I will never stay off site. It is Disney or nothing.

[epcotisbest]

We have a few days we might be able to come down in Sept. Just for kicks I checked three of our favorites. Yacht Club since it was mentioned here, Ritz Carlton Grande Lakes, and Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress, similar rooms, water view, exact same dates, room only.
Yacht Club - $2,133
RCGL - $1,248
HRGC - $878

Again, we drive, so transportation is a non-issue for us, but that seems to be the biggest reason for staying onsite.
And again, we do stay onsite at least once per year, and enjoy it.

 

[epcotisbest]

Just checked POP for the same dates and it was $486, not too bad and might have to consider that, but certainly can't compare it to any of the other three. Have stayed at POP before and had a good trip. We like the whimsical design and location.

 

[21stamps]

We have a few days we might be able to come down in Sept. Just for kicks I checked three of our favorites. Yacht Club since it was mentioned here, Ritz Carlton Grande Lakes, and Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress, similar rooms, water view, exact same dates, room only.
Yacht Club - $2,133
RCGL - $1,248
HRGC - $878

Again, we drive, so transportation is a non-issue for us, but that seems to be the biggest reason for staying onsite.
And again, we do stay onsite at least once per year, and enjoy it.

For me transportation and convenience are the same. Even when I drove we stay on site, we leave car parked. Last year we flew in (but did rent a car last day of WDW for the next week) stayed at Poly, the ease of the launch to/from MK is sooo nice- for mid day breaks as well. This year we will be at the Contemporary for similar reasons..and the Swan before our cruise since that is our Epcot day, and we will have a car from MCO to keep at the Swan and drive to port.
When I would go for F&W we would drive, but always stayed at YC and just walked or took boat to Epcot, and cab to Downtown Disney.

The only way to "justify" the cost of a WDW resort is if convenience and time saving are very very important to you. For me, at my son's age, him waking up in the morning jumping up and running excitedly to the balcony to see Cinderella's castle and Space Mountain..this is priceless to me. Using the boat back after an evening of fun and not dealing with finding a car in the parking lot, driving to our lodging location, dealing with attempting to carry him in-priceless. When I was on adult F&W trips- drinking around the world and heading back to our resort to quickly shower and change- priceless.

If none of those things matter to a person then they shouldn't do it. The rooms are nothing special. I could be getting points at the Waldorf for 1/3rd of the price with better room, I know this, but everything I listed above is how I justify it. Oddly enough, I considered a Value for our pre cruise stay, especially since we aren't arriving until @2am the first night-I have a harder time justifying that then I do the other resorts. Same thing with Animal Kingdom lodge or villas-resort looks awesome, but too far out of the way- for me. Totally personal preference of how/why people justify their choices. None are right or wrong.

 

[epcotisbest]

For me transportation and convenience are the same. Even when I drove we stay on site, we leave car parked. Last year we flew in (but did rent a car last day of WDW for the net week) stayed at Poly, the ease of the launch to/from MK is sooo nice- for mid day breaks as well. This year we will be at the Contemporary for similar reasons..and the Swan before our cruise since that is our Epcot day, and we will have a car from MCO to keep at the Swan and drive to port.
When I would go for F&W we would drive, but always stayed at YC and just walked or took boat to Epcot, and cab to Downtown Disney.

The only way to "justify" the cost of a WDW resort is if convenience and time saving are very very important to you. For me, at my son's age, him making up in the morning jumping up and running excitedly to the balcony to see Cinderella's castle and Space Mountain..this is priceless to me. Using the boat back after an evening of fun and not dealing with finding a car in the parking lot, driving to our lodging location, dealing with attempting to carry him in-priceless. When I was on adult F&W trips- drinking around the world and heading back to our resort to quickly shower and change- priceless.

If none of those things matter to a person then they shouldn't do it. The rooms are nothing special. I could be getting points at the Waldorf for 1/3rd of the price with better room, I know this, but everything I listed above is how I justify it. Oddly enough, I considered a Value for our pre cruise stay, especially since we aren't arriving until @2am the first night-I have a harder time justifying that then I do the other resorts. Totally personal preference of how/why people justify their choices. None are right or wrong.

Well, I think there are other ways to justify the cost other than convenience and time savings. For example, we have done a couple of deluxes just to experience the resorts, because we like the feel of the place and atmosphere, we enjoyed the resort and did not care about convenience.
Yes, we could have stayed at nicer, more luxurious places, but wanted to stay at Wilderness Lodge that time. And, have been back to WL multiple times, now at the villas.
So, while I advocate saving a lot of money while at the same time getting much nicer accommodations offsite, we like to stay onsite too.
And you are right, totally personal preference. No right or wrong. Just the idea of not even considering offsite is what baffles me as some of our best trips have been offsite.
While being pampered and surrounded by opulence for much less money than we have paid at Disney, I never have thought I would only be happy onsite.
I have also stayed in a $20 room over on 192 (many years ago) and had a good trip as well. Was not bitter I could not be onsite, just happy to be within driving distance. If we were only willing to stay onsite, we would have missed out on many wonderful trips.
So see, I stand firmly on both sides as I think onsite and offsite both make me happy.

 

[SAV]

Having done both, I will stay at whatever makes the most sense financially or otherwise. If we can afford an on-site Moderate, I'll do it. If it makes more sense to stay off-site, then we'll do that. I never rely on Disney transportation, so that isn't a factor in my choices at all. We hadn't really taken advantage of EMH's, so that wasn't a factor either.

One year we got an amazing deal from the Sheraton trying to get us to buy their timeshare. Nothing can touch a villa for $250 for 4 nights. And the grounds and pool were better than any Moderate on property. Yes it was a short drive, but so what? It didn't make us feel bad about staying there. In fact I liked the freedom of being off-site.

Except for MK, the time it takes for someone to wait for a bus, get on it, and get to a park is same or longer than it takes me to get in my own vehicle and get to a park. I also don't have to deal with other people at the end of a long park day.
We will always consider off-site if it makes sense.

 

[21stamps]

Well, I think there are other ways to justify the cost other than convenience and time savings. For example, we have done a couple of deluxes just to experience the resorts, because we like the feel of the place and atmosphere, we enjoyed the resort and did not care about convenience.
Yes, we could have stayed at nicer, more luxurious places, but wanted to stay at Wilderness Lodge that time. And, have been back to WL multiple times, now at the villas.
So, while I advocate saving a lot of money while at the same time getting much nicer accommodations offsite, we like to stay onsite too.
And you are right, totally personal preference. No right or wrong. Just the idea of not even considering offsite is what baffles me as some of our best trips have been offsite.
While being pampered and surrounded by opulence for much less money than we have paid at Disney, I never have thought I would only be happy onsite.
I have also stayed in a $20 room over on 192 (many years ago) and had a good trip as well. Was not bitter I could not be onsite, just happy to be within driving distance. If we were only willing to stay onsite, we would have missed out on many wonderful trips.
So see, I stand firmly on both sides as I think onsite and offsite both make me happy.

I get that. For all of my trips, minus the last one, I was a SoFla resident. So for me even going to IoA didn't feel like a "vacation" just a fun weekend. I have quite a few friends in Orlando and would visit often, mostly doing non tourist stuff. A Disney experience is different to me than a normal Orlando weekend, WDW was it's own "mini vacay" for food and wine. Annoying that it is more expensive than a weekend in the DR, but just a different kind of fun. I don't know if that makes sense at all. lol.

 

[Bibbity Bobbity Boo]

When I was young and went the first two times with my parents to WDW grant it the "World" wasn't as big back then we stayed off site. After that the many other vacations with my parents were onsite and all 5 trips to WDW since I've been married have been onsite as well. The transportation, the cast members making the magic happen all the time, and the themes of the resorts just make it all worth it.

 

[morningstar]

When I was a kid we usually stayed off-site. This was before there were value resorts. If you wanted to stay onsite, it was what are now deluxe resorts, and it was about as expensive in inflation-adjusted dollars. We stayed at the Caribbean Beach Resort shortly after it opened for eighty-some dollars a night.

I kind of wanted to continue the frugal tradition and stay off-site, but I can't justify it. When you add rental car and parking on top of off-site hotel rates, it's close to the same price as a discounted value resort.

I can understand why some categories of travelers prefer off-site. If you want luxury accommodations, then you can get comparable or better luxury for less off-site. If I were to stay in a deluxe, though, it would be for the theme and if applicable the monorail, not the luxury. You can't match either of those things off-site.

Disney has priced their offerings pretty competitively, so I think for most customers one of the three tiers will be a good deal. Some customers have their own particular preferences that don't exactly match any of the Disney offerings, and so they might find exactly what they're looking for at the best price off-site. I'll stay on-site, though. It's not insane loyalty, it's just the best value for the money for what I want.

 

[21stamps]

When I was a kid we usually stayed off-site. This was before there were value resorts. If you wanted to stay onsite, it was what are now deluxe resorts, and it was about as expensive in inflation-adjusted dollars. We stayed at the Caribbean Beach Resort shortly after it opened for eighty-some dollars a night.

I kind of wanted to continue the frugal tradition and stay off-site, but I can't justify it. When you add rental car and parking on top of off-site hotel rates, it's close to the same price as a discounted value resort.

I can understand why some categories of travelers prefer off-site. If you want luxury accommodations, then you can get comparable or better luxury for less off-site. If I were to stay in a deluxe, though, it would be for the theme and if applicable the monorail, not the luxury. You can't match either of those things off-site.

Disney has priced their offerings pretty competitively, so I think for most customers one of the three tiers will be a good deal. Some customers have their own particular preferences that don't exactly match any of the Disney offerings, and so they might find exactly what they're looking for at the best price off-site. I'll stay on-site, though. It's not insane loyalty, it's just the best value for the money for what I want.

Not if you read people on message boards... You would think "back then" that Poly and the Contemporary were the same price as a Motel 6, and Disney tickets were the same price as a pack of gum.lol. I always think "wow that must have been at a different WDW than I was at". So it is extremely nice to read your post!!!! Whew, I'm not actually crazy

 

[morningstar]

Not if you read people on message boards... You would think "back then" that Poly and the Contemporary were the same price as a Motel 6, and Disney tickets were the same price as a pack of gum.lol. I always think "wow that must have been at a different WDW than I was at". So it is extremely nice to read your post!!!! Whew, I'm not actually crazy

I recall prices around $200 per night for monorail resorts. I guess it was about 1990. In today's dollars that's $368. Just checked and Contemporary has rooms for right about that.

 

[21stamps]

I recall prices around $200 per night for monorail resorts. I guess it was about 1990. In today's dollars that's $368. Just checked and Contemporary has rooms for right about that.

Typically they are more, especially with the tower at CR and the "views" at Poly/GF/CR- they are not equal to inflation... but neither are most other travel destinations. But they have always been "expensive", just now more so, and you don't have to stay in a theme park view room..if someone chooses standard view at Poly or GF, or the garden wing at CR- they are a little closer to the inflation adjustment

 

[cheesecake]

I don't really get the absolute, one extreme or the other stance people have on these things! There are plenty of beautiful resorts in the area, and I can understand why people might choose them. While many of us here choose to stay on property so we can stay in the "Disney Bubble," I'm sure there are some guests that would rather leave Disney at the end of the day, and stay at a more neutral place without mouse ears everywhere they look (blasphemy, I know). Some people would rather rent a house with extended family or friends. There are lots of great options out there.

My main reason that I enjoy staying on property is transportation. I get lost literally everywhere I go, and I would not want to be responsible for navigating my way through Florida.

 

[DisneyPrincess5]

Everyone's preferences are different. I don't mind buying store brand items while it's important to others to buy the name brands. Some people are fine with a $17 Old Navy purse while others want Gucci. To each his own, and everyone's wallets and what they do with what it contains is their own business.

Personally, we stay onsite. For us, staying on site is imperative to our vacation experience. We feel enveloped in that bubble of magic. As a kid, we would drive and we stayed offsite a few times. While I feel extremely grateful that we were able to go and experience WDW as many times as we did, I distinctly remember feeling like we were missing out on something. I couldn't articulate it or understand it at the time but looking back, I felt detached. The times we stayed on property felt so much different. I remember feeling like a part of a special club. And to a 10 year old, that's like winning the lottery. And I still get that feeling as an adult.

 

[jaklgreen]

We have always stayed on property because of the ease and transportation. We do not usually leave Disney property so have no need for a car. And we prefer not to have to drive in a strange city with a bunch of other tourists. I go solo every fall for the F&WF and this year I was looking to save some money. So for the first time, I looked around at hotels that were very close to WDW so that I did not have to drive too far. Well after pricing it all out, it turned out cheaper to stay at All Stars then to stay off property and rent a car. Plus I get the benefits of staying on property like EMH.

 

[Tinkwings]

If I cannot stay onsite I cannot go....its an all or nothing thing going forward. Once I stayed at the Wilderness Lodge there was no going back.....I loved no car, being immersed, being close to MK, the resort, the boats, the restaurants.....a true escape. Now that my children are older DH is mentioning maybe in the future he would like to take the camper to the Wilderness Campground, and I am actually amazed I am considering it....ha, but might need to invest in a real camper, vs our popup......just for Disney Vacations.....then I am analyzing why not just stay at the resort for the cost of said camper......but DH's version of a vacation is camping period...no showers etc....so if I have to swallow this compromise down the road then so be it! (Tink still prefers the resort....just sayin'......)

 

[Kylo Ken]

It all depends for me. I like to go once, twice a month if possible so I go with the best value. I stay on Disney property at least once a year so I get my fill of the "magic" then. When I used to live outside of Florida, I would stay on property since it was a "big" vacation.

I only speak for myself and quite frankly, I wasn't born with a silver spoon in hand or with the last name Rockefeller so I can't afford to always stay on Disney property. There are several hotels in the area (192, even Disney Springs) that are a great value which Disney can't compare to. My kids love to go monthly so the way I can manage it is by staying off property. Obviously, everyone's needs are different but I can see the plus/minuses of both.

 

[bpadair32]

We have always stayed onsite because we enjoy being in "the bubble". If I am going on vacation, it is about enjoying my time, I am not looking for the best value or to save money, and I enjoy being on property. So I would have never considered staying off property. I want to get on a boat or bus or monorail at the end of the day and not have to worry about anything else. And now that we have joined DVC I really have to reason to consider staying offsite.

 

[SeanWM48]

i travel a few times a year for work and stay in hotels. nice hotels, sure. but when i go to Disney i want a Disney hotel. I gladly sign up for the "bubble" experience. i also cannot be bothered to drive to the parks and deal w/ the parking lots. ugh.

sure, staying off-site makes the most sense financially. but this is for a few days a year on vacation. i admittedly put a lot of that aside so i can have fun and enjoy myself without trudging across parking lots. maybe if i lived closer and went all the time i'd feel differently and try to save some dollars on the hotel.

 

[cdeev8690]

My folks have a timeshare and are not totally interested in Disney so each time we go to Orlando as a family, we stay at Marriott Harbour Lake. It's super nice two bedroom units, 2 full bathrooms, a living room, pull out couch, full kitchen, balconies, and a really nice pool. It's not tremendously far and it's cost effective for them when planning Orlando vacations. We typically go grocery shopping once we arrive and will make dinner nearly every evening in the kitchen or utilize the charcoal grills outside.

I prefer staying on site but I would never force my family to if they think they can save some extra bucks with off property. But it's totally silly to not at least consider staying off property when visiting the area, especially if you intend to visit multiple amusement parks.

 

[Johnguelff]

Its onsite or nothing for me. I love the atmosphere. The Disney hotels are a HUGE part of the experience.