I mean… sure.
Help me understand where all of these guests are going to go for fun and excitement during their stay…
Epic Universe?
Is there an assumption (or fact) that this will be part of the Fort Wilderness Cabin DVC association? That isn’t selling super well, is it? I think it’s hard nowadays to sell non-monorail or skyliner resorts as DVC.
There’s certainly a belief that it’s a possibility.
However the Cabins’ primary problem is the annual dues. And by adding this resort to the same association it might reduce them somewhat but they’ll still be higher than every other resort. The cabins have to be completely replaced after 25 years, no way round that.
It has the boat to MK. But not really the same. I hadn’t seen much on this when it was Reflections. If I was still thinking about DVC I would consider this resort. But I’d want to see the points chart and any restrictions first.
It would make sense that they incorporate this with the cabins. Might help them sell.
CCV was not an issue but it does not have any restrictions and it has some reasonable point charts.
I would not consider a resort with restrictions.
What do you mean by this? Sincere question.
We keep adding hotel capacity. More and more rooms all the time. Riviera, then the Poly Tower, and now this Tower
At the same time, we struggle with crowds
I don’t see how it will get better if we keep giving more and more people places to stay but not expanding park capacity?
Ah I see what you mean.
I don’t think we’ll get one-for-one additional guests vs. hotel rooms. More likely we will shift more guests from offsite to onsite, or from Value to Moderate, Moderate to DVC, etc. Perhaps it will be a little easier for owners to book desired times. They will have to build more / newer attractions to attract more people in total.
Oh that’s fair - I forget about the offsite plebs
The crowds at the parks don’t correlate to the number of onsite guests though.
Offsite guests still make up the majority of visitors to the parks.
Is this for sure?
I think that has always been the general concensus- that onsite visitors to the park is a much smaller percentage. Even if the resorts are 100% full, a lot of those people aren’t in the parks all day, or even at all every day of their stay. Ive seen this reported over the years.
I think Disney is just trying to capitalize on the DVC crowd and the Disney fan. The people that love Disney and will make a long term investment. These are the people that you dont have to pander to for future vacations because their spot is now secure with the sale of a DVC contract. Sometimes they are pass holders so that price is paid- often. And even if they just use the time with zero park visits, they will spend $$ somewhere. And Im sure the costs of that stay are already paid for. So Disney doesnt have a lot to lose… UNLESS the property doesnt sell. And we’re seeing that with other properties, arent we.
Some math:
Per Touring Plans, there are 36,000 rooms in Disney World hotels.
A good hotel occupancy rate is 85%. That means about 30,000 rooms are occupied at any given time.
Per a Google search, there are an average of 159,000 daily visitors to WDW. Half of that is about 80,000.
If Resort guests are half, that would imply 2.67 occupants per room on average, which seems about right. I doubt it’s much higher than that.
I think 2.67 people on average per room is low for a location like Disney. The demographics are so skewed to families. There are so many different room types with varying occupancy levels. Is there a way to know how many humans over the age of 3 disney can accommodate in the hotels vs how many physical rooms there are? I also recognize that the 2.67 is based on half of the people at the parks are on site guests, which is also a guesstimate. And the 159k visitors - that’s all 4 parks combined? That seems low also. Your math skills are spot on @Jeff_AZ, I’m just questioning the assumptions. It’s my inner auditor coming through 
In short @OBNurseNH we have actually no idea how many people that visit the parks are staying on site. And I agree with your concern that no matter how it’s sliced, there is not enough to do in the parks for all the people that go. They seriously need to stop mucking around and increase park capacity with more attractions.
I thought so too. But Disney is 
Your questions are valid, but all I can say is I think it’s plausible that half the guests are offsite. Not that I necessarily believe that is certainly the case. Maybe there is an article out there with hard stats.
FWIW if you use 3 as the average, that’s about 57% of guests being onsite. If you use 4, that gets 75%. I would guess it’s closer to 3 because there are likely more rooms with 1 or 2 people than 4 or 5. Also I’m not sure how suites are counted, but even those aren’t usually maxed out.
ETA: and if 159,000 is low, then all the percentages go down.
On the surface that seems logical, but I think that line of thinking really underestimates two fairly significant segments of hotel guests: A. convention guests, who often travel solo… this accounts for a large number of rooms at CR, CSR, GF, BW, BC/YC, and also Swolfin (if we’re counting those), and then B. adult couples who don’t have kids but are traveling with families that do… grandparents, aunts, uncles, adult children. That’s in addition to all of the adult couples who go for engagement/honeymoon/anniversay trips, and retirees who go with no kids. Then there are those of us who often travel as just one adult and one child, or just one adult solo.