Frommer article full of WDW misinformation

[minnie61650]

The majority of even the deluxes do not really match the true Disney we have been talking about. AKL doesn't really endeavor to put you into Africa. ........

But in the end, it's a box hotel with the animals used as a gimmick. Further, to the untrained eye, it, the WL and the GC at DL are the same hotel with slightly different decorations. .........

I agree

But again, except for the Poly and Contemp, you're talking about hotels that were built by the same management that built Pop and the Values. These newer deluxes have more of that true Disney in them, but they miss the mark in lots of ways as well.

Yes, the newer deluxes were built by the same the management that built the values.

But the total immersion of the Disney theme that you and others have been lamenting about was lost right after 1971. In fact the CR was only futuristic in the fact that the monorail ran through it. The grounds did not really carry out the futuristic theme.

When Golf Inn opened in 1973 the only theme it had was being able to see the golf course from some of the rooms.
The Golf Inn was updated in 1986. They renamed it Disney Inn and added a Snow White theme. The Snow White theme was a little art work in the room and lobby and they named the snack spot "The Diamond Mine" and the pool bar was called "The Sand Trap". That was pretty much the extent of the theming of the old Golf Inn which became the Disney Inn for a while.

The Disney Village Resort Villas were built in 1985 and they really had no theme to speak of

I think there are more sparks of themes at the All Stars than there was in either the Golf/Disney Inn or the Disney Village Resorts.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[G8RFAN]

Certainly there are lots of factors in play making certain resorts more and less popular. But would YC/BC be just as popular if it were just an unthemed Marriott in the same location? Would the experience be the same? How about a vanilla hotel in the WL location?

A lot of these factors are tangible and a lot are intangible. If Disney slapped their name on the Dolphin/Swan, they would still not be a "Disney" resort. Graves and associates certainly put a lot of effort in maintaining a themed decor throughout the two resorts, but it doesn't transport you to some "other place". But I argue that BC/YC themes don't execute well in that department either. Sure, New England/nautical/shoreside resorts but it's a bit weak. Paint both resorts white, shingle the roofs red and change the interior decoration slightly and you've got another GF. They are nice hotel/resorts and arguably appointed nicer than the GF in the common areas. I just think that it's not really the theme of these two resorts that create their popularity. It's the execution of SAB, the ability to endeavor in the fabulous restaraunts at BW and the Dolphin/Swan and a short walking distance to WS or a short boat ride to MGM. BW is, IMHO, better executed in theme, but having so few BWI rooms makes it unique and difficult to compare.

 

[raidermatt]

Others can speak better to the history of the Golf Inn, but it was not meant to simply be another price point in the Disney resort system, like the Mods and Values are. It was a different concept meant to attract a completely different guest. I'm not saying it succeeded, but that's what it was. (And please, let's not try to say the values are a different concept as well. They are merely a different price point, plain an simple).

I'm honestly not sure what the Disney Village Resort Villas are/were, but if they were built in 1985, that's the same management team, Eisner/Wells and crew. Same would apply to the Golf Inn update in '86.

Either way, neither of these concepts was a rip-roaring success (I'm assuming about the Villas), so why would we hold those as the bar instead of the resorts that were successful?

Regardless, the point wasn't to so much assess blame on any individuals for what Disney has done. We've been down that road many times. I only brought it up because a poster was singing the praises of the values as a Walt-like alternative to the "appalling" prices being charged at the Poly/Contemp. No matter who you balme for the change in creative direction, those two particular changes fall on the same team.

 

[raidermatt]

But I argue that BC/YC themes don't execute well in that department either. Sure, New England/nautical/shoreside resorts but it's a bit weak. Paint both resorts white, shingle the roofs red and change the interior decoration slightly and you've got another GF.

No argument really, espeically with the huge Swan and Dolphin in plain view.

Again, you're touching on problems that are the result of the same thinking that brought the values as we know them. None, and I mean none, of the newer deluxes are marvels of Disney Imagineering. Sure, there are some really cool elements to some of them, but you're right, they don't establish that sense of time and place.

Still they clearly did put more effort into imagination and design into these deluxes, relatively speaking, and these are things that would not need to result in different price points.

So yes, even when Disney creates a "deluxe" experience these days they miss the mark in some ways. But that's just another symptom of the same problem the values, as they stand, represent.

 

[G8RFAN]

....But in the end, it's a box hotel with the animals used as a gimmick. Further, to the untrained eye, it, the WL and the GC at DL are the same hotel with slightly different decorations.

The Contemporary might not fetch the prices the Poly does, but all that says is that it isn't as popular. It certainly isn't having to discount like the WL and AKL do.

But again, except for the Poly and Contemp, you're talking about hotels that were built by the same management that built Pop and the Values. These newer deluxes have more of that true Disney in them, but they miss the mark in lots of ways as well.

Yet if Disney originally operated under that mantra there would be no Poly, and probably no WDW or even DL. What you are describing is the change in philosophy away from what created the foundation that all you see today was built upon. There's only two deluxes that were truly desinged and built before that change. Is it no wonder that they are possibley the two most successful?

I am totally for not making excuses for Disney, but I think we are seeing them now trying to correct some misguided assumptions. In hindsight, I don't know if Eisner and the board would have sanctioned the construction of over 20K rooms or if they would agree that the "caste system" was such a good idea, based on where everything is today. I think we all can poke holes in their decisions but hindsight is 20/20 and who would have thought DVC would have been such a hit. However, you can see which resorts have issues with the current projects in place at AKL and CR as they wouldn't be fixing it "if it aint broke". POP probably has issues with the abandonment of phase II, but I don't think it only had to do with inventory over capacity. I think the moderates have been very popular and receive the fewest complaints from everyone. While I agree the Poly has been a success, I don't think the CR can really state the same. It has been one of our favorites because of location, however, I'm pretty confident that there have been more discounts offered there while the North Garden Wing inventory was still available than the WL in the past five years not to mention that it was the first alternative for SOG overflow. Now with the room makeovers, it is by far the best bang for the buck deluxe IMHO. I am well aware of the other factors at play here such as the lack of capital improvements to CR over the years or the slow off the mark start that AK had. I also know the original resort concepts that never got built and you are absolutely correct, theming was the original mantra. All I am saying is that regardless whether you think everything after CR and Poly has been off the mark, some of them have been tremendous hits with the paying public. Enough hits to drive the demand up causing the crazy pricing structure we see today and it hasn't been just because of its theming.

 

[raidermatt]

Real quick, I don't think we can say there are issues with the Contemp. Yes, they took some rooms out of inventory, but they are building a large tower that will more than make up for the numbers lost, and fetch much higher rates because of the views.

I'm not saying I agree with how they are going about it, but I don't see it as evidence the Contemp has issues.

AKL is a little more murky.

 

[YoHo]

Gah. I get busy at work for 1 day and look what I miss.

Rather then replying to individual posts, I'm just gonna hit some high points here.

1: Eisner, Wells and underutilized assets. The great Lie of the Eisner Wells takeover is that Disney managment wasn't utilizing it's assets right. This is of course, mostly bunk. It is true that Card Walker was stuck without Walt there to tell him what to do, He was incapable of strategic vision of any kind, but it's also true that he retired. Ron Miller was in complete and unfettered control. Ron was the one that built Touchstone and made Splash. Ron was the first to bring up the home video market, Ron wanted to raise parking prices.
Disney was on the right track already. The only reason that Eisner and Wells were brought in was because Roy E. Disney had a temper tantrum and decided to take the company and go home. He ruined his relationship with Walt's side of the family and ultimately Disney.

With that as a backdrop, Yes, the Contemporary and Polynesian are the only 2 resorts that were fully realized using true Disney techniques from start to finish. As Matt points out, the Golf resort was never intended to be similar at all. It's an apples and oranges comparison. The Golf resort was also never meant to be particularly more or less expensive. Merely totally different.

Things get sticky once the master plan was tossed out. The concept of underutilization of assets can have many different solutions. The Poly and Contemp had years long waiting lists. That's money out the door right there. Simply building the Asian, Venetian and Persian would have brought in significantly more revenue.
And in fact, Disney went down that path. The violation of Disney precepts at the Grand Floridian wasn't so much in the area of story and theme as much as in the area of giving Eisner what he wanted. The Asian was more risky. Despite the success of the polynesian, they were gun shy about the money. Plus, catering to the moneied elite was an Eisner dream from the minute he took the company over.
Similarly, Y&B fail more because they lack the exotic locale. They're great resorts and a great location and are popular because of it, but anyone can go to the eastern seaboard. Wilderness Lodge was perhaps the best of the "American" additions and when combined with Fort Wilderness and the boat trip to MK really wa right up there.

I think Matt has it backwards on AK. The untrained eye will think it's unique, but the trained eye sees that where the old resorts each had their unique flavor in thew construction, this one clearly does not. It's like a Pier one threw up on the Wilderness lodge.


Now then, on to the popularity of classic Disney. Poly has never had a problem with it's occupancy rates. The Contemp hasn't either. After 2001 it was the Mods that shut down whole resorts it was the values that delayed and didn't finish construction. The contemporary soldiered on.

As for whether it's possible to build true Disney value resorts. Well, there were plenty of people that said Disneyland was impossible. So, saying it's impossible is simply invalid. It's just not obvious to you. If it were obvious to you, then you would probably be working to get it built.

Disney had plans on the table for a multi-tiered resort complex that was part of Fort Wilderness/Wilderness lodge that would have included mod and value locations. They had the plans. They updated those plans for the AK area. Neither was constructed. Eisner was afraid to risk the money. Never mind that Disney's greatest achievments have been risky. So, WDI had the ideas, but they were shut down.

 

[YoHo]

Oh, and to reiterate, Resort price differences should be strictly based on location and amenities. The Campground after all commands a premium location and excellent themeing, but it's also a campground and is priced accordingly.

The values are off in the ghetto of the property, they have fewer amenities, smaller rooms, a less desireable view. less transportation options and a longer commute. That alone should justify their low price. Putting "Do the Funky Chicken on the side in garish lettering is simply adding insult to injury.

 

[dwaters]

.

The values are off in the ghetto of the property

How funny!
"Disney Ghetto" was my wife's un-PC nickname for the All-Stars.

We had to take a Disney bus back to our hotel very late at night and the bus was going to different resorts. When the driver asked where we were going, DW said "The Disney Ghetto" "All-Stars it is" he said without missing a beat, then serenaded us with Elvis' "In the Ghetto".

The nickname is more about how far from everything it is than the actual condition of the resort. There is pretty much just a few rows of trees separating All-Star Movies from the highway that goes through Kissimmee (I'm forgetting the name).

 

[minnie61650]

Oh, and to reiterate, Resort price differences should be strictly based on location and amenities. The Campground after all commands a premium location and excellent themeing, but it's also a campground and is priced accordingly.

Maybe the campground tent and RV sites are priced accordingly but I feel the cabins are overpriced. The cabins cost more than some deluxes.
AKL and WL cost $215 during the 2007 value season.
The cabins cost $249 for the same season.
The CR Garden Wing rooms are comparably priced at $259 for the same season.

The cabins have less amenities than the deluxes.
The cabins have the same restaurants, pools ,and transportation as the rest of the campground and yet they are priced like a deluxe.

The values are off in the ghetto of the property, they have fewer amenities, smaller rooms, a less desireable view. less transportation options and a longer commute. That alone should justify their low price.

Actually I feel the All Star resort's transportation is very good and not long at all.

Bus rides are quite short from the ALL Stars according to PassPorter.com

All Star Buses-CBR buses---POPbuses--PO buses--- Contemporary
MK 20 min---- 20 min-----25 min------10 min---20 min(mono)
Epcot 10 min-- 15 min-----20 min------10 min---15 min+15min(mono)
MGM 10 min----12 min-----15 min------15 min---20min
AK 10 min------20min-------15 min----15 min---20 min
DTD 15 min----20 min------20 min-----15 min---35 min


Transpotation times ( in # of Minutes)to the parks according to my passporter book

All Stars-------CR------------GF----------Poly
MK-----20----20(mono)------3 (mono)-----10 (mono)
Epcot--10----15+15(mono)--12+10(mono)---10+10(momo)
MGM---10----20-------------10------------15
Ak-----10----20------------15------------15
DTD---15----35-------------20------------25

Yes, the monorail resorts are closer to the MK and the travel time to MK is less but the travel time to any of the other parks is less from the All Stars.

It only takes 10 minutes to get to Epcot, MGM and AK from All Stars.
MK is 20 min away. That's the same amount of time it takes on the monorail from the Contemporary.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[boomhauer]

The values are off in the ghetto of the property, they have fewer amenities, smaller rooms, a less desireable view. less transportation options and a longer commute.

Depends on what you're looking for. If you're going to Animal Kingdom or Blizzard Beach, the All Stars are much closer than any of the most expensive Deluxe Resorts.

As for transportation time, the All Stars have pretty much the best bus service on property. Polynesian, Contemporary and Grand Floridian share buses to everywhere except Magic Kingdom and Epcot, making their commute times far longer than All Stars.

 

[G8RFAN]

lol. The "ghetto". I think this puts a new meaning to slumming it.

I wonder what you all think of the "themed resorts" in Vegas. I've stayed at the Bellagio, and Luxor. The Venetian and Paris seemed top notch when I passed thru them. Sans the casinos, do you feel that they have executed the emersion "time and place" strategy to the legacy Disney levels, or are they too garrish and obnoxious?

 

[YoHo]

They haven't done the Time/Place thing at all. You never feel as if you're anywhere but Vegas.

 

[G8RFAN]

I take it the gondalas, waterway and bridges and the sky with clouds at the Venetian didn't strike a chord with you. Having been to the real Paris and Venice, I thought those two resorts were pretty nice but as I said, I just passed thru. At the Bellagio, the pools and terraced gardens behind the Bellagio were also spectacular. Although I did not go to Lake Como, there was a lot of architectural elements in stonework and colors that I saw from the Florence region. Obviously their signature fountain is all Vegas show. Just curious, as I started to think what a Disney Venetian would have looked like.....

 

[YoHo]

The problem is the strip which is ever present. Las Vegas is not condusive to true Disney storytelling.

And to be fair, those resorts never intended to truely mimic Disney. They are themed hotels in the way that 6 flags is a theme park.

Now don't get me wrong, some of them are impressive, but their goal is clearly decoration. Remarkably well done decoration.

It will also be noted that MGM./Mirage in particularly, but Harrah's too is really toning down the "themeing"

 

[minnie61650]

I take it the gondalas, waterway and bridges and the sky with clouds at the Venetian didn't strike a chord with you. Having been to the real Paris and Venice, I thought those two resorts were pretty nice but as I said, I just passed thru. At the Bellagio, the pools and terraced gardens behind the Bellagio were also spectacular. Although I did not go to Lake Como, there was a lot of architectural elements in stonework and colors that I saw from the Florence region. Obviously their signature fountain is all Vegas show. Just curious, as I started to think what a Disney Venetian would have looked like.....

I think the Venetian hotel captures some of the highlights of Venice with the gondolas, waterway and bridges and the sky with clouds. I also think the art work on the ceiling in the lobby area is pretty impressive. It does help set the mood very nicely.

I love the "streets of New York" in the restaurant district of the New York , New York hotel and the attention to detail there. I think the delis, the shops, the bricks and man hole covers in the streets all add to the illusion of being in New York.

When the Luxor first opened there was a river with boats that guests could ride that snaked through parts of the lobby and main floor area and there were Animated Camels that were pretty cool to watch. Unfortunately it was not long before they had to remove the "river ". They said it had to do with water quality issues. The "Nile" river in Caesars Palace also had to be filled in and they also said that was to poor water quality.

I think that may be one of the reasons why the river in the Venetian starts outside the hotel --(To help circulate and arrogate the water.
____________________________________________
* NOTE:Edited to add a correction about the river in the Luxor > after a little more research I found this info:

Luxor River When the Luxor hotel opened in 1993, there was a river that encircled the casino level and was intended to ferry guests to the elevators. But when people complained about the 90-minute wait, the Luxor decided to let guests walk to the elevators and promote the ride as the Nile River Adventure. The 15-minute guided barge tour drifted past the Valley of the Queens, King Ramses temple, and other Egyptian-style art. The river was removed as part of a major interior remodeling in 1995.
________________________________________

I was one the guests who complained about the wait.
It really was a very nice ride but it was also poorly planed because it was the only way to get to elevators.

Here is a photo of the Luxor boat ride:

 

[G8RFAN]

When the Luxor first opened there was a river with boats that guests could ride that snaked through parts of the lobby and main floor area and there were Animated Camels that were pretty cool to watch. Unfortunately it was not long before they had to remove the "river ".....

I stayed there in '98, a couple/few years after the river removal I guess. I heard they had really toned it done from what it was originally. Vegas is once again, trying to reinvent itself and go back to a more adult theme. The NY skyline, the steam coming from the grates all are pretty impressive. I had to ride their rollercoaster. The thing about a Venetian resort is that in real life, they are very small. Disney already has a version of St. Mark's square and that obviously is the focal point of Venice. They could have a Harry's Bar overlooking the water and face masks, etc. Canals would be easy to accomodate, but the buildings would have to be on solid ground. Asia would also be an interesting endeavor. Too bad they never got built.

The Poly and Contemp had years long waiting lists..........

BTW, I've always wondered why my parents always stayed offsite at WDW. I did not know the waiting list was that long. I guess it make's sense as it's similar to the Grand Canyon National Parks Lodge. Incredible demand for limited rooms.

 

[EUROPACL]

They said it had to do with water quality issues. The "Nile" river in Caesars Palace also had to be filled in and they also said that was to poor water quality.

I think that may be one of the reasons why the river in the Venetian starts outside the hotel --(To help circulate and arrogate the water.

Sounds like they took a page from the Disney playbook and blamed it on something they thought people would buy. There are tons of indoor swimming pools, lazy rivers and even indoor water parks.

 

[YoHo]

There was none of this multiple trips a year bull back then. You had to start making plans a minimum of 2 years in advance.

 

[G8RFAN]

There was none of this multiple trips a year bull back then. You had to start making plans a minimum of 2 years in advance.

Surely you don't mean that would apply to Floridians back then?