NelsonRD
Well-Known Member
Nor should it be selected merely because you can see animals which you can already see on Kilimanjaro Safaris.
It's a great resort if you actually plan to spend many hours in your room watching giraffes. If you tend to spend the bulk of your time in the parks or at the pool, it makes sense to be closer to the parks.
To the OP, yes, Yacht and Beach Club combine to MK, but they are right next to each other. It's no different than Jambo and Kidani combining to all parks. Think of it this way--bus service may take up to an hour to MK from Beach Club, but you can walk to Epcot and DHS in under 20 min. Bus service may take up to an hour to EVERYWHERE EXCEPT DAK from AKL. I don't personally spend all that much time at DAK anyway, so that's not much of a perk, and you still have to take a bus there anyway.
Are you looking to spend the bulk of your time in a park or pool or are you looking to spend the bulk of your time sitting in your balcony? If the former, I would argue BC is the better choice; if the latter, AKL is nice.
Actually, that is exactly my point, you should stay merely because you can see animals. From your balcony, you can observe the animals, and be closer to them than you ever can on the Kilimanjaro Safaris. Waking up to a giraffe, where you can hear it eat, or hear a zebra walk, in the privacy and seclusion of your hotel room is what makes it worth it. I am a little shocked how your are downplaying the impressiveness of what they accomplished with the safari as just "watching giraffes". There is a Jurassic Park feeling there that doesn't get old - to me anyways.
Additionally, there is a lot more than giraffes there to see, and I am still not understanding how staying at Animal Kingdom reduces your park time, you can still make it to rope drop and stay to any park closing.
If the pool is important, maybe Great Wolf lodge is a better vacation destination. The idea that the pool is more of a consideration than the savanna is laughable to me.