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?

 

[I-4Warrior]

While I much prefer staying on-site (there's just something about being immersed in the magic 24 hours a day), it is far more cost-efficient to stay off property. For example, Seralago on 192 isn't exactly a feast of sight and sound, but it's a stone's throw from the World, and also a stone's throw from the Walmart supercenter and Publix. What this means to me is that you can grocery shop for meals, store the food in the complementary fridge and heat it up in the complementary microwave and save a ton of money without having to stay miles and miles away. If you're into a sensory vacation, stay on-site. If you're keeping an eye on your budget, stay off property (staying at the off-site, low cost hotels can often mean a longer vacation).

 

[hokielutz]

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.....

And after a very long break... I continue.

I cannot say that staying offsite is better than on-site. But there are a lot of factors that make staying offsite pleasurable to the point that it doesn't bother me that I don't see CM's 24 hours a day.

I have a vacation ownership program with Starwood that let's me stay at the Vistana Villages just up the road on I-Drive. Of course, being a vacation property/hybrid timeshare - there are no nightly expenses for lodging during my stay. We have a full kitchen, 2 baths, accomodations for 8 adults, recreation & fitness areas, and a balcony overlooking the pools, ponds, and trails. (to sleep 6-8 on property would be a minimum of $200/night) And its about 10-15 minutes from DTD, and 10 minutes from the entrance to world drive. it could be less depending on traffic.

I also don't mind driving around the world. I spend about 1.5-2.5 hours a day commuting to and from my 8-5 grind. I know there are many who would hate the duty of driving on vacation because you are on vacation to get away from your routine. The difference for me is everytime we have stayed offsite.. the roads into the world are wide open. I enjoy the freedom of going anywhere, anytime, I/we please while we are there. But I also enjoy each minute of driving past friendly signs... welcoming back to the joy of my childhood.
Parking fees?? easily taken care of by the AP. Parking in the back of the lot??? get a AAA Diamond parking pass with ticket purchases.


I will concede that my offsite arrangements are not your typical ordinary hotel rooms. Therefore... if I wasn't staying at a resort similar to this, I'd probably just save up enough to stay on property.

 

[barnum42]

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:

Indeed I could, I priced up using an AP at a moderate, but the ratio was still 1 night there to three off-site.

I had the AKL quote to hand as somebody had told me "hey you can stay at AKL for just $XXX dollars a night. I did the conversion and ended up with 2 or 3 nights there for the price of my two weeks off-site.

 

[barnum42]

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.

Sounds like you have a great plan figured out to make the most of what is available to you. Hope you have a great time :wave:

Thankfully I don't get burnout spending all day at the parks - with two weeks there I don't have to dash around to get everything in, and so I take it easy. I'll miss out on the little luxuries you will enjoy staying on-site but I can live without it as I'm still at Disney.

 

[CaribbeanGreen]

All things being equal, yes, I prefer on-site... I do feel that the shuttle service and EMH makes the costs balance out, and yes, I like the immersive nature of it.

That being said, let me just float this out as well -- I'm really a Moderate (CBR, POR) person.. the Deluxe is a bit out of my range at this point. It's just my fiance and I, and though yes, we prefer onsite, the rooms do not hold an ever-lovin' candle to the off-site resorts we've stayed in... namely, the Omni Championsgate, Hyatt Grand Cypress, and Peabody.

The beds, the bathrooms, the furnishings, it's less than no contest. The on-site resorts are basically Holiday Inn rooms with a splash of whimsy. Now, note that i DID say I prefer on-site. I like the convenience, I like the grounds of the resort, and yes, I like the immersive qualities. But I would never be shocked someone wanted to stay offsite.

 

[PotteryGal]

You know, we just went through this debate in our house, as we were planning to go this fall. Off-site we could get a 3Br, 3 Ba townhouse for $115 or so a night, so financially that had a lot of appeal. However, last fall we stayed at the Wilderness Lodge, and we loved its convenience to MK, to the Contemporary to catch the monorail, as well as the overall experience of the Lodge itself. So, despite every practical reason we had, we decided to pay the extra cash to return to WL. Between EMH and the dining plan (which is the only way we could afford TS restaurants), it really became a no-brainer. I do understand the appeal of staying off site, however, and if we continue to make WDW a yearly trip, that may be the path we choose in the end.