AKV Concerns........

[pilferk]

OK I'll jump into the fray with a few general comments since this seems to have degenerated into another AVK vs SSR thread (Ugh!)

Some have mentioned the sleeper chair, extra bathroom and larger rooms as driving resale demand for AKV. I'm not sure I agree with that.

First, I think the sleeper chairs will be added to the other resorts sooner rather than later. DVC is already upgrading all resorts' sofabeds (certainly a costlier move), buying more expensive mattresses, adding DVD players to studios, etc. With the expanded occupancy (5 and 9 guests) being condoned by DVC for several years now, IMO it's inevitable that they will add sleeping accommodations for the additional guest.

Can they? I mean, the rooms are "filed" as having an existing occupancy level. While I know they can turn a blind eye toward people going over that level, I'm not sure (and someone please clarify if you can) they can increase the occupancy directly. I actually hope they can! We're a family of 5, and one of the reasons AKV ended up being even more appealing was the fact we wouldn't have to buy as many points (which goes toward your "price tag" point) to get our family in a room. Soon, if we want to use other resorts, it's going to mean booking a 2BR once the baby is a bit older.

As for the other items, the problem I have is that I don't see similar in-room features driving demand for other resorts. I have not witnessed a great number of people stating that their primary reason for buying OKW is the larger rooms. I don't see people deciding to buy SSR because they can book dedicated 2Bs with two queen beds. I don't see people buying BWV because it has studio rooms with daybeds.

I agree. not primary reasons. But certainly factors in determining #4, below...or rather determining value for the cost, which I think is part of that consideration. The added "stuff" at AKV seems to increase the value of your points, at least for now, because to get the stuff you get "stock" at AKV, you'd have to spend more points at the other resorts (increased occupancy and bathrooms). Also, keep in mind, at least when I was discussing those factors, I was simply talking about concerns when buying (or continuing to own and use at AKV)....not in relation to resale value specifically.

I think the main issues that drive a purchase decision--not necessarily in this order--are:

1. Visual appeal. People aren't going to buy at the dark, backwoods resort if they want that airy beach feel (and vice versa.)
2. Resort amenities. Large pool...golf course...spa...savanna...take your pick.
3. Location. Near the parks...near DTD...out in the middle of nowhere (which certainly DOES appeal to many people.)
4. Cost. Everybody looks at the price tag.

Absolutely agree. Those are the primary factors. But those primary factors can either conflict with one another, or only narrow the field so far. It seems when weighing many of the resorts, you end up with pros and cons in each of those categories. So then it comes down to some of the lesser factors, and how they appeal to consumers and families. I think AKV has enough of those to give it a good chance in the hunt. Now, I'm not saying it will increase in value FASTER than the other resorts (at least not until their contract expiry's get closer)...but I think there are enough benefits for it to keep pace.

Throw all of that into a blender and each person should be able to come up with their best case scenario.

IMO, things like having an extra bathroom are nice, but I don't see them playing a major role in the purchase decision for most people. If I like the look and location of AKV, the extra bathroom may be icing on the cake, but I'm not going to buy there just for the extra bath if I can't stand the dark wood furniture and isolation of the resort.

Agreed. But just like when you're looking at houses...you find 2 houses you like, same general price range, but one has some extra sq ftage and an extra bath......those small things start to become factors.

The lower point rooms at AKV are attractive, but I think there is room to question whether that will have any impact on resale prices. BWV has Standard View rooms yet resale prices there are about the same as VWL (with just one room class.) BCV contracts sell for even more than BWV yet have the same ending date, same location and lack the lower-point rooms.

Some of that pricing is certainly driven by supply and demand, but not all of it. After all the supply at VWL is about half of BCV, yet BCV pricing is higher.

I agree. I think the biggest selling point of AKV are the savannah views, and I think how much the value rooms influence resale (if at all) will directly correlate to how often owners find (and report) they book a value room and get a savannah view vs a parking lot view. That "lottery" effect may minimize any "benefit" the value rooms would otherwise have.

It would be interesting to see what resale prices would do NOT propped up by ROFR or Disney's selling "sold out" points. Those two things, alone, seem to dictate resale prices have to stay in a specific range...

As for resale value between SSR and AKV, all I can do is fall back on supply and demand and guess that AKV will be a little higher since SSR is about 50% larger. I still think that my list above (visual appeal, location, etc.) will play more of a role in resale pricing, but it's far too early to determine which resort will be preferred by the masses.

I agree...I think, ultimately, in that showdown supply and demand ends up being the mitigating factor....because other things just balance out in the end. I think the 2 will likly keep pretty close pace to each other (and the other resorts for awhile)...AKV may nose ahead a bit, but I doubt by much.

 

[tjkraz]

Can they? I mean, the rooms are "filed" as having an existing occupancy level. While I know they can turn a blind eye toward people going over that level, I'm not sure (and someone please clarify if you can) they can increase the occupancy directly.

I don't see why not. Seems to me that Disney could build a room with 4 beds and still limit occupancy at 4.

In formally setting occupancy at 4 persons, Disney has provided minimum sleeping accommodations for a party that size. That shouldn't preclude them from increasing the number of beds, even if the occupancy does not change.

We're a family of 5, and one of the reasons AKV ended up being even more appealing was the fact we wouldn't have to buy as many points (which goes toward your "price tag" point) to get our family in a room. Soon, if we want to use other resorts, it's going to mean booking a 2BR once the baby is a bit older.

I think many people who want to put 5 in a 1B have already invested in an air bed. Not a big expense if used repeatedly.

 

[pilferk]

I think many people who want to put 5 in a 1B have already invested in an air bed. Not a big expense if used repeatedly.

Yeah, I"m a stickler for "the rules", though. I don't like breaking (or asking Disney to turn a blind eye to) a posted occupancy level. I just don't feel comfortable doing it.... I know others do it, and I'm certainly not judging them, since Disney appears to be "ok" with it (for now). But I won't.

I also don't feel comfortable making THAT type of financial commitment based on doing something against a stated policy that Disney simply has chosen, at this time, not to enforce....because 6 months or a year from now,they could change their mind and I don't want to scramble to buy more points, or change bookings, based on that.

 

[pilferk]

I don't see why not. Seems to me that Disney could build a room with 4 beds and still limit occupancy at 4.

In formally setting occupancy at 4 persons, Disney has provided minimum sleeping accommodations for a party that size. That shouldn't preclude them from increasing the number of beds, even if the occupancy does not change.

I'm just not sure....Florida time share law is very specific about what you're allowed to modify, especially post purchase, on a unit. If this were simply a hotel room...I think they could do it. With a time share unit....I think it might be a different story. Anyone familiar with time share law know for sure? I'd think, like tjkraz, that "additions" would probably be OK, so long as they're not removing occupancy.....but I know in relation to other things that changes can be sticky.

 

[tjkraz]

Yeah, I"m a stickler for "the rules", though. I don't like breaking (or asking Disney to turn a blind eye to) a posted occupancy level. I just don't feel comfortable doing it.... I know others do it, and I'm certainly not judging them, since Disney appears to be "ok" with it (for now). But I won't.

Next you're going to tell me you don't go over the posted speed limit, right?

In this case I think it's more than simply turning a blind eye to the situation. This isn't a wink, wink situation where DVC lists 4 names but will let you have 5. Here they are actually condoning the occupancy increase by allowing guests to put 5 or 9 names in the reservation.

Yes, it the rule could be changed at any time and people need to be aware of that. Just one of many "what ifs" that we can continue to debate for the next 50 years.

 

[nuts]

Maintanence fees at AKV will stay "in the ball park" with other WDW DVC locations. If they didn't Disney would give themselves the headache of not having enough owners as everyone would sell and own at the other cheaper properties.

Well, that doesn't make sense. Once Disney does the initial sale, they have all the members they need. If the original owner resells to buy a lower cost site, then the new owner picks up the maintenance fees. Also, keep in mind that Disney does not set the maintenance fees...DVC does. By law the maintenance fees have to be cost recovery. Where disney does make a profit on this is the fact that DVC contracts with resorts for most of the labor. You can bet that resorts has a profit element included in their labor rates

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Well, that doesn't make sense. Once Disney does the initial sale, they have all the members they need. If the original owner resells to buy a lower cost site, then the new owner picks up the maintenance fees. Also, keep in mind that Disney does not set the maintenance fees...DVC does. By law the maintenance fees have to be cost recovery. Where disney does make a profit on this is the fact that DVC contracts with resorts for most of the labor. You can bet that resorts has a profit element included in their labor rates

I think this is true to a point.
If the resort is not yet sold out, a bunch of resales on the market will indeed impact sales directly from DVC.

I also believe that while dues are not suppose to be a profit maker, there is a management fee that DVC can charge.
A rose by any other name...

MG

 

[pilferk]

Next you're going to tell me you don't go over the posted speed limit, right?

In this case I think it's more than simply turning a blind eye to the situation. This isn't a wink, wink situation where DVC lists 4 names but will let you have 5. Here they are actually condoning the occupancy increase by allowing guests to put 5 or 9 names in the reservation.

Yes, it the rule could be changed at any time and people need to be aware of that. Just one of many "what ifs" that we can continue to debate for the next 50 years.

I stick pretty close, actually, to the speed limit. 3 tickets and a stint in traffic school means that, yes, I stick pretty close to the +- 7 rule. Hate to admit it, but it's true.

Again, "condoning" or not, AFAIK the declaration for the other resorts sets the occupancy level (I KNOW it does in AKV's). Disney can turn a blind eye to that (overtly, in this case), can even set their systems up to do it, thereby quasi-condoning it, but I still think it best to "bank" on the declaration...because it's the only legally enforceable document the owner/guest has.

The only thing between 4 and 5 (or 8 and 9) is Disney's whim...something I'm not willing to bank on. I can't possibly show up (and I know....they're unlikely to change things so drastically, so quickly, but allow me a bit of hyperbole) and find that my party of 5 now cant' fit into the room we booked because yesterday Disney Management didn't get their Mocha Latte Supremo's with extra foam on them. Which isn't to say Disney can't modify the declaration, and add sleeper chairs, as you suggest above. Maybe there is some provision for doing that. IF they do that, it's all moot. But until they do, I'll abide by "the rules"....and certainly make any purchasing decisions with them in mind....because that's what I feel most comfortable doing. YMMV.

 

[pilferk]

Well, that doesn't make sense. Once Disney does the initial sale, they have all the members they need. If the original owner resells to buy a lower cost site, then the new owner picks up the maintenance fees. Also, keep in mind that Disney does not set the maintenance fees...DVC does. By law the maintenance fees have to be cost recovery. Where disney does make a profit on this is the fact that DVC contracts with resorts for most of the labor. You can bet that resorts has a profit element included in their labor rates

There are some "fees" built in to compensate the management company..but I agree. Looking at the budget, it's not like those fees are excessive, or the managment fees piece looks to be a huge profit center in relation to the dues, or resorts as a whole.

 

[Mtnman44]

If AKV cost $9.00 a point in dues and every other DVC cost around $5.00, trust me, the imbalance of value would cause havoc at DVC. Many would be dumping their AKV contracts and disney would be forced to use ROFR or deal with market depreciation.

Well, that doesn't make sense. Once Disney does the initial sale, they have all the members they need. If the original owner resells to buy a lower cost site, then the new owner picks up the maintenance fees. Also, keep in mind that Disney does not set the maintenance fees...DVC does. By law the maintenance fees have to be cost recovery. Where disney does make a profit on this is the fact that DVC contracts with resorts for most of the labor. You can bet that resorts has a profit element included in their labor rates

 

[bobbiwoz]

If AKV cost $9.00 a point in dues and every other DVC cost around $5.00, trust me, the imbalance of value would cause havoc at DVC. Many would be dumping their AKV contracts and disney would be forced to use ROFR or deal with market depreciation.

This would cause me to use my AKV points only at AKV, and I imagine that many would do the same with the points they keep. Why should I subsidize someone else's stay?
Bobbi

 

[Dean]

I'm just not sure....Florida time share law is very specific about what you're allowed to modify, especially post purchase, on a unit. If this were simply a hotel room...I think they could do it. With a time share unit....I think it might be a different story. Anyone familiar with time share law know for sure? I'd think, like tjkraz, that "additions" would probably be OK, so long as they're not removing occupancy.....but I know in relation to other things that changes can be sticky.

Given the way the POS is written they probably could add to it legally but not take away. I don't believe anything is FS 718 or 721 would directly prevent this change other than as it applies to changes in the POS in general. I don't know the fire code info well enough to offer a comment in that direction.

 

[Dean]

If AKV cost $9.00 a point in dues and every other DVC cost around $5.00, trust me, the imbalance of value would cause havoc at DVC. Many would be dumping their AKV contracts and disney would be forced to use ROFR or deal with market depreciation.

What you'd end up with eventually is a large amount of non performing contracts and the dues would be shared between a smaller group of owners. I've seen this happen at a number of resorts over the years and is very common at seasonal resorts, those with poor management and those with thieves in control.

 

[BroganMc]

probably the best hotel to theme park transportation on property (assuming it holds up after AKV opens).

Well the best along with OKW, SSR and any future DVC that does share bus service with another resort.

Odd...that's the concern I hear from people considering a stay. From those that have actually stayed, I don't hear it so much. Most of them say things like "I was worried, but the transportation was SOOOO good...etc, etc". Sure, there are some gripes (see "different strokes" above) but largely I don't see actual guests complaining much....it's the potential guests/perception that seem to "worry".

I guess this is a case of hearing what you want to hear. I've been visiting AKL for 4-5 years now. I always strike up conversations with guests there. I hear how great the resort theme is, how good the restaurants are, how cool it is to have coffee with the giraffes, but I have yet to hear a guest regale how wonderful the bus service is. On the contrary, I hear how long the busses take and how "far out" it is from everything. It almost seems to be a compromise between enjoying a great theme vs. being able to enjoy other themes.

I know for me, I ultimately voted to save my add-on dollars for a future CRV. Not because I love the theme at CRV more but because I love its location. AKV is a place I want to try for its theme, and expect I will be able to at 7 mos., but the negatives outweigh the positives. Fortunately I'm not in the situation of a 5 or 9 family. We're either 2-4 or 6-8 guests. That means our decision was based solely on location, theme and resort amenities.

 

[twinmomplus2new]

I think it's funny to hear people complain about the Bus service at AKL. I think they have one of the best. The Que ( SP) is always nearly empty , I never have to stand coming or going and have always found it to be very prompt.

 

[crisi]

Most of the occupancy issues come from, from what we've seen and heard, the occupancy of the deluxe rooms...which, apparently, there wasn't as much of a market for as they expected there to be. The rest of the hotel seems to do OK.

We stayed in one of those Deluxe rooms - they really are the worst rooms in the hotel. The whole point of staying out at AKL for us was to watch the animals - and five floors up is as far away as you can get from the gazelles and the giraffes. It was a nice room, it was just the wrong location - and having paid more for the worst view, we weren't very satisfied. I suspect that is a big issue with those family suites.

Course, those are the Jambo rooms they are turning over to DVC - so the Jambo rooms won't have a lot of appeal for us - been there, done that, and we'd rather have a smaller room closer to the animals.

Loved the resort though....even with the bad view watching the animals was really special. We'll go back (and may book VAK), but we'll hope for (and book to get) a low floor next time).

 

[LisaS]

We stayed in one of those Deluxe rooms - they really are the worst rooms in the hotel. The whole point of staying out at AKL for us was to watch the animals - and five floors up is as far away as you can get from the gazelles and the giraffes. It was a nice room, it was just the wrong location - and having paid more for the worst view, we weren't very satisfied. I suspect that is a big issue with those family suites.

Course, those are the Jambo rooms they are turning over to DVC - so the Jambo rooms won't have a lot of appeal for us - been there, done that, and we'd rather have a smaller room closer to the animals.

Loved the resort though....even with the bad view watching the animals was really special. We'll go back (and may book VAK), but we'll hope for (and book to get) a low floor next time).

I agree crisi. Our first stay at AKL was in a Deluxe room. We had some great animal viewing from our room and at the time thought it was wonderful. In subsequent stays, we were on the 3rd floor and most recently the 2nd floor and WOW! the view from the second floor puts you at eye level with the giraffes -- incredible!

So for us the choice between Jambo House and Kidani will come down to whether we want to try for a room closer to the animals or a room closer to Boma, my DH's other favorite thing about AKL.

 

[momba#9]

I just wanted to thank everyone here in this thread for all of the helpful thoughts. I appreciate all of them and they all helped in one way or another.

We have decided not to add on AKV. We are quite happy owning at BCV. I'll try for a 7 month ressie at AKV and we'll keep AKV on the back burner for now.

After trying and not liking SSR and BWV we are a little hesitant to buy a resort before we try it.

Thanks again everyone.



Mike

 

[BroganMc]

After trying and not liking SSR and BWV we are a little hesitant to buy a resort before we try it.

That's probably the best reason for doing something. Glad the debate helped.

 

[gkrykewy]

I think it's funny to hear people complain about the Bus service at AKL. I think they have one of the best. The Que ( SP) is always nearly empty , I never have to stand coming or going and have always found it to be very prompt.

Yeah, this is a new complaint for me in this thread. Never had any issues with the buses, and never heard any complaints or exasperation from others at AKL. I will say that I hope Kidani has its own bus stop - that would be a very long walk otherwise.

Regarding the viewing height, we've always requested (always being twice ) high floors to see as much as possible. Will have to try requesting a lower floor once Kidani opens.

I've been visiting AKL for 4-5 years now. I always strike up conversations with guests there.

You don't have any AKL stays listed in your vacation history signature. Are you saying that you took time out of 5 vacations where you weren't staying at AKL just to stop by, hang out in the lobby, and poll guests?