# 2nd St. George property: Estancia



## rhonda (Apr 27, 2018)

Link: https://www.worldmarktheclub.com/resorts/es/

My feelings, "Ugh. Who needs this?"  Super high point values, poor location (>1 hr drive from Zion; in a major housing development area), all Penthouse/Presidential units.  Blech.

Then again, on further review, the Estancia location is simply across the street from the existing St. George location.  One could almost see it as the "upscale unit" location of the same resort.

Talk me out of my initial impression?  What are you thoughts?


----------



## silentg (Apr 27, 2018)

My Geography is bad. I thought you were talking about Bermuda!


----------



## DaveNV (Apr 27, 2018)

I guess if you need 3 or 4 bedrooms, and want to spend a lot to get it, then it makes sense. I'll never need more than 2 bedrooms, and rarely more than a 1 bedroom, so there is virtually no chance I'd ever book there, even if I had the credits to spend.  But if the big families do, it frees up availability at WM St. George for those of us with lesser needs.  That's a win, in my book.

Dave


----------



## geist1223 (Apr 27, 2018)

I think it is a ridiculous waste of time, energy, and money.


----------



## bbodb1 (Apr 27, 2018)

Having stayed at St. George last year, I do not recall it being a greater than 1 hour drive to Zion.  More like 45 min BUT that was in July. I do recall the construction in progress during our visit.


----------



## DaveNV (Apr 27, 2018)

I guess the question I still have about the place is whether the 3 bedroom units at the St. George facility book out so much that they needed an entire extra building with only 3 and 4 bedroom units? I'm new to WorldMark, so don't know the backstory on why Estancia was "needed." What was the justification?

Dave


----------



## rhonda (Apr 28, 2018)

DaveNW said:


> I guess the question I still have about the place is whether the 3 bedroom units at the St. George facility book out so much that they needed an entire extra building with only 3 and 4 bedroom units? I'm new to WorldMark, so don't know the backstory on why Estancia was "needed." *What was the justification?*
> 
> Dave


The cynical response to your question on justification: To give Wyndham something to sell. 
The inflated point values of the super-deluxe units gives the developer lots of point-inventory to sell.  If the units are in high demand by the WM owner base, then all is well with the world.  If, however, the units do not attract owner demand, then the units have created additional demand on the existing inventory.  Time, and the annual occupancy reports, will tell ... ?

Keep in mind that penthouse and presidential unit types have lower occupancy than standard units.  Thus a std 3BR unit (12k/week Red season) at the existing St. George property sleeps the same as the 4BR unit (up to 24k/week Red season) types at Estancia.  Estancia is set up to be "all about the luxury"?


----------



## CO skier (Apr 28, 2018)

DaveNW said:


> I guess if you need 3 or 4 bedrooms, and want to spend a lot to get it, then it makes sense. I'll never need more than 2 bedrooms, and rarely more than a 1 bedroom, so there is virtually no chance I'd ever book there, even if I had the credits to spend.  But if the big families do, it frees up availability at WM St. George for those of us with lesser needs.  That's a win, in my book.
> 
> Dave


That is exactly it.  The 3 and 4 bedroom Presidential Casitas at WM Granby are quite popular, but it has taken a few years.  (Try to book one for a week this summer and good luck).  Look at the booking calendar for the 3 and 4 bedroom Penthouses at Estancia.  They are already booking briskly, after only a couple of weeks of availability.  Someone must know something, and that something is that the views from the Estancia 3 bedroom Penthouse units are better than the older St. George resort for the same credit cost.  (Estancia is built on a rise above the older resort.  Not all the new rooms have the best view to the north, so it will be the luck of the draw).  No question Estancia is a great addition to WorldMark.  Better than Austin, where a 2 bedroom Presidential is 28,000 credits and a regular 2 bedroom is 15,000 credits versus 18,000 credits for a 3 bedroom Penthouse at Estancia.

Owners who only book 1 and 2 bedroom units would obviously have no interest in these new 3 and 4 bedroom units, but there is a market, and Wyndham is cashing in on it.  And the owners who book these units benefit from the new development, whether they own developer or resale credits.

The views from some of these new units look incomparable.  Think of the views at Estancia as the desert equivalent of Depoe Bay.


----------



## CO skier (Apr 28, 2018)

bbodb1 said:


> Having stayed at St. George last year, I do not recall it being a greater than 1 hour drive to Zion.  More like 45 min BUT that was in July.


Zion is further away from St. George the other months?


----------



## bbodb1 (Apr 28, 2018)

CO skier said:


> Zion is further away from St. George the other months?



This occurs when swamp gas from a weather balloon is trapped in a thermal pocket, and refracts light from Venus......


----------



## DaveNV (Apr 28, 2018)

I guess Estancia makes business sense, given the comments above.  I grant that the red rock views in and around St. George are always nice, no matter which direction they're viewed from.  And Zion is generally the same distance away all year round, although crowded roads can make it a longer drive, time-wise.   

But Rhonda makes a great point - it gives Wyndham something to sell.  More WM owners means more demand across the system, which reduces overall availability for current owners.  I can see Estancia booking out briskly because it's new. (Isn't Myrtle Beach doing the same thing? Wait till Portland opens.) But over time, are those Estancia units going to end up in Monday Madness or whatever because they aren't booking as well, once the novelty is gone?  

Dave


----------



## rhonda (Apr 28, 2018)

bbodb1 said:


> Having stayed at St. George last year, I do not recall it being a greater than 1 hour drive to Zion.  More like 45 min BUT that was in July. I do recall the construction in progress during our visit.


My drive time estimate came from Apple Maps which put it over 1 hour.  I do recall, from our St George visit many years back, that we felt it was a rather long drive.  Too long for us to say, "Great resort for visiting Zion."  Instead, we noticed some smaller venues along the drive and determined to stay closer on our return visit.



CO skier said:


> Look at the booking calendar for the 3 and 4 bedroom Penthouses at Estancia.  They are already booking briskly, after only a couple of weeks of availability.  <snip> No question Estancia is a great addition to WorldMark.  <snip>
> The views from some of these new units look incomparable.  Think of the views at Estancia as the desert equivalent of Depoe Bay.


Thanks for the reassurance and perspective!


----------



## K2Quick (Apr 28, 2018)

I think this resort will do quite well. St. George is easily the #1 drive-to vacation spot for families along the Wasatch Front and Utah has much larger family sizes than is typical elsewhere.  At the existing WM in St. George, it's the largest, fanciest units that typically go the quickest.  Whenever we're down there during school breaks, it's seems like half of Salt Lake City is down there.


----------



## Lisa P (Apr 28, 2018)

Was this a partly developed residential property that was taken over and redesigned for WorldMark or was it a ground-up build?


----------



## CO skier (Apr 29, 2018)

bbodb1 said:


> This occurs when swamp gas from a weather balloon is trapped in a thermal pocket, and refracts light from Venus......


I once left St George at 5 a.m. when the moon was full and arrived at Zion 10 minutes sooner than expected.  I attributed this to the tidal pull of the full moon setting behind me.  (Zion was closer than I and GPS thought, relativistically).


----------



## ecwinch (Apr 29, 2018)

I think the take-away is that WM has a very diverse membership, and clearly has a segment of customers that dont mind paying higher prices for upscale lodging. The cynical argument was made about a number of resorts pre-Wixon lawsuit, and the net was that WM gave back units at Indio and Anaheim that we probably would really, really like to have back now. Which is what happens when you believe that everyone wants to vacation like you might like to.

From my calculations, the utilization at St. George looks to be about 92%. Which I think is really high for a resort with seasonality like St. George.

And while we might hope for a new resort somewhere else, sometimes there has to be the alignment of need/demand and feasible projects. I see this as an intersection of a feasible project and demand.

As others have pointed out, if all they cared about was generating a lot of points to sell to people at Depoe Bay, there would easier ways to do it.


----------



## IsaiahB (Apr 29, 2018)

Lisa P said:


> Was this a partly developed residential property that was taken over and redesigned for WorldMark or was it a ground-up build?



Ground up construction in an existing HOA - Estancia Resort Owner's Association, Inc.


----------



## K2Quick (May 2, 2018)

One thing I find silly about these new units, though, is that the three bedrooms only have an occupancy level of 6 and the four bedrooms only have an occupancy level of 8.  Did nobody stop and think that maybe a sofa sleeper might be a welcome addition?


----------



## geist1223 (May 2, 2018)

K2Quick said:


> One thing I find silly about these new units, though, is that the three bedrooms only have an occupancy level of 6 and the four bedrooms only have an occupancy level of 8.  Did nobody stop and think that maybe a sofa sleeper might be a welcome addition?



You find the same thing at Seaside Oregon. A 3 Bedroom or 3 Bedroom Delux sleeps 8 - Murphy Bed in Living Room. But a 3 Bedroom Penthouse only sleeps 6. No Murphy Bed.


----------



## CO skier (May 3, 2018)

DaveNW said:


> More WM owners means more demand across the system, which reduces overall availability for current owners.


This confuses "availability" with "accessibility."  Adding more resorts and credits to the system does not reduce the number of units available at the most popular resorts.  When the total credits in the WorldMark  system were half what they are today (rough guess), it was just as difficult to book a reservation at the Hawaiian resorts.  The most popular reservations are booked at 13 months now just like they were 10 years ago.  The availability at the Hawaiian resorts and Depoe Bay and West Yellowstone is the same as it has always been.  The demand for the most popular units might be double what it was 10 years ago, but this does not change the availability.

What location expansion resorts, such as Estancia and Anaheim and Long Beach, do is increase accessibility to these areas.  There are now 300 WM units in Anaheim instead of only the 100 units before the Anaheim resort was built, for example.  If WorldMark were to double the number of units in Hawaii, the "availability" would remain the same, because all the Hawaiian resorts would continue to book at exactly 13 months.


----------



## JohnPaul (May 3, 2018)

K2Quick said:


> One thing I find silly about these new units, though, is that the three bedrooms only have an occupancy level of 6 and the four bedrooms only have an occupancy level of 8.  Did nobody stop and think that maybe a sofa sleeper might be a welcome addition?



I've spent a few minutes pondering that over the years (since it's true in most penthouse/presidentials) and this is my theory.

Since these are fancy schmancy units that you are spending lots of points/$$ for you don't want someone sleeping in the middle of your living area.  (Granted with a sleeper sofa it would be your choice ....but that's my thought)


----------



## rhonda (May 3, 2018)

K2Quick said:


> One thing I find silly about these new units, though, is that the three bedrooms only have an occupancy level of 6 and the four bedrooms only have an occupancy level of 8.  Did nobody stop and think that maybe a sofa sleeper might be a welcome addition?


I believe it is consistent across the system that Penthouse and Presidential units have lower occupancy than standard units of same "size" (measured by number of bedrooms).  Agreeing with thought posted above, fancy-schmancy units do not want someone sleeping in the living room.


----------



## DaveNV (May 3, 2018)

CO skier said:


> This confuses "availability" with "accessibility."  Adding more resorts and credits to the system does not reduce the number of units available at the most popular resorts.



What I meant was that if opening Estancia is opportunity to sell more WM timeshares, it will bring in more owners to the system.  Not every new owner will only want to book Presidential units each time.  Some of those owners will want to book smaller places, and that means more demand for what it is already a stressed availability.  If a given location has fewer units available than the number of units the collective ownership wants to book, there will be competition to book those available units.  So building Estancia may increase the number of larger units some people will want, but the downstream is that smaller places will feel the pinch of greater competition.

Dave


----------



## Lisa P (May 3, 2018)

rhonda said:


> Agreeing with thought posted above, fancy-schmancy units do not want someone sleeping in the living room.


They may also prefer a more comfortable living room sofa.  Most sleeper sofas are not very comfortable for sitting.


----------



## CO skier (May 4, 2018)

DaveNW said:


> What I meant was that if opening Estancia is opportunity to sell more WM timeshares, it will bring in more owners to the system.


10 years ago there were 274,000 WorldMark owners and 71 resorts.  In 2017 there were 225,000 owners and 93 resorts.  So, no, building more resorts does not lead to more owners.




DaveNW said:


> If a given location has fewer units available than the number of units the collective ownership wants to book, there will be competition to book those available units.


Yes, and my assertion is that this was also true when there were half as many credits in the system 10 years ago.  All the resorts added since then and all the credits added to WorldMark since then does not change the fact that there is more demand at some resorts at certain times than the supply, so the resorts book up at the first opportunity at 13 months.  Adding Estancia does not change this one bit.




DaveNW said:


> So building Estancia may increase the number of larger units some people will want, but the downstream is that smaller places will feel the pinch of greater competition.


Can you offer some examples from the past or going forward so that I can see this phenomenon on the WorldMark Planning Calendar?


----------



## DaveNV (May 4, 2018)

CO skier said:


> Can you offer some examples from the past or going forward so that I can see this phenomenon on the WorldMark Planning Calendar?



No, I can't.  You obviously have much more experience with WorldMark than I do, and I am not disputing any of what you're saying.  But having a larger number of resorts available does not mean every unit will be booked.  The more in-demand resorts will become even harder to book because there are more people trying to book them.  Add in the mega-renters who play the system for rental profit, and owners are even more pushed out.

Dave


----------



## CO skier (May 4, 2018)

DaveNW said:


> Add in the mega-renters who play the system for rental profit, and owners are even more pushed out.


I do not think the mega-renters will be booking the Estancia Presidential units for profit due to the relatively higher credit costs. That will leave them for owners to book for a vacation with their family, much like what has occurred in the Club Wyndham system.

I am sure the mega-renters are already booking whatever high demand/high profit units are available.  Adding Estancia does not change this one bit.


----------



## CO skier (May 4, 2018)

DaveNW said:


> The more in-demand resorts will become even harder to book because there are more people trying to book them.


That was the mistaken thinking of the Wixon's in their lawsuit mentioned in another post.  200 million credits worth of units were removed from WorldMark as a result.  It did not make the in-demand resorts any easier to book.


----------



## ecwinch (May 5, 2018)

DaveNW said:


> No, I can't.  You obviously have much more experience with WorldMark than I do, and I am not disputing any of what you're saying.  But having a larger number of resorts available does not mean every unit will be booked.  The more in-demand resorts will become even harder to book because there are more people trying to book them.  Add in the mega-renters who play the system for rental profit, and owners are even more pushed out.
> 
> Dave



Dave... this logic pops up frequently on othe WMOwners site. But there are two facts that don’t correlate with that theory. First is the stat CO Skier brings up, that in the past 10 years the number of owners has decreased while the number of available rooms has increased.

Also in that same period the average account size has increased significantly - basically translating into fewer owners with larger accts chasing the most desirable resorts.

You might view it differently, but I see that as a natural trend that would happen even if Wyndham stopped adding inventory. Especially when you consider that many people bought this product 10-15 years ago to enjoy when they retired and could travel more. And given the demographics of our population that is occurring now. I am on the tail end of the baby boomers, but have retired early and am using timeshares much more than I did 10 years ago, and my ownership has grown accordingly.

So even if Wyndham stopped building, I still would have grown my acct. As are others. Popular places are going to be popular no matter what Wyndham does on the sales side.

So it is not more owners chasing the popular resorts, it is fewer owners with more credits wanting to vacation more that creates the inventory pressure. Stopping sales might drive up resale prices and price some out of doing that, but I doubt it.


----------



## bizaro86 (May 5, 2018)

I would say it matters quite a bit how popular new resorts are for credit booking compared to the existing resorts. In this case I don't have an issue with Estancia, because my experience is the bigger, expensive units do tend to get booked elsewhere in the system. The issue around pressuring older resorts is only a problem if the new ones don't get used with credits.

And the "Hawaii has always been 13 months" argument is disingenuous, imo. That's true, but if more credits are chasing it, there are more folks who try to book at 13 months who get shut out.

It makes quite a bit of difference to the owner who wants to go to Hawaii on vacation and gets shut out at 13 months that maybe wouldn't have previously.

I also think larger average account sizes pressure the desirable resorts more not less. Smaller accounts are less usable, and more likely to have credits expire (which is where the flex in the system comes from). When a dissatisfied small owner sells their account and it gets combined, the new owner is almost certainly more educated/aggressive about using the credits, which puts more pressure on the system.


----------



## DaveNV (May 5, 2018)

I will certainly defer to those of you who have the knowledge and experience with WorldMark, about how things work.  But I do not understand how having more owners one day trying to book the same resorts than there were the day before doesn't make any difference.  Please help me understand:

If a resort has 10 units available on a certain day, and 25 people are trying to book it, then 15 of those people are not going to get in.  If the number of owners trying to book goes to 50, but there are still only 10 units available, then 40 people are not going to get in.  How is that not a problem?  The pressure on the 40 is even more than the pressure on the 15. Jockeying for booking position with 15 other owners is bad enough, but jockeying for booking position with 40 seems like it would be even harder. 

I get that popular places book first, and fast.  But if I'm competing with 24 owners to book one of those 10 units at that moment, it seems like it would be much harder if I'm competing with 49 other owners for the same resort.  What about this am I not understanding?

Dave


----------



## rhonda (May 5, 2018)

DaveNW said:


> If a resort has 10 units available on a certain day, and 25 people are trying to book it, then 15 of those people are not going to get in.  If the number of owners trying to book goes to 50, but there are still only 10 units available, then 40 people are not going to get in.  How is that not a problem?  The pressure on the 40 is even more than the pressure on the 15. Jockeying for booking position with 15 other owners is bad enough, but jockeying for booking position with 40 seems like it would be even harder.


Hopefully the underlying inventory that generated the additional 25 owners (the growth from the original 25 owners to the 2nd round at 50 owners) is desirable inventory.  If so, then some percentage of the pool of new owners will be too distracted to join the fight for the "10 units" we worry about.

FWIW, we've owned WM for almost 20 years and haven't yet made it to Depoe Bay.  It remains on our "someday list."  There was a time when I could say I'd made it to all the resorts in CA, AZ, NV, UT and a few other states ... but with the continued system growth ... we've fallen behind.  We've stayed at 51+ WM locations ... but have a long way to go before getting to all.  We keep trying ... we'll keep chasing "the new stuff" best we can.

There was also a time, many years back, when WM Indio really got under my skin both for its size and the TOT.  I'm over it ... and yes, we really enjoy the 4BR Presidential unit at that location.  I've come to embrace those special units for special celebrations.

If the occupancy numbers show that St George is currently well utilized _and_ we expect reasonable demand for the new Penthouse and Presidential units right next door ... you won't see added pressure for the existing units.  Some of the existing owners will book "the new shiny bauble" and the new owners will spread out all over the "new-to-them-system-with-tons-of-destinations" and you'll end up with roughly the same demand on the existing units.


----------



## ecwinch (May 5, 2018)

DaveNW said:


> I will certainly defer to those of you who have the knowledge and experience with WorldMark, about how things work.  But I do not understand how having more owners one day trying to book the same resorts than there were the day before doesn't make any difference.  Please help me understand:
> 
> If a resort has 10 units available on a certain day, and 25 people are trying to book it, then 15 of those people are not going to get in.  If the number of owners trying to book goes to 50, but there are still only 10 units available, then 40 people are not going to get in.  How is that not a problem?  The pressure on the 40 is even more than the pressure on the 15. Jockeying for booking position with 15 other owners is bad enough, but jockeying for booking position with 40 seems like it would be even harder.
> 
> ...



Sure - if the number of owners that want to book Depoe Bay increases, and inventory remains the same - it is harder. But owner growth is relatively flat.

What does increase pressure on existing resorts is existing owners wanting to go to the popular resorts more frequently - ie Depoe Bay for two weeks rather than one week. So it’s existing members using their membership more, not that we have more owners.


----------



## DaveNV (May 5, 2018)

ecwinch said:


> Sure - if they number of owners that want to book Depoe Bay increases, and inventory remains the same - it is harder. But owner growth is relatively flat.
> 
> What does increase pressure on existing resorts is existing owners wanting to go to the popular resorts more frequently - ie Depoe Bay for two weeks rather than one week. So it’s existing members using their membership more, not that we have more owners.



That makes sense. Thanks.  (I'm really trying to get this.  I promise. )

Dave


----------



## ecwinch (May 6, 2018)

Dave - always appreciate the questions you ask.

Another way to at is that existing owners are more efficient competitors for desirable resorts than a new owner. Since most new owners tend not to understand how to book the most desirable resorts (online at 13 months out, waitlist, throwaway days). Some don’t even know what are the best resorts are or believe that it is like a hotel, and they can ring up 3-4 months out.

So while only half-joking, I would actually say that what we really need is more new owners. And younger owners that can only vacation during peak season. Leaving the rest of the calendar to us that can travel off-season.


----------



## DaveNV (May 6, 2018)

ecwinch said:


> Dave - always appreciate the questions you ask.
> 
> Another way to at is that existing owners are more efficient competitors for desirable resorts than a new owner. Since most new owners tend not to understand how to book the most desirable resorts (online at 13 months out, waitlist, throwaway days). Some don’t even know what are the best resorts are or believe that it is like a hotel, and they can ring up 3-4 months out.
> 
> So while only half-joking, I would actually say that what we really need is more new owners. And younger owners that can only vacation during peak season. Leaving the rest of the calendar to us that can travel off-season.



Thanks, Eric. I get you, and I appreciate your patience trying to help me understand.  And I fully get that not knowing the tricks is the basis of a lot of timeshare owners being frustrated.  (There are other threads on Tug right now that are discussing that issue.)  You and others taught me early on about how the best WM resorts are booked, and I've played around some with that.  (Test-booking in prime areas just to see if I could get in.)  I want to be a contender for those in-demand places, and want to maximize my ownership.  I've even witnessed how throwaway days are playing into the mix of booking availability.  So I'm right there with you on that.

I owned a Hawaii resort (Weeks) for a long time that had a very limited number of prime, full-on ocean front units.  There were other units in the same "ocean view" class, but they did not share the same amazing view.  The rest of the units of that size were resort view - nice, but not as great.  There was an insider knowledge trick for how to book the prime units.  First, by owning an ocean view unit, (not resort view), and then by knowing which unit numbers checked in on which days.  When putting in my owner's reservation request at the earliest possible time, requesting one of those prime units by number, and the reservation checking-in on the day that unit checked in, I *always* got assigned to the best of the best of those prime units.  I came to think of it as "my" unit.  Others who did not understand the process always wondered how that worked out for me every time.   I don't own there any more, and want to be as WM-aware, so I can maximize my ownership.  I appreciate learning these little tips about making the most of my WM time.

Dave


----------

