Poly2 Part Of Existing Polynesian DVC

We will not be interested in studios unless it is a trip with just two people. And when we do book those, will likely book the original studios since they definitely have the two showers which we use. Mostly will probably look at one or two bedrooms. Given I see two bathrooms in a one bedroom, we may just stick with one bedrooms for the three of us. We are actually doing a one-bedroom for four nights in March. It will be at Riviera which means just one bathroom. So we'll see how we do with one bathroom for three people but it will give us a feel for space too.


Again I don't understand why people think it was left open to interpretation. She answered the question about the association. If she had said it in a way that left someone to question, the board that was up there would have corrected her. I honestly don't understand why people think it's ambiguous.

Let's be real, that question was likely a plant and they knew they needed to have it answered soon. Given they had nothing really big else to share with us, this was their only news that was really fun to give to us. They intentionally left it to the end.

But moving on from that, yes they can always change. However from the very beginning there have been clues that they wanted this the same association. Cast members when told about the expansion, they were told that it was an expansion and not a solo new build. Nothing was announced, and everything can change. But even the wording I got from Josh D'Amaro hinted nothing less. Also having the cabins stated flat out as a separate association, gave a final clue.

However honestly, I'm tired of the arguments so I'll back out now.

Re: the bolded. For me it’s ambiguous because the reply was “our plans right now are for the new tower to be part of the existing Polynesian resort." 

That’s all. Are they thinking there could be a push-back from the Florida timeshare regulatory body? I don’t know. But it’s been quoted and people have noticed. Could be something or nothing. And certainly not an argument. 

You're misunderstanding what I am saying on this. There are people who are stating that the main part of her answer itself was ambiguous. Not the portion where she said yes it could change, but the fact that they don't believe she stated it was part of the same Resort association. That's all.

Again, things can change, but at this point? Knowing that this has seemingly always been the plan to be one association, as an extension of the current, I sincerely doubt it would change. Something big would have to happen to make it change. But that's separate from what I was talking about.


I think 2026 we would see changes. The truthfully, I think they've been planning this for a couple of years and have made some changes knowing that this will affect the Polynesian studios and bungalows they currently have. Looking at the point charts for VGF I expect many of the rooms to be in line with what we see over there. I do think we will see some higher point costs for some rooms if the views are as nice as I think they will be calling them theme park view. But I can't really even want to do an educated guess yet because the walkway is gone and it's hard to really get a feel of what the views might be in the end. I would not be surprised if we see BLT designations for room types.

Maybe I should have let you,
Apperently, I cant spell check or communicate in english from my phone.....
I think they made the statement to see what people would do..... or didnt have a great answer.
My guide played it down, but what else could he do without a POS...

But assuming it ends up being a new assciation the state will be something to the effective of 
"due to member demand we changed to a new assciation" or 
"we said it would be part of the poly village, but never said it would be part of the bungalows and suites" ..... or whatever the poly DVC is called now

If taken out if context maybe I'd follow. But the way it was asked and where & when asked? Nope. To me it's reaching to ignore the conversation as a whole. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a subtext that things can change. If you personally believe it's ambiguous, I'm sorry if I sounded rude. I was speaking to the others I saw elsewhere. If you do, it does mean same association. It's going to take a huge change outside of Disney's control to change at this point. Remember they decided about 2 years ago now when the plans were being made (and this was in the works long before announced. And was part of the original plans in the early 2010s)

I suppose I'm most shocked some people are fighting to prove otherwise. Some I assume are just upset they guessed wrong and don't want to admit it. Wound up having to block someone because they were getting nasty. It was surreal the crazy levels it got.

Unless maybe these people didn't want PVB expansion to occur and wanted nothing to do with bungalows maybe and they're lashing out? I'm just aghast at the nastiness I saw yesterday and this morning about it. My understanding though is one forum in particular was nasty to anyone who disagreed and thought it would be same association, but I don't post there to confirm. I assume the social posts that were nasty likely were cross posters.

They decided this years ago before they announced it was even being built. There were many clues pointing to this if you knew where to look

Seems like a really strange way for DVC to annouce a new resort.
Even more so concidering the guides are backing away from the statement...
But either way, I had all but decided to go in another direction before the "release" and this sealed it for me.....
However, opens more questions than it answers .

Well if this is true, It should function to drive the resale points at RR down to sub-100

Ill buy RR instead....

If this is how Disney will release information moving forward, I have no use in buying any more direct points.

And if they are just testing the waters here, I think they are going to upset a lot of people.