Is is just me??? (comparision between Wilderness Lodge and Grand Californian)

[Michelle2]

Does anyone else NOT want to stay at the Wilderness Lodge at WDW because it seems so similiar in theme to the Grand Californian? To me, it even seems like a cheaper version. So I think I would compare the two all the time, and wish it was the GC.
Last time we went to DL this last September, our whole group stayed at the Grand Californian (my family stays there every time now--we just love it!!!), and since it will be my mom, sister and cousin's first time at WDW (they were all part of our DL September group), I want to stay somewhere that is more unique for them.

Does any other DL vet think the same thing? Is the Wilderness Lodge a turn off for those that have stayed or are used to staying at the Grand Californian???

 

[IandGsmom]

No its not just you. Even though the WL gets rave reviews, I would not stay here. It just looks too similar. We tried Port Orleans the first time at WDW and the CR will be in December!

 

[my3kids]

When my DH saw photos of the GC he said the lobby area is set up just like the Animal Kingdom lodge. When I looked at photos it really did have a lot of the same styles. And, the AKL had the same architects as the WL, I think.

 

[AspiringCindy]

Having stayed at WL a number of times, I must say that I love the place! I'm sure it is VERY similar to GC...and for that reason, I am staying at GC in JUly!
AKL, WL and GC share the same architect! If you are looking for something different at WDW...try BC! The Beach Club has a nice layed back atmosphere with decor that resembles a seaside retreat! It truly resembles and feels like the old tyme beach resort at Cape May from yesteryear!!

 

[Amy&Dan]

No, I feel the same way. And its not that I don't want to stay at the WL its just that I like to have different resort/theming/experiences for my Disney trips. We are staying at GCH in two weeks and considered WL for our December WDW visit. But my husband and I both decided that we want to space out our WL/GCH visits more since they do seem so similar. So we'll wait awhile for WL. I saw a thread on the resorts board awhile back where someone who had stayed at both reported their toddler kept looking out the window at Wildnerness Lodge wondering where California Adventure went!

And I agree with Aspiring Cindy. If you want something really unique and fun for your mom and sister trip, go with one of the Epcot resorts. We stayed at Boardwalk earlier this month and loved it. We had breakfast at Cape May in the Beachclub one morning and it looked incredilbe too. And being so close to Epcot is so nice!

 

[Judy from Boise]

I actually really prefer WL to GC. But, I would do one or the other, and pick a different theme on "the opposite" trip.

 

[ktulu]

My wife and I love the WL. We haven't stayed onsite at DLR yet. When we travel to SoCal, we end up going to more places than just DL, so staying offsite is better (and cheaper!) for us.

darren

 

[Michelle2]

I am so glad to hear that I am not the only one! I was beginning to think that I was a little crazy, but I knew someone had to think the same....After such high praises from the Dis boards, I still thought of it as a cheaper version of GC.
We have to stay in the cheapest deluxes---the WL, or AKL, so that is why I chose the AKL---WL just seemed too similiar to what we were used to already. (We will be back at the GC in 9/2007) I would have loved to stay at an Epcot resort, but just cannot afford it this trip. We are actually lucky to be in a deluxe...we were going to be in a moderate, but I upgraded us...LOL.

Thanks so much everyone!

 

[peppers]

I have stayed at both resorts, and I must admit that I strongly prefer the Wilderness Lodge. The only thing I enjoyed about the Grand Californian was the fact that I could walk right into DCA.

The Wilderness Lodge is laid out better IMO. There was only one elevator area at the Grand Californian, and our room was at the farthest end of the hotel. Each night that we got back from the parks we had to walk for what seemed like forever.

We only tried their quick service food place at the GC, and it could have been an "off" day but it wasn't too great. I have eaten at all 3 restaurants at the Wilderness Lodge and have NEVER been disappointed.

I'm sure there are some wonderful things at the GC that we missed, but for the price/value, our family much prefers staying at the Candy Cane Inn whenever we are in Anaheim.

 

[1000th happy haunt]

Wilderness Lodge, Grand Californian, and Animal Kingdom Lodge were all designed by the same architectural firm. That's why they all look so similar.

WL is my favorite resort at WDW (I also own points at DVC's Villa at Wilderness Lodge), and GC is my favorite resort at DLR. I love them both equally.

 

[DenverVal]

I strongly prefer the Wilderness Lodge to the Grand Californian, and we are staying at the villas at WL on our upcoming trip to the World. As for WL being a "cheaper version" of GC...well, I think GC is outrageously expensive for what you get.

You will find that the AK is very similar in architecture to the WL, but with different theming. It is very cool to see giraffes outside your window in the morning. We enjoyed our stay there too.

 

[evilqueen71]

We went to DW last Februrary (first time in 13 years) and stayed at the Polynesian. I have not stayed at the WL but have stayed at the GC. The GC is a beautiful hotel and the entrance to DCA is a plus. The Polynesian is a gorgeous hotel and would stay there again in a second. The scenery was breathtaking.

 

[Deb & Bill]

We're at the GC right now and the first thing I noticed was the similarity to WL. In fact, I thought the check in desk was in the wrong place. We'll be at the VWL in November. I didn't think either was a cheaper version of the other.

 

[MrShiny]

Yes, the WL and GC have similar rustic feels. However, the GC is based on Arts & Crafts - more refined, more Frank Lloyd Wright. The WL is more rough hewn, more National Park Service.

I agree that GC is more upscale - it's supposed to be. When WL was created, it was supposed to be a new class of Disney Resort - below deluxe and above moderate. It proved so popular, that it soon demanded as much as the deluxe resorts though.

I often decribe GC as the offspring of WL and GF. I think that's apt (although it has more of WL looks, and GF personality).

Yes, if you want a different experience at WDW than DL, then do stay elsewhere than WL.

As for AKL and WL, I'd say they are not that similar. They are both naturalistic, but they are about as similar as being in Yosemite and being in the Serangetti. WL is whittled by a moutain man, AKL is carved by a tribal craftsman.

But if you want much different than GC, I'd go with BoardWalk, GF, Poly or BC.

 

[Jen117]

I think it depends on which resort you stayed at first, meaning the first one you fell in love with. WL was built before GC, so I don't consider is a cheap knock off. I love the Lodge and have stayed there many times. We toured GC and really liked it, however I don't think they are near the same at all. Yes, they are similar, yet unique in their own special ways!

 

[Disney Magic]

I, too, stayed at both and prefer the WL over the GC. I didn't for one second feel that it was a step-down from the GC. As one poster mentioned, the CG is more upscale in design, and it is probably the most elaborately designed hotel at DL . The WL is more rustic. Both are lovely, we enjoyed staying at both, but we love the seclusion and feel of the WL. Just driving the road into the hotel sets the mood for us. We like the fact that it is surrounded by lots of trees and is situated on a lake. In the afternoons we make use of the recreational water activities that are offered on the lake and enjoy jogging the lovely nature trail to Fort Wilderness in the mornings before heading to the parks. It is a great way for a family living in a highrise condo smack dab in the middle of a city to unwind. The GC does have its plusses, too, but we just prefer the WL.

As the poster mentioned, there are some similarities, so if one is looking for a totally new experience, I agree that some of the other resort hotels would be a better choice.

 

[DisneyParkFan]

When I went to Disneyland Paris I stayed at the Sequoia Lodge. It is a moderate resort over there. The New York Hotel and the Disneyland Hotel are the deluxe hotels. I have never stayed at the WL but will this December. I am looking forward to that. When I was at DL I stayed at the DLH and PP, although I did walk the GC several times on my way to and from DCA. I loved the lobby. Looking back I thought that SL in DLP was the cheap knockoff. If and when I return to DLP I plan to stay at the DLH.

 

[dsneygirl]

I think it's the opposite. GC is a cheaper version of WL. IMHO. Part of the issue is space. WL has beautiful grounds and you are surrounded by huge trees. And the pool is far more elaborate. Our only stay at GC we did get a DCA view of Grizzly Peak which was pretty cool.

 

[raidermatt]

All three (WL, GC, AKL) are very similar in structure and overall feel. Everyone will have preferences of course, but its not uncommon for people to walk into one after visiting one of the others and have a serious deja vu moment.