Leaked River Country DVC Plans

[geoffdaddy 33]

To reinforce the point that nobody knows what the future will bring, remember that in 2001, Disney not only had plans and permits in hand, but they actually announced that they would be building a 600 unit DVC resort on the Eagle Pines golf course adjacent to Fort Wilderness.  You can read more about that here:  http://www.disneydrawingboard.com/WDW/EPArea/Eagle%20Pines%20Resort/EaglePinesResort.html

 

So, plans for that resort proceeded way past the point that plans for the River Country DVC have, and they still pulled the plug on that project.

 

TCD

 

 

Here's my concern about the River Country DVC:

 

A. Ft Wilderness property is prime real estate used for cheap rental income.

B. River Country is an unused derelict area they can reclaim, and it's outside of the area apparently designated wetland or otherwise protected, so it's fair game. Most other parts around Bay Lake are off limits it seems like, so to get another MK circuit property requires shoehorning onto existing resort property.

C. If RC DVC becomes popular enough, the conspiracy theorist in me can see Disney deciding to price the campground much higher than it already is (or at an accelerated pace), and when the camper crowds die out they'll shrug their shoulders and say "well, that old campground is just not popular enough anymore" and look to raze the campground for a phase II expansion of the RC DVC.

 

I'm hoping DVC on the whole falls on its face sooner rather than later. I can't imagine it can sustain the pace they are building units indefinitely.

[geoffdaddy 33]

Oh yeah, and as far as any hotel expansion in 2001 is concerned... remember that is when the dot-com bubble burst, so it's not too surprising that they would table a big project like that. And yet, here we've got a four seasons now in that same general vicinity.

[Tri-Circle-D 2,059]

Here's my concern about the River Country DVC:

 

A. Ft Wilderness property is prime real estate used for cheap rental income.

B. River Country is an unused derelict area they can reclaim, and it's outside of the area apparently designated wetland or otherwise protected, so it's fair game. Most other parts around Bay Lake are off limits it seems like, so to get another MK circuit property requires shoehorning onto existing resort property.

C. If RC DVC becomes popular enough, the conspiracy theorist in me can see Disney deciding to price the campground much higher than it already is (or at an accelerated pace), and when the camper crowds die out they'll shrug their shoulders and say "well, that old campground is just not popular enough anymore" and look to raze the campground for a phase II expansion of the RC DVC.

 

I'm hoping DVC on the whole falls on its face sooner rather than later. I can't imagine it can sustain the pace they are building units indefinitely.

 

Good points.

 

As far as designated wetlands go, I don't think those are really off limits.  Disney runs its own government.  They can swap around the land if they ever choose to.  But, it certainly makes sense to try and use the River Country land, since they wouldn't have to shift around wetland designations.

 

I have heard conspiracy theories about the Fort before.  But, again, there is no reason for Disney to do any such thing.  If they want to shut down (or move, as another theory once suggested) the campground, they can do that whenever they want to.  No need to intentionally run it into the ground.

 

Oh yeah, and as far as any hotel expansion in 2001 is concerned... remember that is when the dot-com bubble burst, so it's not too surprising that they would table a big project like that. And yet, here we've got a four seasons now in that same general vicinity.

 

True.  And, the River Country DVC plan could be similarly canned if the market doesn't support it going forward.

 

But, as with the Eagle Pines project, even if it's not a DVC, it is inevitable that the land upon which River Country sat will one day be re-developed.

 

TCD

[tim5055 120]

Good points.

 

As far as designated wetlands go, I don't think those are really off limits.  Disney runs its own government.  They can swap around the land if they ever choose to.  But, it certainly makes sense to try and use the River Country land, since they wouldn't have to shift around wetland designations.

 

I have heard conspiracy theories about the Fort before.  But, again, there is no reason for Disney to do any such thing.  If they want to shut down (or move, as another theory once suggested) the campground, they can do that whenever they want to.  No need to intentionally run it into the ground.

 

 

TCD

You really don't need to have your own government to swap around wetlands, although I'm sure it helps move things along.  Wetland swapping and mitigation banking is a big business.  Check out the EPA page on  Mitigation Banking Factsheet - Compensating for Impacts to Wetlands and Streams  http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/mitbanking.cfm

 

As to Fort conspiracy theories, eventually it will all come down to FW turning a profit that Disney feels is adequate.  If they wanted to they could close the 100, 200 & 300 loops and develop all that land outside Big Pine Drive leaving the rest of the campground open.  It has already been proven that there will almost always be someone to rent the spaces as long as there is a campground.  A few years down the road folks would wonder why Disney started number loops at 400.......

[Daverene 14]

Keep in mind the fort is 100 a night no building to take care of or build lower taxes than land with a building less people to run the fort. Much lower upkeep lower power bills.

[Tri-Circle-D 2,059]

Keep in mind the fort is 100 a night no building to take care of or build lower taxes than land with a building less people to run the fort. Much lower upkeep lower power bills.

 

I am far from an expert on real estate development, but if a large campground was a big money maker, then we would see them everywhere.  We don't.

 

They can make much more money from a DVC resort on this land than they ever could from a campground.  Disney has the luxury of having plenty of land that they bought up cheap. Even so,  when a better opportunity comes along for the land the Fort sits on, the Fort will be gone in a heartbeat.  We had better hope Golden Oaks never takes off.  Golden Oaks II would fit nicely at the Fort.

 

TCD

[Grumpy and Grandma 739]

I am far from an expert on real estate development, but if a large campground was a big money maker, then we would see them everywhere. We don't.

There are where there is "high" seasonal tourist traffic. Myrtle Beach is one example. There are over 5 with over 500 sites. Here are 4 that I know of, KOA 500, APACHE 950, LAKEWOOD 2000, PIRATELAND 1500 SAN DIEGO has one on the BAY with 560. As we've traveled we've encountered many, 3 YOGI BEARS have over 500 sites. MACKINAC MILL CREEK 500, WISCONSIN DELLS has at least 1 with over 500 sites. Even SHERWOOD FOREST in KISSIMMEE has 500.

It's not just what they are making off the camping fees, it's also the tickets and incidentals. With the 10 people per site they are probably doing much better than what they make on the values.

[Avatab.... Steve 124]

It's not just what they are making off the camping fees, it's also the tickets and incidentals. With the 10 people per site they are probably doing much better than what they make on the values.

 

I agree that Disney probably does quite well with the Campground, especially considering the lack of any real upgrades they have made in years (downgrades would be more appropriate...)

 

I think they haven't expanded or built another campground because of attitude, not dollars.  I believe that current management doesn't get "campers", doesn't want anymore of them, and if it were up to them FW would never have been built in the first place.  They treat the place with a kind of benign neglect when possible. They don't know why anyone would ever come to their DVC paradise in an RV let alone a tent.....

 

It reminds me of that famous story of when Reagan was elected, a supposedly well-traveled journalist from New York was quoted as saying: "How could he possibly have won?, No one I know voted for him....!"

[brerroadrunner 8]

If Disney only wanted to seve to the high end folks in DVC, we woudn't have seen the Value resorts and the New Art of Animation. Here they answerred a need for family suites. Large families needed to get two rooms before ths resort. Yet it is still somewhat value priced, and more convenient then 2 rooms, also offering single rooms although limited. Disney would do a disservice to do away with the campground and they probalbly know it. It's been around since the 70s. I hate paying the same price as a Value resort with no structure, but I still love the campground. I've often wondered why they don't expand it, but if it is not sold out, year round, I guess that is why. If people still come even after the price increase, that's more profit and they will keep charging as long as thery get it.

[Daverene 14]

Fort wilderness was part of walts plan also

[Thinkie10 0]

When we were at the fort this winter for the holidays rumors said he was beginning the construction just after Polynesian will be finished.

[BradyBzLyn...Mo 2,023]

When we were at the fort this winter for the holidays rumors said he was beginning the construction just after Polynesian will be finished.

 

:welcome2:

 

 

That rumor has been kicking around a long time now, and continues to be perpetuated by the occasional CM at the Fort.

 

 

I've filed it in my "I'll believe it when the first shovel hits the ground" file. 

[diane+ not THAT monte 7]

All of the contributors of this EPIC thread are to be commended for going above and beyond . It is about a three hour read at this point . Thanks one and all.

[Tri-Circle-D 2,059]

Hey- here's something worth a look.

 

It's a computer animation showing the original proposed construction time-table of the River Country DVC.  Make sure you don't miss the beginning, which includes the new barn and dining pavilion.

 

If this had all gone according to the original plan, the project would have begun in 2011, and would be nearing completion now:

 

http://vimeo.com/59511876

 

TCD

[WannaBeImagineer 98]

Hey- here's something worth a look.

 

It's a computer animation showing the original proposed construction time-table of the River Country DVC.  Make sure you don't miss the beginning, which includes the new barn and dining pavilion.

 

If this had all gone according to the original plan, the project would have begun in 2011, and would be nearing completion now:

 

http://vimeo.com/59511876

 

TCD

 

Very Cool! 

 

Nice find, I wonder how that became public?

 

WBI

[FunFinder265....Cody 36]

Good reporting TCD. The overlays were great, but this really paints a good picture in my head of the plans. I agree with WBI, wonder how that became public?

[DaveInTN 3,247]

As much as I was against this project going back to 2010 or whenever it first came to light, the detailed plans you unearthed earlier this year convinced me that, despite the less than desirable impact to the Fort, it would be a pretty incredible resort.  And this little video doesn't change my mind.  Pretty cool stuff.  

[lightbikes 73]

That's amazing - do you think we (campers) would get to use the pool and exercise room?  Bet it would be gorgeous.

[DaveInTN 3,247]

That's amazing - do you think we (campers) would get to use the pool and exercise room? 

 

Survey Says?

 

[Beckers 1,136]

I thought this was "Dave's thread" lol

[lightbikes 73]

Oh well -  BIG SIGH - we can day dream

[LONE-STAR 370]

Nice find

[FunFinder265....Cody 36]

Survey Says?

 

Bingo!

[AC in A2......Aaron 693]

Looks sweet.....glad it hasn't broken ground.

[DaveInTN 3,247]

I wonder how much per point it would sell for?   :clint: