Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom I'm wrong and I admit it! I looked into my UDG book and found that the Villas at the Wilderness Lodge were not part of the original plan. The original plan called for the Wilderness Lodge ( which got built ) and as leemac and vonpluto have stated a resort which was to take the place of Ft Wilderness Campground. The new resort was to be called "Wilderness Junction". Guests would board a steam train at the Wilderness Lodge ( boarding was where the Villas at the Wilderness Lodge are located now ) which would then take them to the Wilderness Junction resort. WJ was to be a hotel/ shop complex "themed" like a wild west town. I'm so glad Disney didn't buy into this plan. All I can think of is the movie West World. First off, Disney already has DTD and Boardwalk. Why build another resort experience with dinning, shopping, nightlife on Disney property? Oh and I will absolutely post the blue prints. I did not find any proposed blue prints for the area which is now SSR. I will look more closely. I fogot how many buildings that UDG has built. Its amazing how many resemble the Wilderness Lodge.
Originally Posted By MPierce Thanks for the information on the FWRR vonpluto. Kennesaw Tom, I'm open for any new resort at WDW. I think the more choies we have, when it comes to resorts and dining, the better off we are.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 Two resorts were considered for the area and neither of them had a timeshare component. Neither was also going to replace Fort Wilderness. They were basically going to take the place of the Pioneer Hall/River Country area and the beautiful wilderness area between WL and FW ...thankfully, this never happened. I have no idea how it wouldn't have completely ruined/scarred the area.
Originally Posted By tonyanton I agree Spirit...this was one "Disney Decade" project I was glad to not see built. I also wonder what they would have stocked in the shops of this new area, seeing as they can't keep anything but generic Disney souvenirs in the shops of Frontierland.
Originally Posted By LadyandtheTramp "People could buy pre-paid days at the Disney resorts with the rate varying by resort. There would be a minimum number of days per year that could be purchased and a minimum number of years to the contract. You would essentially have DVC without the ownership component and you would be filling excess capacity in the Disney resorts" In concept,isn't this pretty much DVC, down to the fact that at DVC you don't get an ownership interest either?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<In concept,isn't this pretty much DVC, down to the fact that at DVC you don't get an ownership interest either?>> At DVC you do get an ownership interest for the duration of the contract. It specifies in the contract what percentage of your home resort you own.
Originally Posted By LadyandtheTramp "At DVC you do get an ownership interest for the duration of the contract. It specifies in the contract what percentage of your home resort you own." In my mind, that's not an ownership interest, it's a lease. Or a right to possession, but not ownership.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<In my mind, that's not an ownership interest, it's a lease. Or a right to possession, but not ownership.>> Well, I don't know all the legal hows or whys, but it is ownership. You are able to deduct mortgage interest and property taxes from your income taxes and that requires ownership. In fact you could not be charged property taxes unless you are an owner.
