Worth it to stay onsite at Disneyland?

[WVU Disney Fan]

We always stay on site at wdw because of transportation, perks, and that Disney bubble feel. Never been to Disneyland, but heard it’s totally different from wdw. Is it worth the extra price to stay at one of Disney resorts vs say Fairfield or one of the other hotels nearby

 

[tzeitel]

To some yes, to others no. We always stay on property at WDW, we never stay on property at DLR. Deluxe prices but DLH and PP do not have the deluxe feel like at WDW - GCH is nice but more like WL at WDW. Construction for the new resort starting soon will make it feel even less deluxe. The only perk is extra morning hours.

But, we also are not resort people. The hotel is to shower and sleep. We are going in May, the Desert Inn & Suites right across the street (seriously cannot tell you how nice it is for the hotel to be so close to the parks!) has a rate of $87, same dates PP is $337. I have no interest in PP anyway, but DLH (which I would like to do just to try it) is $456 for my dates. I rather spend the money on the WoC dessert party, tours, churros (that would be a lot of churros), or staying extra days.

 

[cruisehopeful]

To me it is worth it if you are going to take advantage of the early park entry. That's the make it or break it for me. I tend to only sleep and shower in my hotel room. So, it's not worth paying hundreds of dollars to stay onsite when there are far less expensive places to shower and sleep and many of those come with free breakfast. When I do take plan to use the early entrance, it is always worth it to stay onsite for me. I like Grand Californian for the ease of getting from DCA back to my hotel room.

 

[patyoung]

I’ve stayed at DLH a few times and I think the reason we keep going back is being in the bubble. I think it’s more immersive than on site at WDW as you can be there for a number of days and never have to get in a car or bus. Never even SEE a car, bus or regular road. That makes it fee more like a full resort experience. Of course it’s also way more money which can be hard to stomach.

 

[BadPinkTink]

to me, no its not worth it. I stay onsite at Disneyland Paris but I would never stay onsite at Disneyland California. To me the most important thing is location and walking distance. The offsite budget motels on Harbour Boulevard have a shorter walking distance to the entrance turnstiles than the onsite Disney Hotels.

Im not a breakfast person, nor do I spent much time at the hotel so I have no need for a resort style hotel. If I had the budget for the onsite Disney hotels I would still stay at one of the Harbour Boulevard Motels and just have more park days!

 

[SOCALMouseMommy]

I have stayed at the DLH and also at the Grand Legacy on Harbor. I loved the DLH! It definitely made the trip feel more "vacationy" to me. But I loved the price I paid for the Grand Legacy! Plus is was an even shorter walk to the gates (although on a. Yay road with lots of cars/people compared to the pleasant walk through DTD). We had a great rate for DLH (Dapper Days). I don't think I would pay full price. It's just too much.

 

[MNtwinsplus1mom]

We are WDW onsite regulars and have traveled to DL once so far. (Loved it!!) We stayed onsite for the 2nd half of our DL stay, after staying at a less expensive offsite hotel. We stayed at the Disneyland Hotel, which was gorgeous and so well-themed. I loved it, but the price was much higher than I ever have paid at WDW. Unfortunately, the prices for all the onsite hotels are all deluxe level (at WDW) prices, so for a family like us that's normally content with a moderate at WDW, it is quite a sticker shock that personally wouldn't be a regular thing for us, considering the availability of many reasonably priced hotels close by. I would not pay for Paradise Pier, btw, because it isn't very well-themed and is further away from the parks.

Next time we plan to try one of the offsite hotels, but might possibly do a split stay again (for a couple onsite nights only) bc my DH wants to try the Grand Californian. That balance worked for us before, but wouldn't be necessary for us to enjoy Disneyland.

 

[smartlabelprint]

Not to me. I prefer the shorter walk.

 

[HydroGuy]

To some yes, to others no. We always stay on property at WDW, we never stay on property at DLR. Deluxe prices but DLH and PP do not have the deluxe feel like at WDW - GCH is nice but more like WL at WDW. Construction for the new resort starting soon will make it feel even less deluxe. The only perk is extra morning hours.

But, we also are not resort people. The hotel is to shower and sleep. We are going in May, the Desert Inn & Suites right across the street (seriously cannot tell you how nice it is for the hotel to be so close to the parks!) has a rate of $87, same dates PP is $337. I have no interest in PP anyway, but DLH (which I would like to do just to try it) is $456 for my dates. I rather spend the money on the WoC dessert party, tours, churros (that would be a lot of churros), or staying extra days.

Pretty much the same for me. But when we can get a decent deal onsite at DLR we do it. Sometimes.

We always stay on site at wdw because of transportation, perks, and that Disney bubble feel. Never been to Disneyland, but heard it’s totally different from wdw. Is it worth the extra price to stay at one of Disney resorts vs say Fairfield or one of the other hotels nearby

Totally different? No, I don't agree with this. Significantly different? Yes.

And "different" does not mean different in a bad way. IMO the DLR hotel situation has numerous benefits vs. WDW as well as numerous drawbacks. Those that appreciate the benefits more than the drawbacks often prefer DLR over WDW. Those who feel the drawbacks most strongly appreciate WDW more.

I would put myself in the camp that while I am at DLR I appreciate DLR for what it is and what it offers over WDW. And while at WDW I do appreciate WDW for what it is.

So it is possible to do both and there are lots of folks like me who may have what time felt it important to strongly prefer either DLR or WDW. But we have embraced the magic at both resorts an no longer have a strong preference.

 

[22Tink]

To me it’s not worth it when there are so many offsite hotels that are a shorter walk than the onsite hotels. I stay onsite at WDW but never at DLR. I’d rather spend that money on other park experiences. I’ve never felt like we needed the daily early entry and now with MaxPass we need it even less. We always get everything done that we want and even more now with MP.

 

[j9isawesome]

Staying onsite at Disneyland doesn’t get you the same perks like staying onsite at Disney World- no transportation as it’s not really needed but also you’re not really any closer than about 50 other hotel options. Also there are many hotels nearby that are much nicer than most of the Good Neighbor hotels, don’t feel like you have to stick to that list when looking at your options.

Paradise Pier Hotel- no, never, imo it’s not worth it. The price is high, the Disney theming is serverly lacking, & the walk to the parks is a tad long, especially now that you can’t cut through the Grand Californian’s front enterance like you used to.

Disneyland Hotel or Grand Californian- maybe, if this a once in a lifetime trip, celebration of a special anniversary, or are you just super wealthy to the point that money doesn’t matter much & you just want the best experience regardless of price. If it’s a super special trip then I could see it being worth it. If you’re a super early riser and just NEED those extra early morning entries. If you were attending an onsite conference or event like dapper days then it might be worth it to stay on site to be in the middle of that event space. Or I f you have very little kids that will need a hotel break & wont nap in the parks then staying at the Grand could be worth it, PPH & DLH are still a bit far of a walk compared to other options to be much help for that tho.

My issue is that for much less you can get something as nice or nicer, with larger rooms, that is often even closer to the front enterance than if you stayed “on site”. I get very nice 3 1/2-4 1/2 star hotels that are super close for $40-80 a night off Hotwire almost every time because I can’t justify spending $500-$1000 a night for something very similar. I also know if we stay on site that means we get to go a lot less often so I prefer to stay offsite and visit much more frequently. But everyone is going to be different in what they value most and maybe having that Disney theming alone is worth it to you & your family.

 

[poseys]

We take a midday break to nap, swim, etc... so I enjoy the nice Disney resorts.
Magic morning and not having to leave the parks or DTD area are also nice.

 

[YukonMommy]

For me its about $. I would rather spend the money I save staying off site on other things (staying more days, character dining, churros!).

What ever you choose, you will have a magical time!

 

[0sw@ld]

We stayed at the VGC on points in January, but if we couldn't get a reservation, we probably would stay off property as the hotels are close enough to be on property. The only thing you don't get is EMH, but you do have the one time EMM at DL on a multi-day ticket.

 

[Shanti]

We always stay on site at wdw because of transportation, perks, and that Disney bubble feel. Never been to Disneyland, but heard it’s totally different from wdw. Is it worth the extra price to stay at one of Disney resorts vs say Fairfield or one of the other hotels nearby

For us, staying onsite was the way to go. It was wonderful to do Extra Magic Hours every morning (a better deal than WDW's EMH imo). We got a lot of touring done during those. Swimming at the pool & using the hot tub during a midday break was great. We had a room service breakfast one morning that was tasty & convenient. We stayed at the Disneyland Hotel in a standard room, but it had an unexpected and amazing view of the Disneyland fireworks. Walking through Downtown Disney to & from the parks was a nice way to warm up before or decompress after a day of park touring, while staying inside the bubble.

Staying in the magic at the resort is part of our Disney experience when we visit the parks, whether at WDW or DLR. We have no interest in staying at one of the motels nearby. That just wouldn't feel like a vacation to me.

 

[sherilaine]

Everyone sees worth differently. To some people staying in the bubble is important and to others it's not practical considering the cost and the fact that unless you are staying at the Grand you still are walking about as far to the gates as some of the off site properties.

The extra morning hour is the only real perk - and it's more of a perk for DCA than DL as anyone with a 3 day or longer ticket gets an MM for DL.

The other thing I can see being a benefit is the pool areas - they are nicer at the Disneyland Hotel and the Grand Californian than any of the closer off site hotels so if you are going when you know the weather will be hot, park days will be long and your group will enjoy an afternoon break at the pool, that would be an added bonus.

It also depends too on how long you are staying and what kind of room configuration you want - we are a family of 4 - with teenage daughter and son, so having a suite with two washrooms is wonderful off site, and it's still way cheaper than an onsite double queen room, and we always stay for at least 8 nights so we'd be getting pretty sick of each other after that long a time in such close quarters.

The great thing is - this forum offers so many different experiences that it does certainly help with making decisions.

 

[BayouQueen]

We do both. The onsite hotels have really gotten quite expensive, so we can't stay onsite all the time. That said, our better and more memorable trips are the ones staying onsite. We still have a good time staying elsewhere. Budget dictates.

 

[StormyCA]

To me it's totally 'worth it'. Being 'in the bubble' means a lot to me. Package delivery and EMH seal the deal.

Is it really worth the extra money? Probably not. But then a lot of the things we truly love aren't really 'worth the money', are they? But that doesn't mean they aren't worth the cost.

 

[Malcon10t]

When I am traveling with the family (my children/grandchildren) we usually stay at the DLH/PPH. If it is just my daughter and I, depending on the situation, we will be at the DLH or PPH, or Hilton. If it is just me, I will usually be found at the Candy Cane Inn or Hilton. While we have stayed a several times at the GCH, the small rooms are just to small when we are all there. We tried it again in Jan when they offered me a great rate to see the refurbed rooms, and while I do like the new rooms better, we decided we do prefer the other 2 hotels.

Staying offsite, you don't really lose the feel. Go with what you feel is right for your family.

 

[Tinkerbell19672]

We used to only stay onsite but for the past 2 years we’ve beeing going to DL way more often, several times a year. So to save $ we stay on Harbor most of the time. We stayed at DLH last August because we got a decent rate and wanted a nice pool to cool off. The pool ended up being packed both days we swam. I mean so packed people just kind of stood around, crammed in next to each other. Also, it was really hot, the monorail was down, and we chose to stay in the parks rather than the long walk back to rest in the afternoon. I actually missed staying on Harbor for those reasons. But I do like being in the bubble, so it’s a trade off. Also, when DD was young, it was nice staying at GC for naps. So I think it comes down to what’s important for you. Now that DD is a teen, we usually don’t even take a break and stay until midnight so paying 4-5x more for a room we only sleep in seems silly.