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

[xdan0920]

I stay onsite because I love the Walt Disney Co and it loves me. I don't want to give my money to anyone else but DISNEY!!!!

 

[ScottKC]

Well it seems there is a rough consensus:

"I exclusively stay onsite for the Disney bubble and or transportation/parking benefits"

'I prefer offsite for financial reasons and/or to obtain villa accommodations at competitive(lower than Disney) prices"

"Get me to Disney World any way you can"

 

[UofMGuy423]

We've always stayed onsite except for our WDW trip in 2013 we stayed 2 nights at a Holiday Inn right outside the gates before switching to Kidani for the remainder of our stay. It was a nice hotel, but we didn't like not being in the "bubble" and having to drive everywhere. If I'm going to WDW, I want to be in the Disney bubble with those perks. Otherwise, if I'm staying "off-site", then I'd rather do an entirely different vacation away from WDW.

 

[BigRedDad]

Prior to Disney requiring a high pressure colonic for APs, we had no issue staying offsite. There are FAR BETTER places to stay offsite for a fraction of the cost. We have stayed at Wyndham Bonnet Creek. I would put their Deluxe rooms up to any room on Disney property. Gaylord Palms is another resort I would stay at.

With that said, the cost of APs for out of state guests make this almost not possible unless you are taking 3 week long trips in a 12 month period. We will stay on site more and go through the rental routes. Enough people in the RCI exchange able to get DVC resorts for a fraction of the cost. If we cannot get a 1BR at a DVC resort for the $1250 range, we are perfectly fine staying at Pop Century for about $900.

 

[World_Showcase_Lover007]

Being in the bubble is great but if you stay off-property close to I-4, the distance and time is roughly about the same as staying at the farther out Disney hotels (i.e. the All-Stars, Animal Kingdom Lodge). The money saved by staying off-property can maybe be enough to add an additional WDW trip. Instead of going once a year or so, you can go twice a year or add extra days to your WDW vacation.

 

[BAChicagoGal]

I actually laugh out loud when I read this. As a stockholder, I love this kind of mentality and loyalty.
As a customer, we stay onsite once per year and offsite once or twice per year. We have stayed at some incredible offsite properties and have never considered any of them a 1/2 WDW vacation. If anything, to us those trips are a WDW vacation plus more. I suppose it is a matter of prospective.
Ritz Carlton Grande Lakes, JW Marriott, Hyatt Grand Cypress, Omni Championsgate, Mariott Cypress Harbour, Hilton Grand Vacaton Club, Floridays and many more make us extremely happy that we got over the idea of having to stay onsite to enjoy the trip, and every one of these are much more affordable than Disney deluxe resorts.
Yes, we still stay onsite too, but are just as satisfied, much more satisfied at some of these, than at most Disney resorts.
We very much enjoy Disney resorts and will eventually work our way around to staying at all of them at WDW. Wilderness Lodge is probably our favorite, especially before they wiped out Hidden Springs pool, but the replacement for it might be even better.
Beach Club and Stormalong Bay are wonderful.
POR we love. BLT and AKL too. Heck, we like Ft. Wilderness even though it is the most expensive campground we have ever been to.
That being said, we will continue to seek out other Orlando area resorts as well.
What is the reason for some people ruling out offsite, without ever even considering alternatives?

For me, plain and simple, I don't drive. Also, I love traveling solo. It's not like I never go in a group, because I do. However, being in a group, means that I am at the mercy of the driver in the group, for my transportation back to my hotel. I have stayed offsite a few times at Wyndham's Bonnet Creek, and I was frustrated. When I wanted to stay in the parks, other people did not. So now, I have a motto. If I can't stay onsite, I don't go.

 

[bpadair32]

Being in the bubble is great but if you stay off-property close to I-4, the distance and time is roughly about the same as staying at the farther out Disney hotels (i.e. the All-Stars, Animal Kingdom Lodge). The money saved by staying off-property can maybe be enough to add an additional WDW trip. Instead of going once a year or so, you can go twice a year or add extra days to your WDW vacation.

But if you are someone like me who doesn't want to go unless staying on property, being able to go a second time or add days because you stayed offsite doesn't benefit us.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I personally really value the bubble. I don't like to see the giant wizards and burnt-out neon on 192 and 535 every day on my way to the parks. I also really like the themes of the different hotels, especially Animal Kingdom Lodge. Short of a safari to Africa, there's nowhere on the planet where I can get what I get at AKL. If we're looking to spend a little less on a vacation, we've found that a well-discounted moderate room is really no more expensive than a similar-caliber off site resort once you factor parking and a rental car.

Being in the bubble is great but if you stay off-property close to I-4, the distance and time is roughly about the same as staying at the farther out Disney hotels (i.e. the All-Stars, Animal Kingdom Lodge). The money saved by staying off-property can maybe be enough to add an additional WDW trip. Instead of going once a year or so, you can go twice a year or add extra days to your WDW vacation.

The math doesn't bear that out. All of the math about how much cheaper it is to stay off property is usually 1) compared to rack rates, 2) at a lower-quality hotel, 3) ignores parking, and 4) ignores the cost of a rental car.

 

[TXDisney]

Once you stay onsite it does open your eyes to how incredible the convenience is. For people like my wife and I, we do stays both onsite and offsite. Reason why... My parents have a timeshare offsite and staying for free can't be beat.

 

[RainbowCrow]

I'm the vacation planner and it's my role to keep everything running smoothly and everyone happy during our vacations. Staying on property just makes this so much easier for our family.

I have two small children who know how to ride all of the Disney transport, navigate the food options at our preferred resort (PORFQ), etc. Staying at PORFQ means that I actually get to relax and take a vacation too - even with young kids and the three seniors who sometimes come with us. Before we had kids we always stayed offsite and maybe when they are older we will again. But right now staying "in the bubble" is just so much easier all around.

The other thing I want to note is how truly excellent Disney has been at accommodating food allergies. We have trouble eating away from home because my DH has multiple food allergies. When we stay at a Disney resort it's never a problem. We just spent 11 days on property and he was thrilled with his food options. The staff went out of their way to be helpful and he did not have any adverse food reactions. For that reason alone we will likely always stay on property.

 

[jlsHouston]

Well I love this thread.
I'm not sure, but does Swan, Dolphin and Four Seasons count as offsite? If they do then I have stayed offsite several times. I love Four Seasons as much as I love POLY... I think. I have stayed in that Hilton over at Disney Springs once and hated it. Felt it was dirty and inconvenient.
I think in general I prefer onsite because of the bubble and convenience. I always have a car so transportation is not a factor. But having options besides driving and parking is nice. I like having choices. Staying onsite gives me choices. I love the different Disney resorts and theming.
Would I go to Disney and stay offsite, yes I would. Not sure I would ever prefer it over staying on property but as long as it's a nice clean resort with a fantastic pool and onsite restaurants and activities I'm sure I could still have a great vacation.

 

[bhg469]

I should add, we drive, so transportation is a non-issue for us, and we don't go during the more crowded times either as we don't have children, so we can go just about any season.

I was dead set on staying on site until we stayed at the buena vista palace under $100, in a giant room and had plenty of money to rent a car.. We were definitely not missing the extra 100 a night for a moderate.

 

[Missymoe4]

1. Transportation.
2. Convenience.
3. See Number 1 & 2.
4. "Total" Disney Feel.
5. See Numbers 1 & 2 again

If I was doing a total Orlando experience in 1 week then I would stay off site. If I had a family of 5 or larger, I would definitely stay off site at a condo or house.

Also depends on how you travel, when I do Disney it's one portion- totally Disney, same with Universal. Then the rest of the vacation is for other destinations. The exception to that rule is Halloween Horror Nights- I did always add 1 day at Disney during that time-not staying onsite.

I think onsite/offsite is definitely a different experience, but again, I think it depends on the travel party and their activities planned. Definitely no "wrong way" to do a WDW vacay!

These are my tops reasons. Plus, I live in a city that I can try the offsite hotels if I want (actually, some may be better than Orlando hotels). I don't have the opportunity in Chicago to walk from a hotel into the MK.

 

[Gabe1]

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.

Wooba. I need to become more comfortable with driving around the Orlando area. Those are some nice resorts.

For us we flipped to onsite when the moderates being invented. $89 was very do-able and we love the FQ & POR, actually we just returned from a longer stay at POR-with free dining. But me it is all about driving in Orlando, I was never comfortable with it and it was far less congested years and years ago when I last tried. I drove all over the states for my job for years but it something about Orlando-land. So many confused stupid drivers. Still I have stayed at the Hilton on hotel row by the Marketplace section of Disney Springs and love that hotel and can use Disney transportation. The rooms are huge and we have always been given free table service breakfast each day. Sadly they Discontinued allowing that hotel the EMHs as of January 2016. Wasn't sure why they were the only ones afforded that but it was certainly a nice perk. The buses are just fine from the Hilton to the parks but we never used them coming back. We'd hop a different resort bus back in the direction of DTD and then get on a DTD bus and cross the street. Work beautifully. Sometimes we'd take a bus from the parks to the FQ and float down the river to the Marketplace and cross the street.

 

[BOOMitsGeorgia]

I stay onsite cause there's normally just two of us and none of us can drive over there. So it makes it cheaper, easier and more relaxing for us to stay onsite. I am planning a big family trip in about 5 years time so then we will get a villa as that will be cheaper and easier. And I like staying in the magic and having the dining plan

 

[bhg469]

I stay onsite cause there's normally just two of us and none of us can drive over there. So it makes it cheaper, easier and more relaxing for us to stay onsite. I am planning a big family trip in about 5 years time so then we will get a villa as that will be cheaper and easier. And I like staying in the magic and having the dining plan

Is agree with you if the dining plan was still worth it. The food went down so much that I just wasted the meals just to do so.

 

[Cowboy Steve]

Since Disney is our primary vacation for the year, and we don't necessarily come every year, we like being in the 'bubble'. Having to fly in it is just so convenient to stay on the property. And since the rental car companies nickel and dime you to death now days... I personally find it more of a hassle than it's worth to rent a car. I do some traveling for business, and if at all possible I just skip the rental and use Uber.

 

[21stamps]

Since Disney is our primary vacation for the year, and we don't necessarily come every year, we like being in the 'bubble'. Having to fly in it is just so convenient to stay on the property. And since the rental car companies nickel and dime you to death now days... I personally find it more of a hassle than it's worth to rent a car. I do some traveling for business, and if at all possible I just skip the rental and use Uber.

The only thing is-- rentals are sooooo cheap in Orlando!!! Probably the lowest rental prices I've ever seen. I prefer not to drive, so we didn't rent while at wdw.. But I did get a rental for the following week for our KW portion. With all of the fees and sunpass, I paid $187 Total, including an extra 2 days beyond the week rental.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

We alternate. We're more likely to stay on property for a special occasion. More likely to stay offsite for a last minute trip when all the good Disney rates have been booked and it's too late to get a good deal, or if we're just generally trying to save a few dollars.

Also have to stay off property when we bring the dog. On those trips, we stay at a pet-friendly hotel, let her play at Best Friends Pet Care during the day, and then pick her up to stay overnight with us at the hotel so she's not stressed.

 

[squirrel4569]

I stayed off site in 1999 for the reasons many listed. It was cheaper, we could get a bigger room, we already had a car and parking wasn't insane. We stayed on-site in 2005 and flew in and took Disney transportation the whole time and we were hooked. We stayed on site ever since and loved it, with one exception. We booked a "last minute" trip (3 months out) for NYE weekend. There were rooms available, but it would've been $350 or so a night for a suite at All Stars and I had points with Hyatt where I could book a room at no cost. Getting into and out of WDW was a major pain, especially during the busy time. We were leaving MK after the NYE fireworks and we walked to the Contemporary to get the monorail to get to the TTC and I told my wife "If we had BLT as a DVC resort we could've stayed there and already be back to the room." We were already DVC members and the last two days of our trip we were staying at SSR and enjoyed that so much more than even the larger room (at no cost) of the Hyatt. That pretty much cemented our decision to just stay DVC and to buy more points so we could have home resort priority for the busy seasons.