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

[Diszona]

We've done both onsite and offsite. DL twice, GCH once and offsite the other five trips. I managed to get a smoking hot deal for the GCH this February, less than $230/night so I jumped at the chance to stay there!

Was it worth it at $230/night? You betcha! But for our family, being able to go twice a year is more important than staying onsite although if I could have found a rate even close to what I got in February, we would absolutely be staying onsite! The early entry into DCA and the ability to send DS to Pinocchio's workshop while DH and I enjoy a grown up dinner makes it worth it for our family.

That is how we feel was well. If we were only going once every few years then we definitely would consider the extra expense of an on-site hotel worth it. We tend to go at least twice a year and we would not be able to do so if we doubled or tripled our hotel expenditure each trip. We tend to not go back to hotel until the end of the day, so it really doesn't matter to us what kind of amenities the hotel has as long as it is clean and comfortable. WDW has the advantage of having a range of hotels that makes the staying on-site question much less of an issue.

 

[pindecisive]

Would you mind telling every one how you got it for under $100 a night?

Lol. I wish. Less than $100 difference per night vs an offsite hotel. It cost us an extra $100 to stay onsite than it would if we'd have stayed at Ramada Maingate, Nowhere near "double." I was quoting a previous post which listed that only about a $50 difference would be worth it to them.

A bad hotel doesn't make me cranky, but a bad meal does

A bad hotel can and has ruined my entire experience. A bad meal is yelped and forgotten within the hour. To some people, if they don't get to ride a ride or see a specific character, their trip is shot. It just depends on the person - and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. To each their own.

 

[mummabear]

I have done on site and off site at both WDW and DLR. I agree that WDW the comparable cost of a value room vs off site is not huge and the perks are worth it to us. When our youngest turns 3 that will tip is out of the value rooms and we will have to reconsider the cost/benefits of on site and off site there again.
At DLR I am really glad to have had the opportunity to stay onsite a DLH but the cost was significantly more than the Hojo, I didn't really feel like it was closer and the walk to the Hojo was more relaxed than battling the DTD crowds.
I would stay onsite again at DLR if the cost was more comparable between PPH and something like the Hojo otherwise unlikely unless it was for another very special occasion.
It may be more for people that spend more resort time for us, we really have to force ourselves into finding the time for the pool etc instead of being on the go.
I also look at what else I could spend that X amount on instead of staying onsite and that extra activity normally is more exciting to me than where I sleep

 

[usd2bmd]

We are planning on going to DL next year for the first time and looked at staying onsite, but I just can't justify the cost of an onsite hotel. Especially when you factor in the proximity of most of the off-site hotels to the parks. It isn't a matter of driving 20 minutes. For many of them it is a short walk. I would rather stay off-site and get more for my vacation budget.

 

[calilou]

You really can't even put Hojo's and the GCH in the same sentence if you are making honest comparisons. You say that to you it's a place to sleep. That's the key, in my opinion. To many, a hotel is much more than that. When I go on vacation, a hotel is not just a place to sleep. It is part of my overall experience when I look back on my vacation experience. The amenities offered, the service received, the "feel" of my home for the week... It is all part of my vcation experience for us, it is NOT just a place to sleep. It is so much more. If you don't view a vacation that way, you will not see the value.

This exactly.


Bottom line the ideal Disneyland experience includes staying onsite IMO. However not everyone can always swing ideal all the time so of course you can still put together a great trip staying offsite. If you're one who doesn't spend a lot of time in their room or really appreciate a resort hotel experience then it makes sense to forego it in favor of a larger dining or spending money budget. Sometimes you have to pick and choose and in that case it might make sense for your family to sacrifice in the lodging category and stay offsite. But quite honestly staying onsite is the best option when you can afford it all even if it's only on one trip - totally worth it, added magic and significant value. It's the cherry on top!

PS we do both onsite and offsite trips throughout the year so have really experienced it all.

 

[MommyJKM]

We always stay at GCH onsite.

I really dislike people on this board acting like offsite is as good as onsite. It's not and if everyone could afford to stay onsite they would.

True there are great places offisite (Hilton, Embassy Suites, Sheraton, CCI) but if you had unlimited funds...you would always stay onsite. So just decide if it's in your budget.

 

[soma151]

I am one that

We always stay at GCH onsite.

I really dislike people on this board acting like offsite is as good as onsite. It's not and if everyone could afford to stay onsite they would.

True there are great places offisite (Hilton, Embassy Suites, Sheraton, CCI) but if you had unlimited funds...you would always stay onsite. So just decide if it's in your budget.

I would have to completely disagree with you, lots of us can afford to stay on site and choose not too. The Disney bubble is just that a bubble and sales pitch. One time in line i talked with a guy that said " Hell my Disney vacation is all put on my card, we stop spending when its full " My Disney vacation is all payed for in full one month after getting the bill. I know lots of people go into debt to go to Disney and take years to pay it off. And thats fine for them if they want to do that. I live debt free and would never go on Vacation any place if i had to go into debt to do it. I think a lot of Pass holders are way to wrapped up in Disney. But living in L.A. must be a really good place to live with all those people living there its just not for me. I have never heard of any one going to a Hotel for Vacation? I guess it may happen but most go to a PLACE and stay at a hotel.

 

[22Tink]

I don't think anyone is saying offsite is 'as good', just that financially it works better for us. I would rather spend the money on extra character meals or souvenirs, than on a hotel room I'm hardly in except to sleep. I appreciate that some people prefer onsite regardless of price, and that's great for them. Equally, I think it's perfectly fine for people to prefer offsite for whatever reasons they may have. It's obviously not an 'apples to apples' comparison, just what people prefer or are financially able to do. BTW, I CAN afford to stay onsite. I just choose NOT to because I'd rather spend my money differently. So I disagree with your statement about alway choosing to stay onsite if you have the funds.

We always stay at GCH onsite.

I really dislike people on this board acting like offsite is as good as onsite. It's not and if everyone could afford to stay onsite they would.

True there are great places offisite (Hilton, Embassy Suites, Sheraton, CCI) but if you had unlimited funds...you would always stay onsite. So just decide if it's in your budget.

 

[MommyJKM]

I don't think anyone is saying offsite is 'as good', just that financially it works better for us. I would rather spend the money on extra character meals or souvenirs, than on a hotel room I'm hardly in except to sleep. I appreciate that some people prefer onsite regardless of price, and that's great for them. Equally, I think it's perfectly fine for people to prefer offsite for whatever reasons they may have. It's obviously not an 'apples to apples' comparison, just what people prefer or are financially able to do. BTW, I CAN afford to stay onsite. I just choose NOT to because I'd rather spend my money differently. So I disagree with your statement about alway choosing to stay onsite if you have the funds.

I should have qualified my statement as
if you always had unlimited funds you would choose to stay onsite.

Many people - including you- can afford it, but if you ALWAYS could afford it you would is what I'm saying.

 

[22Tink]

I should have qualified my statement as
if you always had unlimited funds you would choose to stay onsite.

Many people - including you- can afford it, but if you ALWAYS could afford it you would is what I'm saying.

I still disagree with you, I would not, but to each their own!! You enjoy your trips your way and I'll enjoy my trips my way!

 

[bookgirl]

I'm not saying it's as good, just better for me. I can afford it, I'm single, I have no kids, I make a really good salary in a low cost of living state. But no I don't choose to stay onsite at DLR. I don't use the pool, I don't do characters, I am not in the room much at all in fact, and the truth is that I don't look at "price" per say but at 'value' for my dollar. I don't want to spend that much money for a room that I won't be in, for a pool I won't swim in, and for character sightings that I could give a crap about. I could stay onsite for DLR, I could stay deluxe for every one of my Disney trips, but I don't because unless I have my mom with me, no one's in the room. If it's just me it's better to save the money by staying value of moderate and if DLR had that option I'd stay on site. But they don't, so I'll stay off site unless I can get an onsite stay for a price that I don't consider wasteful (wasteful for me not everyone else). I don't enjoy throwing away money, THAT would ruin my vacation.

 

[TheDisneyNurse]

Only visited DLR once, and we stayed in the Grand Californian. Very nice hotel, loved how it was ridicuously close to the parks. I was only 16 at the time. I imagine it was very, very expensive. At WDW, there are cheaper hotels on property that are more affordable. Also, because of the size, the transportation is incredibly convinent. I wouldn't mind staying off-site at DLR at all.

 

[CateinPhoenix]

If I had a dollar for every time a discussion like this popped up on the DL board, I would stay on-site everytime lol!

 

[TheDisneyNurse]

We always stay at GCH onsite.

I really dislike people on this board acting like offsite is as good as onsite. It's not and if everyone could afford to stay onsite they would.

True there are great places offisite (Hilton, Embassy Suites, Sheraton, CCI) but if you had unlimited funds...you would always stay onsite. So just decide if it's in your budget.

Actually, I would humbly like to disagree with you. Me, personally, I will stay onsite forever and ever because I love the experience and it's what I personally want. So technically, we have a lot in common However, a lot of off-site hotels give you a lot more than disney does. Free hot breakfast. FREE Internet cafe. FREE video game arcade. FREE movie room with an entire wall of DVD's. And that was a hotel that was directly across the street from a WDW entrance and was only $75 dollars a night.

Again, for me, I personally would forfiet all of those benefits to stay onsite, but for a lot of people, that makes staying off-site to be a better, more enjoyable, option

 

[sheetz]

Lots of very wealthy people refuse to spend more money than they have to on anything.
After all, that's how they got to be rich in the first place!

 

[DizMe]

I am one that

I would have to completely disagree with you, lots of us can afford to stay on site and choose not too. The Disney bubble is just that a bubble and sales pitch. One time in line i talked with a guy that said " Hell my Disney vacation is all put on my card, we stop spending when its full " My Disney vacation is all payed for in full one month after getting the bill. I know lots of people go into debt to go to Disney and take years to pay it off. And thats fine for them if they want to do that. I live debt free and would never go on Vacation any place if i had to go into debt to do it. I think a lot of Pass holders are way to wrapped up in Disney. But living in L.A. must be a really good place to live with all those people living there its just not for me. I have never heard of any one going to a Hotel for Vacation? I guess it may happen but most go to a PLACE and stay at a hotel.

Then I guess I misunderstood your original question in posting this thread. I was trying to carefully answer all of your questions about what makes it worthwhile for someone like me to stay on site when you actually just wanted to explain why it's a waste of money. I don't agree with the idea that everyone would stay there if they could, and I don't understand why this is a right or wrong issue. Almost everyone who has posted has said it depends on many factors and you have to choose what works best for you. Why do we keep poking this with a stick?

That's it. Period. Do what works for you and don't worry about justifying your decision to those who choose something else.

 

[calilou]

I would have to completely disagree with you, lots of us can afford to stay on site and choose not too. The Disney bubble is just that a bubble and sales pitch. One time in line i talked with a guy that said " Hell my Disney vacation is all put on my card, we stop spending when its full " My Disney vacation is all payed for in full one month after getting the bill. I know lots of people go into debt to go to Disney and take years to pay it off. And thats fine for them if they want to do that. I live debt free and would never go on Vacation any place if i had to go into debt to do it. I think a lot of Pass holders are way to wrapped up in Disney. But living in L.A. must be a really good place to live with all those people living there its just not for me. I have never heard of any one going to a Hotel for Vacation? I guess it may happen but most go to a PLACE and stay at a hotel.

I respectfully disagree. Many people focus on the hotel or resort they stay at as much as or more than the place they're traveling to. My husband and I leave for a getaway in a few days and we chose where we are going out of several possibilities based on which resort we liked the most. We want to be somewhere we can relax and unwind so the resort hotel choice made more of an impact than what geographical location we were in. As most people have already pointed out, that's not a priority for everyone which is perfectly fine - to each their own. But it is a very common desire as opposed to an exception to the rule.

Honestly how people pay for their trip(s) has nothing to do with your original discussion. I'm pretty sure there are people who stay both onsite and off putting their trip on a credit card. That's a whole different subject!

Additionally, we all view our Disney experience uniquely and have different priorities that create our own bubble. I feel it's unkind to state that because some of us want to be completely immersed in all ways possible (including where we stay) we are falling for a sales pitch. No, we are creating our ultimate Disney bubble experience just as you are able to. We are not suckers for a sales pitch because we choose to stay at a Disneyland resort hotel. We have prioritized our resources and done our homework to make it happen for our trip.

Your statement about passholders is way off. Not all passholders live in LA. Not even close. We are passholders and we live hundreds of miles from Disneyland in a small quiet community. We may be wrapped up in Disney, but since when is that a bad thing? Why are you even on a board like this if you aren't wrapped up in Disney? Lol Disneyland is a warm, fuzzy blanket I would love to be wrapped up in anytime!

 

[Sherry E]

I respectfully disagree. Many people focus on the hotel or resort they stay at as much as or more than the place they're traveling to. My husband and I leave for a getaway in a few days and we chose where we are going out of several possibilities based on which resort we liked the most. We want to be somewhere we can relax and unwind so the resort hotel choice made more of an impact than what geographical location we were in. As most people have already pointed out, that's not a priority for everyone which is perfectly fine - to each their own. But it is a very common desire as opposed to an exception to the rule.

Honestly how people pay for their trip(s) has nothing to do with your original discussion. I'm pretty sure there are people who stay both onsite and off putting their trip on a credit card. That's a whole different subject!

Additionally, we all view our Disney experience uniquely and have different priorities that create our own bubble. I feel it's unkind to state that because some of us want to be completely immersed in all ways possible (including where we stay) we are falling for a sales pitch. No, we are creating our ultimate Disney bubble experience just as you are able to. We are not suckers for a sales pitch because we choose to stay at a Disneyland resort hotel. We have prioritized our resources and done our homework to make it happen for our trip.

Your statement about passholders is way off. Not all passholders live in LA. Not even close. We are passholders and we live hundreds of miles from Disneyland in a small quiet community. We may be wrapped up in Disney, but since when is that a bad thing? Why are you even on a board like this if you aren't wrapped up in Disney? Lol Disneyland is a warm, fuzzy blanket I would love to be wrapped up in anytime!

Very true about the Bubble. It's a very subjective, individualized and personal thing. As I said in my post on the previous page, other people's ideas of what the Bubble entails could vary from my own. I think that even if many of us agree that we like to be in the Disney Bubble the whole time, we each may have different 'requirements' for our own personal Bubbles, if that makes sense. What is bubbly to me may not be bubbly to anyone else in this thread, and vice versa -- but whatever our bubbly expectations, we Bubble people find that they are met when we stay onsite. It's just not something I can afford all the time, every time, but it's very much worth it when I do stay onsite.

As I also said in my previous post -- for me, because I do live in the middle of L.A. (a very heavily populated area, with all kinds of traffic and noise and litter and non-bubbly things), and because where I live is only about 45 minutes (without traffic) from DLR, that is all the more reason for me to jump into the Bubble and stay there on a multi-day Disney trip. I don't want to feel like I am staying at or visiting a place that I could see when I am walking down the street in my own neighborhood. I want to feel like I am staying somewhere out of the ordinary and vacation-ish. But that may not be a priority or a necessity for many other people who visit DLR.

As for AP holders -- I think there are a lot more AP holders who don't live locally than anyone realizes. A lot of people get an AP for the discounts and because it ends up making more sense than Hoppers based on the length of their stay.

 

[VandVsmama]

I'm a bubble person, too. But for me, the bubble also applies to the motels along Harbor Blvd.

 

[AddictedtoDoleWhip]

It's okay that you can't see yourself paying to stay on site at DL, no one is forcing you to so you don't have to. If people want to stay onsite that is there preference and if people prefer to stay offsite to save money so they can come back more than once that's okay too. It doesn't make anyone a snob if they prefer to stay onsite, just as it doesn't make anyone a snob if they prefer to stay offsite no one is better than the other.

I personally wouldn't stay off site because I live a little close, so I stay onsite but only for a couple days. I love Disney resorts, I have only stayed at the GCH once but I am hoping that maybe I can swing a GCH stay next year sometime.