Stay in park or out??

[FonFon]

Originally posted by WIcruizer
Well, I hope you're not comparing the HI Express with the Wilderness. As an off-site person that would be like me comparing the Vistana to the All Stars.

No, no, no. I wasn't comparing the hotels. Give me a bed, a shower, and a swimming pool, and I'm happy. LOL, the WL is 10 times better than HI Express any day of the week though!

I was talking about having to get up to drive to the park, then pay to park, then find a parking space, then try to remember where we parked, then walk all the way to the entrance...it was just a pain to us. So much easier to hop on the monorail/boat/bus, get to where you're going, and walk into the park. And then when you're ready to go, you just have to wait for the monorail/boat/bus to come get you! And all we had to carry with us was the hotel keycard, and charged souveniers/food on it, and then had the souveniers delivered to the hotel. Just more convenient.

Different strokes for different folks, I think.

 

[disneysteve]

Originally posted by FonFon
I am the cheapest person alive (we are military, I kind of have to be cheap!)

This December, we've saved up, and since we can't beat the military ticket rate, we're going to go concierge, at a military rate of about $200/night (includes tax) at the Wilderness Lodge.

Courtney - I think your post is a perfect example of how different everyone can be in their priorities, budgets, preferences, etc. And I don't mean this to be critical at all so please don't take it that way.

You say you are the "cheapest person alive" but then say you are paying $200/nite on your next stay. I don't consider that cheap at all. On our last stay, we paid $39.95/nite for a 1-bedroom suite offsite. On our next trip in November, we're paying $90/nite for a 3-bedroom condo offsite and we're splitting that 50-50 with another family member, so our share is only $45/nite. That's what I call cheap.

The Disney area offers such a wide range of accomodations that there is something for every taste and every budget. If money is no object, there are gorgeous resort hotels both on and offsite. If money is tight or you just are thrifty by choice (like us), there are plenty of inexpensive but still very nice choices. There is no one right answer as to where or how to stay. To each his own.

Steve

 

[FonFon]

Originally posted by disneysteve
Courtney - I think your post is a perfect example of how different everyone can be in their priorities, budgets, preferences, etc. And I don't mean this to be critical at all so please don't take it that way.

You say you are the "cheapest person alive" but then say you are paying $200/nite on your next stay. I don't consider that cheap at all.

Steve, you're absolutely right. What I should have said was that I'm the cheapest person alive, but I like to splurge on travel, and when I feel like I'm getting a good deal, I take advantage of it.

I love to say, "I'm staying in a $350 a night concierge room for less than $200 a night!" LOL, TRUST ME, I had a hard time grasping the total. We payed $66 a night at the Contemporary, and loved it. We had never stayed on site before, and my husband has been gone since February, won't be back until November, and he wants to see what concierge is like, so that's probably why I'm willing to splurge this time!

It certainly all depends on different priorities, budgets, etc. The last time we were there, we spent $66+tax a night for 4 nights. We will pay more than that in 2 1/2 nights this time. Under normal circumstances, absolutely not!

Does that make any sense at all? I've done both, I just happen to prefer staying on site, and when the price is right (or in this case, when the price is low-ER), and we can afford it, we go for it.

By the way - It's going to take more than that for me to think you're critical!!

 

[FonFon]

I also wanted to add that if we were not getting our tickets for the price that we are (5 day tickets - his is free, mine is $99), then we would not be staying in a concierge room, and honestly, we would probably be vacationing elsewhere. But the last time they offered free tickets to the military, he was still in the war, and we JUST missed it when we went this February. So that was also a deciding factor.

I think it just all depends - for us, when it's a Disney-only trip, and the discounts are right, and it's just the two of us, and we haven't seen each other for months, we'll splurge on a more expensive room onsite. Otherwise, we would be staying in a $66 a night Contemporary room, or possibly one of the All Stars for even cheaper. But after this last trip, even if we were going to Universal, we would stay onsite at Disney...that's just us! To each his/her own!

 

[germanbini]

I am also debating whether to stay on-site or off this trip. We are getting off a cruise on Thursday and taking it easy, and will enjoy our $20.03 rate that night at the Marriott Courtyard.

We plan to go to Disney on Friday. If we stay on site, then I think we'll be eligible to get into the park earlier than we would if we stayed off site.

Secondly, there is an "Ultimate Park Hopper pass" which we can take advantage of (I thought it wasn't available for a one night stay, but apparently it is). I found this on mousesavers.com, and there are prices for more days as well.

Ultimate Park Hopper Passes
Ultimate Park Hopper (UPH) passes provide unlimited admission to the four major parks (Magic Kingdom, Epcot, Disney-MGM Studios, and Animal Kingdom), the water parks, Pleasure Island and DisneyQuest for the length of your stay. These passes become active when you check in (and you can check in early if you wish, though your room may not be ready yet) and expire at midnight on the day you check out of the hotel.

Ultimate Park Hopper passes are available exclusively to resort guests staying on-site at the official Disney resorts. The advance purchase price applies when you add the UPH passes to your hotel room reservation prior to arrival. You can also purchase these passes at check-in, at a higher price.

1 night/2 days (price at resort) - $132.07 Adults (10 and older); $106.51 Children (3-9)
1 night/2 days (advance purchase price) - $121.41 Adults (10 and older); $96.92 Children (3-9) (more rates at mousesavers).

If we decide to stay and do both parks through Saturday, and use advance purchase, then it looks like it's only about $10 more per ticket per day to have the "hopper" option.

Looks like that might make it worth staying on site right there!

Sabrina

 

[wdisneelvr]

I've stayed onsite and offsite numerous times.

It basically comes down to whatever fits your needs during that specific trip.

We stay offsite when we are doing more traveling around the Orlando area and love having the space and the anemities of a villa/condo or we rent a house when we have more family traveling with us. You just can't beat the prices staying offsite.

We stay onsite when we can spend a few extra $$$.

It really depends on your circumstances and how you are feeling about your trip.

Don't feel like you have to stay onsite because Disney wants you to, do it because you like the themeing, transportation, being closer to the parks etc.

If that's not all that important to you, then book offsite. There are so many nicer places to stay in Orlando now.

 

[disneysteve]

Originally posted by wdisneelvr
Don't feel like you have to stay onsite because Disney wants you to, do it because you like the themeing, transportation, being closer to the parks etc.

If that's not all that important to you, then book offsite. There are so many nicer places to stay in Orlando now.

Your last sentence makes a great point. Years ago, the offsite options weren't all that terrific and I think a lot of folks who ventured off property back then found very little worth seeing or doing.

Times have changed dramatically from the 70's or early 80's. There are now loads of nice hotels, from budget to luxury resorts. There are plenty of restaurants from fast food chains to nice independent places. There is plenty of shopping and numerous non-Disney attractions actually worth seeing.

Obviously, Disney wants you to stay onsite. But as many of us have discussed, they don't necessarily offer something to appeal to everyone. We are much happier staying offsite - better prices, more space, more reasonable and varied dining options, etc. Even when we have stayed onsite (which I've done numerous times), we have always traveled off property for some dining, shopping, etc.

Steve

 

[momtotwinglesx4]

I think the main reason *I* am so indecisive with respect to accomodations is this DIS trip-planning forum! Sure, it's full of priceless information, but geez, reading resort/hotel reviews (both on and off site) makes me want to stay everywhere, all in my next trip, lol!

I'll be all set and absolutely *positive* that I want to stay at WL, for example. Then I'll read a thread raving about Wyndham Palms villas, and then I'm sure *that's* where I need to stay. Of course, then someone will be "just back from the Dolphin", and my plans change yet again

I've made so many resort pros/cons charts that I am dizzy and I go to sleep at night and wake up in the morning trying to decide on just the right place. To quote Ursula in The Little Mermaid, "Life's full of tough choices, isn't it?"

I think the only thing to do is quit reading these boards

Sue

 

[LKS]

I'm not completely fixed in one camp or the other. It depends on the trip - splurge or budget - and I can enjoy either one.

With the family, if my choice is between the All-Stars and offsite, I'd go offsite and get more space. Transportation is going to have to be dealt with either place. We stayed at the AKL at the end of our last trip and it was very nice, but there were the buses to deal with. Not terrible, but it does cut into touring time a little bit. We had already seen a lot at that point and spent more time enjoying the pool and the animals. I wouldn't put up with that to stay in what to me would be a "budget" hotel. Not to mention that we'd have to have two of those rooms to fit us and our 3 kids.

However, for us, a room at the Contemporary is a wonderful treat. I am delighted to pay extra to be on the monorail. We all fit in one room and are not too cramped. Although Mom and Dad do like their own room, we sacrifice that for location. With three young children, it is such a pleasure to just walk from the room, ride the monorail and be in the MK. We always ride back over for lunch and a swim mid-day and travel time doesn't eat up much of the day. We used to even have everyone nap. And it's much easier to split up if someone is fading. If you are offsite, to go to MK, you have to park in the lot, ride the tram to TTC, then take either the monorail or the ferry. It seems like it takes forever. The other parks are not so bad, but for MK access alone, we love being in a monorail resort. We think Epcot is pretty easy access from there because we enjoy the monorail, and we rarely visit the studios or AK more than once, so for us it works beautifully.

Without kids, it's a different story. Next weekend my husband and I are going alone and staying at the Peabody for a fabulous rate - less than $100 per night including all taxes and fees. Still more than a lot of budget conscious people would like to pay, but we definitely splurge on vacations. We will probably just go to one park on Sunday and we are having dinner at the California Grille. If I was offered the CR for that same price, I might switch, but that's not going to happen and for just the two of us, I don't see the need to pay over $200 per night. Last fall I stayed with a friend for the weekend at a Hampton Inn. It was just fine - no kids and we went to Epcot on Saturday.

 

[crazelion]

I think it depends on your families personal prefaces. I give the number one reason i stay onsite. I get lost easily and trying to remember where I park at. Which way to the hotel is it the Hoilday Inn on this street or is the other Hoilday Inn that I just pass.

You can say Orlando is easy to navigate but it is hard for some people. Even if I have directions I will get lost.

So for my peace of mind I stay onsite which is easy for me.

I happen to like the All-Star Sports. Where else I can see huge icons football, and basketballs.

Another reason I do not cook on vacation and do not need a kicthen. But I will bring my on drinks and snack food with me. Only because I am a picky either. I can't not have caffince and sugar after a certain time.

Understand I take my food and drink every where I go to the amusement park, company picnics and on vacations because it convient for me.

 

[skiwee1]

Originally posted by WIcruizer
Funny....I actually consider staying in the tiny rooms on-site as "roughing it."

The only really cramped rooms are the values and some of the mods. The deluxes are pretty spacious. Of course I don't want to see a kitchen on vacation and prefer the whole hotel atmosphere. If I had to see a kitchenette while on vacation I would consider that roughing it! LOL!

 

[skiwee1]

Originally posted by WIcruizer
I agree, and I hope this doesn't sound like we're bashing people who choose to stay on-site. But the only logical reasons I can come with WHY someone would stay on-site:

1) WL or AKL and money is no object. I love those resorts, but there's no way I would pay that much for a room when it's only a place to sleep at night. As someone said, we're at the parks, dining, etc. until midnight, go to the hotel to sleep then at it again the next day. I'm not paying $200 or more per night for that.

2) People just want to stay at WDW for the sake of it. Because there's no way the mods or All Stars are a good value.



I agree. Friends think we're crazy driving to WDW, but it really is half the fun. Putting on the Weather Channel first thing in the morning....shopping and dining at new places. The parks are great, but come to think about it years later it's all the other stuff that our children remember. I just can't imagine dining in the same WDW restaurants every night and never leaving the resort.

Well I guess I fall under #1. Money is no object. When we go to the Poly we really enjoy the resort. So much that the parks actually become secondary. I never stay somewhere for the sake of staying there. I stay there for the theming, convenience, and the ability to lay by the pool, lava flow in hand, and watch the fireworks going over the castle. Priceless!

 

[RJake1]

I usually stay off-site, but must confess I'm now looking into buying DVC membership.

Off-site will usually get you much larger, spacious, accomodations at less money. I've been disappointed by size of WDW rooms (hotels).

You can book condo rentals at a lot of timeshare places and get big discounts (even on WDW tickets) by sitting through a sales presentation.

Some of my favorite off-site places were (in order) Wyndham Palms, Sheraton Vistana Village, Marriot Grande.

A bit downscale, but still very large and nice condos, are the Plantation Oaks in Kissimmee, and Parkway International which is only 1 mile from Disney on Rt 192 West.

A WDW hotel would attract me if I could stay on the monorail line.
The bus system leaves a lot to be desired. I had to wait over 1 hour after Sat. fireworks at MK with my exhausted 3 year old. And it was a mob scene trying to get onto the bus. Never again!
I'll always rent a car as it costs the same as shuttle to/from airport.

Good Luck. It IS a magical place despite the inconveniences we've encountered.

 

[disneysteve]

Originally posted by skiwee1
The only really cramped rooms are the values and some of the mods. The deluxes are pretty spacious. Of course I don't want to see a kitchen on vacation and prefer the whole hotel atmosphere. If I had to see a kitchenette while on vacation I would consider that roughing it! LOL!

Again, personal preference is ultimately what matters. We have seen the rooms at WL, AKL, PO and we consider all of them pretty small especially considering the cost. If it were just my wife and I, it wouldn't be a problem, but when you add in a kid, its just too little space for us. When I hear of families with 2 or 3 kids staying there, I really wonder how they manage.

As for the kitchen, even though we prefer to stay at a place that has one, we hardly ever actually cook. We just like having the regular size refrigerator/freezer and the ability to warm something up in the microwave. If it wasn't so much cheaper to get a place with a kitchen, I don't think we would pay extra for one.

Steve

 

[mad4themouse]

The arguments for and against both sides are very well-thought out and rational.

Personally, I fall on the "onsite" side of the debate. I have stayed offsite twice and although the rooms were adequate, they lack that Disney je ne sais quoi.

As for anyone, it all depends upon your needs, budget and expectations.

When I was a starving college student, anyplace that offered a decent bed in a safe location was enough. I wasn't picky about what the room looked like or how close it was to WDW. All that mattered was just being there! I now shudder to think of some of the places that I've stayed!

When DH and I were first married and he was still in school, we stayed where we could afford to. Since theming, the pool and convenience to the parks was not a deciding factor for us, just about clean place would do. We found that many of the chain hotels around the parks offered the no-frills rooms that suited us.

Now we're better established, have children and prefer to spend more on our vacations in order to enjoy the ammenities. For our children, the pool is of the utmost importance. They spend a few hours in it just about everyday. For DH and me, it means queen-size beds and a nice view. We also want to be close to the parks (no driving) and a quiet atmosphere. We also spend more time at our resort and in the room than we used to.

For our next trip, I seriously considered a vacation home or renting DVC points but the drawbacks were the presence of a kitchen (which would promote cooking and the subsequent cleanup) and the lack of maid service. That's not my idea of a vacation.

I'm not a spendthrift. Actually, I'm quite frugal the rest of the time. My kids call me the "Coupon Queen". But vacations are not something that I skimp on. They are my gift to myself for all the sacrifices that I make during the rest of the year. And when I book my rooms, airfare and rental cars, you can bet that I keep a sharp eye out for the best possible deals!

As to whether Disney offers a good product for the price, that is only best answered by the individual consumer. For me, the "magic" of a Disney resort and the great customer service they offer is worth the extra price. For others, it isn't.

 

[Tigger Fans!]

Hi-
Just wanted to take a minute to reply to the on-site question. I grew up in California and have been to Disneyland dozens of times. Staying off-site at DL is no problem....you just walk across the street and you're at the park.

BUT.... on our first trip to WDW we stayed off-site and I swore I'd never do it again! WDW is so spread out that it took FOREVER to get to Magic Kingdom even after we'd parked. Also, much of the savings of staying off-site was eaten up by the tolls we had to pay driving in and out of the park.

My vote???? Stay onsite!

TTFN!


OH! Also, you might look into renting DVC points at OKW or BWV (home-away-from-home resorts).

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by Tigger Fans!
Hi-

BUT.... on our first trip to WDW we stayed off-site and I swore I'd never do it again! WDW is so spread out that it took FOREVER to get to Magic Kingdom even after we'd parked. Also, much of the savings of staying off-site was eaten up by the tolls we had to pay driving in and out of the park.

---------------------------

It took "forever" to get to Magic Kingdom and you had to pay "tolls" driving in and out of the parks?

I have to ask - where the heck did you stay??????????????

It's never taken us more than 10 minutes (actually more like 7 or 8 minutes) and we've never paid any tolls..

 

[Tigger Fans!]

Originally posted by C.Ann
---------------------------

It took "forever" to get to Magic Kingdom and you had to pay "tolls" driving in and out of the parks?

I have to ask - where the heck did you stay??????????????

We booked through Holiday Homes of Orlando and stayed in a beautiful home with pool. It was only a few miles away on the map but our direct route was one of the local toll-ways.

Once we parked at MK we waited for the tram (my son was almost 3 so we had stroller, etc.. to lug around), then we went and waited in another line to take the boat across the lake to MK. Being used to DL and just walking right into the park in 5 minutes this was a new experience for us. We aren't lucky enough to make it to WDW very often so I want every minute possible to be spent in the parks.

Glad you've enjoyed your stays off-site.

TTFN!

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by Tigger Fans!
We booked through Holiday Homes of Orlando and stayed in a beautiful home with pool. It was only a few miles away on the map but our direct route was one of the local toll-ways.

Once we parked at MK we waited for the tram (my son was almost 3 so we had stroller, etc.. to lug around), then we went and waited in another line to take the boat across the lake to MK. Being used to DL and just walking right into the park in 5 minutes this was a new experience for us. We aren't lucky enough to make it to WDW very often so I want every minute possible to be spent in the parks.

Glad you've enjoyed your stays off-site.

TTFN!

-------------------------

Oh - now I understand.. I've looked at some of the villas and many of them are in pretty remote areas - probably because they take up so much space..

I always look at my "Streetwise Orlando" map when I'm trying to decide on off-site accomodations.. I would not have been happy in a remote location where toll roads were the only option either!!

A little off-topic, but I'm curious.. How would you say Disneyland compares to Disney World - in terms of "magic"; cleanliness; crowds; number of things to see and do; etc.??

 

[Lisa P.]

...our direct route was one of the local toll-ways.

There are many, many offsite locations which entail a shorter car drive than bus wait... and no tolls to pay. Some don't involve more than one or two traffic lights either.

...we waited for the tram (my son was almost 3 so we had stroller, etc.. to lug around), then we went and waited in another line to take the boat across the lake to MK.

A stroller has to be lugged around on Disney buses, the same as trams. If you travel by monorail or boat, it's easier. But every Disney resort will require the use of a bus or car to reach at least some of their parks. If you didn't like waiting in line to take a boat at TTC, you'd probably dislike waiting in line to take a Disney bus or boat every time you visit a park from a Disney resort too.

Being used to DL and just walking right into the park in 5 minutes this was a new experience for us.

Understandable. I suspect the conclusion you are reaching (between convenient onsite and inconvenient offsite) is really more related to the difference between CA's DL (everything close together) and FL's WDW (everything spread out). Due to the sprawling WDW property, with theme parks and resort miles apart, you can actually stay closer to some Disney parks by staying offsite than onsite.

If you want to stay close enough to walk, monorail or boat to a theme park, be prepared to pay a hefty room rate for a "deluxe" hotel room. And you would still have to wait for and take a Disney bus (fold up that stroller!) to reach at least two Disney theme parks, while there. This is definitely different from DL!