Proof The Rumors Are True!!! TCD Relocation Plans!

[Mickey'sApprentice]

I think you're the first one to point it out, but you are right. I just checked the website and the application and all supporting information is still there, but the pdf that shows the area everyone is interested in is no longer up. Honestly I still think it should have never been posted in the first place, they posted signed and sealed plans of the TCD stables why did they need those pdfs too?

Oh well, lucky us I guess! I wonder if someone at PBS&J got in trouble?

Ahh...that is very close if not exactly how Disney has handled the leaks in the past.

 

[HockeyKat]

I'm not sure they would do underbuilding parking here, as they would essentially lose one floor of units to sell. With Kidani, building the unts higher to make up for the lost units was fine since it was all about the views of the savana. Kidani is also so large and long, that an outdoor parking area would have been massive with 1/2 of the whole resort having parking lot views. I don't think below building parking would accomplish the same things here.

I am a bit late to the party here (darn you work for making me work!!).

However, another reason they built the Kidani Village with the units starting on the 2nd floor for savanna view, is that the 1st floor savanna side is unusable, not just for view purposes, but due to proximity to the animals and the service roads needed to deal with them. This may be legal, or it may be just common sense (no access to ground on savanna side means fewer guests pulled off fences).

Jambo House, the original AKL, also has units starting on 2nd floor only when facing the savanna, although I am not entirely sure about the pool and standard view sides.

I think it was a great idea to put the parking under, though, considering all you lose is standard view to nothing on one side.


It would be cool if they did something halfway like Kidani, with parking under the "parking lot view" side, and rooms on the lake view side?

 

[apehat02]

If they are going to "reopen" river country, there is one big problem. Even if Disney wants to use the same slides and attractions, they would have to tear the whole thing out and start from scratch. One of the reasons it closed was the water supply coming from Bay Lake, which became illegal with the passing of a Florida law where waterparks and pools must take their sources from municipal "clean" water supplies, due to infestation and bacteria growth common to central Florida waterways. All of the structures that were filled from Bay Lake are now considered contaminated and cannot be reused.

 

[keylime359]

Why can they do the triathlon in the lake then? Just curious?

 

[ynottony99]

Why can they do the triathlon in the lake then? Just curious?

This has been discussed before, and I believe the short answer is that if informed contestants chose to swim that does not hold the same liability as having hundreds of unsuspecting resort guests frolicking in it.

 

[chartle]

Why can they do the triathlon in the lake then? Just curious?

The amoeba likes water of a very specific temp. During the summer they live in water maybe 18 inches to 2 feet deep because any deeper and the water is cooler.

The triathlon is not held at a time that the amoeba should not be active. At least thats what I think.

 

[pooh4me]

I have been lurking and have to thank all of you for helping us understand what the plans are. We love Fort Wilderness and would never stay any place else.My idea is that they want to add another form of accommodations to the Fort and then designate the whole Fort as as DVC. This would give their members cabins and campsites which although they can use their points for these now, the number of points and the ease of using them and other perks would increase. This could be a big boast to non DVC members too,new food court,sit down restaurant and maybe a great new River Country pool.

 

[Thumper_ehhhhh]

It would suck to make all of the fort dvc. They would lose money as not everyone can afford the membership or are not interested in one.

 

[luckycharm19335]

It would suck to make all of the fort dvc. They would lose money as not everyone can afford the membership or are not interested in one.

I really don't think that that would be a viable option?
At least I really hope not!

 

[HockeyKat]

It would suck to make all of the fort dvc. They would lose money as not everyone can afford the membership or are not interested in one.

Just because something is DVC does not mean that a non-member can't pay cash for it.

Currently, for a DVC member to use their points on a non-DVC-yet-Disney accomodation (like moderate/value resorts, campsites, cabins, Poly, or GF), they have to pay a rather steep upcharge and the points turn into a different category if/when you have to cancel.

Having DVC campsites/cabins, would just allow a DVC member to use points for a campsite or cabin, rather than deal with the transfer/upcharge/hassle.


I think it would be an interesting idea but an unlikely one. More likely to have certain campsites/cabins designated for DVC.

 

[bookwormde]

When I was guessing a few months ago I was thinking that it wold be part of VWL since I did not think they could get enough 2br equivelents for an independant, but if it is 3 or 4 floors and there are 4 or more arcs there could be as many as 500 2br units, which is more units than BLT.

That would be $1,000,000,000 in DVC sales. can you say incentive, since construction would likely be less than $250,000,000

bookwormde

 

[luckycharm19335]

Just because something is DVC does not mean that a non-member can't pay cash for it.

Currently, for a DVC member to use their points on a non-DVC-yet-Disney accomodation (like moderate/value resorts, campsites, cabins, Poly, or GF), they have to pay a rather steep upcharge and the points turn into a different category if/when you have to cancel.

Having DVC campsites/cabins, would just allow a DVC member to use points for a campsite or cabin, rather than deal with the transfer/upcharge/hassle.


I think it would be an interesting idea but an unlikely one. More likely to have certain campsites/cabins designated for DVC.

Yes, but in that instance would DVC take priority when trying to book your stay?

 

[TJM1976]

TCD: thanks for the clairification on the "boardwalk". I guess all these postings are so exciting that they became jumbled.
Yes, the "Nature Walk" was torn down earlier. I was able to get a few pics (from the ferry) just before it was gone.

 

[Shan-man]

This resource is no longer available here, sorry.

 

[skelooch]

I just wanted to make sure no one is confused: the red buildings indicate what is shown on the leaked drawing, the blue is all hypothetical. The blue is just me trying to make sense of the clues given by the partial buildings shown in red.

Resume speculations, that is all,

But because of that little piece of red at the boat dock, you have created a perfectly rational assumption of what the entire complex could be.

It would be nice to know what the date of those leaked plans was.
Wasn't there plans and lots of drawings for a Bonnet Creek Resort years ago that never happened.
I don't doubt there may be plans for a lot of projects that never did or never will happen. And personally I don't care one way or the other if this one does, but I can sure see why the people who love FW would. If I were a FW regular I would care alot.

 

[Big Kahuna]

I have this figured out... Disney made no mistake, Ftwildernessguy and Bobby planted this and they knew that everyone on the camping board would run with it. Disney has now finished their development design for free and has been provided at least seven options of what to put there or how to make it work.

I'm on to you Bobby.......

 

[Shan-man]

This resource is no longer available here, sorry.

 

[Capt. Barbosa]

I'm liking the idea of an old western town design with a Railroad station built in , it would fit with the fort theme and pay homage to Walts love of steam trains.

 

[ftwildernessrick]

Ok, I've been chomping at the bit all day to see what TCD was going to say about this pic that he uploaded to PhotoBucket...

Well, he ain't posting, so I wanted to mention what I noticed about it. See the cannon? See the label that calls it a cannon? See the elevation notation under it? Doesn't that imply that the cannon was in place when the elevations were taken? I think so! So I'll ask again, are the long-time Fort'ers sure they never saw a cannon at the Fort... like around '79-'82? Notice also, they had an ammo carrier labeled due south of the cannon. Pretty cool stuff. I can hear Musket Mickey now, "Hold your posts boys, the French have taken the dock... prepare the 8" gun! Fire!"

I can honestly say I don't remember if there was one or not. There have been so many changes over the years, some subtle, some not. Sometimes I notice something gone or changed, then realized after thinking back or checking photos, that it was done some years before. If the cannon was there, it was not in an accessible play area. Kind of like the totem pole, that I did not realize it was gone until a couple of years afterwards.

Just like the lawnmower tree. I remember when you could almost see the whole thing, then the tree kept growing around it until it almost disappeared.I still wonder if the reason they cut the tree was because the tree got too big or if they did it so the lawnmower could still be seen.

 

[Shan-man]

This resource is no longer available here, sorry.