in the back of my mind.

Another thing -- when I compare OKW (my favorite DVC resort) to WBC, there are things I like better about OKW, and there are things I like better about WBC.

Before I actually visited, I figured we'd like OKW the best, and certainly on paper it was the one that most appealed to me -- larger units, beautiful views, I like the way the resort is laid out, etc. etc. But as it turned out, OKW is the DVC resort no one in the family particularly liked.

Aside from OKW, and to some extent AKV (which I find too dark, although I've only been to Jambo and I've heard Kidani is a bit better), I like the grounds and more public areas of all the DVC resorts better than those of WBC. But from a practicality stand point, in terms of day-to-day livability, WBC has the edge. And hubby and the kids are much more influenced by the day-to-day livability of a unit than the resort's general ambiance.

And then there's the difference between the DVC resorts and the concept of owning a DVC timeshare. Those are totally different concepts.

True, although there is often an overlap of interest. I'm sure I'm not the only non-owner who dreams about ownership, from time to time. But whenever I start seriously considering it, I always conclude that DVC is both too expensive and too inflexible. And if I ever got past that, practicality would stop me. Hubby has back issues -- if we end up severely restricted in terms of his ability to travel, all those lovely resorts in Florida are not going to be in our travel plans. Nor will Hawaii or South Carolina, and I'm not at all interested in managing points for rental or having to mess with reselling, so there it is.

 

[blitzkrieg048]

To me, there are a couple of issues here.

For one thing, I don't think it's possible to lump all DVC resorts together as a class and try to evaluate them compared to any one offsite resort. If you want to compare OKW to WBC, or BLT to WBC, fine. But there is so much difference in theming, villa type and size, cost, etc within the DVC family at WDW that generalized comparisons are pretty silly.

Another thing -- when I compare OKW (my favorite DVC resort) to WBC, there are things I like better about OKW, and there are things I like better about WBC. I like the villa size and the spread-out layout and peaceful ambiance of OKW better. I like the amenities MUCH better at WBC. I also like the variety of units at WBC better, including the Presidential units up to 4 bedrooms.

And then there's the difference between the DVC resorts and the concept of owning a DVC timeshare. Those are totally different concepts.

Enjoying a stay at a DVC resort is a very different animal from owning a DVC timeshare. DVC is a very expensive timeshare to own and use (as detailed above), and if you venture beyond WDW, it gets even more expensive and limited and the other options become much more attractive.

if your going to disney every year and want to stay at a DVC resort its cheaper in the long run to join DVC...IF you just go to Disney..thats why we bought it.

 

[blitzkrieg048]

I agree, but I was primarily referring to the whole "onsite or not going" mentality, DVC subcategory. I hang out here and on the Disney resort sub-board the most, so I suppose the onsite versus offsite debate is often in the back of my mind.



Before I actually visited, I figured we'd like OKW the best, and certainly on paper it was the one that most appealed to me -- larger units, beautiful views, I like the way the resort is laid out, etc. etc. But as it turned out, OKW is the DVC resort no one in the family particularly liked.

Aside from OKW, and to some extent AKV (which I find too dark, although I've only been to Jambo and I've heard Kidani is a bit better), I like the grounds and more public areas of all the DVC resorts better than those of WBC. But from a practicality stand point, in terms of day-to-day livability, WBC has the edge. And hubby and the kids are much more influenced by the day-to-day livability of a unit than the resort's general ambiance.



True, although there is often an overlap of interest. I'm sure I'm not the only non-owner who dreams about ownership, from time to time. But whenever I start seriously considering it, I always conclude that DVC is both too expensive and too inflexible. And if I ever got past that, practicality would stop me. Hubby has back issues -- if we end up severely restricted in terms of his ability to travel, all those lovely resorts in Florida are not going to be in our travel plans. Nor will Hawaii or South Carolina, and I'm not at all interested in managing points for rental or having to mess with reselling, so there it is.

how do u mean its inflexible in what sense

 

[shalom]

how do u mean its inflexible in what sense

It's good for going to Disney, but not much else. It is very expensive to trade with it, and DVC owners only have access to a small percentage of RCI resorts -- and no access to Last Call or Extra Vacations. Nearly every unhappy DVC owner I've met has either lost interest in going to Disney, or their kids have lost interest and the grandkids would rather go somewhere else, when the owner bought in hoping to go with family.

I also dislike the reserving at your own resort eleven months out, the other resorts seven months out thing, or the fact that the owners of each individual resort cope with that resort's problems. The whole point of a points system, to me, is the ability to use the other resorts, and the fact that problems can be spread across all the resorts. Since everyone has access to Bay Lake Towers, everyone should be paying for the fact that the units seem to need more TLC there, is my feeling.

I think there's a logic to having a home resort advantage within DVC, from Disney's perspective and for a lot of owners as well, I just don't like it. I could probably get what I want seven months out, because I only go to Disney off season, but I like reserving eleven months out and then looking forward to that particular vacation.

I do like the theming and the "Disney whimsy" of the offsite resorts, but by the time they have enough of them to give DVC some true flexibility, I'm going to be eighty years old. And at eighty I will still have other methods of trading into the offsite DVC resorts, because right now I've got a lot of flexibility and know a lot of ways to get more. We'd need to be going to Disney more than every other year, AND going during prime times, AND determined to stay onsite every single time, in order for DVC to make any sense at all, because all DVC is good for is DVC.

What I've got right now I can use for DVC, but I can also use it in thousands of other places that might appeal to me more at the time - dozens more in Orlando, and the rest all across the US and the world. I like Disney, right now I'm a bit obsessed with Disney, but I have been Disney obsessed before and I tend to drift off after a year or two. I always come back, but DVC would do me no good in my down time. I'm too fickle for DVC.

 

[JimMIA]

if your going to disney every year and want to stay at a DVC resort its cheaper in the long run to join DVC...IF you just go to Disney..thats why we bought it.

Yes...if you structure the comparison to exclude all other options except getting a DVC villa through Disney CRO. In that narrow comparison, you'd better save money with DVC!

That's like comparing the cost of DDP to the menu prices of the highest priced items on Disney restaurant menus. Of course you "save" money! It's a sucker bet.

However, I would argue that anyone who has to draw the comparisons that narrowly to justify a DVC purchase is really just dreaming up an excuse to do what they want to do in the first place. I can justify anything.

 

[Brian Noble]

if you structure the comparison to exclude all other options except getting a DVC villa through Disney CRO.

I'm not so sure about that. We're at the point now where resale prices have fallen enough that it's more economical to own than rent. For example, consider OKW (original). I know someone who just bought a contract at $45---loaded, with seller paying current year MFs. But, ignoring even that, amortizing that $45/pt across the remaining contract at 6% opportunity cost is about $3.25/pt/year in acquisition costs. Dues this year are a shade under $5. $8.25/pt compares quite favorably to the rental market, which seems to be creeping up off of $10/pt after many years being stuck there. If you're the sort who ignores opportunity cost (and Jim, I believe you are) the math is even more favorable towards owning.

True, that's more expensive than exchanging in---a 2BR in Magic Season at $8.25/pt is still roughly $2400 and change. But, owning gives you a lot more convenience---partial week stays, certainty in booking, etc. DVC could well jump back to II. Worse, they could ask RCI for a 1-in-N rule. And, they'd get it without having to even say please.

Edited to add: it's also more expensive than staying offsite. But, some people will find that expense justified. Who's to say that they are wrong? If it works for them, it works for them.

I think the biggest risk of owning is the risk of changing vacation habits. It's easy to imagine wanting to come to WDW every year for the next few decades. But, as the kids grow and things change, well, things change.

Edited again: you know it's been a while since I did that calculation. But, under the $45/purchase and $10/rental assumptions, the ROI on an OKW resale purchase is now above 11%/year. That's not half bad.

 

[JimMIA]

If you're the sort who ignores opportunity cost (and Jim, I believe you are) the math is even more favorable towards owning.

Yes and no on the opportunity cost. I understand it from my finance courses, but I doubt if it's really understood by most readers here on the DIS. I certainly use opportunity cost in my personal calculations, I just wonder whether it's actually helpful for folks who aren't accountants or corporate finance gurus...or professors.

I'm always concerned that people grasping for any straw will grasp that just because it sounds good. I'd prefer they be more conservative before plunging into a timeshare purchase. Those who grasp for straws become the folks who made your friend's $45 OKW purchase possible.

 

[shalom]

But, some people will find that expense justified. Who's to say that they are wrong? If it works for them, it works for them.

Yep. I think a lot of people work hard to convince themselves (and/or others) that DVC is practical, when in reality, they're paying that price to own a piece of the mouse, to be a part of something they love. Disney is all about following your heart's desire, and that's exactly what they're doing. But then they say they're doing it because they're following their good sense, sometimes despite the clear evidence. Kind of ironic, when you think about it.

We all indulge ourselves in something that isn't practical; as long as someone can afford it, what's the harm? And one definite advantage to DVC is that you can rent it out to pay off your yearly fees, and them some -- can't say that about many timeshares, and it's the yearly fees that usually cost the most over time.

I'm always concerned that people grasping for any straw will grasp that just because it sounds good. I'd prefer they be more conservative before plunging into a timeshare purchase.

Agreed. But once they own, and if they can afford it, I think it's often less grasping at straws and more trying to get family (or their over-active conscience, or whatever) off their back for buying what matters to them. It only bothers me when someone posts to a DVC board saying they're debating about buying in and someone there tries to convince them it's a great deal. It's a great deal if you can afford it and ownership matters that much to you and managing the ownership will be a joy, not a hardship. It's not such a great deal if you just like to stay in DVC resorts at a good price and think owning is the best way to accomplish that.

 

[blitzkrieg048]

I agree, but I was primarily referring to the whole "onsite or not going" mentality, DVC subcategory. I hang out here and on the Disney resort sub-board the most, so I suppose the onsite versus offsite debate is often in the back of my mind.



Before I actually visited, I figured we'd like OKW the best, and certainly on paper it was the one that most appealed to me -- larger units, beautiful views, I like the way the resort is laid out, etc. etc. But as it turned out, OKW is the DVC resort no one in the family particularly liked.

Aside from OKW, and to some extent AKV (which I find too dark, although I've only been to Jambo and I've heard Kidani is a bit better), I like the grounds and more public areas of all the DVC resorts better than those of WBC. But from a practicality stand point, in terms of day-to-day livability, WBC has the edge. And hubby and the kids are much more influenced by the day-to-day livability of a unit than the resort's general ambiance.



True, although there is often an overlap of interest. I'm sure I'm not the only non-owner who dreams about ownership, from time to time. But whenever I start seriously considering it, I always conclude that DVC is both too expensive and too inflexible. And if I ever got past that, practicality would stop me. Hubby has back issues -- if we end up severely restricted in terms of his ability to travel, all those lovely resorts in Florida are not going to be in our travel plans. Nor will Hawaii or South Carolina, and I'm not at all interested in managing points for rental or having to mess with reselling, so there it is.

It's good for going to Disney, but not much else. It is very expensive to trade with it, and DVC owners only have access to a small percentage of RCI resorts -- and no access to Last Call or Extra Vacations. Nearly every unhappy DVC owner I've met has either lost interest in going to Disney, or their kids have lost interest and the grandkids would rather go somewhere else, when the owner bought in hoping to go with family.

I also dislike the reserving at your own resort eleven months out, the other resorts seven months out thing, or the fact that the owners of each individual resort cope with that resort's problems. The whole point of a points system, to me, is the ability to use the other resorts, and the fact that problems can be spread across all the resorts. Since everyone has access to Bay Lake Towers, everyone should be paying for the fact that the units seem to need more TLC there, is my feeling.

I think there's a logic to having a home resort advantage within DVC, from Disney's perspective and for a lot of owners as well, I just don't like it. I could probably get what I want seven months out, because I only go to Disney off season, but I like reserving eleven months out and then looking forward to that particular vacation.

I do like the theming and the "Disney whimsy" of the offsite resorts, but by the time they have enough of them to give DVC some true flexibility, I'm going to be eighty years old. And at eighty I will still have other methods of trading into the offsite DVC resorts, because right now I've got a lot of flexibility and know a lot of ways to get more. We'd need to be going to Disney more than every other year, AND going during prime times, AND determined to stay onsite every single time, in order for DVC to make any sense at all, because all DVC is good for is DVC.

What I've got right now I can use for DVC, but I can also use it in thousands of other places that might appeal to me more at the time - dozens more in Orlando, and the rest all across the US and the world. I like Disney, right now I'm a bit obsessed with Disney, but I have been Disney obsessed before and I tend to drift off after a year or two. I always come back, but DVC would do me no good in my down time. I'm too fickle for DVC.

well first off I've never had a problem getting what i wanted seven months out at any resort...and most DVC members i speak to havent had any problems...And ur right DVC is best used for Disney...thats why we bought it...i never get bored of it and even if i did get bored of the parx i love just hanging at the resort and driving to wherever else id like to go. Im not interested in going many other palces so this is perfect for my family. I always tell people who r interested in DVC that its best used for disney DVC resorts.

 

[blitzkrieg048]

Yep. I think a lot of people work hard to convince themselves (and/or others) that DVC is practical, when in reality, they're paying that price to own a piece of the mouse, to be a part of something they love. Disney is all about following your heart's desire, and that's exactly what they're doing. But then they say they're doing it because they're following their good sense, sometimes despite the clear evidence. Kind of ironic, when you think about it.

We all indulge ourselves in something that isn't practical; as long as someone can afford it, what's the harm? And one definite advantage to DVC is that you can rent it out to pay off your yearly fees, and them some -- can't say that about many timeshares, and it's the yearly fees that usually cost the most over time.



Agreed. But once they own, and if they can afford it, I think it's often less grasping at straws and more trying to get family (or their over-active conscience, or whatever) off their back for buying what matters to them. It only bothers me when someone posts to a DVC board saying they're debating about buying in and someone there tries to convince them it's a great deal. It's a great deal if you can afford it and ownership matters that much to you and managing the ownership will be a joy, not a hardship. It's not such a great deal if you just like to stay in DVC resorts at a good price and think owning is the best way to accomplish that.

u can say that about any timeshare, ownership, or whatever. I spoke t a family from britain who spent 30,000 in the last six years staying at DVC resorts. They have a larger families so they need the extra room and like the convenience of a kitchen and also wanna stay on disney property. They wanted to buy years ago but thought it wasnt worth the money and werent gonna go every year. there sorry they didnt...so im sure you'll have some sort of timeshare trade comeback for me but thyey are gonna buy it this trip...hopefully there arms dont get tired from trying to grasp those straws.

 

[blitzkrieg048]

I'm not so sure about that. We're at the point now where resale prices have fallen enough that it's more economical to own than rent. For example, consider OKW (original). I know someone who just bought a contract at $45---loaded, with seller paying current year MFs. But, ignoring even that, amortizing that $45/pt across the remaining contract at 6% opportunity cost is about $3.25/pt/year in acquisition costs. Dues this year are a shade under $5. $8.25/pt compares quite favorably to the rental market, which seems to be creeping up off of $10/pt after many years being stuck there. If you're the sort who ignores opportunity cost (and Jim, I believe you are) the math is even more favorable towards owning.

True, that's more expensive than exchanging in---a 2BR in Magic Season at $8.25/pt is still roughly $2400 and change. But, owning gives you a lot more convenience---partial week stays, certainty in booking, etc. DVC could well jump back to II. Worse, they could ask RCI for a 1-in-N rule. And, they'd get it without having to even say please.
brian makes a good point...disney resale is really cheap and probably the best way to go. you can buy over 200 points for 8,000-12,000 bux...thats a great deal.
Edited to add: it's also more expensive than staying offsite. But, some people will find that expense justified. Who's to say that they are wrong? If it works for them, it works for them.

I think the biggest risk of owning is the risk of changing vacation habits. It's easy to imagine wanting to come to WDW every year for the next few decades. But, as the kids grow and things change, well, things change.

Edited again: you know it's been a while since I did that calculation. But, under the $45/purchase and $10/rental assumptions, the ROI on an OKW resale purchase is now above 11%/year. That's not half bad.

brian makes a great point there are great deals on disney resale that wont break your bank account...more people should go that route