Wyndham is closing a handful of legacy resorts - dedicated chart/tracker located in the first post for this unfolding set of events

[jp10558]

You are kinder (to Wyndham) than I - my guess is it is intentional. Well maybe 60% intentional and 40% standard mode of operation for Wyndham.

I'm just not very conspiratorial. I also know many large organizations are not really executing some well thought out or communicated plan even internally, forget about externally. Personally I think incompetence is far more common than explicit malice.

My thought process on this one is:
1) the only benefit to Wyndham is a potential confusion sales can use to lie / upsell low information owners.
2) Sales is completely capable of just making up whatever to do the same, and is regularly doing so to low information purchasers.
3) Screwing this up is bad optics to impacted owners and people online

#2 means #1 and #3 are mostly irrelevant, so there's no top down / high up reason to pull some complicated gambit here.

Maybe by intentional you mean, not intentional to screw some owners or upsell some people unfairly, just to operate "efficiently". In that case, 100% it's intentional - Wyndham planned and picked the affected resorts somewhat deliberately on specific criteria, and decided to end this year. I think they just don't care very much about the chaos they've engendered - it makes their calendar look good for it all to wrap up on Dec 31st (due to resource usage, financials, just wanting to complete a project), so that's what they did.

 

[Arimaas]

You might not have a choice to take cwa.

Someone on facebook reported that at the Orlando International vote it was stated that if the member converted to points then they would be offered the option to trade to cwa points or wait for the sales distribution. Fixed week owners are limited to the second option.

It seems that you are limited to taking the $5000.

Well they have to offer me something, whether it is proceeds of the sale or CWA. And for them, me taking on CWA would be a better deal. They keep the proceeds and get someone to take over the MFs they are paying on 154K CWA points. Offer it or not, I am not taking the swap. Like someone else said, I'd be better going to eBay and picking up 154K points for nothing and still taking the proceeds, I'll come out ahead.

Again, I am just upset at losing 154K Fairfield Glade points at $6.50/1000. Those are decently low MFs.

 

[donno]

Again, I am just upset at losing 154K Fairfield Glade points at $6.50/1000. Those are decently low MFs.

I feel your pain. I have a $5.55/1000 and a $6.50/1000 at Fairfield Bay I will hate to lose.

 

[CO skier]

1) the only benefit to Wyndham is a potential confusion sales can use to lie / upsell low information owners.

The #1 benefit to Wyndham, by far, and probably the driving force behind these resort closures is Wyndham no longer having to pay maintenance fees on more than 50% of intervals at more than 10 resorts. The annual savings will easily top $20 million.

 

[Jan M.]

First I want to say how much I appreciate so much of the information discussed/shared here. So many of you really understand this stuff and it's truly impressive, there is so much to understand in so many different areas around timeshares. Especially for anyone caught in the crosshairs - what a great forum to ask questions specifically about their situation.

Then I want to say/ask... Why would Wyndham do this all in one fell swoop? Batch 13 resorts together, making generalizations about the whole mass (these may be exiting Wyndham for a laundry list of reasons and we are left to speculate why). Each resort is unique and they will each be handled differently, glumping it all together and basically leaking it out -- I can't even put words to it. Just shake my head, and try to think of different names I would call this 'project'. Like operation Cluster___ - and then I shake my head again.

As others have posted in this thread - I think it's a mix of "standard" Wyndham incompetence (not figuring this was going to leak) and real and imagined legal issues meaning they "have" to wait till all the votes are over to comment. If you wanted to create a bunch of rumors and concerned owners and opportunities for both sales and other scams on the less knowledgeable ones, you'd be hard pressed IMO to come up with a better method intentionally than what Wyndham has done here.

Background for where this is headed.

We first bought in 2002 and are now Presidential Reserve owners. Yes, we spent A LOT of money. We also use our timeshares A LOT, even before DH retired. No regerts, lol. Some of you will get that.

As I've previously posted timeshares have been ideal for us as we never wanted the work or associated expenses of owning a second home, single location vacation property, RV, etc.

I haven't mentioned this is quite awhile. For the first 16 years we owned my husband was still working. In the several companies he worked for during those years he was repeatedly asked how we could afford to vacation like we did. There was a known pay scale so they had a pretty good idea of what each other made. His answer was always "We have the timeshare." He'd always tell them that I was very knowledgeable about timeshares and if they ever had questions I'd be happy to answer them. Not once did anyone ever ask. What they did do was act, and in some cases talk, like he was some new kind of stupid because everyone who's not a fool knows that timeshares are a scam. These people are for the most part degreed professionals and knowledgeable about any number of things so we're obviously the fools who got ripped off. Same thing with other people we knew and probably some of DH's family too. They go somewhere for a week, once, twice, or if they're lucky three times a year. Now that we're retired we go for months staying in comfort. No hotels for us. Having the timeshares has also allowed us to send our son and his family, other family, and a few close family friends on vacations. When we're at a resort kicked back with an adult beverage enjoying the view or doing something fun, we make smug, snarky comments about who's a fool now.

I'm done with all the background, lol, but I wanted give a postive perspective before I got to the negative.

Today I was on Facebook and listened to a Dave Ramsey post. He wasn't talking about timeshares but an experience he had when he was buying something. Here's what it brought home to me. The dark side is that Wyndham is run by people who came up through sales. It simply isn't possible to succeed in sales with Wyndham, which would be necessary to climb the ladder, without engaging in lying, manipulating, deception, and taking advantage of people, the uniformed, the elderly, people already in questionable financial circumstances. We know that Wyndham upper management is well aware of these practices and that those practices are openly coached. This is a money makers vs money takers driven management. Sales being the money makers and the resorts and owners the necessary evil money takers. It's not an easy balance to achieve in any company with a product to sell and stockholders expecting to see a return on their investment.

Here's the lesson. With a company led by people who came up through our timeshare sales, be realistic and set your expectations accordingly.

 

[Arimaas]

Background for where this is headed.

We first bought in 2002 and are now Presidential Reserve owners. Yes, we spent A LOT of money. We also use our timeshares A LOT, even before DH retired. No regerts, lol. Some of you will get that.

As I've previously posted timeshares have been ideal for us as we never wanted the work or associated expenses of owning a second home, single location vacation property, RV, etc.

I haven't mentioned this is quite awhile. For the first 16 years we owned my husband was still working. In the several companies he worked for during those years he was repeatedly asked how we could afford to vacation like we did. There was a known pay scale so they had a pretty good idea of what each other made. His answer was always "We have the timeshare." He'd always tell them that I was very knowledgeable about timeshares and if they ever had questions I'd be happy to answer them. Not once did anyone ever ask. What they did do was act, and in some cases talk, like he was some new kind of stupid because everyone who's not a fool knows that timeshares are a scam. These people are for the most part degreed professionals and knowledgeable about any number of things so we're obviously the fools who got ripped off. Same thing with other people we knew and probably some of DH's family too. They go somewhere for a week, once, twice, or if they're lucky three times a year. Now that we're retired we go for months staying in comfort. No hotels for us. Having the timeshares has also allowed us to send our son and his family, other family, and a few close family friends on vacations. When we're at a resort kicked back with an adult beverage enjoying the view or doing something fun, we make smug, snarky comments about who's a fool now.

I'm done with all the background, lol, but I wanted give a postive perspective before I got to the negative.

Today I was on Facebook and listened to a Dave Ramsey post. He wasn't talking about timeshares but an experience he had when he was buying something. Here's what it brought home to me. The dark side is that Wyndham is run by people who came up through sales. It simply isn't possible to succeed in sales with Wyndham, which would be necessary to climb the ladder, without engaging in lying, manipulating, deception, and taking advantage of people, the uniformed, the elderly, people already in questionable financial circumstances. We know that Wyndham upper management is well aware of these practices and that those practices are openly coached. This is a money makers vs money takers driven management. Sales being the money makers and the resorts and owners the necessary evil money takers. It's not an easy balance to achieve in any company with a product to sell and stockholders expecting to see a return on their investment.

Here's the lesson. With a company led by people who came up through our timeshare sales, be realistic and set your expectations accordingly.

It's funny, I almost feel dirty when I tell people "I have a timeshare". There is such a negative stigma with the industry, rightfully so given the second half of your post. But I too, am able to provide great memories and vacations for my family through the Wyndham system, in accommodations, I quite frankly, couldn't afford otherwise. Also, when I have extra points, I find myself going somewhere (usually Shawanee since it's close, but I guess that will change) just to burn the points, so kind of forced to unwind for a few extra days Hell, just had a great time for two nights at Skyline Tower, which I booked because there happened to be accommodations, I wanted to see it before it closed, and the points were 20% off.

I am grateful for the product. I really do enjoy it, and get value out of it (owning three resales, which cost less than $1500 total helps).

However, you make a good point. The people running the show came up through sales. There is incentive for the salespeople to lie, cheat, and say whatever they want to close the deal. It is really an awful awful industry. But that doesn't mean we should set our expectations for it. I think TUG is a great place to get the truth out. Hell, I found TUG because we went on a tour in Hawaii when we were given free luau tickets while on a babymoon. Glad I found TUG. Been a resale owner since 2015 (HGVC which I divested from and current Wyndham).

 

[Twenty20]

The #1 benefit to Wyndham, by far, and probably the driving force behind these resort closures is Wyndham no longer having to pay maintenance fees on more than 50% of intervals at more than 10 resorts. The annual savings will easily top $20 million.

Bingo. Wyndham is in the business of selling timeshares. They take them back for $0 and sell them off to unsuspecting prospects for (tens of) thousands. Sales at these resorts were clearly poor, so Wyndham is left holding an ever growing amount of inventory, paying MFs on all of them to the HOAs.

Has nothing to do with the age, infrastructure etc... My FF Glade ownership was extensively remodeled via owner assessment within the last decade. I was there a year ago and it was in very good condition.

But it's an area that I'm sure draws less and less new blood interest, and thereby new timeshare sales. So makes no business sense for Wyndham to keep the sales operation going. They aren't in the business of managing resorts, they are in the business of selling timeshares.

 

[CO skier]

Sales at these resorts were clearly poor,

What "clear" evidence do you have to support this claim?

Has nothing to do with the age, infrastructure etc...

Age, infrastructure, etc., is exactly why resorts like Orlando International Resort Club are on the chopping block.

But it's an area that I'm sure draws less and less new blood interest, and thereby new timeshare sales. So makes no business sense for Wyndham to keep the sales operation going. They aren't in the business of managing resorts, they are in the business of selling timeshares.

There are a number of posts in this thread indicating that there are plenty of guests at these resorts (new blood) for those resorts with sales operations. Skyline Tower is a prime example. The resorts are on the chopping block due to a lack of owner occupancy, not overall occupancy.

 

[Floridaman76]

We first bought in 2002 and are now Presidential Reserve owners. Yes, we spent A LOT of money. We also use our timeshares A LOT, even before DH retired. No regerts, lol. Some of you will get that.

I get it, it's my creedo

 

[bnoble]

Why would Wyndham do this all in one fell swoop?

I can think of one PR-ish reason.

For most owners, the only way these changes impacts them is that it removes some dots from the map. It is ulikely that most owners had Glade on their bucket lists, for example, and most owners don't own at these resorts. They are a small part of the overall portfolio, and if OIRC's experience generalizes, even each individual resort is majority-owned by Wyndham either directly or as part of the CWA trust.

Along these lines, I'm reminded of some of the best PR/leadership advice I've ever gotten: Never turn a one-day story into a two-day story. By removing these all at once, most owners might see the email message---or maybe even not that---look at the list, shrug, and move on. If instead they are each done piecemeal, then you are sending out a dozen of those letters, spread out over months, and that's less desirable.

 

[Floridaman76]

I can think of one PR-ish reason.

For most owners, the only way these changes impacts them is that it removes some dots from the map. It is ulikely that most owners had Glade on their bucket lists, for example, and most owners don't own at these resorts. They are a small part of the overall portfolio, and if OIRC's experience generalizes, even each individual resort is majority-owned by Wyndham either directly or as part of the CWA trust.

Along these lines, I'm reminded of some of the best PR/leadership advice I've ever gotten: Never turn a one-day story into a two-day story. By removing these all at once, most owners might see the email message---or maybe even not that---look at the list, shrug, and move on. If instead they are each done piecemeal, then you are sending out a dozen of those letters, spread out over months, and that's less desirable.

The Glade and Fairfield Bay are outliers when it comes to the "less desirable dots on a map" though. I think you would admit that.

Before the town of Lake Lure / Chimney Rock was destroyed by Hurricane Helene last year, that was a fairly popular location. That was my experience trying to get in there under 6 months and especially under 90 days. Upgrades and discounts there were infrequent.

The "owner occupancy" rate being touted as a reason, I don't know how or why that matters honestly. Butts are in beds. The resorts sure aren't sitting empty. Several of the resorts like Shawnee, Bentley Brook and the Jamestown RI resorts are driving distance to a HUGE population base. It's honestly like Wyndham is just about giving up on the NorthEast

I think that matters to owners who now have in some cases no bookable options within driving distance. Not sure how that would be helpful to sales. Because sales is what it's all about, right?

 

[jp10558]

It's funny, I almost feel dirty when I tell people "I have a timeshare".

Heh, I can relate. However, I also am travelling for a previously inconceivable amount of time to more or less fun resorts and places. I likely NEVER would have gotten in a hot tub ever, or back into a pool if not for TS. I am a bit of a TUG evangelist. TS sales are bad deals and bad salespeople, but IMNSHO they're not scams. But you have to be informed. I've said it before, I've made videos about it - like so many things, if you know what you're doing you can do pretty well. I am far from a TS min/maxer - my Seaworld HGVC isn't exactly a great MF/pts ratio. Same for my Wyndham Smoky Mountains. They're decidedly OK. But the great news is - as much as many on TUG like to go for those "unicorns" of cheap or free purchase with tiny MF/pts - you can still save A LOT of money or travel A LOT MORE by just getting average TS resale. I went from a 5 day trip being a huge deal at hotels, to a 9 day being a "trip of a lifetime" in Finland, to not being interested in most trips for less than a week, and ideally 3 weeks.

However, you make a good point. The people running the show came up through sales. There is incentive for the salespeople to lie, cheat, and say whatever they want to close the deal. It is really an awful awful industry.

I treat most interactions with any salespeople like I'm likely to get fleeced. So I generally avoid them if I possibly can - more and more things don't actually require a salesperson as time goes on. I'm still amazed by the number of people taken in with absolutely no idea what they're buying. However, I've been there, I just saved myself because of a credit freeze and a lack of phonejitsu to unfreeze. I recommend these for all sorts of reasons, including stopping a lot of identity theft. I was only "taken in" at all because I had been mulling getting into TS since probably 2010 or so when I first saw Hilton had such a thing, and I had run into TUG back then. I just forgot till after my first presentation.

Whats my point? I don't love the sales part of the TS industry, but if it hasn't changed in 60 years, I doubt it's going to change without some major regulation or something. I refuse to feel bad for taking advantage of good deals - just like thrifting or farm auctions or using Facebook Marketplace to sometimes get great deals - I'm not scamming anyone taking a resale.

 

[jp10558]

The "owner occupancy" rate being touted as a reason, I don't know how or why that matters honestly. Butts are in beds. The resorts sure aren't sitting empty.

I think it really depends on if Wyndham is making sufficient money to cover the MF payments on their intervals at those resorts. Filling up the resort at $379 RCI Last Call rates isn't covering $1,200 in MFs (OK I've completely made that number up for illustration) for that week. Now, it's better than $0, but I bet after RCI fees etc, Wyndham (the part that "owns" the intervals) is barely covering the housekeeping fee they rate at $175. So I can see why they'd want to get rid of those losses. Now if they are renting from wyndham.com or whatever and getting $2k for that $1,200 in MFs, then bully for them. But I question if that was happening given the amount of last calls dumped at some of these resorts.

Several of the resorts like Shawnee, Bentley Brook and the Jamestown RI resorts are driving distance to a HUGE population base. It's honestly like Wyndham is just about giving up on the NorthEast

I think that matters to owners who now have in some cases no bookable options within driving distance. Not sure how that would be helpful to sales. Because sales is what it's all about, right?

I do wonder why the NorthEast is so avoided by the big TS companies? My best guess is the market research shows that "driving distance" isn't a (lol) driver for the expected future trends of TS owners. I.e. the 60+ crowd might well like TS that are a 3 hour drive, but the 30-60 they're supposedly targeting now don't care about driving a couple days or flying to get to a "better experience". Their marketing also implies that this younger crowd largely isn't interested in "sit by the pool" vacations and instead want experiences and unique amenities and maybe childcare options. So the huge Mexican resorts, or Bonnet Creek are the template I guess they're going for. It also seems like the obvious NE resort of a ski resort is likely to lose out to the "ski meccas" in Colorado for example. Smuggs seems like it's right on that razors edge to me of a big enough resort with a lot to do, but not really fancy enough in the buildings - in ways that I think might also not be economical to remedy. (stuff like cooling in the summer, no elevators, no ice machines in units etc).

 

[Floridaman76]

I think it really depends on if Wyndham is making sufficient money to cover the MF payments on their intervals at those resorts. Filling up the resort at $379 RCI Last Call rates isn't covering $1,200 in MFs (OK I've completely made that number up for illustration) for that week. Now, it's better than $0, but I bet after RCI fees etc, Wyndham (the part that "owns" the intervals) is barely covering the housekeeping fee they rate at $175. So I can see why they'd want to get rid of those losses. Now if they are renting from wyndham.com or whatever and getting $2k for that $1,200 in MFs, then bully for them. But I question if that was happening given the amount of last calls dumped at some of these resorts.

Owner occupancy, and Wyndham owning more intervals than they had hoped to is two entirely different things. At least how I interpreted that to mean was "occupants are guests of owners", not necessarily inventory Wyndham owns through deedbacks or foreclosures being rented on RCI or Extra Holidays. Maybe my assumption was wrong.

If it's just "Wyndham owns too much inventory at locations it can't sell", that sounds like a free market issue and they can certainly resolve that by lowering their prices at some of these locations.

High MF isn't keeping people away from actively buying expensive MF locations like Glacier Canyon, Bonnet Creek, Ocean Walk and any other number of locations with high MF

 

[paxsarah]

Owner occupancy, and Wyndham owning more intervals than they had hoped to is two entirely different things. At least how I interpreted that to mean was "occupants are guests of owners", not necessarily inventory Wyndham owns through deedbacks or foreclosures being rented on RCI or Extra Holidays. Maybe my assumption was wrong.

I would definitely assume that Wyndham’s own rentals factor into this. It’s not owner occupied if it was rented on Extra Holidays or RCI last calls, and it’s probably difficult for Wyndham to cover the maintenance on the intervals it owns at places like Glade and Bay.

 

[Jan M.]

I get it, it's my creedo

View attachment 114828

Some things are poor life choices but for us our timeshares have been a very good choice.

 

[geist1223]

Patti and I bought our first Timeshare (developer) together before we were married. Her Financial Advisor went nuts when she called to have money transferred to her Checking Account so she could pay her half. Several years later and after traveling with us to Hawaii and Australia she admitted it was a good purchase for us because we learned the system, used it a lot, and went to some nice places. So no regrets for us.

 

[Arimaas]

I do wonder why the NorthEast is so avoided by the big TS companies? My best guess is the market research shows that "driving distance" isn't a (lol) driver for the expected future trends of TS owners. I.e. the 60+ crowd might well like TS that are a 3 hour drive, but the 30-60 they're supposedly targeting now don't care about driving a couple days or flying to get to a "better experience". Their marketing also implies that this younger crowd largely isn't interested in "sit by the pool" vacations and instead want experiences and unique amenities and maybe childcare options. So the huge Mexican resorts, or Bonnet Creek are the template I guess they're going for. It also seems like the obvious NE resort of a ski resort is likely to lose out to the "ski meccas" in Colorado for example. Smuggs seems like it's right on that razors edge to me of a big enough resort with a lot to do, but not really fancy enough in the buildings - in ways that I think might also not be economical to remedy. (stuff like cooling in the summer, no elevators, no ice machines in units etc).

My unscientific take? No one wants to be in the NE for the colder months. From what I understand at the folks at Skyline this weekend is it's pretty low occupancy (like 40% or less) for like 8 months out of the year. There is some ski place in MA and NY for winter sports, but like you said, Colorado is where people with money go to ski. I have no problem getting Newport in the winter, and that includes XMas week when it's pretty there because of the XMas lights, but people avoid it because it's freezing and a lot of things are closed So my guess is, from a business standpoint, does it pay to have a few dots on the map in the NE for like four months out of the year occupancy? As a New Yorker, I lose out, but understand where they are coming from if that's the thought process.

 

[comicbookman]

My unscientific take? No one wants to be in the NE for the colder months. From what I understand at the folks at Skyline this weekend is it's pretty low occupancy (like 40% or less) for like 8 months out of the year. There is some ski place in MA and NY for winter sports, but like you said, Colorado is where people with money go to ski. I have no problem getting Newport in the winter, and that includes XMas week when it's pretty there because of the XMas lights, but people avoid it because it's freezing and a lot of things are closed So my guess is, from a business standpoint, does it pay to have a few dots on the map in the NE for like four months out of the year occupancy? As a New Yorker, I lose out, but understand where they are coming from if that's the thought process.

That is why I expect any new dots in the NE to be city sites. I'm thinking Boston and maybe Philidelphia.

 

[Arimaas]

That is why I expect any new dots in the NE to be city sites. I'm thinking Boston and maybe Philidelphia.

I agree. If any new dots, it will be in a city. I meant to say in my post that NYC is the outlier. I am sure that is pretty full year round.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I can think of one PR-ish reason.

For most owners, the only way these changes impacts them is that it removes some dots from the map. It is ulikely that most owners had Glade on their bucket lists, for example, and most owners don't own at these resorts. They are a small part of the overall portfolio, and if OIRC's experience generalizes, even each individual resort is majority-owned by Wyndham either directly or as part of the CWA trust.

Along these lines, I'm reminded of some of the best PR/leadership advice I've ever gotten: Never turn a one-day story into a two-day story. By removing these all at once, most owners might see the email message---or maybe even not that---look at the list, shrug, and move on. If instead they are each done piecemeal, then you are sending out a dozen of those letters, spread out over months, and that's less desirable.

- choose to either rip off the bandaid quickly or choose death by, in this case, at least a dozen cuts. Logically and logistically the former is the obvious choice. It’s also a focus and resourcing issue, get a team of people to focus on this project for a year, and get it all done, or drag it out over many years with less focus, more mistakes, and a constant flow of customer negativity over that entire drawn out time period.

Rip the bandaid off quickly. It’s the same thing with RIFs/WFRs/layoffs, do it quickly and all at once, don’t constantly be cutting people in small batches - the latter kills morale persistently over a longer time period - the former kills morale for a relatively small amount of time and then the remaining people get refocused after a few weeks and move on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HitchHiker71]

I agree. If any new dots, it will be in a city. I meant to say in my post that NYC is the outlier. I am sure that is pretty full year round.

I would certainly use dots in Philly and Boston. Philly is an hour away and our elder son currently lives in south Philly. Boston is a 5-6 hour drive or Amtrak train ride away as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Floridaman76]

I have not been to the Atlanta resort, but one thing that's typical of most urban core "resorts" is they have virtually no amenities. Exceptions would be La Cascada, National Harbor, maybe ATL, I don't know. The footprint just doesn't allow it. At some point these potential urban locations are just glorified hotels with a little more space. A good hunk of the urban core resorts have at best a partial kitchen. There's a few obvious exceptions.

Destination vacation in Philly or Boston (or ATL)? Really? Been to all those places, You say young people want that, really? Which young people? The broke single ones without kids? I got 2 GenZ kids, neither of them have kids yet, but I also don't see them or their helicopter parent to be partners dragging their potential kids through the streets of... philly. And while I did take the family to Boston a time or two, the last time in 2018 we took the "T" around town and on one of the trips a homeless guy urinated and a literal stream of pee went flowing down the aisle inbetween the seats as the car came to a halt. Pretty gross.

Speaking for myself, that's certainly not what I bought into. And if the requirement all of a sudden is "high occupancy yearround", you have Florida and... Florida, and I guess Southern California, maybe parts of Arizona. Are you now ruling out 90% of the country?

Anyway, we are losing 10-12 dots, and still no word on any sort of replacement,. That's contraction.

 

[comicbookman]

I have not been to the Atlanta resort, but one thing that's typical of most urban core "resorts" is they have virtually no amenities. Exceptions would be La Cascada, National Harbor, maybe ATL, I don't know. The footprint just doesn't allow it. At some point these potential urban locations are just glorified hotels with a little more space. A good hunk of the urban core resorts have at best a partial kitchen. There's a few obvious exceptions.

Destination vacation in Philly or Boston (or ATL)? Really? Been to all those places, You say young people want that, really? Which young people? The broke single ones without kids? I got 2 GenZ kids, neither of them have kids yet, but I also don't see them or their helicopter parent to be partners dragging their potential kids through the streets of... philly. And while I did take the family to Boston a time or two, the last time in 2018 we took the "T" around town and on one of the trips a homeless guy urinated and a literal stream of pee went flowing down the aisle inbetween the seats as the car came to a halt. Pretty gross.

Speaking for myself, that's certainly not what I bought into. And if the requirement all of a sudden is "high occupancy yearround", you have Florida and... Florida, and I guess Southern California, maybe parts of Arizona. Are you now ruling out 90% of the country?

Anyway, we are losing 10-12 dots, and still no word on any sort of replacement,. That's contraction.

Not sure who said young people are the only ones who might want city sites. I believe it was stated that the under 65 demographic was the one that would want city sites. I am over 65 and I would love to go to Boston. Phili has plenty of things to see and do for many different ages. There is a large tourist trade in both cities, that is why I mentioned them.

 

[Arimaas]

I have not been to the Atlanta resort, but one thing that's typical of most urban core "resorts" is they have virtually no amenities. Exceptions would be La Cascada, National Harbor, maybe ATL, I don't know. The footprint just doesn't allow it. At some point these potential urban locations are just glorified hotels with a little more space. A good hunk of the urban core resorts have at best a partial kitchen. There's a few obvious exceptions.

Destination vacation in Philly or Boston (or ATL)? Really? Been to all those places, You say young people want that, really? Which young people? The broke single ones without kids? I got 2 GenZ kids, neither of them have kids yet, but I also don't see them or their helicopter parent to be partners dragging their potential kids through the streets of... philly. And while I did take the family to Boston a time or two, the last time in 2018 we took the "T" around town and on one of the trips a homeless guy urinated and a literal stream of pee went flowing down the aisle inbetween the seats as the car came to a halt. Pretty gross.

Speaking for myself, that's certainly not what I bought into. And if the requirement all of a sudden is "high occupancy yearround", you have Florida and... Florida, and I guess Southern California, maybe parts of Arizona. Are you now ruling out 90% of the country?

Anyway, we are losing 10-12 dots, and still no word on any sort of replacement,. That's contraction.

Not sure who said young people are the only ones who might want city sites. I believe it was stated that the under 65 demographic was the one that would want city sites. I am over 65 and I would love to go to Boston. Phili has plenty of things to see and do for many different ages. There is a large tourist trade in both cities, that is why I mentioned them.

I think the concern of urban locations not having full amenities is valid, but I think for those that travel there, they do not mind. If you are going to Boston, Philly, NYC, etc., my guess is you are eating out for at least dinner every night. Maybe bring the left overs home for lunch the next day, put it in the fridge and microwave and be happy. No one is coming to NYC to compare Gristedes to Publix (maybe Zabar's, however) and to cook a five course meal for their family of five.

A shared laundry facility will suffice that crowd. It's more than they are used to from hotels. I think there is a huge market for the urban core for vacations. I'm 43, and i want access to cities. Plenty to do for my daughter in Philly or Boston, and having public transportation available is a huge plus. Even if i did drive to the city, leaving it parked for a week and taking the subway or bus makes me happy. We did it as a family in New Orleans last February. What I'm not sure about, is if people want to visit Boston year after year, but Wyndham is not selling a traditional timeshare of the 70's-2000s, where you go to the same place every year at the same time. They are selling flexible points where people want to go. And people enjoy visiting cities, even with pee running up and down a subway car as it moves. It's part of the lore of the cities, quite frankly. Makes for interested anecdotes at the school lunch table, and here, on TUG.