DVC monorail resort

[tfc3rid]

The area between the TTC and the Contemporary was supposed to be the site of another Monorail resort... I recall back in the mid-late 1980's it was thought that that spot would be developed before the Grand Floridian and it would house a Mediterranean resort...

 

[BroganMc]

The area between the TTC and the Contemporary was supposed to be the site of another Monorail resort... I recall back in the mid-late 1980's it was thought that that spot would be developed before the Grand Floridian and it would house a Mediterranean resort...

Ah now that would be an interesting theme. If the land is swampy they can do a Venice on the Seven Seas. Just make it a cleaner version than the real thing like the Venetian in Las Vegas. Crystal blue canals, gondolas and bridges connecting the buildings and piazzas. They'd have a great time with Carnival season, perhaps have a grand ballroom hall and do a masquerade on the weekends.

 

[jcf]

Didn't they sell BWV 1999 and then started selling BCV 2000?

Any chance we see an announcement later this year?

 

[minnie61650]

The area between the TTC and the Contemporary was supposed to be the site of another Monorail resort... I recall back in the mid-late 1980's it was thought that that spot would be developed before the Grand Floridian and it would house a Mediterranean resort...

Before the MK was even built plans were in place for 4 hotels to be on the monorail line.The Grand Floridian hotel is on the land that was set aside and dedicated to be the "Future" Asian Resort Hotel (A). The "Future"
Venetian (B) Resort was going to located between the Poly (5) and the Contemporary (8). A fifth hotel was going to build on a monorail spur which ended at the "Future" Persian Resort (C). That resort would be located just to east of the Mk and North of the Contemorary and would built with much of the hotel being on /over the water of Bay Lake. So even though the GF was not built until 18 years later a hotel was planned for that area at the same time the monorail was planned.

I got this picture and my info from my"The story of Walt Disney World"
Commemory Edition Book 1971.

 

[tjkraz]

Ignoring CRV for the moment lets say Disney suddenly realizes that Universal might just have something going with its idea and changes the Trans and Ticket center parking lot over to a parking garage to free up land near the Magic Kingdom resorts.

The current TTC site is high on the list (perhaps #1) if Disney were to ever decide to move forward on a 5th theme park. It's a site that would require very little ground prep work and would link into the monorail line with virtually no expense.

Then they would build an adjacent parking garage to replace the current TTC lot.

 

[MP2002]

Thanks for posting that map & info...very interesting!

 

[BroganMc]

The "Future"
Venetian (B) Resort was going to located between the Poly (5) and the Contemporary (8).

Ah so my "Venice on the Seven Seas Lagoon" is not so far-fetched. If you look at satellite imagery it already has a giant sinkhole in the middle. Perfect for a Disney Venice, wouldn't you say?

I'd vote for that one. Someone call DVC management and pitch the idea.

 

[doconeill]

I believe the reason they haven't built on the site of the Venetian is because all their test pilings sank...that sinkhole really is one.

They may be able to do something in the future, but unless the ground stabilizes naturally its going to be really expensive...

 

[spiceycat]

The current TTC site is high on the list (perhaps #1) if Disney were to ever decide to move forward on a 5th theme park. It's a site that would require very little ground prep work and would link into the monorail line with virtually no expense.

Then they would build an adjacent parking garage to replace the current TTC lot.

if that is true then why are Studios and AK not even close. Studios would have definitely fit into that area. but instead Disney put it close to Epcot.

Have begged for a hotel along the Epcot monrail and get told - no way.... not even we will think about it.

I would think Disney would need a theme park closer to OKW and SSR - they don't have on in that area - just a water park and DD.

 

[3DisneyKids]

It certainly seems as though a DVC monorail resort is coming...just when and where. How big should it be (as that is the OPs question, right?)...I don't think the monorail itself could support anything the size of SSR. I am sure that the imagineers calcualted the number of rooms at each monorail resort, the number of people who are just taking the ride, the number of folks who use it to hop between EPCOT and MK, and so on. Is there enough room/trains/etc. to add an enormous resort? Probably not. It sure seems like the North Wing of of the current CR will eventually be a DVC (not for a few years, imo), but that would certainly work since they have already accounted for that occupancy level.

 

[UConnJack]

It certainly seems as though a DVC monorail resort is coming...just when and where. How big should it be (as that is the OPs question, right?)...I don't think the monorail itself could support anything the size of SSR. I am sure that the imagineers calcualted the number of rooms at each monorail resort, the number of people who are just taking the ride, the number of folks who use it to hop between EPCOT and MK, and so on. Is there enough room/trains/etc. to add an enormous resort? Probably not. It sure seems like the North Wing of of the current CR will eventually be a DVC (not for a few years, imo), but that would certainly work since they have already accounted for that occupancy level.

That is exactly what I was thinking reading all those posts about a monster resort at the TTC area. The allure of the monorail would quickly disappear if there were 1 hour long lines and SRO most of the time.

As for the size of SSR vs. CRV, if CRV ends up equal to the size of SSR, I think it would be more capable than SSR of drawing enough demand to keep it more relatively balanced. There will always be a strain on the little 3 due to their size, but I don't think CRV would exacerbate the imbalance of demand. Not to get into another SSR argument, but I don't think there is a 1:1 ratio of those wanting an active "middle of the action" WDW vacation to those wanting the laid back atmosphere. WDW is still about the parks, and I think any resort with easy access to them, especially MK, will always elicit more demand.

Not to mention, I think CRV would draw the most DVC rental demand of any of the resorts. Certainly MUCH more than SSR. I even suspect the rental opportunities are also why some on this board are so keen on getting CRV.

 

[burnsoc]

Not to get into another SSR argument, but I don't think there is a 1:1 ratio of those wanting an active "middle of the action" WDW vacation to those wanting the laid back atmosphere. WDW is still about the parks, and I think any resort with easy access to them, especially MK, will always elicit more demand.

Not to mention, I think CRV would draw the most DVC rental demand of any of the resorts. Certainly MUCH more than SSR. I even suspect the rental opportunities are also why some on this board are so keen on getting CRV.

These are my opinions exactly. If CRV does happen, I predict ninety percent of the requests on the R/T board will be for it. As far as the size goes, I can't see it being nearly as big as SSR. I believe it will be about the same size as AKV, approximately 500 units.

 

[BroganMc]

These are my opinions exactly. If CRV does happen, I predict ninety percent of the requests on the R/T board will be for it. As far as the size goes, I can't see it being nearly as big as SSR. I believe it will be about the same size as AKV, approximately 500 units.

I agree. I think the 500 range is the max for a hotel DVC. Just think of all the parking headaches!

The shame of it is the number of people who will buy CRV just to be able to rent points. If Disney thought SSR posed drains on the system with commercial renters, CRV will be a nightmare. Imagine having to book day-by-day ressies the 11 month window most of the year.

 

[spiceycat]

These are my opinions exactly. If CRV does happen, I predict ninety percent of the requests on the R/T board will be for it. As far as the size goes, I can't see it being nearly as big as SSR. I believe it will be about the same size as AKV, approximately 500 units.

I don't think it will be that big. - the first couple of floors - will be the dinning and other stuff that someone hints - that leaves 12 floor - well even 10 villa on each floor - is only 120. I maybe completely wrong here - but the link when you compare it to the current tower just doesn't look that big.

No, I think people will still want BCV. they will also take BWV. even with a better pool than CR currently has it won't be anywhere near SALB. the attraction of CR is the MK. the attraction of BCV is SALB, Epcot and Studios.

 

[burnsoc]

I don't think it will be that big. - the first couple of floors - will be the dinning and other stuff that someone hints - that leaves 12 floor - well even 10 villa on each floor - is only 120. I maybe completely wrong here - but the link when you compare it to the current tower just doesn't look that big.

No, I think people will still want BCV. they will also take BWV. even with a better pool than CR currently has it won't be anywhere near SALB. the attraction of CR is the MK. the attraction of BCV is SALB, Epcot and Studios.

You're right that people will still want BCV and BWV, and my "ninety percent" remark was an exaggeration. I just believe it will be the most popular request for renters. Ten villas on a floor is way too low of an estimate. If you figure ten to twelve floors of villas and approximately 25 to 30 units including lockoffs. That will be between 300 to 400 units.

 

[tjkraz]

if that is true then why are Studios and AK not even close. Studios would have definitely fit into that area. but instead Disney put it close to Epcot.

Just because MGM and DAK didn't end up in that location doesn't mean the site wasn't in the running. MGM's location was probably considered instrumental in the development of that entire area (five resort hotels, two timeshares, BW shopping district.)

Grouping 3 theme parks within a couple miles of each other probably doesn't make sense (given the vastness of the property.)

I would think Disney would need a theme park closer to OKW and SSR - they don't have on in that area - just a water park and DD.

I don't see where there's enough land in that area to hold a theme park. To the south you have DTD, TL and casting. To the north are the two Port Orleans resorts and part of the golf course. To the west Epcot very close by. And to the east you're moving off of WDW property.

 

[Machta]

That is exactly what I was thinking reading all those posts about a monster resort at the TTC area. The allure of the monorail would quickly disappear if there were 1 hour long lines and SRO most of the time.
QUOTE]

This is a very valid point. It brings up another question in my mind, though. I live in the Denver metro area, and if you have come out here to go skiing and driven up I-70 at the peak times, you are aware of the congestion problems we face there. For years some sort of monorail up the I-70 corridor has been discussed, but they always say it would cost great big buckets of money--far more than it took to originally build the highway.

So, being pretty dumb when it comes to transportation engineering, what is it about a monorail that is so expensive as compared to a highway? I've seen them build highways with big overpasses, bridges, road cuts, etc., and to my eye that seems a lot less complicated than putting up some pylons and a concrete rail with electric cables running down it. On the other hand, it probably is really expensive, since there aren't monorails running all over the country . . . so, engineers, enlighten me!

 

[UConnJack]

For years some sort of monorail up the I-70 corridor has been discussed, but they always say it would cost great big buckets of money--far more than it took to originally build the highway.

I just keep thinking about The Simpson's monorail episode......

 

[burnsoc]

 

[keishashadow]

The proposed site of DVC/CRV is an easy walk to the MK; but imagine if they'd set up a new entrance into the park near Space Mt. area if they do expand the resort northward (would take the 'sting' out of not having a dedicated stop @ DVC portion of resort.

The idea of an enclosed people mover (as in airports) over to CR monorail station works for me to venture to Epcot area. Don't see the need to put another stop in place on the line; def. save on construction/maintenance costs imo.