Expansion - good or bad?

Unfortunately, If you disturb it, you will not be able to duplicate it,, Leave well enough alone...

I think it's probably unlikely. From a dollars and cents point of view Fort Wilderness probably provides Disney with the lowest revenue / sq ft of any accommodations on property which would make it unattractive to them as an area for expansion.

There's plenty of un-used land where a campground could be placed, but I just can't see it happening. If anything I'd be more concerned about them contracting or eliminating the campground one day.

I agree that the campground must have the lowest revenue per sq ft but to eliminate it completely?

It does stay booked and doesn't require much in the way of housekeeping. Guys do come buy and empty the trash, prepare sites for the next camper, etc. I wonder what's the overhead per sq ft? For the campsites, excluding the Wilderness Homes.

I'd rather see another campground, perhaps somewhere between the Studios and AK rather than an addition to Fort Wilderness.

Jan

We love FW. It can be expanded without changing much, but it is only full during the high times. Other times, there are plenty of spots available. I wonder how much would be affected if they go through with the vacation club they were planning. I still think FW is the best kept secret at DW. :mickey:

We have been camping at FW for years and love it. However, it has been getting harder and harder to get a site. I just tried to book for January - the entire month is gone unless you have a popup, and we don't. There are a FEW Premium sites available on select dates, but with our motorhome we can only get into a few of those. I would definitely love to see some expansion. There is land at FW that could be reclaimed and used. Or, as someone else suggested, put another campground designed for modern motorhomes over near AK. Right now I am going to have to book off-property. Those are dollars Disney is missing out on.

Thanks for your thoughts, Wilderness Guy.

And :welcome: to Intercot!

Here is an idea for the Imagineers. Keep FW with the frontier theme that Walt wanted 40 years ago - the FW we all know and love. Then build a new park over near AK with a safari theme to fit with AK Lodge and AK itself. Make the spaces friendly to modern motorhomers. I'm willing to bet both parks would quickly have all the business they could handle.:mickey:

Wilderness guy;2439258 wrote: Here is an idea for the Imagineers. Keep FW with the frontier theme that Walt wanted 40 years ago - the FW we all know and love. Then build a new park over near AK with a safari theme to fit with AK Lodge and AK itself. Make the spaces friendly to modern motorhomers. I'm willing to bet both parks would quickly have all the business they could handle.:mickey:

This is my thought. Disney has the best modern campground that I have ever camped in. (Modern meaning running water in comfort stations, etc. There are some downright unimproved campgrounds - what's a comfort station? - out West that I like a lot, too.) DH doesn't like to shell out a lot of money for a campsite but he feels FW is a great deal.

Who wouldn't jump at the chance to camp in a safari themed campground? At Disney?

And, yes, design the campground to accommodate today's rigs and technology. Elevated safari viewing platforms.

As Ron said, welcome, Wilderness guy!

Jan

1) Something which cannot be expanded is land.
2) You can't make more of it.
3) Putting up a campground is a poor use of revenue-producing acreage.
4) Besides,
. . . campers spend/eat less at restaurants than hotel/DVC guests
. . . buy fewer souvenirs than other guests
. . . visit parks for less days than others

5) Do not look for expanded (or new) camping space.
6) Or, new Disney-owned hotels
7) Disney is now to profit oriented.
8) DVC's make more money than campsites or hotels.
. . . DVC's are going up due to the revenue/sqft.
. . . Hard to argue with 5-6 floor units.
. . . density is the thing

I have to disagree about the low revenue. That could be the case in the partial hook up sites, but for full hook up, preferred and premium, those sites are pricey especially when you consider maintenance would be minimal and unlike the hotels, when the sites aren't in use it is not costing Disney anything b/c no electric is being used. And no mousekeeping at any time. Todays RV's are so much different than when this campground was built. Much larger and usually with slides. Some of those sites feel uncomfortably packed in and I am talking about the more expensive sites, so I would definitely say upgrading should be in the works. I know when there are specials for the value resorts, it is cheaper for us to stay there than at the campground. Also, I for one think the theming seems very out of date. And if you rent a golf cart, there goes another $65, plus a day. Another revenue producing item at the campground. And a huge charge for the "campers." No you don't have to have one, but otherwise, you have to get on two buses to go to most parks.

No question that another campground could generate revenue and be profitable. But the fact is, there is way, way more profit to be made in selling time shares. Expect Disney to continue developing new DVC properties until the market is saturated. With those, they sell the same unit over and over to multiple people and get paid for multiple years whether the buyers use them or not. I'd love to see another campground, but I'm not holding my breath until the DVC market is saturated.

I've never had any trouble getting a campsite at Fort Wilderness