View Full Version : "Golden Oak" Sales Begin Today
From today's Orlando Sentinel ~~
Disney begins pre-sales for luxury residential development
By Jason Garcia on June 23, 2010 at 7:35 am
Walt Disney World today begins pre-sales for homes in its “Golden Oak” residential development, a community of luxury homes being built on the northwest corner of the vast resort.
Prices for homes within exclusive enclave, which will be anchored by a Four Seasons luxury hotel, will range from $1.5 million to $8 million. The resort says it will put less than 30 sites for sale this year, though it projects Golden Oak will ultimately include approximately 450 homes.
Disney says interested buyers will have to make a refundable $25,000 deposit. Golden Oaks is being built on the former Disney’s Eagle Pines golf course.
The project is Disney’s most significant foray into residential development since it developed the town of Celebration. It will also serve a test of the appeal of luxury homes after a brutal slump – particularly in Central Florida – in home prices and sales.
...being built on the northwest corner of the vast resort...[snip]...on the former Disney’s Eagle Pines golf course.I may be losing it, but wasn't the Eagle Pines golf course on the Northeast corner?
diz_girl
06-23-2010, 09:31 AM
Ed - Thanks, thay's interesting to know. But one thing confuses me about the article. I thought that the new resort is going to be in the northeast corner of WDW, not northwest.
BrerGnat
06-23-2010, 02:35 PM
Good timing Disney. Right at the worst time for new home sales in recent history...
Is there REALLY a market for multi million dollar homes in the middle of Disney World???
I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Tygger7
06-23-2010, 03:08 PM
I tell you what....if I hit the lottery, I will be burning up the road to buy one of these houses! :bolt: It sounds like heaven on earth for a Disney-fanatic... :cloud9:
SallyP
06-23-2010, 04:17 PM
The development has it's own Disney website ...
Golden Oak at Disney (http://disneygoldenoak.disney.go.com/lifestyle/)
Good timing Disney. Right at the worst time for new home sales in recent history...
Is there REALLY a market for multi million dollar homes in the middle of Disney World???
I guess we'll find out soon enough.Absolutely, because by and large folks in the income bracket to purchase homes like these haven't been affected by the down economy to the extent that the rest of us have.
I've heard names of some of the folks buying in this area and trust me ... they all can and will afford it! :thumbsup:
ILoveLegos
06-24-2010, 12:04 AM
Quick questions - wasn't this tried before in the less than successful disney dream community of Celebration? I'm just wondering out of curiosity. Or is this just special because these are all upper-end homes instead of the apartment, condo, starter house, Mac-mansion, hotel mix like in Celebration?
Oh well, I'm definitely not in the market for another home, so my questions are merely for my inquiring mind. :blush:
I may be losing it, but wasn't the Eagle Pines golf course on the Northeast corner?
But one thing confuses me about the article. I thought that the new resort is going to be in the northeast corner of WDW, not northwest.
Somewhat typical of the Sentinel. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. ;)
Yes, it is in the northEAST corner of the property.
:thumbsup:
diz_girl
06-24-2010, 09:45 AM
Or is this just special because these are all upper-end homes instead of the apartment, condo, starter house, Mac-mansion, hotel mix like in Celebration?
You hit the nail on the head.
I went on the Golden Oaks Website and it mentions in-park benefits and a concierge to make dining reservations. I wouldn't be surprised if the Golden Oak buyers will not have to stand in line like hoi polloi. And I also wouldn't be surprised if the owners won't have to worry about CRT being booked either. Nothing against the future owners, it's just that I know that special privileges come with a price and they are fortunate enough to be able to pay it. I'd probaly do the same if I had their resources.
Quick questions - wasn't this tried before in the less than successful disney dream community of Celebration?I'm not really sure why you call Celebration "less-than-successful"?
The homes in Celebration are gorgeous and highly desirable. Just check the prices! DW and I looked into moving there way back in like 2001 and could have bought a typical single family home there for like $280. That same home today is probably worth at least double that, even in this down cycle for housing.
I think Celebration has been an unqualified success.
ILoveLegos
06-24-2010, 03:06 PM
I'm not really sure why you call Celebration "less-than-successful"?
Mainly because Disney bailed on it. There are forums that go into more details of why it's not the utopia it was meant to be though. Oh well, I still like visiting there from time to time.
Mainly because Disney bailed on it. There are forums that go into more details of why it's not the utopia it was meant to be though. Oh well, I still like visiting there from time to time.Well, but I mean a lot of people sort of interpreted that it would be a utopia and bought homes there, but really they were just buying into a planned community like any other. Maybe Disney stretched the pixie dust factor to make sales (shocking, I know! :eek: ), but at the end of the day it's just another place with a homeowner's association and a lot of rules.
That "misunderstanding" generated some bitterness which is why those sites exist. I don't think, by any stretch of the imagination though that Celebration was a failure. It went very, very well for Disney.
Joannelet
06-24-2010, 06:27 PM
I need to start buying lottery tickets :mickey:
MinnieMommie
06-24-2010, 06:37 PM
I agree with Ian in that the people who can afford to buy into this community (and the ones likely being marketed to) have not been hurt by the current economic crisis.
and...i like Celebration. I never can figure out the vehemence with which many respond to the mention of the town. I've talked to many college students who speak similarly about it. I'm wondering if there is a course or something where they are learning a perspective so negative.
anyway...I'm curious about the development of this new community and look forward to learning more. Thanks for the post ED.
Dixie Springs
06-24-2010, 06:43 PM
I bought one!!!
Just kidding. I can't even afford DVC, with kids in college and all. Strictly for well-heeled plastic surgeons, Saudi-royalty and Orlando Magic players in this phase.
I do agree with ILoveLegos on the Celebration Deja Vu. And though Celebration wasn't specifically promised to be a forever Disney utopia, that's why most people lined up to buy in. Now Disney is gone, leaving a generic, expensive HOA in their place. Yuck!
crltkcagle
06-24-2010, 06:58 PM
Ditto That!!!
I tell you what....if I hit the lottery, I will be burning up the road to buy one of these houses! :bolt: It sounds like heaven on earth for a Disney-fanatic... :cloud9:
VolMickey
06-26-2010, 10:43 AM
If I had the scratch, I'd definitely do it. Not sure I could ever get tired of living in the middle of WDW.
Imagineer1981
06-28-2010, 12:06 PM
i would so buy one...without blinking an eye if I had the money to do so.
PopPhan
06-28-2010, 01:27 PM
My question is: What are the yearly taxes on a $1.5M home on WDW property? Property taxes; School taxes; Per Capita taxes?
Gotta start planning and saving!! ;)
AHOTE
06-28-2010, 09:31 PM
My question is: What are the yearly taxes on a $1.5M home on WDW property? Property taxes; School taxes; Per Capita taxes?
Gotta start planning and saving!! ;)
On a property with an accessed value of $1,500000.00. Government and school taxes are listed at $21,981.00 for Orange County Bay Lake community but does not include taxes for the Reedy Creek Improvement District. :D Not surprisingly I couldn't locate a rate for RCID. :secret:
xo0ally
07-06-2010, 02:55 PM
i am completely hate the ideas of these homes. I think it runis what Disney is about and ruins the magic. I honestly don't get what Disney was thinking on this one. I don't want millionires walking around thinking they own Disney and can do what they please now that they live on Disney property. :mad:
TheRustyScupper
07-06-2010, 05:11 PM
1) I went over to put in my down payment.
2) Unfortunately, there wasn't a street name I liked.
3) Oh, well.
4) Maybe for the next multi-million-dollar development. *
* I am currently working on my second million dollars. I could earn the first, so I thought I'd skip to the second.
I don't want millionires walking around thinking they own Disney and can do what they please now that they live on Disney property. :mad:What is it you think they will do that will get you so upset?
xo0ally
07-07-2010, 03:10 PM
Get VIP treatment in Disney since they have $$. Cut lines, free fastpasses, no reservations at popular resturants etc.
TheDuckRocks
07-07-2010, 03:56 PM
I would think a few hundred very rich people in the parks scatted over the year would have much less impact than the huge, huge tour groups from Brazil and other countries running around like fiends trying to pack as much into a week as they can.
Daisy'sMom
07-07-2010, 07:05 PM
Get VIP treatment in Disney since they have $$. Cut lines, free fastpasses, no reservations at popular resturants etc.
I agree with everything you said. :mickey:
seanyred
07-07-2010, 10:48 PM
Get VIP treatment in Disney since they have $$. Cut lines, free fastpasses, no reservations at popular resturants etc.
don't multi-millionaires that come to the parks already receive that treatment?
Bethanymouse
07-07-2010, 10:54 PM
don't multi-millionaires that come to the parks already receive that treatment?
In essence, yes they do. They pay for the VIP tour and get right onto rides with no wait. i am sure they dont have to make ADR's either. We saw Duane Johnson, The Rock, on a trip two years ago. He was with his family and had a disney tour guide. They were a few seats ahead of us on the train. They had about 6 rows to themselves, no one was allowed to sit near them. When we got off the train we headed to Space Mt. They did too but walked right in. I assume to the front of the line. It didnt bother me at all though. I felt like it was appropriate otherwise he would have had people hassling him and his family for autographs. Now that is a celebrity example. But I am SURE that others pay for the VIP tours that are just rich.
Man, I wish I could do it!;)
BrerGnat
07-08-2010, 02:01 PM
Anyone with enough $$$ can get special treatment at WDW.
Celebrities PAY to get this stuff, but it's available to anyone with the money.
I frequently see families who have hired tour guides (personal ones) at DLR. They are often Japanese tourists from overseas...
Having an actual home on property will secure you the same VIP treatment, it's just "included" in the cost of your home.
There are already millionaires at WDW and DLR DAILY, and they pay for the treatment they get.
There are already millionaires at WDW and DLR DAILY, and they pay for the treatment they get.Exactly ... viewing WDW as some kind of oasis where everyone is magically made equal the minute they walk through the gates is quite delusional.
It's a business. The more money you have, the more perks you'll be able to buy just like anyplace else.
And I'm fine with that. Work hard, play hard.
Bethanymouse
07-09-2010, 11:05 PM
Exactly ... viewing WDW as some kind of oasis where everyone is magically made equal the minute they walk through the gates is quite delusional.
It's a business. The more money you have, the more perks you'll be able to buy just like anyplace else.
And I'm fine with that. Work hard, play hard.
Agreed- just wish it could be me!;)
Agreed- just wish it could be me!;)Ha ha ha ha ha ... trust me ... so do I!
Ya know, after thinking about it, I would not want one of those houses. If I had that kind of money, I'd rather spend a few weeks 3 or so times a year in a suite at a deluxe.
Ya know, after thinking about it, I would not want one of those houses. If I had that kind of money, I'd rather spend a few weeks 3 or so times a year in a suite at a deluxe.Honestly, if I had that kind of money I might live in a suite in a deluxe!
Figure it this way ... say an expensive suite is like $2,500 a night. If you stayed in one 365 days a year that would come to $912,500 a year. The mortgage on an $8 million house is roughly $800,000 a year. I think I'd pop for the extra $112,500 a year!
Tekneek
07-10-2010, 11:57 AM
The famous people who don't get hounded at WDW are the ones who don't act like they're famous. If they are acting like everyone else and dressed like everyone else, the few who think they recognize them assume it cannot be them and leave them alone.
ILoveLegos
07-10-2010, 12:30 PM
Honestly, if I had that kind of money I might live in a suite in a deluxe!
Figure it this way ... say an expensive suite is like $2,500 a night. If you stayed in one 365 days a year that would come to $912,500 a year. The mortgage on an $8 million house is roughly $800,000 a year. I think I'd pop for the extra $112,500 a year!
A suite would be a little cramped compared to the Mac-mansion. Also you'd be kicking in around previous guest's 'isms and sharing a pool. This kinda stuff can bother the super wealthy - they'd probably go for the new construction (in the exclusive neighborhood w/ the perks) - that they can 'make it their own' (within the imposed limitations of the HOA, of course). I don't think the super wealthy really need mortgages either, BTW - but for them thay are there for the asking! :)
Just guessing though, I'm just a regular gal, speculating about a lifestyle that is not my own!
TikiLounger
07-10-2010, 01:10 PM
I'm partial to the Tuscan Village Style Home. Quick...someone pinch me before I'm lost in a fantasyland...forever! Seriously, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. It would be a dream come true to live in Disney World.
BrerGnat
07-10-2010, 02:38 PM
Add me to the list of people who would SO buy one of these if I could. I can't imagine living anywhere better! :mickey:
Melanie
07-10-2010, 07:03 PM
The famous people who don't get hounded at WDW are the ones who don't act like they're famous. If they are acting like everyone else and dressed like everyone else, the few who think they recognize them assume it cannot be them and leave them alone.
Like John Smoltz just casually hanging outside Mission:Space a few months ago. It took us forever to finally confirm it was him. ;)
Tekneek
07-11-2010, 12:49 PM
The more I think about this, the worse it seems. I am not going to pretend that I have some special insight into what Walt Disney preferred to do, but I never got the impression that he wanted to build playgrounds for the rich.
I know the problem is with me, because it has been more than a few decades since Walt passed on and the company has clearly moved beyond the "What would Walt do?" dilemma.
Yeah same here ... definitely don't think this is what Walt had in mind for his "utopian society in Central Florida."
But today's Walt Disney Co. (at least in WDW, anyway) has clearly left Walt's ideals in the dust while they pursue massive profts.
BellesRose
07-11-2010, 02:15 PM
I don't know who would buy it in this economy. Yes, the billionaires obviously aren't that affected, but believe me, I know a few billionaires and they are watching every penny! Of course, I'm assuming Disney did major research and possibly even sold some before they even built them.
Tekneek
07-11-2010, 02:19 PM
Of course, I'm assuming Disney did major research and possibly even sold some before they even built them.
Have they built any? These are just pre-sales. There is no finished product.
BellesRose
07-13-2010, 07:32 PM
Have they built any? These are just pre-sales. There is no finished product.
Oops, could have sworn I saw pictures of one or two finished somewhere. Must have mixed it up with something else! :blush:
princessgirls
07-14-2010, 11:27 AM
It's nice to dream. YES, Disney will sell these! It's not a sticker shock to me, houses in my town go for this much (not mine...) My friend the orthodontist is interested....
I don't LOVE Central Florida...LOVE going to Disney, but don't like the area off the property lines.
Julie:mickey:
Flower
07-20-2010, 07:03 PM
My guess is that people who buy these homes will not be living there 24-7.
I could see a company buying one of these homes and using it for 'business' aka tax incentive.
Example: If there was a movie production going on in the area, they would house the celebrities or workers while they were on location - not saying that would be the only purpose for the homes, but I am sure quite a few of them would be utilized as such.
BrerGnat
07-21-2010, 11:54 AM
My guess is that people who buy these homes will not be living there 24-7.
I could see a company buying one of these homes and using it for 'business' aka tax incentive.
Example: If there was a movie production going on in the area, they would house the celebrities or workers while they were on location - not saying that would be the only purpose for the homes, but I am sure quite a few of them would be utilized as such.
I guarantee you that there is a clause in the HOA contract that forbids that. It's already known that the owners of these houses are NOT allowed to rent them out as vacation homes. I think they really want to preserve the integrity of this as a RESIDENTIAL neighborhood.
Tekneek
07-21-2010, 12:01 PM
I guarantee you that there is a clause in the HOA contract that forbids that. It's already known that the owners of these houses are NOT allowed to rent them out as vacation homes. I think they really want to preserve the integrity of this as a RESIDENTIAL neighborhood.
Apparently, Disney has already revealed that longer term rentals of 6 months or more will be allowed. Additionally, there is probably nothing that prevents an executive from buying it and letting people stay there when they would otherwise be in the area. I know of executives of companies that owned residential locations, from houses to condos, in various areas and would let employees arrange to stay in them when in those areas. That wouldn't classify as rentals, in the legal/traditional sense, and aren't so widespread that any regulations are likely to disallow it. This was a nice perk for those employees who could take advantage of it, and the executive got to have the place occupied more often.
BrerGnat
07-21-2010, 04:22 PM
Well, long term rentals in excess of 6 months would really qualify as residential rentals anyway. What they don't want is the houses being used as vacation rentals, where a new family moves in every week, and utilizes the amenities/perks that, strictly speaking, don't belong to them.
I'm not sure how they could control certain aspects of the home ownership experience, except to note that, truly, they can make whatever rules they want, in order to protect the OTHER residents of the community. They can certainly make it so that only the homeowner him/herself will have access to any perks, as easy as providing photo i.d. cards that have to be shown in order to access those amenities/perks. Sure, anyone *could* stay at the homes, but what use is that if they cannot access the communities perks? I'm sure they will simply make it very difficult for non residents (in the traditional sense) to feel "at home" there.
Aurora
07-22-2010, 04:18 PM
I'm not a purist in the literal sense, and of course I would love to live in Disney World, but there is one thing about this project that bothers me.
It's this: I hate the fact that the company is developing and selling off Walt Disney World land to multimillionaires for the sole purpose of making millions, possibly billions if it's successful, of dollars for the company. I think it's a really bad precedent, smacking of greed and short-sightedness. And before everyone pooh-poohs me and declares that Disney is a business after all, there to make money and not some public utopia or charity, IMHO there is a way to brand your company successfully, and this isn't it.
To sum it up, this just makes me feel yucky about Disney.
BrerGnat
07-22-2010, 09:54 PM
I'm not a purist in the literal sense, and of course I would love to live in Disney World, but there is one thing about this project that bothers me.
It's this: I hate the fact that the company is developing and selling off Walt Disney World land to multimillionaires for the sole purpose of making millions, possibly billions if it's successful, of dollars for the company. I think it's a really bad precedent, smacking of greed and short-sightedness. And before everyone pooh-poohs me and declares that Disney is a business after all, there to make money and not some public utopia or charity, IMHO there is a way to brand your company successfully, and this isn't it.
To sum it up, this just makes me feel yucky about Disney.
If those Millions and possibly Billions of dollars are turned into new park attractions, resorts, or other amenities for YOUR enjoyment, will you feel the same?
I'm simply curious. Your feelings are certainly warranted, and I mean no disrespect to your opinion.
Tekneek
07-22-2010, 11:07 PM
If those Millions and possibly Billions of dollars are turned into new park attractions, resorts, or other amenities for YOUR enjoyment, will you feel the same?
That's a bit of straw man. You have no knowledge that any of the revenue from this would be put back into Walt Disney World.
Aurora
07-22-2010, 11:46 PM
If those Millions and possibly Billions of dollars are turned into new park attractions, resorts, or other amenities for YOUR enjoyment, will you feel the same?
I'm simply curious. Your feelings are certainly warranted, and I mean no disrespect to your opinion.
Hmmm, I've given that question some thought, and bottom line, yes, I honestly would feel the same. The reason is that once the land is gone, it's gone. It's not like they can buy it back later and develop it for guests. And I'm worried about the precedent.
If this is successful, what about, for instance, the expanse of land between the Magic Kingdom and Epcot? Will we someday be gazing down at hundreds of high-priced privately owned homes between the parks instead of woods? Will we still feel we're entrenched in a separate vacation world or will it wind up being what Disney was trying to get away from in California and the very reason he built WDW in the first place -- overdevelopment?
To me, there isn't an attraction, park, resort or amenity in the world that would justify that. And given the dollars involved in the current venture, I'm not so sure that such a scenario is a stretch.
I have to say that, even as a die-hard capitalist, I pretty much feel the same way Aurora does. This makes me feel sort of "yucky" about Disney.
It's one thing to provide housing opportunities near your theme parks ... that I could sort of live with ... but to me it's another thing entirely to essentially build a playground for the rich right in your backyard.
I know that money buys privilege and I'm basically fine with that, but there's just something about the overtness of this and the fact that it is, after all, Disney that really rubs me the wrong way. For some reason, I really expect Disney not to stoop to cheap, tawdry money grabs like this.
BrerGnat
07-23-2010, 11:40 AM
That's a bit of straw man. You have no knowledge that any of the revenue from this would be put back into Walt Disney World.
That's why I said IF. I have no knowledge, you are right. I was just providing a hypothetical. Mostly because people (NOT Aurora specifically) like to moan and groan about how Disney should spend more money to improve the parks, add more attractions, etc. But, then when an opportunity arises where Disney's goal is to MAKE MORE MONEY, people jump all over it as a "money grab". So, I just wonder where the money is supposed to come from?
Personally, I'd rather it come from the billionaires who HAVE it to hand over than from MY pocket in the way of raised prices for anything and everything Disney.
This whole thing doesn't bother me in the least. This development is on a patch of land that resort guests never even see, for the most part. It's not like they are building beach front condos on Seven Seas Lagoon or Bay Lake, which WOULD sort of bother me. As long as it remains unseen, I think its fine. And, more power to those people who can afford to buy in. I'm sure it's going to be a beautiful development.
Tekneek
07-23-2010, 11:51 AM
Mostly because people (NOT Aurora specifically) like to moan and groan about how Disney should spend more money to improve the parks, add more attractions, etc. But, then when an opportunity arises where Disney's goal is to MAKE MORE MONEY, people jump all over it as a "money grab". So, I just wonder where the money is supposed to come from?
Existing operations. Over the past 10 years maintenance has been cut, attractions have been shuttered and not replaced, attractions have been copied between resorts, and rates have gone up (pretty much across the board) at almost twice the rate of inflation. Where is all that money going?
Personally, I'd rather it come from the billionaires who HAVE it to hand over than from MY pocket in the way of raised prices for anything and everything Disney.
For some, there are values that are not driven solely by the dollars. Granted, we may get caught up in the "magic" of a Disney-era gone by and wish the current company still had those same values. For what it's worth, I expect all the prices to continue to go up faster than inflation, even if Golden Oak sells out quickly. I would even wager that we won't see any evidence of that money being used to improve the experience at Walt Disney World. That's how confident I am that this won't have a positive impact on the experience for anyone that isn't buying into the community.
Tekneek
07-23-2010, 12:28 PM
I thought I would add that I continually see the "Disney is a business, after all" line used to explain away criticisms. However, I think it is important to point out that it was ALWAYS a business.
Instead of "Disney is a business" being used to explain away the criticisms, it should actually be reinforcing the criticisms. If Disney, always being a business, was able to survive while staying true to stronger concepts, beliefs, and values, before, then it is a cop-out to claim that being a business today requires the abandonment of those values. It is a choice the executives in the company are making, not something they have to do.
PopPhan
07-23-2010, 01:05 PM
That's how confident I am that this won't have a positive impact on the experience for anyone that isn't buying into the community.
BUT, will it have a NEGATIVE impact -- NO! You won't see the development unless you are looking for it; there won't be special transportation within the parks for these 'owners'; there won't be special lounges for these 'owners' in the parks (although some sponsor companies already have special lounges within the parks); this isn't property that was planned for new park development; it wasn't sold off to another company to develop on their own...
What is the big deal? I'm reading a whole lot of 'knee jerk reactions' but not a lot of reasonable reasons for Disney NOT to do this. Unused land that they are paying taxes on.....
Tekneek
07-23-2010, 01:16 PM
What is the big deal? I'm reading a whole lot of 'knee jerk reactions' but not a lot of reasonable reasons for Disney NOT to do this. Unused land that they are paying taxes on.....
I suppose it depends on whether you think judging the actions of the company today in comparison to Walt's values and beliefs are reasonable or not. Clearly the company feels it is better to attach this project to Walt, by their choice of name. By doing so, they make it an issue, and I'm not the only one who thinks it doesn't stand up. There is nothing innovative about it. There is nothing ground breaking about it. What frontier are they pushing with this? If they are so anxious to put people on the property, why not at least attempt to employ some EPCOT concepts? Instead, this will be a luxury development, not unlike the kinds you will find all over the land. It won't be a prototype community to test out new methods, at least from anything I have read about it. That is why it is regarded as nothing more than a cash grab from a company that seems to have lost any desire to push new frontiers. They are content to go around recreating the same things over and over.
BrerGnat
07-23-2010, 01:36 PM
I suppose it depends on whether you think judging the actions of the company today in comparison to Walt's values and beliefs are reasonable or not.
This is a valid point.
My stance on it is that, yes it is unreasonable. It has been almost 50 years since Walt passed away. The company has evolved over that time, and has lost ALL ties to its founder (in the way of actual blood relatives being in charge of anything substantial in the company). Every new CEO, President, Vice President, etc. has his/her own ideas about what the Disney company should be. We have to, at some point, abandon OUR wishes (and our sense of "what would Walt have wanted") and allow these people to take the reigns and hopefully, steer the company in a direction that is at least mostly consistent with what had been established in the past. The problem is that mistakes have been made, and the best way to fix them lies with the current people in charge.
Walt never even saw WDW finished. To try to guess what he "would have wanted to do" is futile. No one but WALT knew, truly, how his own mind operated, and what ambitions he had. I can assure you, as a boy who grew up quite poor, he was intent on making money in the long run. Perhaps his dreams in the early years (and his constant state of financial burden, bankruptcy, etc.) was because his dreams were not in line with the economic reality of the time. He was constantly being put "in check" by his brother, the "money man."
What Walt would have wanted, then, probably would have ALWAYS been more than what he could reasonably attain.
I think this idea of a residential community ON WDW property is just about as close to the original EPCOT idea as we will get. The bottom line is, EPCOT in its ORIGINAL form would have never worked, as much as Walt believed in it. The execution of something like that would have been fraught with logistical problems, the least of which is the invasion of privacy that residents would have felt, being showcased in the middle of what is otherwise a VACATION destination.
This development, as mentioned, is being placed on land that was not being used (nor had future plans) for anything else. It is tucked away from guest areas. The WDW plots of land available for future development are still numerous and spacious enough to support several projects. They are not taking the LAST plot of land that is empty and turning it into a "cash cow". They are taking ONE plot of land to do so.
Tekneek
07-23-2010, 01:43 PM
I think this idea of a residential community ON WDW property is just about as close to the original EPCOT idea as we will get.
Given the lack of any significant similarity, that must be a way of saying it was never going to happen. If this isn't just a cash grab, then what is it? If you're ok with them doing it just for the money, then it is ok to admit it. If it is more than that, then what other goal is being accomplished? What innovative concept are they going to be implementing?
Also, for a company that has turned its back on Walt, they made sure they wrapped this thing up in as much Walter E. Disney goodness as they possibly could with the names they used. Guess they aren't beyond trying to put his stamp of approval on these kinds of things. They must feel it will help them move property.
We also know enough from Walt that he very much disliked repeating himself. He was always looking for the next thing to tackle. I find it hard to believe he would've thought the company has made the best use of the Florida property.
Aurora
07-23-2010, 10:38 PM
It has been almost 50 years since Walt passed away. The company has evolved over that time, and has lost ALL ties to its founder (in the way of actual blood relatives being in charge of anything substantial in the company). Every new CEO, President, Vice President, etc. has his/her own ideas about what the Disney company should be. We have to, at some point, abandon OUR wishes (and our sense of "what would Walt have wanted") and allow these people to take the reigns and hopefully, steer the company in a direction that is at least mostly consistent with what had been established in the past.
I absolutely agree that any question of "what would Walt do" is and will continue to be irrelevant, for the reasons already stated (decades later, WDW is not what Walt originally planned anyway, etc.). But I like Tekneek's point that what has worked for the company in the past, and specifically for the Disney brand and WDW, is innovation.
It's interesting that the biggest growth in the company's travel/resort/theme park area in the last 10 years has been in development of ownership real estate -- i.e. the Disney Vacation Club resorts. The Golden Oak development fits into this growth category.
So I wonder whether overall, the Disney company is looking at real estate as the long-term key to growth in the theme park division (as opposed to a 5th gate or innovation in its existing parks). If so, that is a major break from what has been established in the past, even without Walt around.
BrerGnat
07-24-2010, 12:00 AM
If you're ok with them doing it just for the money, then it is ok to admit it. If it is more than that, then what other goal is being accomplished? What innovative concept are they going to be implementing?
I am okay with it. I admit it. I thought I made that clear.
As for innovation, no telling yet. We don't know anything about these homes. They might be the most innovative new homes in America. Or not. Time will tell.
Tekneek
07-24-2010, 05:38 AM
I am okay with it. I admit it. I thought I made that clear.
As for innovation, no telling yet. We don't know anything about these homes. They might be the most innovative new homes in America. Or not. Time will tell.
I thought you were upset about it being called a "cash grab." Maybe I confused you wIth someone else.
Perhaps they will be, but I certainly did not get that feeling from the materials available now. Everything about it sounds like the sort of luxury home community you might find ten times over in a large metropolitan area, just with the perks tied to WDW instead of just a country club.
I sort of always take issue with the notion that "we have no idea what Walt would have wanted or would have done."
Walt Disney's life and approach to business is pretty much an open book there for the reading. His life has been chronicled over and over again by numerous highly credible sources, including many who spent significant time with the man himself. It's pretty clear what his approach to business was ... give people the highest quality experience possible for a reasonable price and they'll be loyal to you forever.
Walt once said he'd never charge more than a dime for a cup of coffee in Disneyland because that's all a cup of coffee was worth. Now obviously if he was still alive they'd be charging more than a dime, but that's not the point. It's the principle that matters.
My main issue with this development is that it's intended for the ultra-rich only. That is most definitely not in keeping with the purported values and mission of the Walt Disney Company and it is absolutely not something that Walt would have supported.
You can argue all you want, but that's about as close to a fact as you can get. Again ... if you don't believe me, read about the man. It will become clear very quickly.
PirateLover
07-24-2010, 11:32 AM
I think that there is enough info out there to have intelligent discussions on what Walt would've wanted. Of course no one can say for 100% certainty but there's nothing wrong with conjecture. That being said, I think the current Walt Disney Corporation moved beyond Walt's vision a long time ago, so in that sense it can be a fruitless endeavor. Fun to speculate though.
As for my personal opinion on these homes, if I was blessed enough to have the money, I'd get in on it. Do I think it's in line with Walt's original vision? No. But it doesn't really bother me too much, or at least I should say I'm not surprised. Money is what talks in this world, I learned that a looong time ago.
BrerGnat
07-24-2010, 11:51 AM
Well said, Maryanne! I agree with you 100%. I think there is nothing wrong with asking the question "What would Walt have done", if it's truly asked in a hypothetical and fun manner, but some people really take issue with this sort of thing, and get really angry.
And, I think being upset that this is a "playground for the rich" just shows jealousy, mostly. I think most of us wouldn't mind in the least being a billionaire, and being able to buy into this development in a heartbeat. I just wonder how people would feel if it was a "playground for the middle class" instead. Still upset by it? The truth is, this is going to be a small development. The name of the game is "Exclusivity". I'd love to live on a house on the beach too, but that's not happening either. Am I mad that the "ultra rich" can afford these houses? No. Do I wish I could? You bet!
Tekneek
07-24-2010, 12:30 PM
And, I think being upset that this is a "playground for the rich" just shows jealousy, mostly. I think most of us wouldn't mind in the least being a billionaire, and being able to buy into this development in a heartbeat.
In all honesty, unless I owned so many homes that I couldn't keep count, I would be more discerning about it and not making the emotional purchase. I would be concerned about locking in the extra perks and services. I would be concerned about the covenants and who controls them going forward. The future value of the property may depend on Disney staying committed to this, so there would need to be more than a "subject to change at any time" approach to it. Since the building of the homes requires contracting directly with someone on their list of approved builders, that part would be subject to review and investigation as well.
If you look at the website itself, it is full of lots of "subject to change" legalise. It also stresses how the Four Seasons is only proposed and may not actually be built (taking away some of the "perks" if it never actually gets built).
So, aside from my concerns about whether the company should even consider such a venture, there are other concerns I would have to reconcile if I was seriously entertaining the opportunity.
Ha ha ... so okay, let me clarify what I said about it being a playground for the rich.
In almost 99% of cases, I'm perfectly fine with playgrounds for the rich. I just don't think that Disney World is the place for one, that's all I meant.
BrerGnat
07-25-2010, 11:37 AM
Ha ha ... so okay, let me clarify what I said about it being a playground for the rich.
In almost 99% of cases, I'm perfectly fine with playgrounds for the rich. I just don't think that Disney World is the place for one, that's all I meant.
Well, the argument *could* be made that WDW, as a whole IS a "playground for the rich." ;) Just ask someone who is on welfare or living in a housing project exactly how many trips he/she has taken to WDW.
"Rich" is very subjective...
Well, the argument *could* be made that WDW, as a whole IS a "playground for the rich." ;) Just ask someone who is on welfare or living in a housing project exactly how many trips he/she has taken to WDW.
"Rich" is very subjective...While that may be true, I can 100% guarantee you that the number of people who can afford to visit WDW is thousands of times larger than the number of people who can afford a $2.5 million house. ;)
TheRustyScupper
07-26-2010, 01:01 PM
To try to guess what he "would have wanted to do" is futile.
Angel #1: "I heard Walt was here."
Angel #2: "Yep, but I haven't recognized him."
Angel #1: "I thought he said he would turn over in his grave if they ever put in carnival rides or housing except for normal people at his parks?"
Angel #2: "Ohhhh. You mean Pinwheel Walt! He's just over there!"
NJGIRL
07-28-2010, 01:49 PM
If this is successful, what about, for instance, the expanse of land between the Magic Kingdom and Epcot? Will we someday be gazing down at hundreds of high-priced privately owned homes between the parks instead of woods? Will we still feel we're entrenched in a separate vacation world or will it wind up being what Disney was trying to get away from in California and the very reason he built WDW in the first place -- overdevelopment?
To me, there isn't an attraction, park, resort or amenity in the world that would justify that. And given the dollars involved in the current venture, I'm not so sure that such a scenario is a stretch.
I have to agree with this and I am a little surprised more people don't. So many times I hear the agrument to staying on site is to immerse in Disney and leave the real world behind. Now we have the real world slowly creeping into the resorts boundries. I also agree that if this is a success this type of thing will happen again. Will they sell ? That I am not sure of for two reasons. Orlando was just listed as a city that will not rebound from the housing crash by the "experts". The second and in my mind more important reason. Most rich people I know personally have no interest in going to Disney. They prefer more exotic destinations with bragging rights that goes with them. When they sink that kind of money into a second home waterfront property is usually on the top on their list.
I have to agree with this and I am a little surprised more people don't. So many times I hear the agrument to staying on site is to immerse in Disney and leave the real world behind. Now we have the real world slowly creeping into the resorts boundries. I also agree that if this is a success this type of thing will happen again.I agree on this point completely.
Will they sell ? That I am not sure of for two reasons. Orlando was just listed as a city that will not rebound from the housing crash by the "experts". The second and in my mind more important reason. Most rich people I know personally have no interest in going to Disney. They prefer more exotic destinations with bragging rights that goes with them. When they sink that kind of money into a second home waterfront property is usually on the top on their list.Mmmm ... I think you may be underestimating the appeal of Disney World with the wealthy. Disney fills $3,000 a night suites routinely at their deluxe resorts. There's an appetite for luxury accomodations in Disney World to be sure.
In addition, I can't imagine a better investment than owning a house on Disney World property. If the properties in Celebration are any indication, their value will climb into the stratosphere.
And bear in mind that the collapse of the Orlando real estate market has not (by and large) affected prices in Celebration.
Mickey91
08-02-2010, 11:36 AM
Hmmm, I've given that question some thought, and bottom line, yes, I honestly would feel the same. The reason is that once the land is gone, it's gone. It's not like they can buy it back later and develop it for guests. And I'm worried about the precedent.
If this is successful, what about, for instance, the expanse of land between the Magic Kingdom and Epcot? Will we someday be gazing down at hundreds of high-priced privately owned homes between the parks instead of woods? Will we still feel we're entrenched in a separate vacation world or will it wind up being what Disney was trying to get away from in California and the very reason he built WDW in the first place -- overdevelopment?
To me, there isn't an attraction, park, resort or amenity in the world that would justify that. And given the dollars involved in the current venture, I'm not so sure that such a scenario is a stretch.
With the greed of Disney execs, it seems possible doesn't it? Once that happens, my vacation location will change. I hope the rich residents will be able to keep the execs pockets lined.
NJGIRL
08-02-2010, 03:00 PM
I think you may be underestimating the appeal of Disney World with the wealthy. Disney fills $3,000 a night suites routinely at their deluxe resorts. There's an appetite for luxury accomodations in Disney World to be sure.
I'm not saying that weathy people don't go to Disney, I guess what I am trying to say is that the wealthy that I personally know only go once in a while for the mandatory trip to please the kids. It's not something they enjoy doing and try to avoid it was much as possible. Boca seems like the big place people around here invest in along with other beach front properties. I am definately not an expert when it comes to real estate so I am just taking a guess from what I see the rich people in my area doing. Disney for them is "too much work" with "too many people there" for them to enjoy themselves.
I'm not saying that weathy people don't go to Disney, I guess what I am trying to say is that the wealthy that I personally know only go once in a while for the mandatory trip to please the kids. It's not something they enjoy doing and try to avoid it was much as possible. Boca seems like the big place people around here invest in along with other beach front properties. I am definately not an expert when it comes to real estate so I am just taking a guess from what I see the rich people in my area doing. Disney for them is "too much work" with "too many people there" for them to enjoy themselves.Yea, but we're only talking about 30 houses for now, and probably they will only build in 30 house stages, seeing how sales go, up to a max of 450. I think they can find 30 or so rich Disney lovers.
diz_girl
08-02-2010, 05:17 PM
Does anyone else find it a little ironic that the soon-to-be most expensive place to stay at WDW (Golden Oak) will be located next to the least expensive WDW resort (FW)?
Just checked the updated pics at Google earth and you can definitely see evidence of ground disturbance and even some street construction at Osprey Ridge. I don't know if that is for Golden Oak or for the Four Seasons resort, but I'm assuming that it's for one of the two.
The folks buying these places are not the kind of people who buy one vacation home somewhere. These are folks with virtually endless supplies of cash who will buy one just for the status of it.
Tekneek
08-06-2010, 01:50 PM
I think I drove by the site while down there last week. If that is indeed it, I hope they do a great job with the landscaping, else the whole thing is really going to look out of place. Personally, I'm hoping we won't be able to see any of the structures from outside.
TheVBs
08-06-2010, 03:13 PM
I have to say, the idea of selling off Disney property to private buyers, of any income level, makes me feel queasy. Although I assume that's what Celebration is. I have to admit that I know nothing about Celebration. I also have to admit that this is primarily an emotional reaction.
If this housing community does provide the means to improve the park experience for everyone then, certainly, that would be nice.
But we definitely go for the immersion factor and if anything took away from that it would make me sad.
Tekneek
08-07-2010, 09:10 AM
The difference is that Celebration is sort of out of the way, isn't it?
Based on where I recall seeing the Golden Oak signage, I think it is just down the road from Port Orleans. If they are not hidden back behind trees and such, they may stand out to anyone regularly in that section of the property. I can't honestly say that I look forward to that sight.
KAT1811
08-11-2010, 11:09 AM
I'm not saying that weathy people don't go to Disney, I guess what I am trying to say is that the wealthy that I personally know only go once in a while for the mandatory trip to please the kids. It's not something they enjoy doing and try to avoid it was much as possible.
:ditto:
Exactly! I know VERY few wealthy people that travel to WDW. Most swear they'll never go, it just isn't their "thing". If they do it is once in a lifetime to say they did it and they swear they will never go back again! So many of our firends tell us we are nuts for the money we spend traveling to WDW. We have four children and go every year at least once. For us we love it. For the rest of our friends they are busy traveling to Hawaii, Europe, the Caribbean, and the rest of the world with the kids and quite often their nanny or they just leave the kids home with the nanny.
magicofdisney
08-11-2010, 12:39 PM
I know VERY few wealthy people...
:thumbsup: ;) (I could probably sum up with this borrowed statement)
I'm thinking the wealthy that may buy into this experience are more along the lines of celebrities. Maybe I'm wrong, but there are quite a few that go to Disney (somewhat regularly) with their kids. Since the number of homes is limited, the exclusivity coincides with many egoistical personalities that would hold an interest, anyway.
KAT1811
08-11-2010, 01:20 PM
:thumbsup: ;) (I could probably sum up with this borrowed statement)
You couldn't be more wrong! ;)
kageese
08-18-2010, 01:14 PM
I also had a bad "yucky" feeling about this decision. Especially considering the times we are in. Seems like another slap in the face to the "regular Joe".
I think the money would have been better spent on smaller more affordable vacation homes you can actually purchase versus the DVC time-share thing.
I think Disney lacks in the suites/larger family/affordability area of the resorts.
I hear so many families opt to stay off property because they can't find the right accommodations on-site. They are missing out on the full on-site experience of it all. I think Disney then misses out on more spending dollars because these families are not on-site as long.
I'm thinking the wealthy that may buy into this experience are more along the lines of celebrities.You're absolutely correct. Every name I've heard thus far that's bought one of these or is considering purchasing one has been a name you'd all know. Pro athletes, actors, actresses, etc.
These will be purchased, for the most part, as a status symbol. The rest will go to wealthy folks who also happen to be Disney fans.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.