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

[CarolMN]

Since I'm not a Poly1 owner already, I would want a new association if I were to add on so the new tower wouldn't have the bungalows glut built in.

People mention this, but the apparent "glut" doesn't seem to be affecting studio availability now, so I'm hard pressed to see why it would matter all that much if additional villas were added to the association.

I also don't think there would be a crush of PVB1 owners trying to book the larger accommodations at PVB2. It's a matter of the point charts. The majority of DVC Members love stretching their points, and I can't believe that's going to change. There's bound to be a large point differential between studios and 1 bedrooms. If PVB2 studios end up as separate booking categories and cost more per night than PVB1 studios, there may not even be that many PVB1 owners choosing to stay there in studios on a regular basis. Maybe PVB2 owners will choose PVB1 to "save" points. IMO, worst case is that the Poly in general becomes more difficult to get at 7 months, as more owners utilize their priority booking period.

This is an interesting discussion, but let's not forget that it's chock full of assumptions (including mine) that may or may not prove correct.

 

[Stargazer65]

This is an interesting discussion, but let's not forget that it's chock full of assumptions (including mine) that may or may not prove correct.

WAIT.......what? I thought this was where Bill Dierkson went so he knows what to do.

 

[havoc315]

I'll definitely be considering a PVB add-on when this opens, whether it's a new association or old association. Not a huge difference for me.
I would lean towards wanting a new association, because I'd rather have a 50 year contract than a 42 year contract. I won't be using it either way in 40+ years..... But a 50-year contract would have better re-sale value 30 years from now, with 20 years left. Or, more likely, I'd rather pass down the extra 8 years to my kids.

I have no problem with resale restrictions, as I'd be buying direct. Again, in terms of re-sale price -- What would be worth more after 30 years, a "restricted 1-resort" contract with a full 20 years left, or a "O8" (by then, there will only be 8 original resorts left) contract with 12 years left. And the restrictions really haven't even hurt Riviera resales much, if at all. Proportional to the direct pricing, Riviera re-sale is just as good as any other resort right now.

That said, in long term value, 42 years isn't that different than 50 years. And the advantage for me, if they were the same association, would be access to more room types. Home resort choices that included the long house studios, the bungalows.

There is also a very real danger -- if they aren't the same association, the new resort guests may not have access to the Volcano pool. The Volcano pool is already too small for all the existing Poly guests. Adding hundreds more guests per night to Poly property could overwhelm the Volcano pool.

 

[BamaGuy44]

There is also a very real danger -- if they aren't the same association, the new resort guests may not have access to the Volcano pool. The Volcano pool is already too small for all the existing Poly guests. Adding hundreds more guests per night to Poly property could overwhelm the Volcano pool.

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.

 

[redboat45]

Another reason I'd want new is because of expiration year. If I'm going to pay that much I'd want the full 50 years!

 

[Sandisw]

I'll definitely be considering a PVB add-on when this opens, whether it's a new association or old association. Not a huge difference for me.
I would lean towards wanting a new association, because I'd rather have a 50 year contract than a 42 year contract. I won't be using it either way in 40+ years..... But a 50-year contract would have better re-sale value 30 years from now, with 20 years left. Or, more likely, I'd rather pass down the extra 8 years to my kids.

I have no problem with resale restrictions, as I'd be buying direct. Again, in terms of re-sale price -- What would be worth more after 30 years, a "restricted 1-resort" contract with a full 20 years left, or a "O8" (by then, there will only be 8 original resorts left) contract with 12 years left. And the restrictions really haven't even hurt Riviera resales much, if at all. Proportional to the direct pricing, Riviera re-sale is just as good as any other resort right now.

That said, in long term value, 42 years isn't that different than 50 years. And the advantage for me, if they were the same association, would be access to more room types. Home resort choices that included the long house studios, the bungalows.

There is also a very real danger -- if they aren't the same association, the new resort guests may not have access to the Volcano pool. The Volcano pool is already too small for all the existing Poly guests. Adding hundreds more guests per night to Poly property could overwhelm the Volcano pool.

Honestly, I don't think the association, whether the same or not, will restrict people to any of the current resort amenities.

I think that could be why they are proposing the new pool for the tower to give people a 3rd option. Now, they could restrict cash guests from using the new pool, but not the other way around.

 

[nlenguyen]

I would say new association. I currently own all my points at SSR. Thinking about a monorail resort I would have only chosen BLT because I like the room design and proximity but if they can pull off the new tower with room design I would be more likely to get into there. The current VGF1 and VGF2 is in a similar situation where I could see more members getting points there to then try for 1BD or 2BD, which hurts original buyers who sometimes already have a hard time getting those rooms. PV1 and PV2 is the exact opposite where people who have a lot of PV1 so they could get the bungalows now have lots of points where they could get 1BD or 2BD which limits those who can only get the new tower. I see it both ways, but new association seems more likely

 

[havoc315]

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.

Yes but:

-The CCV addition did not significantly add to the total number of resorts guests: It converted Wilderness Lodge rooms to CCV rooms. So total number of guests using the pools remained the about the same. (cabins don't add that many guests to the total).

-Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but CCV did not add a pool. (they refurbished and expanded pools a bit, but not a major new addition) BRV guests already had access to the Wilderness Lodge pool. You couldn't take pool privileges AWAY from BRV guests.

-DVC guests, at least pre-Covid, were already entitled to pool hopping, with a fairly long list of exceptions -- The Volcano Pool was one of the pools that did not allow for DVC guest pool hopping.

If the Poly expansion has 200-300 rooms, as speculated, that's an additional approximate 700-1400 onsite guests per night. It could represent a 20-30% increase in Poly resort on-site guests. The new building will have an infinity pool according to the drawings. But the Volcano pool would likely remain a major attraction especially for kids. Can the Volcano pool absorb another 10-20% increase in usage?
I really don't know.

 

[nlenguyen]

I am more worried what the price of Direct purchases will be in two years.

 

[wilkydelts]

I am more worried what the price of Direct purchases will be in two years.

Equivalent to the economy at the time and we could be in the middle of a major recession at that point.

 

[pinkxray]

Tough call on which way I’d prefer it to go.
I don’t care about the possible 8 years difference.
We bought dvc to stay in 1 bedrooms or bigger. If it was to stay the same association I would be a bit worried about being able to get what I want when booking. I had considered VGF but once they announced studios only I was out. However, I do like Poly studios and would do short stays in them so I wouldn’t mind if I had to have the studios.

The part of me that wants to book a one bedroom says new. The part of me that wants full access to the original Poly. Studios, pools, etc. says the same.
I also don’t want restrictions so I guess I’m more on the side of keeping it the same like VGF1 and2.

I really hope the new Poly pool is something that will draw people from the tower to use that pool. The volcano pool is always so busy so I can’t see the tower being able to use it unless the infinity pool is enough of a draw to bring some people to that pool. I hope it’s not just a rectangle that is an infinity pool. My kids will probably age out of the lava pool kid area soon but right now you couldn’t drag them out of there. The new pool better be good.

I am about 80/90% on board to resell my resale SSR for Poly direct if it stays the same association. Maybe 70% if it’s new with no restrictions. New and restrictions? Ugh maybe 60? I hate the restrictions so much but they wouldnt impact me until I sell. And I don’t think it would be hard to ever sell Poly even with restrictions. People will always want to stay near MK.

 

[havoc315]

Honestly, I don't think the association, whether the same or not, will restrict people to any of the current resort amenities.

I think that could be why they are proposing the new pool for the tower to give people a 3rd option. Now, they could restrict cash guests from using the new pool, but not the other way around.

DVC guests already have many pool hopping restrictions.
Whether they can "get away" with restricting amenity access may come down to the final design and layout.

If the new addition "feels" distinct and separate -- some distance from Poly, foliage and such creating a line between the resorts, the new building having full dining, lobby, shopping, pool amenities of its own... even having its own transportation... Then it would be easier to say, "they are different but related resorts... feel free to walk between them for dining, but they are separate resorts and each pool is only for its own guests."
To the extent they "feel" more like one large resort -- shared quick service, transportation, etc -- it wouldn't be practical to limit pool sharing. (And I do believe that the new addition will NOT get new transportation. It's only about a 3-4 minute walk from the existing Poly monorail station, only about 800 feet. It's a longer walk from some of the further long houses. But it is possible the new resort would get its own bus stop).

And yes, adding a new infinity pool would certainly take some of the edge off. But that will primarily be for adults. Families will continue to flock to the Volcano pool.

 

[havoc315]

I really hope the new Poly pool is something that will draw people from the tower to use that pool. The volcano pool is always so busy so I can’t see the tower being able to use it unless the infinity pool is enough of a draw to bring some people to that pool. I hope it’s not just a rectangle that is an infinity pool. My kids will probably age out of the lava pool kid area soon but right now you couldn’t drag them out of there. The new pool better be good.

Thing is, what type of guests are drawn to each pool. The Infinity Pool could draw adult/quiet pool type people -- But they would be drawn away from the Oasis pool, not the Volcano pool. Maybe, you'd have some guests in the Western longhouses who had been using the Volcano pool out of convenience who will switch to the infinity pool.

 

[aka Charles]

For me it comes down to one simple question...
Restrictions or No Restrictions?

I did not buy at RIV because of the restrictions.
I just got a 200 point VGF2 direct add-on, no restrictions.

I look forward to PVB2 and just started saving towards an add-on there. (2 years to go)
If there are no restrictions, I will purchase a direct add-on at PVB2 as soon as its available.
If there are any restrictions like at RIV, I will take that money and buy resale at BLT or CCV.

When it comes to the association, same or new, there are advantages to both.
I would be fine either way..... as long as there are no restrictions.

 

[Sandisw]

DVC guests already have many pool hopping restrictions.
Whether they can "get away" with restricting amenity access may come down to the final design and layout.

If the new addition "feels" distinct and separate -- some distance from Poly, foliage and such creating a line between the resorts, the new building having full dining, lobby, shopping, pool amenities of its own... even having its own transportation... Then it would be easier to say, "they are different but related resorts... feel free to walk between them for dining, but they are separate resorts and each pool is only for its own guests."
To the extent they "feel" more like one large resort -- shared quick service, transportation, etc -- it wouldn't be practical to limit pool sharing. (And I do believe that the new addition will NOT get new transportation. It's only about a 3-4 minute walk from the existing Poly monorail station, only about 800 feet. It's a longer walk from some of the further long houses. But it is possible the new resort would get its own bus stop).

And yes, adding a new infinity pool would certainly take some of the edge off. But that will primarily be for adults. Families will continue to flock to the Volcano pool.

But, the Volcano pool at Poly is not a DVC pool. The two pools are available for all guests, both cash and DVC. So, if current owners can use the Volcano pool, why would owners of the tower not be allowed...just like BRV/CCV...owners at each get access to all amenities at WL. The fact that CCV didn't add new rooms doesn't really impact that.

Same at VGF...you can use both the courtyard and beaches pool. No distinction between the two.

Pool hopping has to do with a different resort in which you are not a guest, so those staying at VGF can't go to Poly. But, this tower is going to be at Poly, so using all the pools would not be considered pool hopping.

It may not be ideal for the crowds, but the announcement was clear, this is going to the Poly Village Resort to give members more options to stay at that complex...just don't see it not being marketed as such.

 

[DduzDis]

I guessed one association, but I honestly don't care either way. We would be more interested in the common areas of the new building than staying in a room there, if anything at all. I like my PVB1 just the way it is.

 

[havoc315]

But, the Volcano pool at Poly is not a DVC pool. The two pools are available for all guests, both cash and DVC. So, if current owners can use the Volcano pool, why would owners of the tower not be allowed...just like BRV/CCV...owners at each get access to all amenities at WL. The fact that CCV didn't add new rooms doesn't really impact that.

Same at VGF...you can use both the courtyard and beaches pool. No distinction between the two.

But VGF owners can't use the Volcano Pool at Polynesian.

That's my point -- If it's a new association, and a whole new resort -- They can say guests at the new resort do not get pool hopping privileges at Poly.
All the wording SO FAR, suggests it will be the same "resort" even if it's a new "association" -- Like CCV/BRV.
But if they ultimately do break it up into 2 different and distinct resorts -- like RIV and CBR, then they don't have to share pools.
CCV and BRV are both part of Wilderness Lodge.
We are assuming that the new building will also be a part of Polynesian Resort -- And the press release thus far, does indeed suggest that will be the case. But a lot can change between now and 2044. As I said, IF they choose to ultimately spin it off as its own resort (The Aloha Village Resort, located next door to Polynesian Resort), then it wouldn't have to share pool hopping.

 

[Sandisw]

But VGF owners can't use the Volcano Pool at Polynesian.

That's my point -- If it's a new association, and a whole new resort -- They can say guests at the new resort do not get pool hopping privileges at Poly.
All the wording SO FAR, suggests it will be the same "resort" even if it's a new "association" -- Like CCV/BRV.
But if they ultimately do break it up into 2 different and distinct resorts -- like RIV and CBR, then they don't have to share pools.
CCV and BRV are both part of Wilderness Lodge.
We are assuming that the new building will also be a part of Polynesian Resort -- And the press release thus far, does indeed suggest that will be the case. But a lot can change between now and 2044. As I said, IF they choose to ultimately spin it off as its own resort (The Aloha Village Resort, located next door to Polynesian Resort), then it wouldn't have to share pool hopping.

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.

 

[BeachClub2014]

I hate the restrictions so much but they wouldnt impact me until I sell. And I don’t think it would be hard to ever sell Poly even with restrictions. People will always want to stay near MK.

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.

 

[BamaGuy44]

But, the Volcano pool at Poly is not a DVC pool. The two pools are available for all guests, both cash and DVC. So, if current owners can use the Volcano pool, why would owners of the tower not be allowed...just like BRV/CCV...owners at each get access to all amenities at WL. The fact that CCV didn't add new rooms doesn't really impact that.

Same at VGF...you can use both the courtyard and beaches pool. No distinction between the two.

Pool hopping has to do with a different resort in which you are not a guest, so those staying at VGF can't go to Poly. But, this tower is going to be at Poly, so using all the pools would not be considered pool hopping.

It may not be ideal for the crowds, but the announcement was clear, this is going to the Poly Village Resort to give members more options to stay at that complex...just don't see it not being marketed as such.

You're probably right, and I am scared of what that will do to the already crowded volcano pool. Hopefully they will put a pool at the new tower with a slide, splash pad, etc that will appeal to the kiddos, so they're not all wanting the volcano pool. Kids don't care about an infinity pool. Time will tell, it will be fascinating to see how it unfolds. I wasn't following DVC when Riviera was at this stage, so it's all new to me