What the Resort: GCV or DRV?

[salmoneous]

Forgive me for starting yet another Grand Californian thread, but I wasn't sure where to put this…

To me, there is a huge difference between

1) Grand Californian Villas, and
2) Disneyland Resort Villas (the first 50 of which are located in the Grand Californian)

Has there been anything in the press releases that indicates the existence of a Grand Californian Villas resort? If not, I strongly suspect we are getting #2 - Disneyland Resort Villas. However, given all the sales buzz the first option is creating (buy now - it's tiny) I wonder if Disney will be quick to clarify.

 

["Got Disney"]

Forgive me for starting yet another Grand Californian thread, but I wasn't sure where to put this…

To me, there is a huge difference between

1) Grand Californian Villas, and
2) Disneyland Resort Villas (the first 50 of which are located in the Grand Californian)

Has there been anything in the press releases that indicates the existence of a Grand Californian Villas resort? If not, I strongly suspect we are getting #2 - Disneyland Resort Villas. However, given all the sales buzz the first option is creating (buy now - it's tiny) I wonder if Disney will be quick to clarify.

they have already started construction at the GCH. They aklo mentioned in the press realease that they were adding them to the GCH making it over 900 rooms. Is like 780 rooms at this time.

This is from the press realease:
Disney’s Grand Californian Hotel & Spa currently features 745 guest rooms, including 44 suites. Upon completion of the expansion project, the hotel will feature 945 guest rooms, including 44 guest suites, and 50 Disney Vacation Club two-bedroom equivalent vacation villas.

 

[salmoneous]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";20892114]and 50 Disney Vacation Club two-bedroom equivalent vacation villas.[/QUOTE] Note the careful language here. They have not announced a new resort. Just that they are building 50 or so DVC villas. Those villas could be part of a very small GCV resort. Or they could be the first villas of a much larger Disneyland resort. Heck, they could even do something crazy like make them part of a joint GC/CR resort. Somehow I doubt it, but it's possible.

If they are building a tiny GCV resort, people who want to stay there are going to have to become owners there if that want a realistic chance to get a room. If these will be part of a larger resort, the urgency to buy will be a lot less.

Hopefully, Disney will clarify the situation soon.

 

[nuts]

By law they have to sell a specific unit to you. They can't create a generic Disney Land villa.

 

[salmoneous]

By law they have to sell a specific unit to you. They can't create a generic Disney Land villa.

Sure they can. The bit about selling you a partial ownership of a particular unit doesn't really have any practical consequences. People whose ownership is in building 16 at OKW aren't in the Building 16 Villas Resort - they are in the Old Key West Resort.

DVD can take different types of units in different buildings and combine them into one resort. All points in the resort have the same maintenance costs and the same 11-month window at the full resort. Think of Vero where different types of building are all one resort. Disney could easily do the same at Disneyland, combing rooms at the Grand Californian, Disneyland Hotel, a new building, whatever. Each of the buildings would probably have different booking categories, but everybody would the same 11-month window at all the full resort.

Or Disney could have just a CGV resort. We'll see.

 

[AKV707]

In addrion, assuming that DVD is planning to add other DVC resorts, it wil have to be GCV. If all of the DL DVCs go nder one name such as DLRV that would mean one property, one point chart and no varitety.

 

[mello]

since no official name has been announced yet, they could be specifically GCV, or it could be part of a wider Disneyland DVC, where all units in all resorts are combined, so that even if you buy early on at the GCV, later once they build units at the DLR or another one, they'll all be part of the same pool. That would be nice for those buying later, but not so nice for those buying early on specifically for the GC advantage.

The thought had never crossed my mind until you mentioned it - it would definitely be setting a whole new precedent - but I suppose they could do that. I guess we'll know before buying though, and if it does happen that way, I agree - we would surely feel much less urgency to buy early (which would actually be better for us anyway - I'd prefer to wait til after our big expensive family reunion trip!).

 

["Got Disney"]

Note the careful language here. They have not announced a new resort. Just that they are building 50 or so DVC villas. Those villas could be part of a very small GCV resort. Or they could be the first villas of a much larger Disneyland resort. Heck, they could even do something crazy like make them part of a joint GC/CR resort. Somehow I doubt it, but it's possible.

If they are building a tiny GCV resort, people who want to stay there are going to have to become owners there if that want a realistic chance to get a room. If these will be part of a larger resort, the urgency to buy will be a lot less.

Hopefully, Disney will clarify the situation soon.

Hope they do also....something said about more info around Oct 9th or such. As far as having to own to stay there at this point(pun intended) I agree if that is all they will have. Many that will be staying there also will be locals like me that will stay for a few days and head out.

My guess at this point they will keep the PP and DLR as is not being DVC but as the Disney Collection....than down the line if all goes well with GCV than they will do something about it. Seems odd to me that they would not have a plan in place for this knowing darn well that the DCL will most likely have a ship here bringing more DVC members visiting DL prior there cruise.

I have no dought that there is a bigger picture here that we know nothing about yet. But they have to start somewhere so they are starting with the GCH. We use a good portion of our pts at the GCH so we will buy pts if not crazy and this way we can use them for here and our other 400 elsewhere

It will be interesting to see how all this unfolds.

 

[dwelty]

I think that the best indicator is past actions by DVC. I think they will be called "The Villas at Disney's Grand Californian". I do not think they will just be a generic Disneyland Resort Villas name. First of all, for legal reasons, your DVC interest is tied to a specific address. Your maintenance fees are determined by address as well for tax reasons. I am sure the Grand Californian property is given a higher value than the Disneyland Hotel property. Since Taxes in California are based on the value of the property, and all of the units a spread out over 2 or 3 addresses I do not see how this would work. There will have to be different property names for any future units. For example: The Grand Claifornian is at 1600 S Disneyland Drive. The Disneyland Hotel is across the street on Magic Way.

There are several reliable seperate sources on the net, (Including the one who accurately predicted the announcement of the 50 DVC units) that say Disney is on the verge of building 2 standard hotels at Garden Walk, and 2 additional hotels and or DVC properties behind the Paradise Pier on the 60 acres already zoned as Hotel Resort/Timeshare. I think with the quick sales of the DVC units at the GCH. There will be either an all DVC resort and a Standard hotel, or a half DVC half Hotel (Like the Boardwalk) I expect far more DVC units in the future on this property.

 

[bnlbebes]

since no official name has been announced yet, they could be specifically GCV, or it could be part of a wider Disneyland DVC, where all units in all resorts are combined, so that even if you buy early on at the GCV, later once they build units at the DLR or another one, they'll all be part of the same pool.

If this comes true, then there DEFINITELY would need to be choice of views on the point charts as a GCV view is VERY different than a DLH view.

 

[AKV707]

But that would mean just one home resort. That would mean that all DLR DVC owners could book at any DLR DVC resort at the 11 month window.

 

[salmoneous]

But that would mean just one home resort. That would mean that all DLR DVC owners could book at any DLR DVC resort at the 11 month window.

It doesn't mean you can only have one resort in Anaheim. You could put the first few buildings into one resort. Then build a new resort across the street that is separate. Disney has a ton of choices. It will be interesting to see what they do.

 

[nuts]

Sure they can. The bit about selling you a partial ownership of a particular unit doesn't really have any practical consequences. People whose ownership is in building 16 at OKW aren't in the Building 16 Villas Resort - they are in the Old Key West Resort.

DVD can take different types of units in different buildings and combine them into one resort. All points in the resort have the same maintenance costs and the same 11-month window at the full resort. Think of Vero where different types of building are all one resort. Disney could easily do the same at Disneyland, combing rooms at the Grand Californian, Disneyland Hotel, a new building, whatever. Each of the buildings would probably have different booking categories, but everybody would the same 11-month window at all the full resort.

Or Disney could have just a CGV resort. We'll see.

I should explain myself better. There has to be a reasonable linkage of property to include as one timeshare. Laws are very restrictive to prevent fraud. GCV will have to be a self contained TS, given that the other hotel properties are not tied to it. If they do what you suggest, it would be equivalent to building BCV, then when they built BWV, uniting them under one timeshare and calling them EPCOT Villas. They are separate properties, so they required separate TS.

 

[salmoneous]

I should explain myself better. There has to be a reasonable linkage of property to include as one timeshare. Laws are very restrictive to prevent fraud.

So would it be illegal for Disney to build some DVC rooms onto the Animal Kingdom Lodge, then build some more DVC rooms in another building a half-mile away, and incorporate both sets of rooms into one resort? Because that's all I'm talking about.

Build some DVC rooms onto the Grand Californian, build some other rooms in another building, and call it the Disneyland Resort Villas. I guess I don't see how that would be different/illegal/fraudulent.

Note that the villas in the Grand Californian will be much closer to Paradise Pier and the Disneyland Hotel than Jambo House will be to Kidani. A lot closer than The Carousel is to Congress Park.

I haven't a clue what Disney is doing. But I'm pretty darn sure they can put villas in a couple different buildings and call it one resort.

 

[dwelty]

So would it be illegal for Disney to build some DVC rooms onto the Animal Kingdom Lodge, then build some more DVC rooms in another building a half-mile away, and incorporate both sets of rooms into one resort? Because that's all I'm talking about.

Build some DVC rooms onto the Grand Californian, build some other rooms in another building, and call it the Disneyland Resort Villas. I guess I don't see how that would be different/illegal/fraudulent.

Note that the villas in the Grand Californian will be much closer to Paradise Pier and the Disneyland Hotel than Jambo House will be to Kidani. A lot closer than The Carousel is to Congress Park.

I haven't a clue what Disney is doing. But I'm pretty darn sure they can put villas in a couple different buildings and call it one resort.

Nuts is right, and here is why.

Kidani is just being added to an exisiting resort, AKL. similar to BCV or VWL. You are talking about spreading out one resort (Disneyland Villas) over potentially 3 seperately taxed, deeded,Recorded and seperately addressed properties. (Remember Disney has far more autonomy in Florida under the Reedy Creek charter than Disneyland has working with a seperate city) In this case Anaheim. Even if it is possilbe to do this, the red tape would be a nightmare.

However the biggest reason I do not think Disney will do this is marketing. What do you think will sell more villas. One announcement in September announcing the Disneyland Villas and then Disney just adds to them every few years? Or 3 announcements over 5 years announcing 3 different Brand New DVC resort at Disneyland?

 

[AKV707]

Nuts is right, and here is why.

Kidani is just being added to an exisiting resort, AKL. similar to BCV or VWL. You are talking about spreading out one resort (Disneyland Villas) over potentially 3 seperately taxed, deeded,Recorded and seperately addressed properties. (Remember Disney has far more autonomy in Florida under the Reedy Creek charter than Disneyland has working with a seperate city) In this case Anaheim. Even if it is possilbe to do this, the red tape would be a nightmare.

However the biggest reason I do not think Disney will do this is marketing. What do you think will sell more villas. One announcement in September announcing the Disneyland Villas and then Disney just adds to them every few years? Or 3 announcements over 5 years announcing 3 different Brand New DVC resort at Disneyland?

Good point dwelty. From a marketing perspective three announcements of new DVC resorts will have much nore buzz. And your reesy creek point is also well taken. When Walt bought the Florida property, he negotiated many great concessions from the state. He wanted a better situation and more freedom than he had in Anahein.

 

[nuts]

So would it be illegal for Disney to build some DVC rooms onto the Animal Kingdom Lodge, then build some more DVC rooms in another building a half-mile away, and incorporate both sets of rooms into one resort? Because that's all I'm talking about.

Build some DVC rooms onto the Grand Californian, build some other rooms in another building, and call it the Disneyland Resort Villas. I guess I don't see how that would be different/illegal/fraudulent.

Note that the villas in the Grand Californian will be much closer to Paradise Pier and the Disneyland Hotel than Jambo House will be to Kidani. A lot closer than The Carousel is to Congress Park.

I haven't a clue what Disney is doing. But I'm pretty darn sure they can put villas in a couple different buildings and call it one resort.

Well, your example doesn't apply. The land for AKV was already prepped when they built AK Lodge (sewer, etc already layed). This property was already linked under the same property address.

 

[salmoneous]

You are talking about spreading out one resort (Disneyland Villas) over potentially 3 seperately taxed, deeded,Recorded and seperately addressed properties.

How does DVD deal with "owning" the 5th and 6th floor of the Animial Kingdom lodge? How will they deal with "owning" a few rooms in the Grand Californian? The webs of ownerships, tax liability etc. behind the scenes of DVC/DVD are complicated. But they are a big corporation - that's what they do - it ain't that hard. I'm sure Disney can figure out how to incorporate rooms in two buildings across the street from each other into one resort.

However the biggest reason I do not think Disney will do this is marketing. What do you think will sell more villas. One announcement in September announcing the Disneyland Villas and then Disney just adds to them every few years? Or 3 announcements over 5 years announcing 3 different Brand New DVC resort at Disneyland?

To me, that's the issue. Which is going to be the easier sell - a new resort that gives you an 11-month window on converted rooms of the Disneyland Hotel, or an extension of a resort that gives you an 11-month window on rooms at both the Grand Californian and the Disneyland Hotel. But if you have the expanded resort, you lose the mareting pizzaz of selling a tiny/exclusive Grand Californian Villas Resort.

Gonna be fun to see what Disney does.

 

["Got Disney"]

In that case than they would have to make the points different because DLH and PPH are not as deluxe as GCH...and everyone would want the villas....that is if you are talking about what I think you are talking about

So if your saying that they would fall under the same umbrella than yes that would give more options. They would have to do something with upgrading the DLH and the PPH because I would not want to stay there would always opt for the Grand as would everyone else that is paying pts at say $106 bucks a pt. T

hey would have to keep the pts much lower than the GCH. But if they did that than there would be a better channce on at least getting a room withour everyone craming the phones at the 11 mo, mark just to attemp to get in.

Am I making sence or just off base on what you are saying??????

 

[wdw4life]

I also do not think they will create a generic DRV. Nor do I think they will convert rooms at the DLH for the next DVC. But for the sake of argument let's assume they do both. How would they figure out the MF's? I'm sure there would be different taxes etc... Also, I could see a transportation fee for the Monorail for the villas at the DLH. You have to walk by it to get to DL or DCA if you are at the DLH so probably it would figure into MFs. The GCH would need no such fee since you would have to walk away from DL and DCA to catch it. I can already envision problems with that from members.

It would seem like too much of a hassle to just have everything lumped together. And we all know how DVC is all about simplicity now.