# Portland WM



## easyrider (Feb 5, 2019)

I received an invite to visit the WM Portland. I am certain it will require an update presentation. Three nights for $299. I doubt that we will be going but who knows.

https://www.wyndhamtrips.com/wbw-po...nd-preact&utm_content=more-info-heroIMG#terms

Bill


----------



## DaveNV (Feb 5, 2019)

I hear it's in a good location, but there is no parking. Is that right?

Dave


----------



## geist1223 (Feb 5, 2019)

*I did not see what size of room you get.*


----------



## easyrider (Feb 6, 2019)

The location is kind of good but there are many homeless and wackados on the water front at times. It isn't unusual to find dead bodies around the bridge areas. Many overdoses and suicides. They do a good job of keeping Waterfront Park clean from what I hear.

I don't know what the parking situation is. I wonder if it is like Seattle ?

Bill


----------



## Kolynna (Feb 15, 2019)

I live across the river from the Portland Resort. From what I can tell it is just like the Seattle Camlin as far as homeless wackados, and downtown vibe. The exterior in Portland is historic but the interior is not supposed to be. The location is great for downtown area, lots to do and lots to see.


----------



## Tahiya (Apr 5, 2019)

I wanted to see the cherry tree blossoms along the riverfront, so stopped by the Portland Worldmark while I was in the area just now.  There was a lot going on, with musicians on the sidewalk, valet parkers, and lots of staff at the front desk.  Turns out today is the first day the new resort is open.  They weren't showing any units, but the guest services manager from the Camlin showed me around a little.  (Nice guy!). I saw the mainly the lobby, shared kitchen area, elevator, and interior courtyard.  It all looked attractive, and the courtyard had a couple of grills, as well as comfortable looking seating.  Seems like a nice gathering spot if you had several units and wanted to hang out together.  There is no swimming pool or hot tub.  The Camlin staffer said the Portland units are a little larger than those at the Camlin because the Portland building was built for timeshares and the Camlin wasn't.  I agree with the previous posters about the pros and cons of the location.  Mostly though, I think this is a nice addition to the Worldmark portfolio.


----------



## geist1223 (Apr 5, 2019)

There is no onsite parking. There is a nearby pay valet lot. The resort page recommends using mass transit. No ovens until you get to 1 bedroom Presidential and above. Only 2 burner stove top below that level. I do not understand the lack of ovens. This was a design up resort not a hotel conversion. Also the Point Cost is ridiculously high.

There is no low season. Only High and Medium. Listing just high season for a week.
Studio 10,000.
Studio Penthouse 12,000.
1 Bedroom 13,000.
1 Bedroom Penthouse 15,000.
1 Bedroom Presidential 24,000.
2 Bedroom Presidential 28,000.

The average size account for a WMTC Owner is between 13,000 and 14,000. This means a lot of Owners have less than 13,000.


----------



## DaveNV (Apr 5, 2019)

geist1223 said:


> There is no onsite parking. There is a nearby pay valet lot. The resort page recommends using mass transit. No ovens until you get to 1 bedroom Presidential and above. Only 2 burner stove top below that level. I do not understand the lack of ovens. This was a design up resort not a hotel conversion. Also the Point Cost is ridiculously high.
> 
> There is no low season. Only High and Medium. Listing just high season for a week.
> Studio 10,000.
> ...




Wow.  Those numbers are absurd! I can't see staying there for those numbers.

Dave


----------



## ecwinch (Apr 6, 2019)

Credits required for 1BR at other urban resorts:

1BR Compact Vancouver (purchased floors in an existing condo building 2000) = 8500
1BR Seattle Camlin (refurb 2004) = 11500
1BR San Francisco (refurb 2004) = 11500
1BR Hotel San Diego Balboa Park (2006)  = 13500
1BR San Diego Inn At the Park (conversion 2013) = 13000
1BR Austin (new build 2018) = 13000
1BR Portland (new build 2019) = 13000

Note: Technically Austin was a purchased building. It was already under construction when Wyndham stepped in and purchased the entire property.


----------



## geist1223 (Apr 6, 2019)

Other than Vancouver we will not be staying at any of these places. Oh I forgot also Portland has NO pool or hot tub. There go those evenings having a drink, sitting in the hot tub relaxing, and talking to other owners.


----------



## CO skier (Apr 6, 2019)

geist1223 said:


> There is no onsite parking. There is a nearby pay valet lot. The resort page recommends using mass transit. No ovens until you get to 1 bedroom Presidential and above. Only 2 burner stove top below that level. I do not understand the lack of ovens. This was a design up resort not a hotel conversion. Also the Point Cost is ridiculously high.
> 
> There is no low season. Only High and Medium. Listing just high season for a week.
> Studio 10,000.
> ...





DaveNW said:


> Wow.  Those numbers are absurd! I can't see staying there for those numbers.
> 
> Dave



The average WorldMark ownership is approaching 17,000 credits.

The one- and two-bedroom Portland units are mostly booked for the rest of the year.  Maybe it is the newness of the resort, but there are many owners who must think the credit cost is reasonable.  The availability is in the lower cost Studio units.

Friday and Saturday nights are twice the credit cost of Monday through Thursday nights.  When the units are not completely booked, the expensive Friday and Saturday nights book first.


----------



## Passepartout (Apr 6, 2019)

I'd go for the $299 for 3 nights in downtown Portland, like the OP was offered. The point price is pretty dear, though.


----------



## CO skier (Apr 6, 2019)

Passepartout said:


> I'd go for the $299 for 3 nights in downtown Portland, like the OP was offered. The point price is pretty dear, though.


It is only $249 for 3 nights (in the link, did this change?), but …

*Terms and Conditions*
*Eligibility: You and your partner if married or cohabitating, must attend a 120-minute WorldMark by Wyndham timeshare sales presentation.*


A WorldMark owner can stay Monday-Thursday nights in a Portland Studio, Studio Penthouse, or one-bedroom unit using Bonus Time for about the same cost per night.

If Wyndham runs a similar special offer when the Moab resort comes online next year, I think I will book a 3-4 night mini-vacation in Moab on Bonus Time, if possible, or credits and skip the sales presentation.


----------



## JohnPaul (Apr 6, 2019)

FWIW  It isn't cheap to build a brand new building in a major city.  And....it doesn't get paid for by resales,  As such, my feeling is if people don't think the new resort is worth the credits there is a simple response - don't stay there.


----------



## DaveNV (Apr 6, 2019)

I wonder if this higher credit requirement is a trend that WM is going to use with all new resorts?  They did it with Estancia and Austin, and now Portland.  "Yes, WM Owner, you need to buy more credits. You don't own enough!"  Seems kind of underhanded, regardless of the cost to build the new facility.  I can only guess at what they'll require to stay at Moab.

Dave


----------



## CO skier (Apr 6, 2019)

JohnPaul said:


> FWIW  It isn't cheap to build a brand new building in a major city.  And....it doesn't get paid for by resales,  As such, my feeling is if people don't think the new resort is worth the credits there is a simple response - don't stay there.


So true.  There is a lot more availability this fall on the Oregon coast at lower costs compared to the Portland resort.


----------



## CO skier (Apr 6, 2019)

DaveNW said:


> I wonder if this higher credit requirement is a trend that WM is going to use with all new resorts?  They did it with Estancia and Austin, and now Portland.  "Yes, WM Owner, you need to buy more credits. You don't own enough!"  Seems kind of underhanded, regardless of the cost to build the new facility.  I can only guess at what they'll require to stay at Moab.
> 
> Dave


I hope the Moab credits are high enough to discourage megarenting and avoid the problems that WM owners face booking into resorts like West Yellowstone during the summer.


----------



## ecwinch (Apr 6, 2019)

DaveNW said:


> I wonder if this higher credit requirement is a trend that WM is going to use with all new resorts?  They did it with Estancia and Austin, and now Portland.  "Yes, WM Owner, you need to buy more credits. You don't own enough!"  Seems kind of underhanded, regardless of the cost to build the new facility.  I can only guess at what they'll require to stay at Moab.
> 
> Dave


The short answer is yes - to the extent that the total project cost is now and will forever be the primary factor in credit allocation. And given that construction costs increase over time - credit values will increase over time.

The settlement in the Wixon lawsuit expressly granted Wyndham that right. And we see it in action - for instance when they can pick something up on the cheap - like foreclosed intervals at the Wyndham resort in the Poconos or Havasu Dunes - those come in at classic credit values. New builds.. much higher.


----------



## geist1223 (Apr 6, 2019)

And Wyndham can't get loans to build new resorts if people are not buying Developer Credits/Points. We need to encourage people to buy from the Developer.


----------



## ecwinch (Apr 6, 2019)

geist1223 said:


> And Wyndham can't get loans to build new resorts if people are not buying Developer Credits/Points. *We need to encourage people to buy from the Developer.*



You might want to check your calendar..... cause it is a bit late for April Fool's pranks....


----------



## geist1223 (Apr 6, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> You might want to check your calendar..... cause it is a bit late for April Fool's pranks....



But I was not joking. I find it interesting when folks talk about wanting more and nicer resorts. But then some of these same people tell folks to rescind, never buy from a Developer, buy only resell. So as long as everybody is happy and satisfied with the Resorts they have in their system - then yes one should only buy resell. But the Big Developers can not survive being only resort managers.


----------



## ecwinch (Apr 6, 2019)

Sorry.... that is a bridge too far for me. Letting someone make a "likely" poor financial decision without knowing all the facts - just because I benefit from their ignorance is not something I would do. 

I actually am shocked to hear that you are not joking.


----------



## CO skier (Apr 6, 2019)

geist1223 said:


> And Wyndham can't get loans to build new resorts if people are not buying Developer Credits/Points. We need to encourage people to buy from the Developer.


"We" TUG members know better.  There will always be buyers at Developer prices in any timeshare.  That is the job of the sales department.

Fortunately for us (TUG informed and other) WorldMark resale buyers, we can reserve all the new WorldMark resorts using our resale credits.  And any WorldMark owner who objects to the cost of new resorts can still reserve any of the resorts available to them when they bought into WorldMark for the credit cost of when they bought into WorldMark.  Nothing underhanded about that.


----------



## DaveNV (Apr 7, 2019)

CO skier said:


> And any WorldMark owner who objects to the cost of new resorts can still reserve any of the resorts available to them when they bought into WorldMark for the credit cost of when they bought into WorldMark.  Nothing underhanded about that.



What determines the credit values attached to any resort?  Once they're set, do they ever change?  As regards WM Portland, are there Wyndham units there, too?  Are the points required for a Wyndham owner to stay there also higher than Wyndham resorts elsewhere?

Dave


----------



## Eric B (Apr 7, 2019)

There are Wyndham units at Portland as well.  The cost to stay there is higher than most older ones, as has been the trend with the other newer resorts they have opened.


----------



## geist1223 (Apr 7, 2019)

Wyndham sets the Point values by season and size of unit before turning the Deed over to Worldmark. As far as I know the WMTC BOD has never objected or refused to sign accepting the Units or total Resort. They have never changed as far as I know once set. Part of the reason for this is that the number of new Points for sale by Wyndham is the number of Points for the new Resort.

The thought is that while it would be possible to adjust Points within a Resort by season or size of unit the total Points for the resort have to remain the same.

It takes more Points for a Wyndham Member to reserve the same Unit than  WMTC member. The value of WMTC Points to Wyndham Points is approximately 13/16 to 1. WMTC is the 1. So if it takes a WMTC Member 20,000 WMTC Points to rent Unit "A" it will takes a Wyndham Member 260,000 to 320,000 Wyndham Points to Reserve Unit "A." I actually saw this when I reserved a Bali Hai Unit through Club Pass.

Ron P once did an analysis of the new Wyndham Park City Resort (located next to the WMTC Park City) that demonstrated that it actually cost more in maintenance fees (number of Points and the MF on those Points) for a Wyndham Member to stay at their Resort then for a WMTC Member to stay at that same Resort through Club Pass (WMTC Points necessary and the MF on those WMTC Points).


----------



## DaveNV (Apr 7, 2019)

This is all a huge disappointment.

Reading of this higher credit requirement, and the reasoning behind it, is probably the first chink in WorldMark's armor for me.  My (apparently, undereducated) "points is points" understanding of how things worked leaves me a little disappointed in the system.  I bought 12K credits, what I believed were enough annual credits to stay for a week in a two bedroom WM unit (on average.)  Now I'm seeing future development will require more credits than I own if I want to stay in newer resorts.  Based on this logic, "enough" will never be enough.

That leaves me to reconsider this entire WorldMark ownership thing.  If credits don't change, then if I "ever" want to stay at a newer WM location, I'll need to pay more (i.e. buy more credits), or rent credits, or book for fewer nights, or hope for a Monday Madness thing.  "Saving up" credits is an option, but the idea was to be able to travel annually to WM locations I wanted to visit.  Seeing that the credit requirements to stay at WM Portland are so much higher than other resorts, with the downside of fewer amenities at the resort, makes me wonder whether this really is the right TS option for me.

WorldMark is basically a fixed-inventory system.  (Not counting exchanging out, and such.)  Of the existing Worldmark resorts, how many of them am I never be likely to book?  I haven't explored them specifically as yet, but I intend to.  Virtually all the resorts in Washington state are off the list, with the exception of maybe Leavenworth and Seattle.  The other sites, while great for out-of-state visitors who want to visit the Pacific North West, are close enough to where I live, that I'm unlikely to ever want or need to stay there.  And that effectively reduces the number of WorldMark locations I'm likely to choose.  Add in that newer locations are above the credit account size that I have, or are larger than I'll ever need to book (Estancia),  means my options are now limited.

Hmm.   Interesting new train of thought for me.  Thanks, everyone, for adding this new wrinkle to things for me to consider.  I need to spend some quality time on the WM site to look at resort locations, and decide exactly how many of them I'm ever likely to want to stay at.  Since Portland, Austin, likely Moab, and a lot of the PNW locations are off the list, what's left?  Great food for thought. Thank you.

Dave


----------



## ecwinch (Apr 7, 2019)

DaveNW said:


> What determines the credit values attached to any resort?  Once they're set, do they ever change?  As regards WM Portland, are there Wyndham units there, too?  Are the points required for a Wyndham owner to stay there also higher than Wyndham resorts elsewhere?
> 
> Dave



In the Club Wyndham system the points required has always varied from resort to resort. In part that is due to how Club Wyndham had its basis in deeded properties with points assigned after the fact. 

For Portland it is 250k points for a week in a 1BR. As is Austin. NYC is 450k. Alexandria is 184k.

As mentioned above credit values are set by Wyndham based on a variety of factors, with construction costs being the determinant factor. To refuse a resort the BoD would need to object that the credit allocation is unreasonable or that the resort would cause a substantial increase in costs or expenses being borne by the members... presumably if they tried to add a cruise ship or all-inclusive resort to the Club.


----------



## ecwinch (Apr 7, 2019)

DaveNW said:


> This is all a huge disappointment.
> 
> Reading of this higher credit requirement, and the reasoning behind it, is probably the first chink in WorldMark's armor for me.  My (apparently, undereducated) "points is points" understanding of how things worked leaves me a little disappointed in the system.  I bought 12K credits, what I believed were enough annual credits to stay for a week in a two bedroom WM unit (on average.)  Now I'm seeing future development will require more credits than I own if I want to stay in newer resorts.  Based on this logic, "enough" will never be enough.
> 
> ...


Didn’t you have something to do with DVC at one point in time, isn’t that similar there?

And Moab is only off the list if you don’t want to pay the credits to stay there.


----------



## DaveNV (Apr 7, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> Didn’t you have something to do with DVC at one point in time, isn’t that similar there?



No, never owned DVC.  WM is my first foray into the Points world.  I was always a Weeks guy, and among the assorted ownerships I've had, a number of mini-systems came and went (MROP, VRI, and a few others.) 

Dave


----------



## DaveNV (Apr 7, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> In the Club Wyndham system the points required has always varied from resort to resort. In part that is due to how Club Wyndham had its basis in deeded properties with points assigned after the fact.
> 
> For Portland it is 250k points for a week in a 1BR. As is Austin. NYC is 450k. Alexandria is 184k.
> 
> As mentioned above credit values are set by Wyndham based on a variety of factors, with construction costs being the determinant factor. To refuse a resort the BoD would need to object that the credit allocation is unreasonable or that the resort would cause a substantial increase in costs or expenses being borne by the members... presumably if they tried to add a cruise ship or all-inclusive resort to the Club.



I can understand that it costs more to build new.  But in this case, where I have enough credits to stay elsewhere in a 2 bedroom for a week, at WM Portland I don't own enough to stay in even a 1 bedroom.  Hotel rates seem to factor in the "going rate" for the area, and even brand new hotels tend to price themselves competitively with others in the area.  Timeshares, I admit, are not the same as hotels, but if the average consumer (i.e. WM Owner) is unable to afford to stay there, then the rates charged by that location seem like they might be too high.  And let's be honest - this is Portland, not New York City.  

Dave


----------



## ecwinch (Apr 7, 2019)

Thanks... this whole time I actually have thought you were someone else ...lol

I for one have never understood how it makes sense that new resorts could be added to the system at the same credit allocation as resorts built 20 years ago.


----------



## DaveNV (Apr 7, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> Thanks... this whole time I actually have thought you were someone else ...lol
> 
> I for one have never understood how it makes sense that new resorts could be added to the system at the same credit allocation as resorts built 20 years ago.



Sorry if I've been impersonating someone else all this time.  

It's not that I expect the rates to be the same for newer locations as those built 20 years ago.  But when things jump by 20-25% or more, or what amounts to fewer amenities for the additional cost, it just seems like it's a bigger step than what would be a reasonable "markup."  

And I should add that if this is how things are, or how they've been in the past when a new location was built, it wasn't apparent to me.  The credits needed to stay at "most" WM locations I've checked seems to be within a certain range.  To add WM Portland in and jump the requirement so much seems excessive to me.

Dave


----------



## bbodb1 (Apr 7, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> Thanks... this whole time I actually have thought you were someone else ...lol
> 
> I for one have never understood how it makes sense that new resorts could be added to the system at the same credit allocation as resorts built 20 years ago.



Here's the problem I see with adding new resorts at higher prices, Eric: WM (and/or Wyndham) is actually devaluing what existing WM owners hold.  I wish I could explain this position better, but when the points I own are not worth the same amount of time (days) at new locations, my existing investment in WM TS is being lessened.  How is this fair to existing WM TS holders?  

I'm not sure I have an answer here but when the end result of adding new resorts to the WM brand mean existing owners will need more resources to stay the same amount of time in some (i.e. the newer) resources than others, something is amiss.  I realize not every WM location is exactly the same (in terms of quality, location, amenities, perceived value, etc) but it seems to me that WM comes the closest among the systems I am familiar with in terms of consistency between locations.  In my mind, WM has set an implied standard - one that charging higher amounts at new locations violates.    

Might upping the required ante at one WM location eventually mean that other (not so modern) WM locations up their required points to stay as well?  

This certainly is not a positive development for existing WM TS holders with smaller accounts.


----------



## ecwinch (Apr 7, 2019)

bbodb1 said:


> Here's the problem I see with adding new resorts at higher prices, *Eric: WM (and/or Wyndham) is actually devaluing what existing WM owners hold*.  I wish I could explain this position better, but when the points I own are not worth the same amount of time (days) at new locations, my existing investment in WM TS is being lessened.  How is this fair to existing WM TS holders?
> 
> I'm not sure I have an answer here but when the end result of adding new resorts to the WM brand mean existing owners will need more resources to stay the same amount of time in some (i.e. the newer) resources than others, something is amiss.  I realize not every WM location is exactly the same (in terms of quality, location, amenities, perceived value, etc) but it seems to me that WM comes the closest among the systems I am familiar with in terms of consistency between locations.  In my mind, WM has set an implied standard - one that charging higher amounts at new locations violates.
> 
> ...



You certainly can view it that way. But the reality is that every resort that existed when you first became a member is still available to you at that same credit cost. With some new ones at or near those values. Granted, you might face more competition for those resorts, but that would have happened even if credit allocations had remained constant. So how it is unfair - if you got what you paid for (plus some)?

Relative Use Value (RUV) ... ie. the theory that every resort should come into the system at the same credit values was just as unsound a theory as the concept of free housekeeping. It just took longer for it to become unviable.

Thinking that 1 night in historic building in downtown Seattle has the same value (or cost) as a converted motel in Ocean Shores is unrealistic. It is neither viable from a value standpoint or a operating cost standpoint. And anything that economically unrealistic will fail over time.

ps. Assume for a moment that RUV had been explicitly spelled out in our governing documents. Where would be as a Club today? There are a lot of possible answers, but the one definite answer is that our dues would be significantly higher and/or we would have annual special assessments. Simply because the operating expenses of the Club would be spread over fewer credits. And/or nothing new like Portland, Austin, Seattle, etc. Instead new resorts would by picking up intervals on the cheap at existing resorts. That is not what I signed up for.


----------



## DaveNV (Apr 7, 2019)

bbodb1 said:


> Here's the problem I see with adding new resorts at higher prices, Eric: WM (and/or Wyndham) is actually devaluing what existing WM owners hold.  I wish I could explain this position better, but when the points I own are not worth the same amount of time (days) at new locations, my existing investment in WM TS is being lessened.  How is this fair to existing WM TS holders?
> 
> I'm not sure I have an answer here but when the end result of adding new resorts to the WM brand mean existing owners will need more resources to stay the same amount of time in some (i.e. the newer) resources than others, something is amiss.  I realize not every WM location is exactly the same (in terms of quality, location, amenities, perceived value, etc) but it seems to me that WM comes the closest among the systems I am familiar with in terms of consistency between locations.  In my mind, WM has set an implied standard - one that charging higher amounts at new locations violates.
> 
> ...




Great points.  And is pretty much what I've been trying to explain.  If newer resorts are priced out of range for current owners, then what?  I'm not sure I'm ready to buy more credits to add to my account, increasing my costs, just to give me the same staying options I currently have.

I just had a talk with my spouse about this topic, and I was reminded that for the way we travel now, WM is still the best fit.  That is, we rarely go to a location and stay there for a week at a time, unless it's a destination, like Hawaii.  So if we ever wanted to go to Portland, we'd probably only stay for a few days, since it'd likely be a road trip, and on the way to somewhere else.  If the daily rate is higher, it may not be as big a deal as I'm perceiving it to be.  We could still stay there, and compare the costs to what we might spend to stay in a hotel in the area. And that makes me question whether that's what WM Portland was planning all along - that people would stay few a few days at a time, rather than a week or more.

Distance seems to be the determining factor for me.  If I have to travel a long way to get there, I'll likely want to stay there longer.

Dave


----------



## samara64 (Apr 7, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> I for one have never understood how it makes sense that new resorts could be added to the system at the same credit allocation as resorts built 20 years ago.



That is how to compensate for inflation. $ value in 1989 is way higher than 2019. Building cost has gone up so did WM credit prices.

Your idea would be sound if credit cost would be the same @ $1. It is now $3+

So now you are increasing credit prices and count. Pure Greed.


----------



## b2bailey (Apr 7, 2019)

DaveNW said:


> This is all a huge disappointment.
> 
> Reading of this higher credit requirement, and the reasoning behind it, is probably the first chink in WorldMark's armor for me.  My (apparently, undereducated) "points is points" understanding of how things worked leaves me a little disappointed in the system.  I bought 12K credits, what I believed were enough annual credits to stay for a week in a two bedroom WM unit (on average.)  Now I'm seeing future development will require more credits than I own if I want to stay in newer resorts.  Based on this logic, "enough" will never be enough.
> 
> ...


Dave, my first timeshare purchase was points from Trendwest -- later to become Worldmark -- many years ago. Don't remember how  many points or how much I paid. BUT... it was supposed to get me a 2 BR for 7 nights at any and all locations.
And then things began to change. Ended up selling because of what I considered unfair practices. After that became a weeks owner through Marriott. Bought weeks at Timber Lodge and Newport Coast -- and they can't take that away from me. Years of happy exchanging through II -- never joined Marriott points system because of my disappointment with Worldmark.


----------



## DaveNV (Apr 7, 2019)

b2bailey said:


> Dave, my first timeshare purchase was points from Trendwest -- later to become Worldmark -- many years ago. Don't remember how  many points or how much I paid. BUT... it was supposed to get me a 2 BR for 7 nights at any and all locations.
> And then things began to change. Ended up selling because of what I considered unfair practices. After that became a weeks owner through Marriott. Bought weeks at Timber Lodge and Newport Coast -- and they can't take that away from me. Years of happy exchanging through II -- never joined Marriott points system because of my disappointment with Worldmark.



Thanks.  I'm still learning how it all is supposed to work. And after all these years, I should know that where timeshares are concerned, things are always changing.  Overall I'm happy with WorldMark, but once that stops being the case, I'll probably divest myself of any timeshare ownerships, and just become a serial renter.  If I was younger, or had a family traveling with me, or had a handful of other reasons, I'd be more likely to step up and pay more to get more.  But realistically, how often am I going to want to stay at one of the more expensive places?  Not often, and not likely more than once in a great while.  So at the end of the day, it isn't hurting me to know this about these newer resorts.  And I can see that my ownership in any timeshare system is limited.  Surprisingly, that doesn't bother me all that much. 

Dave


----------



## geist1223 (Apr 7, 2019)

Dave where you could stay for 12K Points for a week when you first bought in you can still stay for the same 12K Points. You just may not be able to stay for a week in a new Resort for 12K Points. The problem will be if they try selling off the older resorts.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 7, 2019)

DaveNW said:


> I wonder if this higher credit requirement is a trend that WM is going to use with all new resorts?  They did it with Estancia and Austin, and now Portland.  "Yes, WM Owner, you need to buy more credits. You don't own enough!"  Seems kind of underhanded, regardless of the cost to build the new facility.  I can only guess at what they'll require to stay at Moab.
> 
> Dave


The Anaheim resort (new one, not Dolphin's Cove) gets very high in required credits.  There is no way I would give that many credits for one of those units.  They used to be available through exchange.  Should have done it.  The one bedrooms are a decent number of credits.  

If 10K credits costs around $700, those are high-priced units in this new Portland location.  

I did notice the Wyndham chart recently for Plantation Resort of Myrtle Beach.  Those are reasonably pointed in both Wyndham and WorldMark.  Not bad for Myrtle Beach. It was kind of in-line with our MF's on our weeks.


----------



## geist1223 (Apr 7, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> In the Club Wyndham system the points  .   .   .  For Portland it is 250k points for a week in a 1BR. As is Austin.



It cost a WMTC Owner 11K or 13K depending on the season for that same 1 Bedroom. This is roughly equivalent to an exchange rate/differential of 19.23 to 22.72 to 1 between the two systems. If I remember correctly from what Ron P. said several years ago the average Wyndham Owner pays more in MF's for 250,000 Wyndham Points than the average WMTC Owner pays in MF's on the 11K or 13K WMTC Points.


----------



## ecwinch (Apr 7, 2019)

geist1223 said:


> It cost a WMTC Owner 11K or 13K depending on the season for that same 1 Bedroom. This is roughly equivalent to an exchange rate/differential of 19.23 to 22.72 to 1 between the two systems. If I remember correctly from what Ron P. said several years ago the average Wyndham Owner pays more in MF's for 250,000 Wyndham Points than the average WMTC Owner pays in MF's on the 11K or 13K WMTC Points.



Yes, at the Club Pass exchange rates (~16.6:1) Club Wyndham members pay more in dues than a WM member pays in dues.

16600 Club Wyndham points are ~$99 dollars. 1000 WM credits are ~$80 dollars.

A lot of that has to do with range of dues a Club Wyndham member might pay for points. Depending on the cost basis, certain Club Wyndham resorts would be closer to WM.

The disparity gets wider when you look at the shared resorts as you note, as it would make no sense to allow Club Wyndham members to exchange via Club Pass for fewer points than to book direct.

ps. Given how often Ron P gets quoted, you have to wonder why WMO thought it was a good idea to run him off.


----------



## sparty (Apr 7, 2019)

Just got back from WM PDX..

Pics is from a standard 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom presidential.

The kitchen with the range/stove is the 2 bedroom presidential that goes for 28K credits per week.  The small induction top is from the kitchen of a standard 1 bedroom.    I didn't see a washer/dryer in the standard 1 bedroom but it was there in the two bedroom presidential.

The 1 bedroom is pretty small - the 2 bedroom presidential is pricey but roomy.  I didn't get a pic, but the murphy bed in the studio is a little different, it comes down out of the wall and goes between the arms of the couch   Not many people realized this and was trying to move the couch out of the way of the murphy bed.

There is no pool or hot tub but on the 2nd floor there is a patio with gas fire pit and bbq.  Public parking is plentiful nearby but WM has no parking.  The light rail (the Max) stops 2 blocks from WM and goes directly to the airport.  Definitely the way to go if arriving by plane.


----------



## rhonda (Apr 7, 2019)

What a weird "W" logo ... thanks for the photos!


----------



## geist1223 (Apr 7, 2019)

Ron was kind of gruff at times. He and I got into a few times. Can you believe that?  I was warned and I toned it down. He got into several fights with Moderators when he was told to tone it down and not be so attacking in languange. This would on occasion make him even more pointed. I was off in Europe for several weeks when it all came to a head and so I wasn't reading WMOWNERS at the time.

Though the longer Ron is out of Wyndham and WMTC his knowledge will become less relevant.


----------



## geist1223 (Apr 7, 2019)

Dave if you want to see some nice fair Point Values check out WM Shawnee Village and WM Myrtle Beach Plantation (but not actually in Myrtle Beach). This clearly illustrates the difference between new construction and Wyndham buying into an established Resort. Also the Point values at WM Park City are not that outrageous. Again a Resort Wyndham bought into. It costs a lot more to stay at Wyndham Park City - new built. These two properties share a property line.


----------



## ecwinch (Apr 7, 2019)

Similar aesthetic as Austin.... other than the cabinet color.


----------



## b2bailey (Apr 7, 2019)

I don't remember the details, but the original resorts, when I purchased, where I could stay for a week in a 2bedroom, it was no longer the case.
That's why I became disenchanted.


geist1223 said:


> Dave where you could stay for 12K Points for a week when you first bought in you can still stay for the same 12K Points. You just may not be able to stay for a week in a new Resort for 12K Points. The problem will be if they try selling off the older resorts.


----------



## DaveNV (Apr 7, 2019)

geist1223 said:


> Dave if you want to see some nice fair Point Values check out WM Shawnee Village and WM Myrtle Beach Plantation (but not actually in Myrtle Beach). This clearly illustrates the difference between new construction and Wyndham buying into an established Resort. Also the Point values at WM Park City are not that outrageous. Again a Resort Wyndham bought into. It costs a lot more to stay at Wyndham Park City - new built. These two properties share a property line.



Thanks, Tom.  I fully understand how and why it's happening.  I think the issue I had/have with it all was that I thought 12K credits was "enough."  I see now that it's not, and going forward, as new resorts are built, it's unlikely 12K will ever be enough.  And that's ok.  I only bought WM in the first place because I got a killer deal on the purchase. If I use it for a few years, stay at the resorts I want to stay at, and then sell it off, I'll still be money ahead.  And that's when the renting starts. 

Dave


----------



## geist1223 (Apr 7, 2019)

b2bailey said:


> I don't remember the details, but the original resorts, when I purchased, where I could stay for a week in a 2bedroom, it was no longer the case.
> That's why I became disenchanted.



But they have not increased the Point value/cost per week in any of the older Resorts.


----------



## ecwinch (Apr 7, 2019)

geist1223 said:


> But they have not increased the Point value/cost per week in any of the older Resorts.



True - because they cannot increase or decrease the total credits allocated to a resort.

But they have and do shift the seasons around, so one year you could book a room for a certain check-in date and it was in blue season (less credits), and the next year that same date might be in red season. Making it look like the credits required had increased.


----------



## easyrider (Apr 8, 2019)

DaveNW said:


> Great points.  And is pretty much what I've been trying to explain.  If newer resorts are priced out of range for current owners, then what?  I'm not sure I'm ready to buy more credits to add to my account, increasing my costs, just to give me the same staying options I currently have.
> 
> I just had a talk with my spouse about this topic, and I was reminded that for the way we travel now, WM is still the best fit.  That is, we rarely go to a location and stay there for a week at a time, unless it's a destination, like Hawaii.  So if we ever wanted to go to Portland, we'd probably only stay for a few days, since it'd likely be a road trip, and on the way to somewhere else.  If the daily rate is higher, it may not be as big a deal as I'm perceiving it to be.  We could still stay there, and compare the costs to what we might spend to stay in a hotel in the area. And that makes me question whether that's what WM Portland was planning all along - that people would stay few a few days at a time, rather than a week or more.
> 
> ...



You really do not need more points in one account to manipulate bonus time. What works good is at least two 6000 point accounts. I like WM bonus time when traveling but very often use RCI, II and SFX for bonus weeks instead. This week I'm at David Wally's on a II getaway for about $300. I was only planning on being here for 3 or 4 nights but like it so much I am inclined to stay all week. 

Yes, the newer resorts do cost more but the cost is usually still a way lower cost than going to the newer resort any other way, imo.

Bill


----------



## Tahiya (Apr 8, 2019)

rhonda said:


> What a weird "W" logo ... thanks for the photos!


The guest manager who was there visiting from The Camlin told me that this is windham's new logo. Like you, I also find it rather weird.


----------



## rhonda (Apr 8, 2019)

Tahiya said:


> The guest manager who was there visiting from The Camlin told me that this is windham's new logo. Like you, I also find it rather weird.


Looks like someone was fidgeting with a paperclip.


----------



## oldf1000 (Feb 29, 2020)

sparty said:


> I didn't get a pic, but the murphy bed in the studio is a little different, it comes down out of the wall and goes between the arms of the couch  Not many people realized this and was trying to move the couch out of the way of the murphy bed.


The night we stayed there we were very disappointed that the couch didn't have sliders on it's feet to move it!  Also that it depended on being up against the murphy bed to have a ridged back!  Now it all makes sense!  
Seems to make sense to me that a new resort in the city would cost more credits than where land is cheaper.  I like the bargain hunting aspect of choosing  where and how I want to spend my credits.


----------

