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?

 

[fredtom]

We have never at all considered staying off-property, even long before we became DVC members. I couldn't imagine it. Although I can understand that some might want to take advantage of some money saving packages, but I wouldn't want to sacrifice the magic you would lose.


"An Adventurer's life is best!" :lol:

 

[monorailguy01]

I have stayed onsite as well as off site. and they both have their advantages. I like off site because we always stay in a condo so we save lots of money by cooking and BBQ stuff like that. Onsite is good for the EMH and free transportation. Whatever way you look at it somehow its good. But I like onsite the best I think.:shrug: eather way I know I will be in Disney and happy.

 

[paul436]

When I was a kid (1976) I stayed off property. There weren't as many options back then. But now I wouldn't even consider doing it. But I'm in a situation that I can afford to stay on property. Not everyone has that luxury and can only afford a trip to WDW by staying off property. I think you would still be able to save money that way. I guess you wouldn't necessarily need a rental car since a lot of places offer free transportation to WDW from off-site locations.

 

[swimmom]

I've only stayed offsite twice and I much prefer onsite. I love Disney transportation no matter how long it takes (I've never experienced anything extreme). Using Disney transportation is great because we don't have to drive anywhere for our entire trip. That in itself is a vacation for my husband and myself.

 

[jcc0621]

We stayed on site in 76 and 81. When my parents retired and moved near WDW in 1992 we always have stayed with them and drove down from Philly (or flew and used their cars). I loved staying at the Contemporary and being able to just hop on the monorail at the end of the night, get to the room and go to sleep. On the flip side as many have mentioned cost is a factor for choosing to stay off site (Doing Pop Century in August and can't wait) but there is also a convenience of being able to "take a break" from Disney (I know it is sacralige and more so my hubby than me) and enjoy some of the other area attractions.

 

[wdwforus]

There are other places to stay other than on property?:veryconfu :lol: :sohappy: :hammer:

 

[pinkrose]

We always stay on site. It keeps the Disney magic going outside of the parks.

 

[fudwrapper]

We always stay on site. It keeps the Disney magic going outside of the parks.

well put. i guess this is some intangible that, for someone that hasn't stayed onsite, you just can't put into words. Being able to go home at night and use Mickey soap and watch the Top 7 Must See, and see the fireworks from your balcony, i guess, are things that keep the "magic" going, even when you're not in the parks.

So, it seems like cost is the main reason to stay offsite. If cost wasn't an issue, then its no contest, right? On site is the way to go, anyway you slice it?

 

[WDWCP]

I think you need to consider your audiance here on this discussion board site. By definition you are asking a bunch of Disney nuts. Most (myself included) will certainly always say that staying on-site is the way to go.

I see just a few reasons why people stay off site.

1) They don't realize that staying at a Value resort isn't really slumming it as they are quite nicer than most people understand.

2) They are interested in the bottom line and even though onsite magic, transportation time, proximity, etc... are all costs, they are not financial costs and many people do not consider them.

3) Lots of people aren't nuts about Disney (at least first timers who have never been :sohappy: ) and are only going on vacation to bring the kids to Disney World, even though they might not even want to really be there themselves. For them, staying off site is a way to give themselves a mental break and maybe keep the kids from getting over stimulated by Disney Everywhere.

I feel that it's up to each family to do the research so they know the options and prices, then weigh them all against their own preferences and whatever value they place on things like rental cars, home cooking, atmosphere, Extra Magic Hours, etc...


Personally, I always stay onsite, but also prefer to rent a car as well.

 

[KelsaBels]

I guess I'm kind of on the off-site side right now. Although, many times in the past, I have stayed on-site, right now I prefer renting a house with my family. Having our own space, our own pool, our own jacuzzi, our own bedrooms, etc., is more beneficial to me than always being with the crowds. Not to mention we just rented a 5 bedroom house for less than a room at the Pop...how could I pass that up!!!!

This is not to say I will never stay on-site again, this is what we've chosen in the recent past, and for our next vaca., and works for us right now. I understand the magic of staying on property, and can't deny it, but to each his own!

 

[fudwrapper]

I think you need to consider your audiance here on this discussion board site. By definition you are asking a bunch of Disney nuts. Most (myself included) will certainly always say that staying on-site is the way to go.

I see just a few reasons why people stay off site.

1) They don't realize that staying at a Value resort isn't really slumming it as they are quite nicer than most people understand.

2) They are interested in the bottom line and even though onsite magic, transportation time, proximity, etc... are all costs, they are not financial costs and many people do not consider them.

3) Lots of people aren't nuts about Disney (at least first timers who have never been :sohappy: ) and are only going on vacation to bring the kids to Disney World, even though they might not even want to really be there themselves. For them, staying off site is a way to give themselves a mental break and maybe keep the kids from getting over stimulated by Disney Everywhere.

I feel that it's up to each family to do the research so they know the options and prices, then weigh them all against their own preferences and whatever value they place on things like rental cars, home cooking, atmosphere, Extra Magic Hours, etc...


Personally, I always stay onsite, but also prefer to rent a car as well.

I see what you're saying. It's just that I have friends that are "disney nuts" and love the parks to death, but absolutely refuse to consider staying on-site, no matter how much i try to persuade them. I can't come up with any good reasons, and all they tell me is that "it works better for them". I just wish i could get them to stay on site one time, and they'd likely see what they've been missing all this time!

If you're a "Disney Nut", and cost is not a consideration, you have a responsibility as a fan to STAY ON SITE!!!

 

[Craig & Lisa]

I see what you're saying. It's just that I have friends that are "disney nuts" and love the parks to death, but absolutely refuse to consider staying on-site, no matter how much i try to persuade them. I can't come up with any good reasons, and all they tell me is that "it works better for them". I just wish i could get them to stay on site one time, and they'd likely see what they've been missing all this time!

If you're a "Disney Nut", and cost is not a consideration, you have a responsibility as a fan to STAY ON SITE!!!

A suggestion for them would be to try a couple of days on-site then go to someplace off-site and see which they liked better, if they still don't like on-site then they may need some therapy. We have never stayed anywhere but on-site. That way I've never had to worry about how I was getting where, and when. The resort atmosphere, no matter which one has never been a dissapointment. And I'm sure that we won't be when we get there in April. :sohappy:

 

[bayoutinkbelle]

I've stayed off-site several times before. The price definitely was better than even the value resorts and that was a good thing at that time.

But after staying on-site, I really don't think I could happily go back to off-site again. Staying on-site vacation adds a special touch. You never leave the magic. I know some people don't like that, but I love it.

 

[Rob562]

As a die-hard supporter of staying on-site, there are only a few instances were I will stay (or have stayed) off-site:

-A shorter trip taken "on the cheap" where I stay with friends who live within 15 minutes of property (all he charges is a case of beer) . I can often get a good deal on a rental car through the warehouse club I belong to. (The rental car for my trip at the end of May is half what a room at Pop with an AP discount would be)

-Two years ago, my parents had a timeshare week that was use-it-or-lose-it, and they gave it to me to use to trade into a condo near Disney. We stayed at Orange Lake which was nice, but the daily drive reminded me why I try my hardest to stay on-site.

Apart from those two options, it's at least a Disney Value resort, or not going until I can afford it.

-Rob

 

[barnum42]

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 have flown from the UK and stayed two weeks off-site for the price of two nights at Animal Kingdom Lodge.

Even the cost of a rental car makes it cheaper than a value resort.

An annual pass gives free Parking.

I waste less time in parking lots and on trams than time wasted waiting for buses

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

I visit to enjoy the parks, not the hotel.

I can visit the Disney hotels without having a room there if I wish to eat or explore them.

 

[davidpw97]

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?

If I'm renting a house or condo then I'd much rather stay offsite, but If I were staying in a hotel then I'd probably stay onsite at a value resort.
I live close enough to drive so I don't have the expense of a rental car. Once on property all cars and buses deal with the same amount of traffic so that's not a huge factor. If i'm staying nearby and I usually don't stay more than about 5-10 minutes off property, I can get from my house/condo to Disney in probably the same amount of time it takes someone to wait for a bus and wait for the bus to make other stops before getting where its going and we all end up in the same place anyway, waiting for the ropes to drop. Parking fees might add up if I were going to the parks every day on a 2 week trip but I'm not usually in the parks for more than 2 days at a time so that's not a huge issue either and the amount of money i'm saving by staying offsite makes up for the parking fees. The main perk of staying onsite I think would be the EMH but if I'm at a park from open to close I can pretty much do everything I want without the extra hour.
I also stay offsite because when i'm in town I don't just go to Disney and its easier to get around when you are offsite if you plan on going to places other than Disney. You also have more and cheaper dining options offsite as well.

 

[adventurelander]

I have stayed off site when I was younger and would never do it again. I strongly feel you don't get the full Disney experience when you stay off property. I would say don't stay off property, even if you have to re-plan your trip to another time so you can save the money. There are too many small Disney details that make the trip more memorable and magical that you won't get staying off property.

 

[PoTCGuy]

I have flown from the UK and stayed two weeks off-site for the price of two nights at Animal Kingdom Lodge......

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!

(Although - I did stay at Coronado Springs for a work thing in November and it was really cool....just very pricey!)

As far as the transportation time, I didn't really notice a difference between personal vehicles vs. Disney transportation. Of course, once we enter a park, we don't leave until closing unless we are "hopping" to another park, so that might make a difference to some.

 

[chucknstuff]

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.

The only time we stay OFF-Site is if we are arriving late afternoon so we don't waste a day. This is also when we do the bulk of our shopping.