Originally Posted By Bluefusion I have loved the Contemporay Hotel since I was 14 yo. And all these yrs have wanted to stay there. I did stay in '91 for 3 days . But it wasnt what I expected. The room were not up to what I was expecting. I was hoping to stay next yr in the tower for me and my partnes anniversary due to knowing that they had been renovated . I made my reservations and then woke up to that it wasn't worth spending overr 2 grand to stay for 4 days. I rather have the money to have fun and by souveniers. Best thing is I can stay at Marriot 5 star resort for less than $100.00 per night. My partner works for them. Gee Disney has ruined another dream due to their over priced Disney experiance. I will always love Disney World. I have been going every yr since 1982, more than 30 times. But this is just stupid. Maybe when I win the lottery I can afford my Disney Dream !
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Well, it's hard to discern much from your post except that you think their prices are high. You didn't say what time of year or if you used a travel agent or what the price included. We stayed a week at the Contemporary Nov/Dec of last year for around 2K, and that included park admissions.
Originally Posted By dshyates Check out the "buy them tix now" thread for another spirited discussion on Disney's cost prohibitivity.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN I was lucky to stay at the Contemporary back in 1974, 76, and 79... in the days when the Contemprary Hotel ruled at WDW. I loved staying there and it was because of it that I am such a Disney freak now. However, I have also fallen out of love for the Contemporary since they so regretably damaged the integrity of the complex, plopping that ugly Convention center in the parking lot, changing the decor to a very generic italian fu-fu style, and now... with the coming of the DCV tall tower further killing the look of the hotel, I will like it even less... if at all. My advise to all is to go to the nicer hotels on property.. Wilderness Lodge of DAKL.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Best thing is I can stay at Marriot 5 star resort for less than $100.00 per night. My partner works for them>> I don't know that there is any property in Orlando that is 5-star, 5-diamond quality ... but the Ritz Carlton and J.W. Marriott Grande Lakes would come closest. And if you can stay at those for under $100 or even the Marriott OWC, I have no clue why you'd ever pay more for a Disney resort. A typical airport Marriott delivers a more consistently 4-star experience than most Disney deluxe resorts do.
Originally Posted By Bluefusion It's not the cost thing really. Well maybe it i. But lets get reasonable here. $500.00 a night in May of '08. Plus the cost of tickets for 2. Plus money for food and other things. I was willing to pay $300.00 a night in '91 But i was young and stupid and had lots of credit cards. Yeah if the doc told me i was gonna die in a year I would do it. But It.s just Disney World and as said before i have spent alot of time and money there and still enjoy it .It's just getting stupid to pay that kind of money. And I agree with TDLFAN it lost its magic after the convention center was put in. Maybe the Poly would be a good bet. Actually the best time stay I had was when i stayed 10 days camping at Fort Wilderness in '97. No phones or TV. Just a peaceful kind of feeling knowing I could do the hustle and bustle of the parks and actually rest when i came back to camp. Oh and by the way I'm a Florida Resident as well and the discount was not much.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN >>A typical airport Marriott delivers a more consistently 4-star experience than most Disney deluxe resorts do.<< Same thing can be said for TDR's Official (non-Disney) and Good-Neighbor resorts near TDR. Just a tip for those of you going to Japan kiddies....
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> it lost its magic after the convention center was put in. << I am curious -- why do you say this? I think the Convention Center rather complements the Contemporary. It certainly doesn't change it's classic sight lines. Perhaps you're remembering what it was like before and it's the fact that it's different at all that you don't like? I myself don't remember a Contemporary without the convention center.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, how contemporary can a building that was constructed in the 70s really be? My problem with the Contemporary is that I have been in it/through it so many times it is not "unique" to me. But, when I go to WDW with people who have never been before they are completely surprised by it just as I was way back when.
Originally Posted By tonyanton The convention center has grown on me over the years and I think the recent room rehabs are just what this resort should be doing every so often to keep the "contemporary" feel. The DVC tower though looks to be a HUGE design mistake. Really sad.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN >>I am curious -- why do you say this? I think the Convention Center rather complements the Contemporary. It certainly doesn't change it's classic sight lines.<< I have a problem with it's placement. The convention center effectively killed the more effective traffic flow in the parking and front entrance of the resort. It also killed the MK castle view from some of the rooms facing west in the Contemporary South annex building, and replaced it with very unsightly back areas/receiving bays behind this albatross building, therefore lowering the value of these room, while still charging much higher prices than before. The Convention center also does not compliment the tower in many respects... it's a rounded building of sorts whereas the Tower is more linear in design. Just major architectural mistake. I don't care for it one bit.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy TDL -- Interesting points that I hadn't considered before. I wasn't aware the castle was visible from the south wing at all. I've never stayed there. I thought tower would screen it itself. And even though they were somewhat unsightly to see as the monorail went overhead, I always assumed the load areas back there were always there, to service even the pre-convention Contemporary? You have to get supplies some way, right? Personally I always felt the side of the Contemporary facing the parking was the less attractive view, even though it included the castle and the lagoon. I preferred the solitude and the sunrises of the Discovery Island side. (Where they do the parachute boats now) I appreciate that the convention center is as complementary as it is. It in no way blocks the views of the Contemporary from just about wherever I see it. Traffic flow? I wish there was no traffic flow at all. I wish for the model that Walt had in mind with his Traffic and Ticket center down near where Wide World is now. You'd park you car there, and then you'd spend the rest of your vacation moving around property -- carless. And not by bus.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I think the implication is that if TWDC had followed Walt's lead, there would be monorails and peoplemovers linking all the parks and resorts, not buses.
Originally Posted By bobbelee9 Please don't attack me, I know the cost for a total monorail system would be prohibitive, but what about something like the WEDway? Slower and probably would need better weather protection, but...... just an idea. Too many guests use cars, slows up the buses.
Originally Posted By MPierce ^^^ It's a great idea. I've always thought a light rail system would work there. I guess like most things it all boils down to money though.
Originally Posted By nemopoppins They have peoplemovers at the San Francisco airport, linking the BART trains and the car rental with the terminals. Granted, they only go about a mile, but if it was so cost prohibitive, I don't think that would have been the system chosen by the airport. I think Disney would reap savings in energy costs and manpower after the initial outlay for building the systems. And think of the PR benefit in bragging about their environmental friendliness.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << They have peoplemovers at the San Francisco airport, linking the BART trains and the car rental with the terminals. Granted, they only go about a mile, but if it was so cost prohibitive, I don't think that would have been the system chosen by the airport. >> Airports generally get thrown millions of dollars in federal government subsidies. When things are being paid for with borrowed money that doesn't have to be paid back, you'll see organizations spend on things that aren't necessarily cost effect. That's not to say that I don't think a monorail would be cost effective, but it's a lot more complex than just saying that the airport has this or that, so why doesn't WDW?
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> including all 4 parks? << Well, I would say yes. But when Walt was doing his Florida project, the property only planned for one theme park -- effectively Disneyland East, and it was planned to be right where it actually sits today. All other population centers on property that would have needed transportation facilities were related to his new city project, not theme parks. So the traffic flows between them would have had different dynamics. Who knows if Walt would have been able to make it work? I for one think he had a shot at it. I wish we could have found out.
