Staying on-site vs. off site

[fudwrapper]

I was just wondering what percentage of you prefer staying on-site to staying off-site? From what I can gather (and from personal experience) I can't imagine that staying off-site is more beneficial, but it seems like a lot of people do. I know cost can factor into it, but if you factor in the rental car, time wasted in parking lots and on trams, and parking fees, and time wasted trying to find your way around, it seems like the costs end up being a wash. What do you think?

 

[DisneyMusician2]

Always on-site for me, even if I need to defer a trip by a couple of months to save the extra cash. Just what I save in food on the dining plan and getting the extra time in the parks is worth it, and add in the simple magic of enjoying Disney transportation and theming at your hotel....I wouldn't trade it for anything in the World.

 

[normdisney]

67 times

I have been 67 times and always on site . DVC members since 1992 first year of old key west. I always tell people stay on site with the all the price range you can always find the right price for your budget and it really ups the MAGIC!:ROFLOL:

 

[Tiggersgreat]

I have stayed both on and off. On is better, but when I have stayed off it has always been for frre - either with points, or my husband had a conference. You can't beat free, even though it's not all Disney all the time!

We are going in September and have a free room for ten days at the Disney Hilton. If I was staying on site, I doubt I would stay as long.

 

[saltmom1]

Definitely onsite ! If you stay off-site you have to go back to the "real world" at the end of the day. :lookaroun

 

[ann0d]

I stay off site, only because my father in law has a condo. But even before that we stayed off site because it was cheaper. Stayed at the Contempary once and that was nice, but the cost is so much! Once in a while it would be nice to stay on site, but free is the best!

 

[fudwrapper]

Definitely onsite ! If you stay off-site you have to go back to the "real world" at the end of the day. :lookaroun

exactly. when i went to DL, we stayed off-site, because the hotel was literally across the street from the gates. but everynight we had to go back to this dingy, boring, un-magical hotel. i have to imagine that's what its like in WDW, and even worse because you can't just walk to the parks.

 

[eroyee]

:wave: I knew you would get lots of opinions of both on this one. we stayed off-site once with a free rental that someone hadnt used and it wasnt the same. It was like going home every night and then coming back to the magic. we have stayed on-site ever since. It takes away the magic to go away at nite. Theres always deals and things affordable usually, even if its a value resort so most people can eventually afford to stay at disney. POP century is great for a value. have fun deciding but the best part is you will be at the World. yaaaay!!!!:sohappy:

 

[Glasgow]

There is no question - if you want to save some cash or visit other places in Orland then staying offsite is the way to go. I can totally understand that.
However, for those that say the hotel is just a place to sleep - I can't agree with that. Staying at a resort such as AKL or WL is an experience IMO - we tour the resort, relax in the rocking chairs, take in the site, sit by the fire, etc. To me it's worth the extra cost.
That may not always be the case but it all depends on how greatly you value your accomodations.

 

[CAPTAIN HOOK]

Cost is THE difference here (as well as personal circumstances).

I find that a 3 bedroom house + car rental + fuel + tickets is still cheaper than staying on site. On our last trip we left the house and no more than 30 minutes later we were in the parking lot (ok so it takes less time by WDW transportation) but its not that much quicker).

We never feel that by staying off site that we're missing the magic (and yes we have stayed on site - POFQ)

 

[hokielutz]

A hotel room looks the same through sleeping eyes whether you pay $30 a night or $600

.

You have to be careful about this... if you don't mind sleeping on a vintage 1970 mattress... a pricepoint higher than the Hojo/Days inn/Super 8 may make vacation more enjoyable.

Some probably sleep soundly on almost anything for a whole week...

Not taking sides with this.... but just playing :fork: advocate.

 

[fudwrapper]

the first time we went to WDW, we stayed at CBR, and had a view of palm trees, the lagoon, a nice beach, and lush green grass. We left after 5 days to stay at a hotel off-site so we could do other things (universal) and we had a view of air conditioners and a tar covered roof, in front of the highway. HUGE difference. This wasn't a cheap hotel, the room was nice and everything, but we were instantly pulled out of that "magical" world and thrust into the real world. I didn't like it, and the hotel wasn't that much less than the CBR. Even if we go to Universal the next time we go, I would stay at one of the WDW resorts and just take a cab there!

 

[hokielutz]

As a veteran of the Disney onsite resorts (Contemporary, AKL, Coronado Springs, All Star music/movies/sports, Pop Century), I fully appreciate all of the plusses of staying in the Magic. 24 hrs/day eat, sleep, and breathe the Disney Magic is the best experience, hands down.

Most recently we stayed at AKL for the first time in Dec. Aside from it being a magnificent place to hang our hats... it had a wonderful atmosphere that was relaxing and engaging. I don't need to go into all the details... but it was well worth the price we paid. This trip with all the decorations in the resorts and around the parks made it a magical experience we won't forget.


But.... I will not cease to exist if I don't stay onsite. I do not have qualms with staying offiste, as long as the offsite accomodations are not at the bottom of the barrel.

to be continued.....

 

[Dwarful]

We have done both. Although, we haven't stayed offsite since 1997. My husband has a long drive daily to and from work and then drives in the city/county day for his work, so the biggest plus for us is the Disney Transportation. Even if we drive down and have our own vehicle we don't use it. Plus we love the early and late options, package delivery to the resort, the dining plan (esp. for Grand Gatherings--that saves a huge amt. of $$ on tips alone) and others. The magic of Disney is the key factor. We just feel away from the real world...as a matter of fact we were at Disney when Reagan died and then again when Ford died and we didn't know it for several days!

 

[barnum42]

That's really the key for us. We have 5 people in our family, which means we either need two value resort rooms or have to upgrade to a moderate resort or suite. Also, the off-site hotels we stay at typically include breakfast, so, between the price of the room and breakfast, we save about $100 per night, even after figuring in parking fees. By doing that we can afford to stay for six days instead of only three. And more time at the parks more than makes up for that Mickey Mouse soap!

Bingo - I prefer to extend the time I have in the parks.

 

[barnum42]

Then you get the argument.....
I am not going to spend that much on a room to sleep in....

BS...It is more than just a room - - It's the atmosphere the resort gives you. Knowing that you wake up to the magic.

One can stay off-site and still enjoy the atmosphere of a resort by paying it a visit.

At no point do I say that off-site is better than on-site. If I had bottomless pockets I'd stay at AKL.

I don't

I won't slag someone off for scraping the pennies together to stay on-site and enjoy the privileges that comes with this - enjoy it in good health.

I spend my waking hours in the park, and a few at off-site stores to stock up on things I can't get in Rip Off Britain.

The basic maths still stands - two nights at AKL or two weeks at a clean, comfortable hotel a ten minute drive away.

 

[barnum42]

Staying at a resort such as AKL or WL is an experience IMO - we tour the resort, relax in the rocking chairs, take in the site, sit by the fire, etc. To me it's worth the extra cost.

Does it make me a bad man that I've done all that despite not staying there :lookaroun

Though I have thrown money at Boma and Mara, so Disney have made money out of me there.

 

[fudwrapper]

The basic maths still stands - two nights at AKL or two weeks at a clean, comfortable hotel a ten minute drive away.

that math may hold true, but the AKL is on the extreme end of WDW resort pricing. You might be able to work a value or moderate resort into your equation and get much more than 2 nights on-site! :sohappy:

 

[paul436]

One can stay off-site and still enjoy the atmosphere of a resort by paying it a visit.

I don't know if the experience is the same to pay a visit to a resort compared to staying there for a week or so. As I stated earlier, financial concerns may come into play when deciding off-site or on-site but the casual visit doesn't equal staying there.

I also look at my hotel/resort as more than just a place to sleep. I'm planning to spend 11 days in WDW in August and to stay in the parks from opening to closing every day would be crazy to me. I'd be completely burnt out by the end. I am on vacation to relax after all.

I like to go to the park that has the early EMH in the morning, stay for a while, go back to the hotel and relax for a while. My kids love those afternoon swims in the pool! Then I head back to the park with the evening EMH hour. It works out very nicely for me and I end up having a very relaxing visit. Using this type of itinerary has me spending time at the hotel/resort besides just sleeping and to have a wonderfully Disney themed resort adds to the pleasure and the magic of my trip.

 

[hokielutz]

that math may hold true, but the AKL is on the extreme end of WDW resort pricing. You might be able to work a value or moderate resort into your equation and get much more than 2 nights on-site! :sohappy:

But AKL is on the lower end of the deluxe pricing... yes it is a deluxe resort... but there is so much more that you get out of staying there.

 

[hokielutz]

...If I had bottomless pockets I'd stay at AKL.

I don't

I hear ya, and agree. AKL and the Contemporary Tower with MK view. If cash were no issue those would be my choices.