Island Tower at Polynesian Villas & Bungalows

[kilik64]

Thought I just had, what are the odds that the deluxe tower studios sleep 5? There’s already what 300 of them in the longhouses that sleep 5? Would they make the tower only sleep 4? Or just make it easy and have them sleep 5 too?

 

[Hubalorian]

Thought I just had, what are the odds that the deluxe tower studios sleep 5? There’s already what 300 of them in the longhouses that sleep 5? Would they make the tower only sleep 4? Or just make it easy and have them sleep 5 too?

They could try to drive some families to tower vs longhouses. We already know the longhouse studies have 2 bathrooms vs the tower 1 bathroom. So it wouldn’t surprise me if longhouses sleep 5 vs Tower 4

 

[Chili327]

Thought I just had, what are the odds that the deluxe tower studios sleep 5? There’s already what 300 of them in the longhouses that sleep 5? Would they make the tower only sleep 4? Or just make it easy and have them sleep 5 too?

I'm sure it is possible either way, but would it come down to sqft? If smaller i bet they do go down to 4, also having Duo's available might have some affect.?
How is VDH Studio... 4 or 5?

 

[🍀TwinsMom]

So did they confirm what the holes are? (I haven’t read or seen anything official about the news today)
View attachment 858456
View attachment 858457

Um, I believe we, the collective Disboarders, are calling them Mystic Portals.

 

[kilik64]

I'm sure it is possible either way, but would it come down to sqft? If smaller i bet they do go down to 4, also having Duo's available might have some affect.?
How is VDH Studio... 4 or 5?

Vdh is 4, but they made the resort studio at vgf sleep 5, BUT vgf was also pretty light on studios to begin with and making those 4 would have been bad.

 

[Jlo85]

So, there will be no lock-offs at the Island Tower? All dedicated 1BRs and 2BRs? That is interesting. No lock-off premiums. Means the 1BRs are likely to be cheaper and the 2BRs more expensive, relatively, no?

 

[tidefan]

Not trying to keep that debate going either, but I bet the decision was made on much bigger things, like legal issues, or just plain old hassles, stuff that doesn't affect us too much, but affects them a lot.
They can't want to kill resale, I mean it is what makes DVC different than timeshares. I have friends that love to go to Disney, but I can't get them to wrap their head around buying a "timeshare" even though I've already bought and sold a contract, they are still skeptical.

IMHO, the resale restrictions have really dampened the product. Maybe it’s just me since we’ve owned since 2007, but I would never have purchased a contract with restrictions knowing that if I had to get rid of it, that I would take a huge bath.

I mean, everyone says that always plan to keep it forever, but if that were the case, there wouldn’t be so many resales. I mean, life happens. Resale restrictions have really devalued the product.

 

[Sykes]

This is why I find the men in suits at DVD to be so baffling. Because what you’re saying makes a lot of sense, and it goes directly against their own long- term sales plan to attract direct buyers.

I mentioned it in another thread but it bears repeating—by selling contracts that are 20% shorter, even if they sell the contracts for the same price they essentially get to recognize the revenue 20% faster, which is a 20% boost in yearly revenue for the contracts that they do sell. There is a ton of financial incentive for them to add on to existing associations when they can get away with it. It wouldn’t have worked with BRV (possibly just for legal reasons), but they’ll have no trouble selling PVB out again, and I’ll be pretty surprised if they ever sell add-ons to existing resorts under new associations if they can get away with adding them to existing ones.

 

[Sandisw]

IMHO, the resale restrictions have really dampened the product. Maybe it’s just me since we’ve owned since 2007, but I would never have purchased a contract with restrictions knowing that if I had to get rid of it, that I would take a huge bath.

I mean, everyone says that always plan to keep it forever, but if that were the case, there wouldn’t be so many resales. I mean, life happens. Resale restrictions have really devalued the product.

It all depends on perspective too. I don’t believe resale value should be part of the equation when deciding to buy. If one goes in and assumes $0…which is what we did..then restrictions don’t really matter.

We figure if we have to sell, then we have more important things in play than what we may lose if having to sell.

The value is in its use so that is what we did…figured how many years to break even if we had to give it away.

But, the flip flopping they are doing with them.. some projects had them and some do do not.. is definitely devaluing the purpose of them in the first place.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

Not trying to keep that debate going either, but I bet the decision was made on much bigger things, like legal issues, or just plain old hassles, stuff that doesn't affect us too much, but affects them a lot.
They can't want to kill resale, I mean it is what makes DVC different than timeshares. I have friends that love to go to Disney, but I can't get them to wrap their head around buying a "timeshare" even though I've already bought and sold a contract, they are still skeptical.

I’m sure you’re right. Just from my (admittedly limited) point of view, this made less sense. Clearly we’re missing a big chunk of data and information. And I actually think DVD is trying to kill resale. Well, maybe kill is a bit harsh. I do believe they’re trying to severely incapacitate it. Otherwise why let AKV go in the $90s and CCV in the $110s with no sign of ROFR? And why bother introducing restrictions in the first place? Like I said, it doesn’t have to make sense to us, just to their spreadsheets and sales projections

 

[Coronator]

It all depends on perspective too. I don’t believe resale value should be part of the equation when deciding to buy. If one goes in and assumes $0…which is what we did..then restrictions don’t really matter.

We figure if we have to sell, then we have more important things in play than what we may lose if having to sell.

The value is in its use so that is what we did…figured how many years to break even if we had to give it away.

But, the flip flopping they are doing with them.. some projects had them and some do do not.. is definitely devaluing the purpose of them in the first place.

Yea it’s kind of interesting that it pits the interest of direct owners against those of resale owners. Owners of direct points were hoping for a new association - no competition at the 7 month window. Obviously resale owners want all these add ons…

My guess is Disney will continue to strike a balance between the two camps, and do a little of both. I actually applaud Disney for not leaving resale owners completely in the dust. I think they have (so far) shown that they can balance their needs to incentivize direct point sales, while maintaining value for time share owners as a whole.

 

[Sandisw]

Yea it’s kind of interesting that it pits the interest of direct owners against those of resale owners. Owners of direct points were hoping for a new association - no competition at the 7 month window. Obviously resale owners want all these add ons…

My guess is Disney will continue to strike a balance between the two camps, and do a little of both. I actually applaud Disney for not leaving resale owners completely in the dust. I think they have (so far) shown that they can balance their needs to incentivize direct point sales, while maintaining value for time share owners as a whole.

But DVD is one who decided to implement them in the first place so they have the power to remove them. So, I don’t see it as a reason to balance to support resale owners…it was done this way because they decided that they would be able to sell it for more doing it as part of PVB then making it new with restrictions.

It still makes it an inconsistent message for buyers and IMO, will potentially lead more buyers to gamble that the next project will not have them if they decide to simply add on” to an existing location.

What is going to be interesting is how they balance the sales of the current resorts when this comes online…CFW snd VDH are not really selling well and RIV is doing just okay.

That is why I am expecting it to be priced higher than some think…especially since people are reporting a lot of interest…even with it only being 40 years.

I have to wonder if they will price it to sell slower rather than faster.

 

[Jwaire]

Yea it’s kind of interesting that it pits the interest of direct owners against those of resale owners. Owners of direct points were hoping for a new association - no competition at the 7 month window. Obviously resale owners want all these add ons…

My guess is Disney will continue to strike a balance between the two camps, and do a little of both. I actually applaud Disney for not leaving resale owners completely in the dust. I think they have (so far) shown that they can balance their needs to incentivize direct point sales, while maintaining value for time share owners as a whole.

You're assuming that the majority of DVC members even understand this "issue." To be frank, the people in this forum likely make up less than 10% at most of the DVC membership.

They're definitely not trying to balance the opinion of the upper 10% superfans that attend the yearly condo meeting, visit Disboards or other forums like it, watch DVCFan, etc.

It's simple economics. For whatever reason, they want this property to be in the same association whether it's marketing, it's saving them a dollar legally, it was all part of a long-term plan, etc.

New tower owners won't even know unless they bother to do a bunch of research beforehand, which most won't.

If you listen to former guides, the vast majority of purchases are based on "magic" and "feelings" because you are at the resort already on vacation and don't want to leave.

 

[tidefan]

Yea it’s kind of interesting that it pits the interest of direct owners against those of resale owners. Owners of direct points were hoping for a new association - no competition at the 7 month window. Obviously resale owners want all these add ons…

My guess is Disney will continue to strike a balance between the two camps, and do a little of both. I actually applaud Disney for not leaving resale owners completely in the dust. I think they have (so far) shown that they can balance their needs to incentivize direct point sales, while maintaining value for time share owners as a whole.

This doesn’t make sense to me as a direct PVB1 owner. It would be stupid for me to buy any points here if it were a different association and I couldn’t combine with my PVB1 points. I would reckon that most PVB1 owners are direct, not resale…

 

[Roughians_satchel]

So, there will be no lock-offs at the Island Tower? All dedicated 1BRs and 2BRs? That is interesting. No lock-off premiums. Means the 1BRs are likely to be cheaper and the 2BRs more expensive, relatively, no?

Where did you see this? I know the initial press release didn't include deluxe studios, but it was amended to include them - which implies lockoffs.

 

[KimMcGowan]

Otherwise why let AKV go in the $90s and CCV in the $110s with no sign of ROFR?

I personally think this had everything to do with the Disney Company bottom line and a looming proxy war. The ROFR monster came to life again right about the time that they were relatively sure they would win that fight. (Admittedly they also had the looming opening of the tower as well). I think they didn’t want to let those low numbers pass and there was probably much gnashing of teeth - but their hands were tied. At least that is my theory.

(Trust me, I hated those low numbers- I think we were the very last CC to pass at the high point. Talk about gnashing of teeth.)

 

[hockeydad21]

This is why I find the men in suits at DVD to be so baffling. Because what you’re saying makes a lot of sense, and it goes directly against their own long- term sales plan to attract direct buyers.

I own at RIV and love it but I won’t lie that the idea of missing out on the next and newest projects was a persuasive sales tactic on why we decided to buy originally. They’ve undermined their own business plan to get more direct sales by not restricting the tower. Your method to deal with FOMO works when there’s only 1 or 2 resorts you’d have to pay cash for but when it becomes the poly tower and RIV and VDH and CFW, etc… well, It’s an easier pill to swallow cause in the end, this is their sales plan going forward and we just have to accept it like members have done for all the other changes over the years.

But this just muddied things up for me. Unless they really incentivize the tower there’s little reason to buy direct, just wait a few months until resale prices come back down to earth and get your points for way less. Idk I’m not even mad anymore (I won’t even lie, I definitely was…unhappy a few months ago lol) it’s just weird to me. Why extend the efficacy of your sales plans to another decade until another new resort or two finally gets opened?

Anyway sorry, sorry I keep bringing up an old debate, I won’t keep going on about it- it is what it is and I’m excited to have my resale PVB to use at the tower, just a bizarre decision my mind

have you tried taking a look at the resale market recently? Not exactly an overflow of resale PVB inventory floating around out there.

Also, the idea that this decision to include it in PVB without restrictions is bad for business is wildly misleading. There are a number of reasons why it financially makes more sense than adding restrictions. They get to resell the entire resort 8 years sooner, the margins are pretty small for DVD to flip resale to direct (think ROFRing 100k points just to make 1 million dollars - that’s a lot of contracts), and resorts sell faster when they’re unrestricted. I truly think this was an easy decision given that they had the option.

With that being said, I fully expect all future resorts to sadly come with restrictions.

It all depends on perspective too. I don’t believe resale value should be part of the equation when deciding to buy. If one goes in and assumes $0…which is what we did..then restrictions don’t really matter.

We figure if we have to sell, then we have more important things in play than what we may lose if having to sell.

this is an interesting assumption of every DVC owner’s financial status. There are lots of people who save up years to become DVC members, and my guess is those people wouldn’t be comfortable with flushing $20k or more down the toilet just because.

 

[TinkB278]

I think it sells a million times better direct if it different and has an extended contact. Otherwise, those of us who visit DIS boards and buy resale are buying it resale or any other resort that is cheap to stay there. Why not load up on OKW at $60-$80 pp and snag at 7 months or through waitlist. I just booked PVB today for July.

There is no incentive to buy direct at $200+ and I think sells out completely and instantly if it’s new and has a separate 11 month booking group. If it’s grouped with currently association, it will still sell out but I’ll buy at a discount resale especially when people who bought direct are trying to get out of their payments and dues.

This is me. I had been saving up to add on here direct but since I can use resale points the direct math doesn’t make sense… the only problem now is figuring out where to buy resale at.

 

[CastAStone]

have you tried taking a look at the resale market recently? Not exactly an overflow of resale PVB inventory floating around out there.

That’s very clearly a temporary situation driven by people trying to arbitrage a situation, just like we saw with VGC before VDH went on sale and VGF before VGF v1.1 went on sale.

Poly is a decent sized resort and is going to be huge with the tower. Resale contracts will flow again and prices will fall, and with all the extra points, it may be closer to BLT prices long term than VGF.

 

[GoingSince1990]

have you tried taking a look at the resale market recently? Not exactly an overflow of resale PVB inventory floating around out there.

Also, the idea that this decision to include it in PVB without restrictions is bad for business is wildly misleading. There are a number of reasons why it financially makes more sense than adding restrictions. They get to resell the entire resort 8 years sooner, the margins are pretty small for DVD to flip resale to direct (think ROFRing 100k points just to make 1 million dollars - that’s a lot of contracts), and resorts sell faster when they’re unrestricted. I truly think this was an easy decision given that they had the option.

With that being said, I fully expect all future resorts to sadly come with restrictions.


this is an interesting assumption of every DVC owner’s financial status. There are lots of people who save up years to become DVC members, and my guess is those people wouldn’t be comfortable with flushing $20k or more down the toilet just because.

For me, the existence of a thriving, liquid resale market was a key reason why I was open to buying into DVC, while I would never have gone anywhere near a “traditional” timeshare purchase,