"Golden Oak" Sales Begin Today

[BrerGnat]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Ian]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Ian]

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]

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...

[Ian]

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]

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]

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.

[Ian]

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]

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]

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.

[Scar]

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]

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.

[Ian]

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.