onsite vs offsite

[lcsrig]

We are leaving in 14 days!!!! and staying onsite at CB. Can anyone give me pros and cons to staying offsite? We loved staying at POFQ last year, but wanted options for the next visit. Planning on upgrading from park-hopper passes to annual since Mardi Gras is earlier next year.

Thanks:sohappy: :sohappy:

 

[GoofyFan1]

For our family, the only way to go is onsite! It's all part of the magic.

I think you'll enjoy the CB. We're going at Christmas.

Enjoy! :wave:

 

[raven]

Onsite pros:

Disney transportation
proximity to parks
Disney attention

Offsite pro:

I'll let you know when I find some.

 

[tigsmom]

We always stay on site. Your time is worth something and you really do spend alot of it travelling in, parking, etc.

Staying on site gets you The Extra Magic Hour, E Nights (in warmer weather) plus you get that great Disney atmosphere. For us there really is no other way to go. :wave:

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by lcsrig
We are leaving in 14 days!!!! and staying onsite at CB. Can anyone give me pros and cons to staying offsite? We loved staying at POFQ last year, but wanted options for the next visit. Planning on upgrading from park-hopper passes to annual since Mardi Gras is earlier next year.

Thanks:sohappy: :sohappy:

ONSITE PROS:
1. Disney Transportation
2. Convenient
3. Theming
4. Right there in the Magic!

OFFSITE PRO:
1. Cheaper

We've stayed offsite once, and it really lost a lot of the magic. Once you left the park, you felt lost - like you're being left out of the rest of the fun! We then chose Dixie Landings (POR) and have never stayed offsite since! So, I guess, the only decision you need to make is: "Do I have enough money to stay In the World?" If so, DO, if not, win the lottery and stay onsite anyway!

 

[barnum42]

My last trip –

Cheapest onsite accommodation & flights package for two weeks £2000

Cheapest offsite accommodation & flights package fro two weeks £900.

If you do not have that extra £1100 then the big pro for offsite is that you can afford to visit Disney World rather than sit at home wishing you could go.

We stayed at Comfort Inn Lake Buena Vista – a few hundred yards from one of those big entrance signs saying “Welcome to Walt Disney World”. We also got free breakfast and if we did not have a car there was a free bus service to the parks (though nowhere near as frequent as onsite). Plus lots of local eateries that saved us money compared to eating onsite.

If you have the extra cash to stay onsite, then good for you and have a great time. If not the offsite alternative is not to be frowned at. I only go there to sleep so I have the energy to be back at the parks for 9am the next day then fall back into bed when I return after Fantasmic or Illuminations. A hotel room of any price looks the same through shut eyes.

 

[johnvree]

Some people look at WDW as a collection of parks and attractions and the goal of their vacation is to visit them. For these people, a hotel is nothing more than a bed and a shower. Like someone else said, a place to recharge for the next day. These people get much cheaper accomodations which can translate into longer stays, more frequent stays, or just going in the first place.

For other people, WDW is one big attraction. It includes not just the parks, but all of its restaurants and resorts, even the transportation that connects them. The goal of the vacation is to get to WDW and never leave. This is where I fall. Once I get to the World, I do not want to leave for anything. I want my stay to feel like one magic trip. I like to think that the extra money gets me other benefits:

*Disney transportation, but everyone gets to use the transportation.
*Close proximity to the parks, but some of the off site hotels are closer to some of the parks than the on site resorts.
*Early entry, which is a good perk during busy times, but not generally when I go.

I don't know that any of the perks justify the extra cost of an on site resort. But for me, it's the only way to go. Maybe I'm brainwashed. But as far as I am concerned, keep the brainwashing coming.

 

[EpcoTim]

Staying onsite is defintiely the way to go. The hotels and themeing are tough to beat. You just have to figure a way to keep Eisner from going into your room and stealing all your change.

 

[johnvree]

Originally posted by EpcoTim
Staying onsite is defintiely the way to go. The hotels and themeing are tough to beat. You just have to figure a way to keep Eisner from going into your room and stealing all your change.

To keep Eisner out of your room, just put the following anti-Eisner-sign on your door when you leave:

"CREATIVE DEVELOPMENT ROOM"

Works everytime.:lol: :lol:

 

[barnum42]

Originally posted by johnvree
I don't know that any of the perks justify the extra cost of an on site resort.

If you can afford it and it gives you joy that's justification enough.

If you can't afford it (that's me folks) then don't feel bad about being offsite, you can still visit the resorts and dine there should you wish.

 

[epcot2004]

Staying on-site is the only way. We tryed staying at one of the hotels just outside the Downtown area and we were so disapointed that we moved to All-star Music. The bus schedule was far less frequent than Disney Transportation, the hotel did not have the "Disney feel" that staying at any of the on-site resorts. We should have known better after staying on property for our first 5 or so visits. You just can't get Disney service anywhere.

 

[Heyyall]

To me, offsite just wouldn't be worth it. There's so much less Disney magic, and you don't feel as much a part of it. Not to mention having to drive everywhere. Odd-site is cheaper, but it takes a lot away from the whole experience. :wave:

 

[thebig2]

I have never stayed on site because I like to visit other attractions such as seaworld and Universal. I stay usually at the econolodge Maingate which is one turn from the entrance to Disney, and has free transportation to all of the disney parks and paid transport to universal and Seaworld. I use my hotel as a place to shower and sleep, and since it is have the price of staying on site I really dont see much benefit. However on my next trip i do plan to stay on site, But for em I doubt I will see the benefit. It seems like a lot of money to have a themed motel room. Another view though would be having kids. They need naps and you cant get back to the off site hotels without having a rental car and paying for parking. So its really a matter of what you want out of your hotel and what your needs are. If I was loaded I would definitely stay on property, but I am not and having a new house and wedding to pay for so I wont be going or staying anywhere this year which really makes this whole debate depressing for me because some of you are going and I am jealous.

PS Disney Rules

 

[crazydaveh]

I used to stay off site all the time, but one trip to POR changed that!

Since 2001, I have only stayed on Disney and Universal property!

It may cost a few extra dollars, but being able to park your car and never needing it is nice, as is the theming! I like to go resort hopping every now and then! It's neat to see allthe different hotels and the theming at WDW.

You can always bring a cooler, with breakfast stuff, beer, and sandwich stuff to save on money! We do that all the time!

I'd stay in the park. It's fun!

 

[barnum42]

Originally posted by Heyyall
To me, offsite just wouldn't be worth it. There's so much less Disney magic, and you don't feel as much a part of it. Not to mention having to drive everywhere. Odd-site is cheaper, but it takes a lot away from the whole experience. :wave:

Onsite - can't afford therefore do not go and have no experience.

Offsite - can afford and have a great experience.

Originally posted by crazydaveh
It may cost a few extra dollars...

Twice as much is not "a few extra Dollars".

For those who can afford it, good on you, enjoy it in full health. But for those who can't, do not worry. Stay off site and you will still have a blast.

 

[ritchie56]

Off site is not so bad. Yes, I would prefer on site if it was practical. But there are situations where offsite is better IMHO. This trip we will have six (almost) adults going (the kids are 21, 20, 17, & 15 plus my husband and myself) and would need two rooms. I can't afford that except at the Pop Century. For us, renting a pool home off site is a better option. More space and cheaper. I had thought I would miss "The Magic" but I really didn't nearly as much as I thought. Off site should not be dismissed out of hand. Yes, on is better, but don't feel badly about choosing to be off.

 

[Pixie Duster]

On site hotels are not really like hotels, they feel more like theme parks since the theming is just as well done as in the parks. THe value level resorts feel more like hotels than the moderate and deluxe, but they are still fun.

 

[RalphieN]

We used to stay onsite and I understand what people are saying about it being better but not enough to warrant the expense in my opinion. We can get a 4 bedroom house, 3 miles from the World with it's own pool, etc. at a cost for the week that is less than one hotel room onsite let alone the the two rooms we would need to accommodate my family.

We can eat breakfast at the house (big savings), do laundry whenever we need, spread out instead of being couped up in little rooms and get to the parks when they open with minimal effort. Parking is free with the AP and even when we stayed onsite, we ended up driving some days because I've never been too impressed with Disney onsite transportaion (busses).

So, basically, renting a house instead of a little room is the way to go for us and the money we save allows us to go to Disney more often.

 

[Little Mermaid]

I love going to WDW...I wouldn't be posting on this board if I didn't. I have been 20-odd times, and I'm only 21 years old. During that time, I have NEVER stayed on-property. I know that there is no way my family could afford to go every year if we tried to stay in a Disney resort, although it is definitely something I would love to try. I would much rather go to WDW every year and stay in a Comfort Inn off-property than only get to go every other year or, worse yet, every two or three years. I can give up the dream of staying in a resort if it means I get to go more often.

My opinion: stay on-site if you can afford it...if the decision is between staying on-site and having to skip trips or staying off-site and going as often as you can, I'd stay off-site in a heartbeat. JMO!

 

[bugsbunny]

Staying onsite is getting ridiculously priced. You would be hard pressed to find hotel rooms in major cities for the $300+/night that WDW charges. And what "super" amenities do you really get?

The hotels certainly are beautiful, no arguement there. The pools are usually great, too.

As for free transportation, who doesn't know that you can still ride Disney buses anyway? I've been going to WDW for 15+ years and I've NEVER been asked to show anything proving I'm staying on property. Furthermore, I've never seen that scenario happen to anybody nor have I EVER heard of it happening. So no matter how you look at it, riding the transporation is certainly free.

I've stayed at the Grosvnor and liked it. It was reasonable, quiet, and clean. Plus I had to only walk across the street to get the Disney buses at Downtown Disney. It was so convenient.

I've even stayed across the street from the main entrance which would be considered "off-site". The drive was less than 1/10 mile and I also got to stop at Dunkin Donuts every morning so I could get my "fix":sohappy: Though, I have to say the price of renting a car for a week is a big pain in the as....

I travel all over the US and Canada for my job and I know the value of a good clean room and friendly staff. After walking around all day at a WDW park, stuffing my face at one of the awesome restaraunts, watching the fireworks, having a few drinks, and then finally going back to my room finally takes it toll. I don't even have kids so I can only imagine how parents feel after these marathon days.

After all that, I could lay down on a bed of nails and get a comfortable nights sleep. When I take this all into consideration, I just can't recognize the added value I supposedly get by paying hundreds extra per night by staying at on site. Of any time that I am spending in my room, 95% would involve sleeping!

However, to contradict my own statement, I plan on spending a week at the Wilderness Lodge on my next trip.:lol: