stay with disney or not?

[dgaston]

Another dissenting voice here. I think the magic is what you make of it. There is plenty of magic at off-site hotels, especially if you use your own transportation. In general people stay on site to take advantage of Disney transportation (not always a plus for me) and to be "immersed" in the "magic" 24-7. People stay off-site to take advantage of roomier accomodations including suites and homes, and sometimes an included breakfast.

If you visit the Orlando and other attractions board, there will be posts from many visitors who prefer off site hotels.

 

[momtotwinglesx4]

We like to do part of our stay onsite and part off-site, that way we can have the best of both worlds, and be able to stay longer. I LOVE the Disney Resorts (who doesn't, lol?) but there are lots of fabulous off-site resorts that are alot less expensive too. As previously mentioned, check out the Orlando Hotels and Attractions boards for off-site hotel recommendations.

Sue

 

[MICKEY88]

I've stayed off property 4 times and enjoyed my trip each time, one stay involved a brand new 3 bdroom house with pool for $60 a night...it was very relaxing...2 other stays involved a motel room for 20 a night..gave me plenty of money for souvenirs....LOL

I like having the Mickeymobile with so I can come and go as I please, on property and off..

to each his own..

 

[chrisp]

We've done both - and we much prefer ON SITE. It's part of the magic.

 

[katerkat]

We've done both, and personally, I prefer offsite. And it's not like I've ever stayed at a good resort - Dad used to splurge on lagoon view at the Poly. There's just no way Disney can compare to what we get off-site on a military deal. I'd rather go to Disney World, even if it means I have to stay at a cheaper hotel off-site. In the end, it's just a hotel room. We spend our time in the parks.

But if I had kids, I might stay onsite because it is easier (in some cases) to get back to your hotel for naps. However, I will just say that the 2-bedroom suite with a kitchen that I stayed in last year was closer to the MK than the All-Stars, because I dropped off a friend there. Just know the location of the hotel before you book.

 

[donna in Oz]

As a group of adults only, we actually prefer off-site.

We have nothing against kids but it's kind of peaceful in the evenings to retreat to our rented vacation home, complete with our own pool and jacuzzi, and just enjoy the peace & quiet for as long as we like. After a long day in the parks, lounging on the patio with cool drinks can be blissful when the only sound you hear is crickets chirping.

We don't save a lot of money doing this, but we enjoy that small bit of solitude and space after a day at the crowded parks.

 

[sters]

Staying on site is worth the extra bucks for convenience alone. Location, Location, Location.

 

[DisneyCP2002]

If I was staying offsite again the only place I would reccomend is Holiday Inn Kidsuites(or something to that affect). It is a very nice hotel with a very nice theme to it and the kid suites are awesome. It's on 535 very near to the downtown disney entrance.

For me onsite is best. I don't have a car and I definetly don't want to spend the extra for a rental. I love the advantages of staying onsite and the resorts are wonderful. My favorite perk is being able to stay in a brand new resort this time

 

[ead79]

I strongly prefer to stay on-site. I love the Disney resorts and their incredible theming. The Disney transportation is so convenient, and the rooms are impeccably clean. The hotels I have stayed at off-site have not been nearly as nice as the All Stars at WDW. Just my 2 cents.

 

[mommystieg]

If I HAD to choose between not going to WDW or staying off-site I would definitely stay off-site because being at WDW any way you can is better than not being there We have only stayed off-site one night on our last visit and it was not a pleasant experience. It was a Ramada in Kissimmee and the room smelled very musty and the person in one of the rooms was smoking and the smell was coming through the air ducts into the bathroom Good luck with your decision--you will have a blast no matter what you choose

 

[Fooboy]

lemme tell you, we were enticed once by the cheaper prices and the so called "just minutes away from the parks" schmiel (sp?). about half way through our vacation, I asked "hey, why don't we try out one of the on site resorts. everyone was "no way, it's too expensive." but i did and it was totally worth it. the transportation was much easier, Early Entry was a bonus, and the overall ambience was priceless. so indeed, if you have the pennies, go on-site. gets my vote everytime. hope this helps.

foobs

 

[KristaTX]

As you can see below, we always stay on-site. I guess it depends on if you only plan to spend most of your time at Disney.

As for TRANSPORTATION to and from the airport - if you don't need or want to rent a car, consider being driven in a Lincoln Towncar from the airport to WDW by your own personal driver. It's not necessarily expensive, depending on how many people are in your party. We used to take the Mears Shuttle bus, but now we use Tiffany Town Car and have been very pleased. Check out http://www.tiffanytowncar.com/ . There is a coupon on the website, too. There are also other town car companies you can check out on line. Depending on how many people you have in your group, a town car service may be even cheaper than renting a car or taking the Mears Shuttle. It is definitely more fun than a crowded bus and will save you lots of time. They will also stop at a grocery store for you to pick up some groceries, which could help with the costs of breakfast.

Also be sure to regularly check www.mousesavers.com for resort discounts.

 

[tjkraz]

If you have small children, staying on-site is something that you just can't take for granted. Our son is used to a 2-3 hour nap each afternoon, and we certainly weren't going to force him to sleep in a stroller in 90 degree temps.

Several times either myself or my wife would take the boy back to our room for his nap while the other stayed with the rest of the party and hit a few more rides. WDW transportation means that you are never more than a few minutes away from your room, and aren't compelled to stick together at all times.

Also, with regard to the comment about not being able to swim, unless you are clairvoiant, I wouldn't discount the possibility. We were at WDW last January and had a WONDERFUL afternoon at Typhoon Lagoon. All of the pools and water parks are heated--at least the ones a WDW are. 70 degrees seems to be the point at which most people are comfortable. Any lower than that you'll freeze your rear off as soon as you get out of the water. But even if you are travelling in December or January, count on some warm weather. Between December '02 and January '03, there were 24 days where the temps were 70 or higher.

 

[mathboy]

Like others, I have done both many times. I would definitely have to suggest staying on property. You may be able to save a few dollars (sometimes not) staying somewhere else, but it is not worth it. If you factor in parking and the time spent in transition to WDW, you don't really save. The DTD non-Disney hotels are good, but nowhere near the experience that one has at a Disney resort. Plus, the so-called transportation from there is not pleasant.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by WDWAurora
Ok, I'll be the voice of dissent. I prefer staying offsite. Maybe if we didn't have vehicles down there, it would be different, but I just can't make myself accept the idea of spending at the very least 50 dollars more per night (we get excellent rates, even inseason) to stay on grounds, and that's if we stayed value. I love the hotels, but I'm happier offsite. I've found some excellent hotels, and generally they tend to be a lot more relaxed and quiet than the onsite hotels, at least in my experience. NOTE: I am not trying to argue with anyone, nor do I intend to. These are my experiences with my 30+ trips in the past 18 years, and solely my opinion. Thanks for reading and allowing me my disclaimer.

I prefer onsite, but my next trip, I got a basically free stay because my boyfriends mom has an offsite time share. Supposedly the hotel the time share is in is really bad, but hey-- you can't argue with free for 7 nights. I think if money is an issue for you, staying offiste is fine, esp. if it's just adults.

Don't get me wrong. I love onsite and if I had the income to warrant staying onsite , I certainly would. But I wouldn't put off my trip to do so.

 

[Planogirl]

We've done both and it's fun either way depending on your plans. For some reason, it's great to be offsite if you intend to do more than visit WDW but if WDW is your only focus then the onsite transportation is really handly as others have pointed out.

If you do stay offsite, you might want to check out the hotels in Kissimmee. We once stayed at a super hotel there when we had a car and we arrived at the parks faster than when we took the buses at the Allstars. I don't recommend the International Drive area unless you don't mind heavy traffic even though there are many nice hotels in that area.

 

[drcmk]

We are staying onsite for the first time next month, but have stayed offsite for our previous three trips. We had a wonderful time for each of those trips. You definitely need a car to get around, and we are truly not Commando style park goers, but we had no problem getting to and from the parks as often as we wanted including one trip with our three and four year old kids. Please don't feel that it is not worth going if you can't afford a Disney hotel. Perhaps I am just ignorant of how much more wonderful it could be to stay onsite (ask me again in a month or so) but we had truly memorable and relatively hassle-free Disney vacations staying off site. And a greater vareity of reasonably priced food (for my kids, WENDYS) is available off-site.

 

[crisi]

It depends on you.

We are onsite people. Now DVC members, we'd become Deluxe Onsite people - we wouldn't go if it meant the All-Stars! We go to Disney as a resort destination as much as a theme park destination - so the resort features are important to us.

BUT....

If money is an issue there are great deals offsite. If you are only going to be sleeping in your room, the benefits of on-site are smaller than if you are going to be using the pool, spending time with watermice, eating dinner at the hotel. If Universal or SeaWorld (or both) are on your itinerary, offsite begins to look good. There are even points were it is better - staying at a Universal hotel will get you a Front of the Line pass at Universal.

If you are staying offsite, do your research. Quality of hotels varies a lot, as does the convience of transportation options. So does location of the hotel. One of the reasons that we are onsite people is that we know the room will be pretty well kept and that transportation will be decent and dependable. Our comfort level with staying offsite with these items is smaller.

 

[WDWAurora]

Ok, I want to respond to one comment I saw about long times spent in transit if you stay offsite. We have stayed the past three times on 192, one mile off disney property. To get to MGM it takes 3 minutes, but only if you hit lots of stoplights. I don't think many onsite guests spend less than 3 minutes on the bus. So it doesn't HAVE to take longer. It CAN, but it does not HAVE to. We have APs, so the parking cost doesn't effect us. If you are taking a car though, it really can be a much shorter trip from an offsite hotel to the WDW parks and grounds.

 

[donna in Oz]

If you do decide to stay off-site and have a larger group, don't forget to check out vacation home rentals.

For $129 per night, we rented a gorgeous home, immaculate, with 4 bedrooms & 3 baths, heated pool and jacuzzi and our own washer/dryer. Five minutes to Disney on 192.

We're headed back for our second stay there in just 8 days!!!