I just can't see paying almost double to stay on site…WDW yes…DL no

[soma151]

Don't get me wrong i love really nice hotels and most of the time stay in 5 star places, but for the life of me i can't see paying almost double to stay on site when most of the time is spent away from the hotel? I know this has been talked about to death on this board so sorry for bringing it up. But are on site hotel even that much closer. Now i can see it at WDW but not Disneyland. Lots of fine hotels just out side the park and easy to walk in and out. With that said…any new off site hotels in the last two years we need to look at? Close enough to walk in.

 

[jina]

There's a new Courtyard with bunk bed rooms and a water park opening next to HoJo's - pretty short walk to the parks. I'm waiting for the new Hyatt to open up at the corner of Harbour and Katella but I think that's not opening for another year or so.

I've stayed on site (GCH) and off site (mainly HoJo's) and I agree- we can go twice as much by staying off site and good neighbor hotels are still way easier to get to than most of the WDW on site hotels to a park. But honestly if money was no option we'd stay on site every single time. I've only done GCH so far but we really want to stay at DLH and try out their water slides. GCH is incredibly convenient with its own DCA entrance and the walk to DL is so easy not having to worry about crossing the street. We feel like we're staying inside DCA when you're at GCH. Plus we are early risers and would take advantage of early entry every day. So once we're past this annual pass year and are only going maybe once every couple of years I'm sure we'll be splurging for at least a couple of on site nights. Once we did a 2 nights @ HoJo's followed by 2 nights @ GCH which was a really great compromise.

 

[momtohms]

We primarily stayed onsite because the military discount brought the PPH's nightly rate down to a reasonable (and in some cases, not much more expensive) price compared to the offsite choices we were considering. The walk from our hotel into the parks was under 10 minutes going through GCH and the Downtown Disney - though I'm sure some of the offsite hotels directly across the street (Katella?) may be shorter walks and still mostly in the parks. I'd still consider it if the budget allowed without the discount because we had such a great experience, but I know there are great aspects of the offsite hotels too. I'm especially interested in seeing how people like the new Courtyard mentioned above, if it had been open earlier in the year it would've been a top contender for sure.

 

[AngiTN]

Staying on site was important to me. I wanted the full Disneyland experience and for my family that means staying on site. I didn't care that I could stay off site cheaper. Off site is off site, be it in DL or WDW. Hotel is as important to us as the parks. It was most likely a 1 time trip so we stayed where we wanted. In our stay at DLH was got to see Goofy walking around the lobby and again walking around the pool area. DGD loved that.

If we did ever have a chance to return to CA we may well pick off site that time. Just not for our first trip. But to each their own and clearly there are numerous excellent off site hotels

 

[bookgirl]

I am an onsite devotee at WDW but I just could not do the DLR onsite prices. I mean I do stay Deluxe every few years but I could have stayed onsite at WDW and STILL wouldn't hav paid as much as DLR wanted. Except for the bag line I had to go through after buying stuff at DTD to get back to my hotel (the Disney property entrances are all within DTD), I found the offsite experience to be fine.

That being said I stayed at Best Western Park Place Inn. It's really basic, and the pool is comical, but the free breakfast was nice, the 5 minute walk to the park was nice and paying 1/3 of the price for a hotel was really nice.

If I go back I'll be offsite again. Until DLR can get more competitive price wise or up their perks for onsite guests (one hour at the park before hand is not going to do it) I will not be staying with Mickey.

 

[Imdboss]

I totally agree, there's no way I can justify a standard hotel room at GCH for $500 vs $120 for a suite plus breakfast offsite. We can afford $500 a night and to me it just doesn't make sense. Now if the difference was only $50 more a night then I would consider it.

When are you planning on going? There are some new hotels opening up soon. I believe Courtyard is set for Aug and Homewood Suites is set for Sept.

 

[JadeDarkstar]

I wish they were cheaper like even 199 a night like I once saw for pph. I could almost talk my self in to that. But 299-350 or so a night. My hubby got a nice job and we wee like well lets look what would it be. we added it up its 1000+ more for our trip and that's just a bit to much. We could do it if we didn't want the spending cash and nice dinners or lunch's out and our day off and extra day paid for since we will arrive at 8 am and can check in to our room right away. My fam has said BWPPI should be just fine and we should stick with having some extra fun instead of paying for a nicer place to sleep.

 

[DizMe]

In general, if you are asking the question, you're better off staying off site.

There are two camps...worth it or not worth it. If you're seriously thinking there are things you'd rather spend money on than hotel experience, you should stay off site.

I almost always choose to stay on site, but I totally get why others don't. There are a lot of factors that figure into the decision, but the basic idea is that if it's just a place to sleep at night, you can't bring yourself to spend the money, or you don't have the money, stay off site. I've done it both ways and had great trips either way, but I have many reasons for finding the cost worthwhile for me and my family.

 

[GoBears 1980]

They (GCH, PPH, DLH) get the price they do because they can. I never pay rack rate at the DLR hotels. I pay AP rates, get emails when they need to fill the Club Level and have friends at Disney who can get me good rates when the hotel isn't full.

If I want the full hotel experience, I go with the Anaheim Hilton or Anaheim Marriott. I used to be a Residence Inn Maingate devotee, but my new love is the Springhill Suites Anaheim Resort Convention Center. It is open with a roof top pool and a CVS on the ground floor. I am sure I'll try the new Courtyard and Hyatt House, but I am really looking forward to the new Residence Inn (where the Jolly Roger used to be) and Great Wolf Lodge.

 

[soma151]

I keep hearing " if you want the full Disney experience " is that a Calif thing? Or a Disney sales pitch? When we went to WDW we stayed at Polynesia because you can ride the Montreal to the park. And staying off site was just to far out. When you say i find it worthwhile for me and my family could you tell me why? I even heard a guy call people outside the park RIFF/RAFF..If you want to deal with the riff/raff walking to the park then do so, its not for me? To me its just a place to sleep and let the kids play in the poor mid day and then back to the parks. I really don't understand when you say "In general. if you asking the question you're better off staying off site " Is that sort of saying " if you need to ask the price you really shouldn't be looking at buying this "? I would use that same line when i sold out my time share hotel on Ambergris Belize and most of the time it worked….lol…Because most of the time non of them could afford it so i guilted them into buying it. Oldest sales pitch in the world….But if i can see some value in paying more then double…IM IN!

 

[RoyalJay]

I guess I'll be the contrarian here but having done both I'd never stay off site again. Totally worth the extra money to me to stay on site, especially at the Grand Californian. Location and EMH totally make it worth it to me, but I also understand if your mileage may vary.

 

[LoriLovesDisneyland]

I have also done both. I only get to Disneyland every 4-6 years and I feel it is worth the extra money to stay onsite since I do not go very often. I want to be immersed in the magic.

 

[nbliss]

I don't understand it either. Of course , to each his own. The Grand Californian is what gets me. 400-500 a night, yikes! For that price, this "Disney Bubble" I hear about would have to include more than a feeling for me.

 

[22Tink]

Nothing at all against those who choose to stay onsite, everyone's preferences are different, this is just what works best for us. We've stayed at numerous offsite hotels, BWPPI being our favourite, because it's so close!! Across the street! I don't feel at all like I'm 'missing out on the Disney bubble' by not staying onsite. We hardly spend any time in our hotel anyway so the extra money for a resort hotel would be wasted IMO.

 

[disneychrista]

Most of the Harbor hotels are closer to he parks than the Disney Hotels.

 

[Minniesgal]

I get the impression that it is a bit comparing apples and oranges though. I could be wrong but aren't a lot is the offsite hotels near DL fairly basic. While the GCH is pretty spectacular

I like to stay in a nice place and would like to stay in a 4/5 star if offsite. Is that possible?

 

[nicolispicoli]

I keep hearing " if you want the full Disney experience " is that a Calif thing? Or a Disney sales pitch? When we went to WDW we stayed at Polynesia because you can ride the Montreal to the park. And staying off site was just to far out. When you say i find it worthwhile for me and my family could you tell me why? I even heard a guy call people outside the park RIFF/RAFF..If you want to deal with the riff/raff walking to the park then do so, its not for me? To me its just a place to sleep and let the kids play in the poor mid day and then back to the parks. I really don't understand when you say "In general. if you asking the question you're better off staying off site " Is that sort of saying " if you need to ask the price you really shouldn't be looking at buying this "? I would use that same line when i sold out my time share hotel on Ambergris Belize and most of the time it worked….lol…Because most of the time non of them could afford it so i guilted them into buying it. Oldest sales pitch in the world….But if i can see some value in paying more then double…IM IN!

It's really just a Disneyland things because the entire park is completely surrounded by city. At WDW, there's sooooo much more land, so things are more spread out and lush, scenic, etc. The area around Disneyland is absolutely not scenic and sometimes walking down harbor from an offsite diminishes the experience for some people. It's all hotels and honestly some areas are a little seedy.

I'm a person who does both. I like to stay on site at least one trip, usually dapper day since the rates are so amazing ($249 for GCH, $199 for DLH, $175 for PPH). The rest of the time I stay across the street as close as I can for a reasonable rate. I love the desert inn and suites. Yeah, it's no DLH, but at the end of the night, the walk is closer than the DLH and I won't ever complain about that. All that said, on site does feel nice, but most times I'd rather spend money on things like fantasmic dining, WOC dining, tours, etc.

 

[bumbershoot]

Now i can see it at WDW but not Disneyland.

Why?

i can't see paying almost double to stay on site when most of the time is spent away from the hotel?

At WDW you're away from your hotel (in distance especially!) so much more/further than at DL. At DL you can hop back to your resort in a relative flash. At WDW, unless you're literally at MK and are staying at CR/BLT, you're doing more than just walking back to your resort room.


Don't get me wrong; we stay offsite more often than on (I am not one who needs a "bubble"), but the reasoning is exactly the opposite from what I would think.

get emails when they need to fill the Club Level

How do you get those?

and have friends at Disney who can get me good rates when the hotel isn't full.

Must be nice!

While the GCH is pretty spectacular

Hmm. The public, free areas of the Grand are nice. The rooms, however, are far away, the smallest on property, and DARK! I'll stay elsewhere and walk through the public and free lobby of the Grand if I want something fairly spectacular.

At WDW, there's sooooo much more land, so things are more spread out and lush, scenic, etc.

At WDW you're getting on what are basically freeways to get from place to place. I cannot understand how that doesn't burst a "bubble", but walking along the DL side of Harbor, listening to the music from inside the parks the whole way, to HoJo isn't in a bubble.

 

[ChristinaMarie023]

I'm all about feeling like I'm at Disney when I go, so staying onsite tends to be the choice. This is especially the case with WDW, but not always a crucial component at DLR (often because when we go, we're usually also there to see things in LA that don't require us to be onsite the entire time). It's the immersion and magic of being surrounded by Disney that I really love and I do feel there's a difference. To each their own!

 

[McNs]

We are definitely on site, but it is probably a little different for us as we have already dropped $6k just for airfares for the four of us. We love the amenities at the on site hotels that you don't get at the places on Harbor across the road, you need to go Sheraton/Hilton/Mariott to get something comparable, and they are a lot further away. We also stay a bit longer, and our touring approach is start early and hit the pools in the afternoon when hot and busy. We also like being able to get room service desserts and the occasional cocktail when the kids are asleep. The whole vacation is our one splurge for the year and we save like crazy the rest of the time so we can really enjoy doing the things we like to do.

We did stay off site on our first visit at HoJo, and while it was nice enough, it wasn't anything special, and feeling special staying at a hotel is something we value and are happy to pay for.