Just can't justify it... staying onsite

[mikana876]

Statistically speaking there are probably a lot of people who go to Disney in general who are overspending regardless of where they stay. That is not exclusive to being onsite.

Since we all have certain criteria that are important to us, we'll all chose differently. Neither offsite or onsite makes one more superior, financially or otherwise.

I agree with you for the most part. But I also think that it can be a more frugal choice in general to stay offsite. If a person has scrimped and saved to stay onsite because it's what is important to them, than I think that's great.

Basically I understand the following:

A) People who don't see the value in staying onsite.
B) People who make a frugal choice to stay offsite.
C)People who scrimp and save to stay onsite because their vacation is just as much about where they stay at night.

I don't understand the following:
A)People who just put that extra $1000+ on a credit card to stay onsite.

But seriously to each their own. It doesn't matter to me where people stay. But it does make me sad to see so many Americans in debt.

 

[awdsmama]

I'm also a person that cannot justify it. But my son is not a die hard pool person, he's happy with a regular pool to splash around in. As well, knowing the hotels across the street are an EASY walk, it doesn't matter much to me to stay off site.

IF I were to stay onsite, I'd probably rent DVC points thru a reputable company (not sure we can name names on here?) because renting DVC at the Grand is cheaper than full price (for a studio anyway....). But I'd rather stay at DLH onsite - more Disney feel and better pool. GCH doesn't feel Disney to me at all.

Oh and yes I've stayed at DLH and GCH on travel agent trips in the past and the "once you've stayed on site you'll never stay off site again" - just doesn't hold true for me!!

For now -- off-site it is for us!

 

[Baxhappyplace]

I'm not adding anything new to this, but wanted to emphasize:

If you like to go-go-go on vacation and maximum park time is what you enjoy, off-site is a great idea. No need to spend a lot of extra dough on something you aren't using.

If you move at a slower pace on vacation and spend a lot of downtime where you are staying, on-site make perfect sense. The on-site hotels are more atmospheric than even the nicest of the off-site hotels. That's something that just can't be created outside of the Disney bubble. But, again, if you won't spend more than just sleep time at the hotel, that probably doesn't matter.

I have to agree with this. We normally stay at a suite like Staybridge or Residence Inn. We have never stayed across the street yet but will in July. When we went in December we stayed for the first time at the GCH. We are park people, get up and go to the park, come back and take a nap then go back to the park. If we were to have downtime so we could actually enjoy the hotel then we would consider staying there again. When our trip was over we felt disappointed because we spent a lot of money and didn't feel like we got much for it. I wish we could have enjoyed the place more than I might not have felt that way. We did try to sit in the lobby to enjoy the decorations but it was so packed the whole time we didn't even get to do that. I think if we were to have had at least a day or two that could have been spent enjoying the place, the pool, the story time and so on we would have probably left without regretting the amount we spent.

 

[jnoble82]

I'm going solo in September. I make less than 20K per year so going alone, I couldn't justify paying twice as much to stay onsite. My total was less than a grand including park tickets w/ a transit pass. I love staying onsite at WDW but I couldn't do it for just me. If my mom decided to tack on and she covered the difference, then maybe we could move up to an onsite but my dates (planet tickets already purchased!) added up to almost 2k for the cheapest onsite. Grand Californian was 3k. This was WITHOUT park tickets. There is a magic to staying on site, yes but there is magic to not filing for bankruptcy. Hopefully one day I can stay onsite but since I'm coming from NY I need 2 extra nights to cover getting there and leaving which adds up onsite. I'm far too lazy/paranoid to stay at a cheap hotel when I land then move to onsite.

 

[ILuv2travel2]

 

[5forMickey]

I think some of these comments have gotten pretty funny, we seem to have a number of cpa's worried about the state of people's pocket books. I would assume the majority of people staying on site are not taking out bankruptcy or going into financial ruin for a vacation, if that we're true it would be a one time trip. So just to be clear, I am more than capable of paying my five night hotel bill without having to dip into savings or use credit, and the retirement plan is doing very well. It does not mean I am boastful, snooty or inconsiderate. It means I have worked hard, been blessed, and choose when, where, and how I prefer to spend my disposable income. I am proud that I choose to say I like to stay onsite at the dlh. The question was how do you justify the cost, the answer from some is we don't need to, we stay there because we choose to, if you choose somewhere that works better for you great, but all the other comments are a little off hand. No one goes to Disneyland to save money, we all go because we enjoy a nice vacation, just in different ways.

 

[ILuv2travel2]

When I go to DL I LIVE IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER!

 

[smiles33]

...However, when we started pricing it out and realizing that it would cost about $1,000 more just to stay onsite, we just can't justify it. We could afford to but we just keep thinking about how little time we spend in the hotel and how much $1,000 could buy. If staying across the street means we have $1,000 more left in our savings (for next trip!)... then it's a no-brainer for us.

How do so many justify it? Is it really worth it when you aren't even there most of the time? This may shock you all but I'm not even a cheap person!

Just to bring it back to the OP: they can afford it, so this has nothing to do with incurring debt to stay on-site. As I believe I said in my first post in this thread, some of us (many of us?) who can afford to stay on-site choose not to because we don't feel the benefits justify the added expense over cheaper alternatives. I splurged on DLH on our most recent trip and was surprised and severely disappointed that it wasn't as magical as others have shared here. Now, we had a particularly bad experience with poor service, but our uncomfortable beds in the Frontier Tower also were a huge surprise.

Anyway, let's keep this thread on track. No one here is asking if staying on-site is worth going into debt. What prompted this thread is whether folks who CAN afford the added expense feel it's worthwhile/justifiable. Clearly, some do think it is (e.g., stay in the Disney bubble, the special magic touches they have been lucky to experience, the "resort" experience as opposed to not having room service, etc.). Others, like me, don't like pushing past crowds in DTD, don't find the DLH more luxurious/more comfortable, and didn't get great service (let alone any special magic).

I also want to say that there are a lot of people here making assumptions on BOTH sides of this argument. If you have stayed on-site but never off-site, you may be making blanket assumptions about the quality available off-site. If you have stayed off-site but never on-site, you may not understand what you're missing. Thus, I personally take the opinions of those who have stayed in both types of lodging the most seriously.

Now that we have stayed at DLH twice (once pre-kids for a wedding), DH and I know we're never going back to DLH. Everyone deserves a second chance, but at this point, there will be no third chance for DLH for our family. If we stay on-site again, it will only be to try GCH.

 

[Nonsuch]

I have stayed at all 3 onsite hotels and offsite, and am a fan of GCH -- so much I bought at VGC

...IF I were to stay onsite, I'd probably rent DVC points thru a reputable company (not sure we can name names on here?) because renting DVC at the Grand is cheaper than full price (for a studio anyway....). .

This is excellent advice for visitors with firm travel dates known well in advance (7 to 11 months). I would certainly be saving money by staying in a studio, but DW loves the 1-bedroom villa

When I go to DL I LIVE IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER!

Nice

 

[hpfan100]

I think the early entry is a great benefit but not something I would need for an extended vacation. Maybe you can do just one night there to enjoy the early entry????

 

[aliceindisneyland]

I'm not adding anything new to this, but wanted to emphasize:

If you like to go-go-go on vacation and maximum park time is what you enjoy, off-site is a great idea. No need to spend a lot of extra dough on something you aren't using.

If you move at a slower pace on vacation and spend a lot of downtime where you are staying, on-site make perfect sense. The on-site hotels are more atmospheric than even the nicest of the off-site hotels. That's something that just can't be created outside of the Disney bubble. But, again, if you won't spend more than just sleep time at the hotel, that probably doesn't matter.

If they'd put your quotation at the top of the Disneyland thread it would preempt a lot of questions!

 

[ITALIANANGLO69]

We stayed at the Paradise Pier a few years back and were disappointed that it wasn't up to Disney standards. Our TV did not work at all, we had bathroom tile missing off the shower wall and had a toilet flushing issue. The beds were just OK. Definitely wasnt worth the price per night.
Since then we have stayed off site at some of the offsite hotels and RV parks and been much happier.

 

[Nonsuch]

I think the early entry is a great benefit but not something I would need for an extended vacation. Maybe you can do just one night there to enjoy the early entry????

If you stay one night onsite, you may take advantage of EMH on both check-in and check-out days

 

[Escape2Disney]

When my kids were younger, we always stayed offsite. We have a lot of fantastic memories, and never regretted our motel choices (except one stay at a previously mentioned motel. Mold all over the bathroom, etc.).

Flash forward to today... My kids are grown and only one lives at home. My health is a challenge, and I tend to spend a lot of time in the room on our trips now. Staying onsite is a way for me to stay in the Disney experience even when taking a 3 hour break in the middle of the day. I enjoy chatting with the kind CMs at the hotel, and finding all of the little subtle Disney touches all around me. I like that I can have a meal with the characters five minutes from my hotel room if I can't make it to the park that day.

In other words, the hotel plays a HUGE role in my vacation experience.

I know my experience is probably very different than others, as are my priorities. No matter where you stay, I hope you have a wonderful trip!

 

[GracieB]

If you stay one night onsite, you may take advantage of EMH on both check-in and check-out days

Wouldn't you have to check in very, very early? Is that possible?

 

[awdsmama]

Wouldn't you have to check in very, very early? Is that possible?

Yes and yes. They will hold your bags for you if they cannot get you into a room yet.

 

[GracieB]

If they'd put your quotation at the top of the Disneyland thread it would preempt a lot of questions!

If I did splurge on DLH, frankly, I would want to enjoy the atmosphere and stay there, more than at the parks!

 

[joannamet]

The Disney Bubble is worth every penny. We would never stay off-site.

 

[Astylla]

This is an age old argument that as stated has NO ONE RIGHT ANSWER.

An individual or family has to decide what is worth it to them - and that means more than just price though understandably it can have an influence.

Value is subjective as what one person/family values another may not find the same. Really whatever makes you happy you should do.

To each their own

 

[briggscreek]

We've done both and have stayed at the DLH several times, the PP once, and offsite at the HOJO and the Tropicana. We'll be staying at the BWPPI this fall. Overall, the offsite hotels are a much better value for us since we typically just use our rooms for sleeping and love the shorter walk to the Harbor hotels. I don't see the EMH as a huge benefit and we've never had any especially magical experiences at the onsite hotels like others seem to have.