Is staying on site really worth it?

[mamaprincess]

Another yes! I love being fully immersed from start to finish in the whole disney exoerience not to mention all the convenience of being on site. We will never stay offsite.

 

[wdwlver]

I'd have to say it's definitley worth it!!

 

[mommaU4]

Wow, great answers! Thanks guys for all the opinions and obvious thought that was put into each answer. As I knew there would be, there was alot of on-site ONLY people. I think it's pretty obvious there are big pros and cons to both depending on what your situation is and what your priorities are.

For right now I think off-site is best for us. I am a stay-at-home mom so with only one income I cannot fathom paying over $300 a night for a hotel. Ther's just other things we'd rather do like special meals, and we cannot do both. So something had to give. And while we toyed with the idea of getting connecting rooms at a value, the Vistana still came out cheaper and will give our 4 kids more room to "spread out". Important factor in avoiding fights as those of you with kids know!

We are driving down so we won't have to rent a car anyways and as for the parking fee we'll still come out cheaper. Also my kids are old enough so we don't need to go back for that afternoon nap so that's one "hassle" avoided.

Anyways, I guess my favorite quote is that Disney off-site is better than no Disney! And maybe someday when it's just me and DH and the kids are too cool to go on vacation with mom and dad, then we'll splurge and get ouselves a nice room at a deluxe resort. For now I'm just so happy that were going at all since I 'm sure there are alot of families who can only dream of a WDW vacation. And while I may not see any of you at the on-site hotels, I'll be looking for you in the parks!! Thanks again and have fun on your trips!

 

[thaggie]

Before I had kids I only stayed at the Grand Floridian and the Contemporary. Since I've had kids I stay off site at the Sheraton Vistana Villages (not Resort).

I was very unexcited about staying off-site the 1st time. But then I went and loved it! I like putting my twins to sleep in their own bedroom. Personally, I don't like bus Disney transportation. I hate waiting for buses. Now if you are staying at a monorail hotel then sure, I like the monrail for getting to Epcot and MK so quickly. But once in February it took over 45 minutes to get from DTD back to my hotel.

Friends of our met us for a few days last September and stayed at the POP. She got a great rate for like $49. But she used her car and not Disney transporation after her 1st day. Also I guess I am a hotel snob. I may get flamed for this, but.........Pop reminded me of a Motel 6 or a Super 8 that I have to stay at when I take my labs to dog shows. It was new, clean and nice, but not my idea of a vacation hotel. The pool was great and my girls enjoyed that when we visited our friends.

Truly it is a matter of personal choice and you have to go with what works best for your family and your budget. Our trip in Dec will be off-site, but my girls and I are going back in May/June with friends (sans my dh) and we will be staying on-site.

No matter where you stay, you will be going to WDW and seeing Mickey and the gang...whats better than that!

 

[LightBurnsBlue]

There are two main reasons my family has always stayed off-site:
1)There are five of us and the Disney rooms that can comfortably fit 5 adults are quite pricy. And no one likes to sleep on the floor during their vacation.
2) The on-site advantage of free transportation does nothing for us. We love having a rental car because we like going to Universal, Clearwater beach, and visiting relatives as well. Also...if you save money by not having a car, you are also tied to only eating food on Disney property. I have looked at the prices for the sit down restaurants...and WOW!
We love trying out new restaurants...but we really can't afford those prices! Plus, our favorite place to go in Florida is Sonics Drive In (don't have any in our state)...and we definitely need a car to get there.

 

[henrylovespooh]

We only stay onsite. DH likes the transportation system and the easy access to the parks for mid-day breaks.

 

[lark]

The EMH have very heavy crowds, the magical express will not be free after the 50th celebration, and the buses can take quite a while to get you where you want to go, can be VERY crowded, and durring peak times you might have to wait for 3 or 4 before you can even get on one.

Just for the record, it appears that free magical express will continue at least until early 2007. It actually was a brilliant idea for WDW -- a "win-win" really. It saves guest the costs of transportation and gives them convenience. For WDW, it's as much of an anti-Universal measure as anything -- it keeps guest on the property and maybe gets them into MGM instead of Universal for a day they might otherwise have left the world.

 

[WaltD4Me]

I think depends on alot of factors whether or not on-site is worth it to you or not.

When I go to Disney, I don't want to be bothered with a car and parking and all that. This is one of the main reasons for me to stay on-site. I use a car service and LOVE it, I'd never want to deal with getting a rental and driving, but I also go and don't plan to leave Disney property, I don't have any interest in Universal or Sea World or even outlet shopping!

I HAVE stayed at DTD hotels though and they have worked out well for me and are cheaper than actual Disney hotels. The DTD hotels are not for everyone, but I've gotten some great rates and they have worked well for me. I really love being able to walk to DTD. If I can get a DTD hotel for $60-70 a night I'll do it, I wouldn't go any further off property than a DTD hotel though. I know there are some gorgeous resort hotels that I could stay at almost as cheaply, but they aren't worth it to me, especially since I don't
want to have to rent a car.

That being said, we went on a family trip in December 2004 and stayed at a moderate and it was SO worth it! There were 10 of us and it was wonderful being on property, especially with that many people and I'm so glad we didn't go with the DTD I had booked as we originally planned. We loved being on property and everyone thought it was well worth it, I don't know if they would have said the same staying at a Deluxe though. Even though they are gorgeous and I would love to stay at the Poly again on the monorail, I don't think to me, that it worth all the extra $$$ that it is.

 

[bytheblood]

I would not do it any other way.

Disney transportation taking me everywhere I go.

 

[maxaroni]

I'm in the camp that going to Disney and staying off-site or not going to Disney at all, staying off-site is wonderful. However, is it worth staying on-site, it's a personal decision but for us, nothing beats staying on-site. We like getting totally immersed in the Disney experience.

 

[ClermontCAT]

Live in FL now but when they have the annual pass holder spec rates I'll go!

 

[disneysteve]

Ok. Let me jump in as a die-hard offsiter! I've stayed onsite in a variety of accomodations and I've stayed offsite in a variety of accomodations. Off-site wins hands down for us.

1. Way more space. There is no magic in spending a week with 3 of us in a regular hotel room. Off-site, we get 2-bedrooms and we all sleep better and are less cranky. Plus we have room to spread out, a sofa, more chairs, 2 or more TVs, etc.

2. Kitchen. Not that we do much if any cooking, but we have a full-size refrigerator and freezer to keep snacks, freeze our water bottle overnite, etc. And we do generally prepare one or two simple meals. Plus we always eat breakfast in the room.

3. Convenience. We get to drive right up to our door and not have to hike to and from some distant bus stop or parking lot. No waiting for elevators or hauling luggage around. Plus we are in the parks just as fast, if not faster, than if we were at a Disney hotel using Disney transportation. Last trip, it was exactly 3 miles door to door to AK or MGM.

4. Cost. This almost goes without saying, but offsite is phenomenally cheaper than onsite. We'll be checking in to Orbit One villas in 2 weeks. Seven days in a 2-bedroom, 2-bath condo for $260! Nothing on site comes anywhere close to that.

I would rather pay to stay offsite than stay onsite for free if given the chance.

 

[Paisleyjane]

I always used to say, if I couldn't stay on-site, it wasn't worth going. The magic to me is the whole atmosphere. Now, due to work, we have a small condo in Celebration, well, I don't stay on-site, and I do miss it, but I do get to come a lot more than I used to. Have to add the same, no disney on-site, or disney off-site, I have to vote for the disney trip off-site if that is the only way to be there!

 

[rabyoga]

We've done both. I'll give my impressions about on-site and off-site properties.
Last year, we stayed at Comfort Suites just outside the main gate. The hotel itself was very nice and reasonably priced. We had to rent a car to get around-that was the problem. It took forever to get the rent-a-car(even with reservations). We got lost(we'd never been to Orlando before) getting to the hotel. Driving to the parks was no problem.. But driving home was a pain. The first day, after our marathon day at MK, we got lost in the World. Getting out of MGM, was crazy to say the least..
This year, we stayed a Shades of Green. We loved it! The hotel was very nice and reasonably priced(a bit pricey than what we paid the year before). We loved staying so close to the parks. Every morning, we walked to the Poly(which was only 1/2 a mile away) and caught the bus/monorail to the parks. We loved the convience of being so close to parks and not drive.
For us, staying on-site is more about not driving, than the hotel's price. We'll only stay on-site from now on...

Robin

 

[mommaU4]

Ah ha! I think I see a trend here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the people who have stayed off-site at just a "regular" hotel (i.e. a comfort Inn, or the like) don't seem that thrilled and now prefer to stay on-site only.
But the others who have stayed off-site at more of a resort type place with the 2-3 bedrooms, 5 pools, full kitchen, etc are saying that it's just as good if not better. Right?
So I guess the question is not so much on-site vs. off-site, but more of WHERE on-site and WHERE off-site. Cause that seems to make a huge difference.
See.....you can't put anything past me.

 

[manchurianbrownbear]

We’ve stayed at ASMo during our two most recent trips and the atmosphere and convenience of Disney transportation are worth something to me.

However, if you can find something really nice off-site for significantly less, I don’t think it would ruin the trip. I’m sure I don’t have to tell the OP, WDW, like most of the rest of the world, is not set up to make life easy for a family of six, so sometimes you have to cut corners!

I would say that the on-site atmosphere has been as important a component of our trips as visiting MGM or AK. If I had an opportunity to visit WDW but couldn’t visit my 3rd or 4th favorite park, I would still make the trip!

We visited Disneyland a couple months ago and stayed off-site (about 50 yards from DLR’s front door!) Our kids are old enough now that we were in the parks for almost the entire day and spent very few waking hours in our room. Much to my surprise, I didn’t miss the “on-site atmosphere” quite as much as I thought I would.

 

[QuickGold]

We recently did a podcast all about the pros and cons of staying on site vs off site: http://www.wdwtoday.com/article.php?story=20050930190435640

 

[CAD3655]

I don't know if this counts for anything...but I have relatives that live right by Sea World and we STILL stayed on-site. We even bought at DVC.

We've stayed on site and off, while there was anything "wrong" with the hotels we stayed at (1 with one International Drive exception) They just weren't "right"

 

[Disneyholics5]

I have stayed both on and off site - off site not being too far and actually still on Disney Property at DTD area - I have been staying at the Wyndham Palace for a number of years now (and before when they were known as Buena Vista Palace) My family loves it and we are still in the heart of Disney - and always book a view where we can see both epcot and the castle, as well as portions of DTD. When staying on site we stayed at the Contemporary. While the Contemporary is a wonderful hotel we find the Wyndham and its location perfect for us. We are returning 11/25 for 8 days. I believe if it suits your needs to stay off site, both financially and room size, that you should definitley stay off site, after all you will still be going to Disneyworld, and I would rather be their than not be able to go at all. Go and have a great time.

 

[WIcruizer]

We've done both, and now exclusively stay off-site. It's all about value. And I'm not talking about "cheap" I'm talking about value. If you have a family, you either have to pack everyone in one room, or pay for two or more. OR you could stay off-site and get a 1 or 2 bedroom suite for half the price. Better room, more freedom, etc.

And the whole on-site/off-site debate is a bit misleading. Some very, very nice resorts, condos, pool homes, etc. are within 5 minutes of MK. Heck, a lot of the real nice off site places are closer to DTD than most of the on-site resorts, so it's all relative.

As far as the transportation, I rather have the freedom to come and go...drive over to the Universal Boardwalk...I drive...535..etc. Traffic is not bad at all at WDW. I rather drive out of the parking lots with the top down listening to tunes than be crammed into a Disney bus and all the sights, sounds, an smells that come with it.

With all that said.... If it were just myself and DW, we would stay on-site- no need for the extra space. But we would still rent a car.