Okay, now I get it.

[Cindy F]

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.

I could but then everyone would know my secret hotel!

I think the whole on site/off site thing depends on what is important to you and your family--that's why there's no one good answer. This is the first time we've stayed on site (we're here now) and we won't stay here again IF we're doing Disney World. We will probably come again several times a year to camp because truly-Fort Wilderness is a destination in it's own right and we are now hooked and I definitely understand why snowbirds come down here, set up their RVs and stay for 6 months at a time. To be honest...that is now exactly what we plan to do come retirement!

The early and late magic hours aren't a perk for us because we don't want to get up early on vacation and DD doesn't like staying late because she gets tired. Keep in mind though that we have been MANY times because of the resident pass special and would feel different if we hadn't already been a billion times and could only come once a year.

We don't do the dining plan because it would be an enormous amount of wasted food for us. We have found that it's not really all that much closer time wise to stay on site by the time you wait for buses etc.

Renting a house is great for large or multi families. We rented a gorgeous house from Villas Direct Orlando for our 2 families (which = $70 per night per family) that had a private heated pool, jacuzzi, game room, den, living room, 2 dining rooms ,4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, and a fully stocked kitchen. Fantastic for doing spaghetti dinners, taco bars, etc by the pool as well as family breakfasts. Would I rent a house just for our family? Probably not-it doesn't sound like it would be much fun.

We've always stayed off site because of the cost/benefit ratio. In order to have the amenities we're accustomed to in hotels-we would have to stay in a Deluxe Resort(queen beds, fridge, microwave,coffee pot, and plenty of room) which would run about $250 or so a night.....or we can stay about 10 minutes front door to front gate from MK and get the same thing for $50 a night (yes, this includes tax and is on a newly renovated room with a large flat screen TV, 2 queen beds, kitchenette, WI-fi, breakfast, and park drop off if we want it-it is very nice and not in "the hood").

We would never stay at a Value or even Moderate resort (even if it were free) just because none of them have queen beds--unless the reservations people were wrong? If they were-someone PLEASE let me know because I may reconsider and try one of the hotels even though in general, Disney hotel rooms are smaller than their off site counterparts.

I don't know what to say about the crib debate-to each his own. David, I'm sorry about your child-that had to be horrible. You're right about one thing-it only takes one time. DD was about 14 months when she stood up in her stroller and fell and hit her head before we could catch her. She wasn't knocked unconscious but-flash forward 4 years and she began having seizures. Since head injury is a major cause for seizure disorders-the fall probably caused it.

Well, it's off to the campfire movie, 'smores, and watching Wishes from the beach.

 

[dqpowell]

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?

We get a rental car every time we stay on property as well, so there's no savings there for us by staying on property. We would save the $12 per day in parking fees, but that's more than made up for by the $60 per day we're saving on lodging.

(And it's actually more than $60 per day difference; I rounded down to $80 each room before, when I should have just used the real rate of $82 plus 12.5% tax, or whatever it's up to now. The $100/night I mentioned for a nice vacation home was actually $105, but included the 13% Kissimmee lodging taxes. So figure the difference per day is actually closer to $80 than $60. Subtract the cost of parking, and we're still saving $68 per day. Heck, even if we didn't rent a minivan when we stayed on property, we'd still be saving more than $25 per day by staying off property.)

And there are other options for families of 7 besides 2 value rooms onsite that might be more economical.

There really aren't. I've done the research every time we've traveled to WDW. If we're staying on property, nothing beats 2 connecting value rooms for parties of 7. After taxes, that's about $185 per day.

That's not to mention the non-numerical costs like time, convienence, theming, etc.

Time is a wash -- as I explained before. When you stay in the closest neighborhoods, and drive yourself, you're actually getting from the vacation home to the parks faster than those staying on property and taking the Disney buses. Personally, I find taking Disney transportation less convenient than driving myself, so what works for you convenience-wise doesn't really work for me.

I'll give you "theming," but you'll have to give me other intangibles, like having a pool all to ourselves and separate bedrooms/space to stretch out, DVD players, video game systems, etc. Those things come in handy on rest days and/or torrential rainstorm days.

I really don't see how you're getting a huge deal off-site, if at all.

It just works better for some families, like ours, in some circumstances. The buy 4/get 3 deal sealed it for us for our 2009 trip -- we're staying on property in two connecting rooms at Pop. We're still renting a car, though. On other trips, maybe the vacation home will work better for us. It has in the past.

David

 

[dqpowell]

We would never stay at a Value or even Moderate resort (even if it were free) just because none of them have queen beds--unless the reservations people were wrong? If they were-someone PLEASE let me know because I may reconsider and try one of the hotels even though in general, Disney hotel rooms are smaller than their off site counterparts.

Thanks for mentioning an important amenity for me, in particular -- queen beds. I'm pretty tall, and my feet hang off the bottom of the bed at Pop Century. You have to go to a deluxe room at AKL to get a decent bed on property...

Since head injury is a major cause for seizure disorders-the fall probably caused it.

I'm sorry to hear about your daughter's seizures. Our son is now 8 years old, and no seizures. Knock wood...

David

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

The other thing to consider too is the fabulous deals that Disney offers. I don't see them offered elsewhere. We are going in three weeks. My parents are payin $40/night for their room at POP. We are paying about when you work out the 4/3 deal.

It does depend on your needs. However, I think that a lot of people think that staying on-site is beyond their means. I think for a lot of families who aren't looking to spend days lounging around a hotel room/condo but want to go on a typical vacation that includes eating out, staying on-site is just as economical as staying off-site.

Queen beds are an interesting need. DH is 6'1" and did not have a problem with the beds at AS-S.

 

[dqpowell]

The other thing to consider too is the fabulous deals that Disney offers.

They are offered occasionally. There wasn't a deal for us when we stayed at Pop Century in 2007. But that 4/3 deal is pretty good, especially considering the $400 in gift cards (for 2 rooms). So we're back at Pop Century in January.

Queen beds are an interesting need. DH is 6'1" and did not have a problem with the beds at AS-S.

I'm only a couple inches taller, but prefer not to sleep curled up. In any case, the queen beds aren't a need for me, but it does annoy my wife when I stretch out while sleeping and knock the covers off the bottom of the bed...

David

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

DH doesn't sleep curled up. He can spread out just fine. Must be the extra inches that make a difference.

Disney actually offers some pretty awesome deals often. The last time we went in August 2007, we got free dining. This time the 4/3 deal. We had both trips planned long before the promotions were announced.

 

[delmar411]

Thanks for mentioning an important amenity for me, in particular -- queen beds. I'm pretty tall, and my feet hang off the bottom of the bed at Pop Century. You have to go to a deluxe room at AKL to get a decent bed on property...



David

This issue was a deal breaker for me as well. I'm almost 6ft tall and the doubles were just not cutting it for DH and myself. But we went to DVC instead of off-site (family of 6) and I'm not looking back from those so very comfy king sized beds!

 

[dqpowell]

DH doesn't sleep curled up. He can spread out just fine. Must be the extra inches that make a difference.

Maybe so. I sometimes sleep with one or both arms up, which requires a bit more room at the head of the bed, pushing my feet further off the bottom. Again, I can (and do) deal with it alright, but it would be nice if Disney would at least put queen beds into the moderates. Forcing guests to pay for a deluxe just to get a decent size bed is a bit annoying...

Disney actually offers some pretty awesome deals often. The last time we went in August 2007, we got free dining. This time the 4/3 deal. We had both trips planned long before the promotions were announced.

Yeah, free dining would be a HUGE money saver for us... by dining plan standards, we're 6 adults and 1 child... even though our 11 year old eats very little, less even than most DDP children do. Yet it's the same $40 per day for her...

David

 

[Allieloopy]

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

.

My 9yr old DD said the same thing when I thought we were going to have to stay in a condo this time. "But Mom, I need the maid service."

I don't know if it's because she doesn't have to make her bed or because we had cool towel animals last time.

Hey I'm all for not cooking. Even when we eat in the room the kids can make their own sandwiches. This time I may even have them make mine!

 

[luvthemouse71]

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.



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.



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.



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 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.



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.



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:



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



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.



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



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.



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



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



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

I think people responded so negatively because your post had a tone to it...you brought up the 22 month olds in cribs..kind of silly to get annoyed because people are expressing their opinion. I agree with the person that thinks this belongs on the parenting board. People choose to do different things regarding sleeping arrangements...much rather have my child in a crib than "co-sleeping" in a bed with an adult, for instance. Doesn't mean it's bad, just not my cup of tea. Your child may just as easily have hurt his head on the playground or climbing out of a regular bed...kids get hurt, nothing you can do about that, short of sealing them in bubble wrap, and making them wear a helmet 24/7.


Anyway, I agree, on-site has always worked out better for me. Stayed off site twice and meh. It was ok, but not as fun.

 

[Cindy F]

The other thing to consider too is the fabulous deals that Disney offers. I don't see them offered elsewhere. We are going in three weeks. My parents are payin $40/night for their room at POP. We are paying about when you work out the 4/3 deal.

It does depend on your needs. However, I think that a lot of people think that staying on-site is beyond their means. I think for a lot of families who aren't looking to spend days lounging around a hotel room/condo but want to go on a typical vacation that includes eating out, staying on-site is just as economical as staying off-site.

Queen beds are an interesting need. DH is 6'1" and did not have a problem with the beds at AS-S.

See, there again-it makes a difference in what your needs are. Generally speaking, none of the deals Disney offers are appealing to passholders....when you don't need tickets or rental transportation. The only thing that was ever appealing to us over the past 8 years as far as lodging was concerned was the value resorts for $45 a night but there again-even if it were free I wouldn't stay there because of the queen beds. I can manuver around no coffee pot, microwave, or fridge....I can even tolerate a small room and having to stay in the same room as the kids but there is no way around not being able to comfortably sleep two adults in a double bed (for us).

We've tried sleeping in a double bed and it was awful--we're just used to having that "roll around" room. The bottom line is, I don't care if you are staying in a $3000 a night suite with the most deluxe vacation package possible.....your vacation will royally suck if you have a rotten 3-4 hours of sleep each night.

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.

We always looked at WDW as the destination-the four major theme parks and really never even knew about dining plans, themed hotels, and all the other junk etc. etc. until I started coming to the DIS forums! LOL

I never thought of Disney World as a deluxe vacation destination, we just thought of it as a great place to take the kids ( not that we don't love it because we do) When I think deluxe vacation destination I think of Europe, a cruise through the bahamas, an all inclusive resort in the Dominican or something like that.

I would love to do the dining plan but only if it were free, otherwise-huge waste of money. Neither DD or I are big eaters-especially her! Not only does she practically have to be force fed-she's picky. Example: Typical CS meal at Disney Harbor House: 1 Fish/Chicken with Fries, 1 bowl of clam chowder and a kid's meal and we still have something to throw away or take with us--and that's for 2 adults and a 13 year old. See what I mean? Big waste.

I think it's all in what you're accustomed to...I don't see how people take a bus or regular car to the parks because the campervan has spoiled us ROTTEN LOL! Come out to the van in between parks for a snooze, a snack, maybe a little TV watching, then off to another park!

 

[Cindy F]

Oh yeah, I just wanted to mention too--I don't think David was trying to be snotty or a "know it all" or trying to "lecture". I think when you have experienced something traumatic with your child it's just kind of natural to want to stop it from happening to someone else.

Anytime I see a child stand in a stroller, lean back in a chair, or anything else that puts them at risk for a fall-I just want to run over and tell the parent "Please don't let them do that....yadda yadda yadd" Why? Because of the years of seizures, medications, MRIs, CAT scans, and tears of "Why can't I be normal?" "The kids at school said I was brain damaged because I have seizures", "I don't want to be different", "I try not to fall asleep in class but the medicine makes me so sleepy" etc......

It may not have sounded as kind as he meant it but I honestly do think his heart was in the right place.

And David, I think you're out of the woods as far as the seizure thing goes so don't let our story make you uneasy.

 

[tjl1388]

Back on topic people.....

Staying on-site is one thing.

Once you go DVC....you NEVER will stay off site again.

 

[CinderellyCinderelly]

My first trip to WDW we stayed on-site and that has always been a part of the magic for me. Anything else just wouldn't be Disney!!

 

[portocall]

I think people responded so negatively because your post had a tone to it...you brought up the 22 month olds in cribs..kind of silly to get annoyed because people are expressing their opinion. I agree with the person that thinks this belongs on the parenting board. People choose to do different things regarding sleeping arrangements...much rather have my child in a crib than "co-sleeping" in a bed with an adult, for instance. Doesn't mean it's bad, just not my cup of tea. Your child may just as easily have hurt his head on the playground or climbing out of a regular bed...kids get hurt, nothing you can do about that, short of sealing them in bubble wrap, and making them wear a helmet 24/7.


Anyway, I agree, on-site has always worked out better for me. Stayed off site twice and meh. It was ok, but not as fun.

I agree, the tone I read your post in were a little harsh. Taking children out of their cribs too early also invites accidents as my middle son can attest too. At 18 months, he moved to a bed and within two weeks, "climbed" the dresser and it fell on him breaking his shoulder, and two ribs. He is fine now, but he wasn't a climber and the accident wouldn't have happened had he been in a crib. He was trying to get a towel I placed up there when I tucked him in, nothing fancy. My youngest didnt move to a bed until 3 years and he wasn't a climber either. The best advice is to make sure you have a safe model, with tight screws. Accidents in cribs usually happen in unsafe cribs, not a well maintained one.

 

[LindyN]

Yep, you can really go broke saving money on a Disney vacation!

But there are plenty of places to stay, on and off Disney property. When my kids were little we just let them sack out in the stroller. It gets mighty inconvenient when you head to Kissimmee for a nap.

What works for one family might not work for another. I booked a "discounted" room at the Radisson Celebration this past summer, and by the time I was done paying for my room and taxes and the resort fee, I should have just paid full price for a Value resort. Disney's hotel would have been cleaner, more up to date, and certainly much more convenient. After that one night stay (where I did not sleep because the AC unit sounded like it was going to launch) I will not stay off property again. It was a dreadful room that should not have been assigned to guests.

 

[Belle5]

When our kiddos were little we often experimented with staying off-site. We would rent timeshares or get two rooms on priceline. We would throw in the occasional on-property stay. Somewhere in there we became on-site loyalists. As our children became teenagers, it was important that they could hop on a bus and have some independence. It is difficult for me to every imagine going back to staying off-site.

I am going to have to jump in the mud here...I never knew about the recommendation for kids to be out of cribs at 16 mos!!!!! I wish I would have known that! Our second son climbed out of the crib at 19 mos. and was unconscious for probably a half an hour before I found him. The nursery (even the walls) was COVERED in dried blood when I found him. After we returned from the hospital--we bought a bed for him that night. With all the following boys (four after him) we bought one of those crib tents to keep them safe.

I think David's post was ill-placed, but I do understand the need to spread the word about a danger when you have been traumatized by an accident and your heart is to prevent anyone else from experiencing the same thing. Maybe one person reading this thread will keep their precious-one from being injured...

 

[darby888]

Even though we stay onsite more often than offsite, I think you're giving offsite stays an unfairly bad rap. Sure, staying where you did was not terribly convenient for a family with three kids under 7 years old (including two toddlers). But you chose to rent two cars and two cribs. (Side note: cribs for 22 month-olds? Our pediatrician strongly recommended we not keep any of our kids in cribs past 16 months -- AAP statistics show a significant rise in crib-related injuries, including concussions and broken bones, after 16 months.)

Sorry, I'm drifting off topic. Staying offsite in a vacation home is almost always a more economical way to go if your family has more than 4 or 5 people. And there are certain advantages -- you're not a slave to the Disney transportation system, you often have much better amenities offsite, especially in a house.

It's not for everyone, obviously. But you may find that when your kids are 5 or 6 years older that it makes more sense than it does now.

David

Harsh??? ...... I think not. David, you just seem like an experienced parent.

 

[Baltazar]

I heard Coronado Springs is upgrading to queen size beds. It's a moderate Disney resort. I also heard they were doing it because it is a convention resort and they are trying to compete with off site convention destinations.

We've been managing sleeping in a full size bed at the value resorts but I'm usually so dead tired I could sleep anywhere. It is nice to get home to a nice big bed, though.

 

[MickeyNicki]

We stayed off site for many many years, off of 192 and never thought anything of it but in 2004 we had our first onsite stay at a value resort and lets just say we were hooked, the dining at the resorts, the transportation and just the feel of staying onsite is something that we need to do from now on.

Since 04 we have stayed at just about every resort except GF and we love it!