Okay, now I get it.

There were six of us, so we needed a minivan or two cars. Renting two cars is actually more economical than renting a minivan.

Something tells me that all those peditricians at the APA actually don't spend too much time around children outside of their offices. While if probably is a good idea to transition from a crib to a bed after they can climb, it's not something most parents do at 22 months. I know my twins would simply not understand the concept of a bed vs a crib at this age. Besides, if I didn't use a crib, what kind of bed would I have put them in? A full-size bed? I don't think so.

I know this isn't the original subject of the thread, but I wanted to agree. I have never once seen the AAP make a stance on the subject by using age, its always been height, and right now its 35 inches. 16 months?? That's a tad ridiculous in my opinion. If your child is 35 inches at 16 months than that is another story. If they are able to climb out of the crib and they aren't that tall...then maybe the crib is the issue.

DS will be 3 in April and I am just now looking for a toddler bed for him. I never ever would have had him out of his crib until now (I admit he is 37 inches, but he doesn't climb out).

And no, most parents don't at 22 months. There doesn't need to be sources cited to back up that claim.

Getting back to the OP and a comment that was made about how off site was given a bad rap and it was their choice to rent 2 cars. Well the whole point was that if they stayed onsite then they wouldn't have had to rent two cars, and having two cars was easier on them than only having one.

I am very glad we are staying at a Disney resort when we go, because having the hassle of driving myself back and forth is not something I would want to go through.
 
Like the previous poster, I hate to keep this ridiculous discussion going, but the 35 inch rule is what the AAP goes by, not age. Here's a link to the AAP site that states it:

http://www.aap.org/family/inffurn.htm


ANYWAY, back to the original discussion. OP, we found out that we prefer onsite the opposite way. We started out offsite, and as soon as we started our first onsite stay, we knew there was no going back. :rotfl: Now that we have DD with us, I simply cannot imagine doing offsite, at least until she's a few years older. Then we might consider Gaylord Palms since we've stayed at GL Opryland and enjoyed it. :)
 
David:

I'm sorry you had a terrible tragedy with your child. Just because it happened to you doesn' mean it will happen to every child. SOme kids are climbers, others aren't. My son was happy to sleep in a pack and play on vacation even through he was in a bed at home. I prefered it since I knew that he was safe in a non-babyproofed room. All it takes is one stray pill under a bed....

I think you are out of line judging the OP. You don't know him nor his situation or kids.

OP: I have done both on-site and off-site. When my kids were really little off-site was the best for us since we had the full kitchen and didn't have to ge to bed when they did at 8pm. Now, we like to stay on-site since our kids can stay up later.
 
I hear ya. We moved to Florida 2 years ago, and before we were Floridiots, we were NYers (as most locals now are). As NYers we'd buy a full package and get the full Disney pampering, but now that we are Floridiots-its been cheaper to use priceline for a quick weekend and get a Marriott deluxe room for half the price of a WDW resort.
AS of September I have decided (after 4 trips of constant running back and forth from Parks to the off-site resort with 2 cranky kids and a cranky hubby, massive I drive traffic-and yes those UGLY neon kissimme lights-I'd rather stay at a WDW Value resort than a marriott home away from home sweet. So now we wait for the FL resident deals and just book quick weekend there-we get the magic and its hassel free! Iapplaud all of you who continue to brave the Metro-Orlando area-I like my value resorts for nothing else-but no crankies!
:lovestruc
 

Growing up we always stayed onsite. When I married DH and finally convinced him to take a trip to Orlando, he wanted to do everything (US, IOA, etc.). We stayed offsite for our first few trips, but once I convinced him to stay onsite...well...he hasn't looked back.

Before we went, I really thought our first trip would be our last. Just a once-in-a-lifetime trip with the kids. DH agreed to go back a couple more times, but once we stayed onsite...well, he doesn't want to go anywhere else.

I don't mind staying offsite for the days we're doing non-Disney things:scared1: , but when doing Disney, I want to stay at Disney.
 
I know I said I wouldn't comment on this subject again, but people keep directly addressing me and the subject of cribs vs. beds, so I think it's appropriate to respond.

Oh and after 28 foster kids I have come to realise that pediatricians are just people. They scratch their butts and pick their nose just like everyone else. I had one tell me that a baby should be on formula only until they were a year old! :rotfl:

Individual pediatricians can offer both good and bad advice, and I never held mine up to be some paragon of perfect advice. What I said is that the AAP statistics show a steadily increasing risk of injury beyond 16 months, and that my pediatrician recommends transitioning to a bed at around that age.

I have twins that will be 30-months-old on December 20 and they both still sleep in a crib. They have never tried to climb out of them.

My son had never tried to climb out until the day he did and cracked his head on the floor. Let me tell you something -- when you pick one of your kids up off the floor, and he looks at you and starts crying, but the cry lasts for only about 2 seconds because he then loses consciousness and goes limp in your arms -- that's scary, and it renders all the well-intentioned advice about how it's okay to keep kids in cribs until you notice them trying to climb out irrelevant.

Now grant it - I am not in their room while they are sleeping, but I put them in their cribs, they usually fall asleep within minutes and get them out when I hear them awake.

We thought the same thing, with the exception that we were even more careful than that -- we only ever put the kids into the cribs when they were already asleep.

I worry that if I have them in a regular bed they'd be jumping up-and-down and could hit their heads or fall out of the bed (They like to jump on my bed).

I would respectfully suggest a toddler bed or low frame bed like a futon bed in that case. Nobody can bounce on a futon bed, and if they fall out of bed it's like 7 or 8 inches to the floor. Falling out of a crib means falling 3-4 feet, and has a much greater chance of serious injury.

I did ask my pediatrician about moving them into a toddler bed when they turned two and she told me to keep them in their cribs until they attempt to climb out.

As I mentioned above, individual pediatricians can give good or bad advice. Waiting until you notice a child trying to climb out of a crib means you're giving them at least one chance to fall that they wouldn't have with a low bed. Kids don't always make noise when they're awake in their cribs, and parents aren't always able to immediately rush to a child's room if they hear noise on the baby monitors.

I have never once seen the AAP make a stance on the subject by using age, its always been height, and right now its 35 inches. 16 months?? That's a tad ridiculous in my opinion.

Let's be absolutely clear about what I said, because it's clear some people are misinterpreting it. I never said the AAP recommends transitioning to a bed at 16 months. If there's any question about that, go back and re-read what I wrote. I said:

Side note: cribs for 22 month-olds? Our pediatrician strongly recommended we not keep any of our kids in cribs past 16 months

That's a recommendation from one pediatrician, not the AAP. Here's what I said about the AAP:

AAP statistics show a significant rise in crib-related injuries, including concussions and broken bones, after 16 months.

That's a citation of a statistic... that crib-related injuries show a significant rise beginning at 16 months. To be more specific: the rise in crib-related injuries rises steadily from 16 months, increasing with every additional month of age.

And no, most parents don't at 22 months. There doesn't need to be sources cited to back up that claim.

Any statement of fact is worthless without a source cited to back the claim. You know this... how?

Like the previous poster, I hate to keep this ridiculous discussion going, but the 35 inch rule is what the AAP goes by, not age. Here's a link to the AAP site that states it:

http://www.aap.org/family/inffurn.htm

Again, I never said the AAP recommendation was for 16 months. I said my pediatrician recommended 16 months. Maybe he used that age because he was judging by his examinations of my children, or their heights, or because that seems like a safe recommendation to him.

35 inches seems like a reasonable recommendation though... and so I would encourage the OP to take that into consideration, especially if her twins are close to that height.

I'm sorry you had a terrible tragedy with your child.

It wasn't (thankfully) a tragedy. It was scary and it could have been a tragedy if the CAT scan results had been otherwise.

Just because it happened to you doesn' mean it will happen to every child. SOme kids are climbers, others aren't.

Every parent with a child injured from a crib fall thought the same things prior to the injury.

I think you are out of line judging the OP. You don't know him nor his situation or kids.

I am not judging the OP, and would appreciate it if you wouldn't accuse me of such. I offered some information the OP doesn't like -- though for what reason, I can't imagine.

Incidentally, I'm not sure if the OP is male or female, but I've been referring to him or her as "she." Apologies if you're a "he."

David
 
dqpowell said:
I offered some information the OP doesn't like -- though for what reason, I can't imagine.
Perhaps it was your apparent holier than thou attitude?
As to the actual topic of this thread, I completely agree with the OP, with qualifications. The last two times I went to Disney, I went solo (before I was married and had kids). This was in 1999 and 2000, and I stayed at the Howard Johnson Maingate East. Not the nicest place in the world, but not too shabby for $39.99 a night, plus it was literally like 10 minutes to DHS, and only a little more to the other parks. It was definitely worth it because all I wanted was a bed and a shower, and I actually prefer driving (when solo).
Now, having a wife and two kids, I would never stay offsite. The convenience of not having to tramp across a parking lot and load the kids into a hot car it worth the price all by itself. Using Disney transportation is much more convenient with kids, plus I worry less about their safety staying on site. Nowhere is 100% fool proof, but I worry less about getting mugged on Disney property than off.
 
I would respectfully suggest a toddler bed or low frame bed like a futon bed in that case. Nobody can bounce on a futon bed, and if they fall out of bed it's like 7 or 8 inches to the floor. Falling out of a crib means falling 3-4 feet, and has a much greater chance of serious injury.

OMG! Haven't you realized yet that the OP does not want your advice or suggestions on this matter? And nobody else on this thread seems to appreciate it either. This thread is NOT about cribs vs. beds for toddlers.
 
I know this post is about staying off-site, not cribs, but I just need to comment. I have twins that will be 30-months-old on December 20 and they both still sleep in a crib. They have never tried to climb out of them. Now grant it - I am not in their room while they are sleeping, but I put them in their cribs, they usually fall asleep within minutes and get them out when I hear them awake. I worry that if I have them in a regular bed they'd be jumping up-and-down and could hit their heads or fall out of the bed (They like to jump on my bed). Or, they'd probably never sleep because they'd have a great time climbing in-and-out of each others bed. :eek: I did ask my pediatrician about moving them into a toddler bed when they turned two and she told me to keep them in their cribs until they attempt to climb out.

Just thought I'd share.

Our pediatrician said the same thing. I know there is some danger of them crawling out, but I'm actually more worried about one of them getting out of their room and doing who knows what. And yes, our twins would go completely bonkers if given the freedom of not sleeping in a crib at this point, considering that this is the same duo who, after discovering that the lightsocket plugs won't come out, decided to rip off the switchplate entirely.

So yes, I'll keep them in the crib for now.

And I'm still going to stay on-site next time.;) ;)
 
I would urge you not to tar all vacation rental companies with the same brush. We rented from Florida Sun Vacation Rentals, and had no hidden fees whatsoever. Our cost for a 3 bdrm condo was $85. per night, inclusive.

You chose to rent an expensive ($189. per night) unit that was obviously further away from the parks than you wanted (or needed) to be. That was your choice. We stayed at Windsor Hills, also off the 192, and you could in no way, shape, or form describe the few minutes it takes to get to any of the parks as "a long drive". I guarantee my commute to the parks was less than that of the onsite guests.

Really, saying that the onsite perks outweigh the (small) savings of staying offsite is very misleading to those who are looking for honest feedback, because you seemed to have picked a very expensive and inconvenient rental unit, and made further choices (renting two cars and two cribs) that added a lot to your costs.
 
FayeW - excellent points, and I agree. We stayed in Indian Point or Indian Ridge (can't remember which now) and it was a short drive to any of the Disney parks (less than 10 minutes). Also no hidden fees, and it was something like $105 per night for seven of us. We opted not to pay to have the pool heated. We found it through vrbo.com.

David
 
Ok - bed vs crib aside. We stayed at Pop in Nov. I was a little worried. Well I shouldn't have been. It was very clean and a perfect fit and budget for our family. We also did a 7 day Disney cruise. With a AAA discount, we payed the same price per night as we payed in 1 motel on our drive down I95. Getting all the Disney perks were great. No trouble with buses etc. Looking forward to going again next year. I would choose the value resort on-site then off-site anyday. To the OP thank you for your insight about off-site stays with young children. Everyone have a Happy Holiday.
 
Really, saying that the onsite perks outweigh the (small) savings of staying offsite is very misleading to those who are looking for honest feedback, because you seemed to have picked a very expensive and inconvenient rental unit, and made further choices (renting two cars and two cribs) that added a lot to your costs.

Even if you don't consider the OP's experience, nobody has been able to convience me yet that staying off-site is cheaper. Show me how I can stay off-site and rent a car to get to WDW each day for less than $80/night. I'm not sure I would like to see those accomodations.
 
Even if you don't consider the OP's experience, nobody has been able to convience me yet that staying off-site is cheaper. Show me how I can stay off-site and rent a car to get to WDW each day for less than $80/night. I'm not sure I would like to see those accomodations.

The math can work very well for large families like the OP's and mine. We have had 7 people for most of our recent trips. Cheapest you can get on site for 7 is 2 value resort rooms, which come in around $160 per night. There are many nice vacation homes available for $100 per night.

David
 
dqpowell said:
seeing something I never intended, and looking back at what I wrote, still don't see. If I came across that way, I apologize. It was unintended.
That's why I said "apparent". Reading your posts it seemed like you were trying to share what you felt was useful information, but the tone of some of the posts seemed a little off. But I could be wrong (I often am).
Seriously, though, this onsite/offsite discussion is such a personal thing. Everybody's opinion of what is/isn't a hardship or a perk are so different. I would hate to have to worry about getting my kids to the car at the end of the day or even at naptime and drive in the dark in a relatively unfamiliar place. I'd just much rather let somebody else do the driving. And I don't want laundry or a kitchen in my room anyway, so the whole offsite house or condo or whatever for less than a simple hotel room is not a draw. I'm on vacation and I don't want to do those things. I'll put my dirty clothes in a garbage bag and seal it up and stick in the suitcase and wash it when I get home. And I don't care how bad the food is, I'm not cooking when I'm on vacation. But that's just me, I guess, and is the same reason that the Villas only interest me for their size. It would be nice to have a separate bedroom and bathroom, but we don't mind sharing amongst ourselves. :)
 
Even if you don't consider the OP's experience, nobody has been able to convience me yet that staying off-site is cheaper. Show me how I can stay off-site and rent a car to get to WDW each day for less than $80/night. I'm not sure I would like to see those accomodations.

You probably can't, and if you are only going to stay in a motel or hotel room similar to what you would stay in onsite, there probably isn't much in the way of savings. Our savings come by having the full kitchen available for our breakfasts, snacks and cold drinks. This trip we also had 3 dinners and 3 lunches at the condo, so it helped us stick to the food budget I had planned.

The "magic" for us came from having 3 bdrms and 2 bathrooms. Lots of room for everyone to have some space and peace and quiet when they needed it. Beautiful pool complex with a great poolslide, all for about the cost of a single room at a Value. My family would never, ever, spend 9 nights in a single hotel room.
 
The math can work very well for large families like the OP's and mine. We have had 7 people for most of our recent trips. Cheapest you can get on site for 7 is 2 value resort rooms, which come in around $160 per night. There are many nice vacation homes available for $100 per night.

David

Yes but you didn't add in any of the other costs to your $160/night. What about a rental car and gas and parking? And there are other options for families of 7 besides 2 value rooms onsite that might be more economical. That's not to mention the non-numerical costs like time, convienence, theming, etc. I really don't see how you're getting a huge deal off-site, if at all.

You probably can't, and if you are only going to stay in a motel or hotel room similar to what you would stay in onsite, there probably isn't much in the way of savings. Our savings come by having the full kitchen available for our breakfasts, snacks and cold drinks. This trip we also had 3 dinners and 3 lunches at the condo, so it helped us stick to the food budget I had planned.

The "magic" for us came from having 3 bdrms and 2 bathrooms. Lots of room for everyone to have some space and peace and quiet when they needed it. Beautiful pool complex with a great poolslide, all for about the cost of a single room at a Value. My family would never, ever, spend 9 nights in a single hotel room.

We would never cook while on vacation. Dining out is a huge part of vacation for us. If we wanted to cook on vacation, we'd pack up the tent and go camping. We wouldn't pick a deluxe vacation destination like WDW. So the kitchen amenities would be wasted on us. Also, I would think it rather inconvienent to leave the parks each day just to get a cold drink. So I don't see how cold drinks are really a draw.

And we didn't use the pool once when we were there in August. We are more sleep and go kind of people. And if we did plan a trip that revolved around our accomodations, we would choose somewhere with theming that only WDW could offer.
 
Although there are some good, off site options, I find that the onsite experience is something I am willing to pay for. It must come from growing up in central florida where a drive down the 192 corridor didn't usually end at Disney. For me it was important to feel like I am having the Disney experience and I wasn't going to have it off site.
 
We started staying on site in 2002 and have never even considered staying off property again. My husband has a demanding job where he is on call and gone quite a lot. There are days where the beeper does not stop and several times where it had been days where he did not see our son. When we get to Disney we don't watch the news or read the paper, our biggest concern is where we are going to eat lunch that day. We love not dealing with traffic, news and stress. We get plenty of that at home. For us a Disney vacation helps us relax and re-connect with each other.

Oh, and I don't have to cook, clean, or make my bed for a whole week... now that is a vacation.

Just to be snarky, our son was in a crib until he was 2 1/2 and was perfectly fine. You need to do what works best for you and your circumstances. We used a video monitor to keep an eye DS. When he showed any interest in climbing, we moved him to a toddler bed. Good luck.
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer

New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom