Is it Really Better Staying On Property?

[lindsmom]

If cost weren't a factor, sign me up for a 3 bedroom villa onsite! Whoo hoo! And add the dining plan - deluxe please.

However, we have always stayed off site and enjoyed the space. That's a priority for our family. Separate sleeping areas. Littlest one can go to bed before the rest of us, etc. We do a run to Walmart and get the little cereal boxes for breakfast on the go, and if we have leftovers from dinner we have room in the full size fridge to store them.

Even "far" away at Cypress Harbour, we were door to door Epcot in 25 minutes with our rental car. We can handle that.

 

[sharona]

It's circumstantial for us. Short trip = on site and renting our own car unless staying in Boardwalk area. Longer trip = offsite for more room, better pricing, better choices for restaurants.

IMO, the "Disney Bubble" thing is totally oversold here on the DIS. The Disney buses and DME are a brilliant marketing ploy that, when combined with the front loaded ticket pricing, keep guests from spending even $1 anywhere else.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

We drive to FL, and the idea of waiting on buses only to pack in and possibly stand for 20 minutes bumping & thumping to the parks doesn't suit me. So, Disney transportation is a non-factor.

Our favorite off-site resort is near the I-4/192 exchange. Virtually NO traffic en route to WDW (Universal & SW are another story) for rope drop, so we're door to door in 15 minutes or less except for MK (which is just 1 day for us).

We have a private cabin with kitchen & separate bedrooms. Got a special on it July this year - $393 for 8 nights, tax included.

We pretty much leave by 7:00 am & don't return until after 10:00 pm, so it's pretty much just a place to sleep & eat breakfast.

Not a fan of ADR's. We carry food in & supplement with CS meals.

So really, the only thing we're missing is EMH. And I admit, that's a big one. But no way could we justify the cost increase for that alone unless it's somewhere like AKL Arushka View, and we'd probably not go to any parks while there.

 

[5kidsmommy]

For us onsite is the only way to go. We are a family of 7 although since one has gone off to college we are down to 6. We like being onsite because it allows our teens more freedom and we don't have to worry about transportation. We have always stayed at the campground in our own trailer which is like a super duper camping trip with Disney thrown in. Our kids are used to staying in campgrounds, they love it which is good because it's Disney's most affordable option.

Last trip my four boys and my husband decided they didn't want to get up and do rope drop. My daughter and I took the boat over to MK and hung out until my husband joined us at around noon. The boys decided to take the day off and stay at the resort. Around 2pm we took our daughter back to the campsite to see if the boys wanted to join us but instead they all went to the pool. My husband and I headed back over to MK and had a nice dinner and the kids stayed back at Fort Wilderness. Staying onsite allows us that flexibility and we can truly relax on our Disney vacations.

Plus I just love the Disney bubble and that's one of the prime reasons for choosing to vacation at Disney.

 

[momof2n2]

I have always been an advocate for staying on-property. From the resort theming to the bus service, I've always felt that was the only way to go. That doesn't mean we haven't done our fair share of trips staying off-site. My family has been looking closely at DVC and even investing into a vacation home offsite lately and as the uber planner in me would do, I began to really analyze whether or not it's worth it in every case.

Let me preface my argument by saying, my family is unusual to most. We are a large family. I have 6 kids ages 3-14 so our resort choices are very limited. We recently adopted 4 so our family just crossed over from "regular rooms" to "Only 2BR Villas or larger will work". Staying in 2 separate rooms is not something we're interested in. We recently stayed at AKL Villas back in May and that was our first trip to WDW with the new members of our family.

I've often lamented over the occasional long wait for a bus and the rides over to the parks, but none more than after this latest trip. Each day, we waited at the bus stop for a minimum of 10-15 minutes. Most days, our bus ride was another 15-25 minutes (depending on which park we headed to). The same was true for our return trip, and sometimes longer depending on what time we left the parks (if we had to wait for a 2nd bus to arrive since the 1st was full). Obviously, if you're staying at the Contemporary or BLT, then there's no question here, but most other resorts those stats hold true.

Some of the off-site properties are less than 15 minutes from the parks and there is no waiting for your transportation to arrive. With that in mind vs. having your own car, isn't the argument valid for staying off-site IF you're looking at a convenience aspect? There are definitely variables such as having your own car, wanting to drive, etc.. and I know the buses drop you off right at the entrance to the MK vs. having to go via monorail or ferry from the TTC, but even then the monorail is kind of an attraction BEFORE the parks so that argument could be a draw.

I've already made my mind up it's not as much of a slam dunk in favor of staying on-site as I used to think, especially in my case. I'm really just curious about other's opinions.

Congrats on the adoption!!!
We are a family with 6 kids, ages 2-15. We've been renting off property houses since 2003. If you'd like info on our favorite houses, please PM me.

Our favorite communities to stay in our slightly to the west of Disney World off Highway 27. That being said our current favorite house is south in Champions Gate.

He strongly prefer having our own vehicle and are very good at doing rope drop rope drop. We very often get front row parking.

The one caveat to all of this, is that now the fast pass plus is an issue.

To solve that problem we have rented off property house for about $104 a night, as well as a fort wilderness campsite for $70 a night. Together they still cost for less than what it would cost us to stay on property. I will not be canceling the campsite. But we will get free parking, and it includes magic bands. This is worth it to me so I may have the 60 days to book my fast pass plus is, as well as 180+10 for my ADRs.

We have stayed off property with our ever-growing family for more than 10 years. If you have any questions, feel free to private message me.

 

[momof2n2]

I think if cost isn't a factor most people would prefer to stay on property.

Cost is not the main factor for us when we choose off site. Personal space, private pool, laundry, and kitchen facilities are what we're after.

 

[Canuck16]

We loved our stay on site at WDW....being able to come and go on the Disney transportation and not having to worry about parking was great.

But we are a family of 4 so we can all stay in one room

 

[ArwenMarie]

Well, if money was no object I would always rent the 3 bedroom Grand Villa at Bay Lake Tower for the four of us. Alas, money is a factor.

We always rent a car at the airport. We stay onsite and offsite. Depends on the trip, the budget, what we are planning on doing.

It's great that Orlando has so many options. It's all good.

 

[XYSRUS]

Yes.

 

[msmama]

I'm just about your complete opposite. I'm a family of 2 (me and a child).

If I had to drive somewhere, I'd be the only driver, in an unfamiliar place - no thanks. I have the problem that Disney rooms (even values) are more room than we actually need. I don't do laundry or cook on vacation.

To me, nothing beats the convenience of staying on site!!

 

[BeerMe]

We stay for 11 days one time and 3 months the next. Can't afford to stay 3 months on site.

 

[sharona]

For us onsite is the only way to go. We are a family of 7 although since one has gone off to college we are down to 6. We like being onsite because it allows our teens more freedom and we don't have to worry about transportation. We have always stayed at the campground in our own trailer which is like a super duper camping trip with Disney thrown in. Our kids are used to staying in campgrounds, they love it which is good because it's Disney's most affordable option.

Last trip my four boys and my husband decided they didn't want to get up and do rope drop. My daughter and I took the boat over to MK and hung out until my husband joined us at around noon. The boys decided to take the day off and stay at the resort. Around 2pm we took our daughter back to the campsite to see if the boys wanted to join us but instead they all went to the pool. My husband and I headed back over to MK and had a nice dinner and the kids stayed back at Fort Wilderness. Staying onsite allows us that flexibility and we can truly relax on our Disney vacations.

Plus I just love the Disney bubble and that's one of the prime reasons for choosing to vacation at Disney.

This is an excellent point. If you have older kids or a diverse group and you want the flexibility of going your separate ways when it suits you, then on site is the way to go.

 

[leebee]

We've stayed onsite 6 or 7 times and offsite the rest (19? 20? trips). That's a lot of trips, but we can go that often because the budget is the bottom line. If it's not financially advantageous, we can't do it. Honestly, I prefer offsite. I detest the Disney bus system for all the reasons you mentioned. After being on my feet all day in the theme parks, the last thing I want to do is stand in line for a bus... or the next one... and then be packed in like a sardine to stand on the way back to the resort, then walk another 2/10ths of a mile to my room. Even when we stayed at BWV, we rented a car- even at ASMu. If I can't afford a car (and parking), it's not a vacation for me.

The biggest benefit to offsite is the SPACE you get for the money you aren't spending. Even though we spend most of the days in the parks, I LOVE having my own kitchen in the morning. I can get up, have my coffee (sitting outside on my screened-in balcony), and wait for the day to start. DD21 and DH can eat breakfast while they dress. We usually have 2 bathrooms and 2 showers, so no waiting, no worries about walking in on someone, etc. When DD was younger, it was amazing to be able to send her to bed and still stay up, enjoying a glass of wine, watch a little TV, etc. It is SO not fun to have to sit in a small hotel room with all the lights out at 10pm on vacation because the kids need to sleep! That kitchen is great for things like snacks, breakfast, freezing water bottles, and making the occasional lunch or supper, if we decide we need a down-day. And then there is the luxury of coming home from a long hot park day and sinking into our own private swimming pool (with direct access to our own shower). There is just no way that a Disney resort (even the deluxe resorts) can provide the comfort and independence of having your own pool home while on vacation.

I will also admit, I don't get the concept of "the bubble." When you get back to a value or moderate resort, it's still just a large hotel, with lots of questionably-behaved kids, sometimes with parents who feel "love me, love my kid (and his bad behavior) because we paid a LOT for this vacation and will do what we want"... to say nothing of the crowded, noisy, sometimes unkempt food courts that I have to face before that first cup of coffee! However, we DO stay onsite, and sometimes we even forego the rental car (upcoming trip requires us to stop in Manhattan on the way home; the cost of the rental car at WDW will instead go to offsetting the cost of 2 nights hotel in Midtown!). I love being able to use DME, but NOT the buses, but I'll suck it up for the cost. When we stay onsite, I always feel like our vacation is more scheduled and hectic, and less relaxing. I guess I enjoy getting away from the mania that is Disney and relaxing in my own pool each night! Truly, for me, offsite is significantly better. However... we are at ASMu in November (just DD and I) and I am starting to get excited. After all, we're going to DISNEY WORLD!!

 

[Anchored]

We stay onsite or offsite as it suites the budget. I am not a huge fan of most TS meals in Disney, I think they are rip off (have you seen the breakfast portions at CRT? it's insulting) so I don't worry much about ADR's. My daughter is on the spectrum and I always get her a DAS, so I don't worry much about FP+ at 60 days vs 30
We have AP's and want to go a lot. Of our last 3 trips, 2 were onsite (ASSports and Shades of Green), but I was able to book a 2 bedroom condo 5 minutes from the Animal Kingdom gate for $359 TOTAL for 14 nights in August/Sept thru the Armed Forces Vacation Club so that was a no brainer. Off site it was.
I don't love waiting for buses. I hate standing on buses especially with a sleeping child. I absolutely LOATHE walking across a huge resort to get to my room with a sleeping child, so when we are onsite we still drive unless we are going to MK because ain't nobody got time for the TTC. If you buy right outside the gate, especially near Sherbeth road which takes you right to Animal Kingdom, I would look at a home offsite vs DVC because you can even rent your home when you aren't there to make back your money.

 

[dja14]

We have three kids and always stay off site. I did stay on site once as a teen and loved it, felt pampered and all, but now we always do off site. This is for us though, my brother and his family do a combo of on and off and like both (they have a family of 4)

For one, we drive down, flying would be too much for $ us, plus we live three+ hours from closest airport. We can be in disney area in 13. When you add in layovers and time for security, it's just not worth it for 5. So we have our car. We have autistic kids and now one with type 1 diabetes. When they were little we needed to leave when we had to (or at least have our space.) So no bus for us anyway. It never took us more than 15 minutes or so to get anywhere, except MK, and we love the monorail and ferry, so 15-20 to TTC was fine

Dining plan would have been nice but now I think not worth it, for us.

Finally, when the kids were small, we could fit in one room, someone on an airbed or pullout. Now the kids are 6'5",6'1", and 5'10". We just need more space (and an extra bathroom)

If we had just 2 people or 3 little ones, and I could get a good deal I would stay onsite I think. Especially if I was flying.

I did try and work the numbers for free dining and a room for 5 but everything would have to work perfectly (dates and hotel included) and the savings weren't much, even adding in parking and magic bands. When we asked the kids, they wanted the space more than anything.

If I ever win the lottery though, we are staying on site at a MK resort, with extended family, separate rooms for kids. So I guess it really comes down to what we are willing to PAY, not what we like.

Good luck in your decision and congratulations on your new family!

 

[ols386]

I prefer staying on WDW property, but we did stay at the Wyndham Bonnet Creek a couple of times, and really enjoyed it.

 

[Baklava]

For me, a vacation isn't a vacation if I have to drive once I get there. I'm the only licensed driver in the family, so that skews things, but once I arrive somewhere I want to Not Drive Ever At All.

 

[tinkerbella16]

Being immersed in the Disney Bubble 24/7 is why I will always choose to stay on-site. It starts the moment you get off of the plane and head to Magical Express. The disney resorts are so perfectly themed and just make you feel like you are far away from all things back home and reality is gone. I know it can be cheaper staying offsite, and you can drive and get places quicker.. but we really enjoy not having to drive for the duration of our stay. I love the buses, boats and monorails- yes buses can be a hit or miss.. but it is one of those things that make me feel like we are there and a part of the experience. There are pros and cons to both, but we just love being on property. And this upcoming trip I will still be taking a day to go to Universal and IOA- my ticket includes round trip transportation so I still won't have to worry about getting a car.

 

[GaryDis]

I wasn't talking about off-site bus services. I was talking about staying off-site IF you have your own transportation. I definitely think off-site bus transportation is probably more of a headache than on-site, although I've never tested that theory out personally. We're fortunate enough to only live about 4 1/2 hours away so we always drive. MDE, EMH, and FP+ extra days are definitely perks that can't be matched for sure!

If you always have your car with you, and you dislike the waits for the bus ride, why not just drive to the parks even if you're on-site? The first time I went with the in-laws, stayed at ASM, rented two cars, and used them. In fact, before I saw that you drove down but after seeing your family size, I was going to suggest renting a van regardless of where you decided to stay. Having your own transportation makes things much easier for a large group.

 

[Jake&IzzyLand]

If you stay on site and want to go to Universal, how much is a cab or uber?