On site v off site

[Masonmj84]

I can see the arguments for both but personally strongly prefer on-site.

I like taking the Magical Express and not having to go to baggage claim, rent a car, bring car seats, or drive or park.

I like being immersed in the Disney bubble for my entire vacation.

I like having 180+10 for ADRs and 60 days for FP+.

I like the ambiance and theming of most of the moderate and deluxe resorts (the values, however, don't do it for me).

I like being able to quickly get back to my resort for mid day breaks (we typically split stay at deluxe resorts so as to be always close to whatever park we're visiting).

The big negative to staying on-site versus off is cost. But, for us, the above advantages make it worth it (we'd rather go half as often and stay on-site).

Finally, I think it is totally unfair for any family to impose their vacation style on someone else. We all spend a lot of valuable time and money for these vacations and should be entitled to do them our way. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[amytaylor2]

We stayed off site on our last trip. We stayed in the Champions Gate neighborhood (I think that was the name). I will not do that again! We went with a large group of family so we all rented a large house and split the cost. The cost for our share of the house was cheaper than staying on property, however when you figure in the gas driving back and forth, $17 a day parking it adds up. Not to mention time consuming. Although the house was only a few miles away, it took us 30 min or longer one way. Plus the week we went was free dining, we definitely would have saved staying on property! Some of the family members who went with us loved the house, but they also spent a lot of time there. We spend most of our time in the parks.

 

[ckb_nc]

I had an uncle take his kids from Australia; my parents tagged along. Rented a house offsite. My parents told us how much time they spent in house versus on property. Lets just say my two nieces need a WDW trip with us sometime