To Stay On Site or Not To Stay On Site

[ThePrincess&TheJohn]

That is the question.

I have never been to Disneyland (Disneyworld twice - yay!) and am planning a trip for next summer. It may be the only time I ever get there or at least for a very long time. So my issue is, do I spend a lot of money to stay on property or not?

What are the perks to staying on property? Is it worth it?

I've checked out the hotels and think Disneyland Hotel would be the only one I'm interested in. My plan would be to fly into California, tour for a few days, go to Disney, stay about three nights, and then fly home to the East coast. On the trip would be me, my fiancee, and two friends.

Thanks for any opinions/advice!!!!

 

[DizNee Luver]

As much as I love the 3 resorts & wish I could afford to stay on site every trip.....it's just not in the cards. One of the things I would take into consideration is: How much time do you plan on spending at the hotel??? If all you need is a bed & a shower....then save your money & stay across the street at one of the many Good Neighbor Motels. If you want to spend more time at the hotel & take advantage of the pools, the children's activities, room service, etc. then staying on site would be worth the money.

Some of the perks are: Magic Mornings (early entry) on all the days it's offered (Sat, Sun, Tue, Thurs) during your stay. Your parkhopper will only give you one of those with a 3+ day ticket.

You can charge purchases back to your room & have packages delivered to the hotel.

You are surrounded with Disney Magic from the time you wake up till the time you go to bed.

I loved our stay at the DLH & PPH.....unfortunately, they've priced it out of our budget. It is magical staying on property.....but we've had wonderful stays across the street for a third of the price.

 

[ATGMom]

We stayed onsite and off last time we went, and to be honest it was neat being at Disnyeland hotel, but it was also quite a walk to the parks and so I didn't see the benefit of PP or Disneyland Hotel other than the Disney atmosphere. If I was going to pay the extra than I would stay at the Gran California because you are close and you have the monorail, otherwise I would probably stay offsite, and use the money saved for souvenirs, character meals, etc.

 

[skiingfast]

Some of the perks are: Magic Mornings (early entry) on all the days it's offered (Sat, Sun, Tue, Thurs) during your stay. Your parkhopper will only give you one of those with a 3+ day ticket.

On this note, I might bet that would be a bigger reason to stay onsite.

Magic Morning is like morning EMH at WDW. You get in an hour early.

Rumors have been around for a long time, since DCA announced it's exapansion and rehab that it will get Magic Morning too. With Carsland opening next year it may be the time it happens and DCA gets it too and possibly there is going to be a MM every day.

 

[Sherry E]

I think that staying onsite and whether it's worth it is pretty much a 'case by case basis' sort of thing.

From your description, it sounds as if you will not have any kids with you. That could either serve to sway you more towards staying onsite or more away from it!

You said you may never get back to DLR, or if so, it may not be for a very, very long time. Based on that fact right there, I would say that if you can financially swing staying onsite without too much difficulty, then yes, you should stay onsite if this may the only trip you ever take to DLR. For many of us, staying onsite enhances the whole DLR experience tremendously.

If money is tight and it will be tough to justify an onsite stay, I think you will be fine staying offsite.

As Laurie said above, it also depends on how much time you plan to spend at the hotel and what kinds of things would interest you at the hotel. For example, do you want to be immersed in Disney from the second you arrive to the second you leave or do you want to take a break from the immersion and sleep off-property for the night? Would you plan to be in the parks all day and only be in the hotel room long enough to sleep at night?

To me, personally, it is 100% worth it to stay onsite and I stay onsite every time I go (unless it's just a day trip), or I go home. I like going to sleep and waking up on Disney property, looking for hidden Mickeys in the carpeting, getting my cheery welcome packet and room key at the front desk, etc. I plan the hotel stay and work it into my trips because it does add to my overall Disney experience. It's part of my whole trip.

But not everyone feels this way. Many, many, many people are choosing to stay offsite because the rates are so much cheaper and the 3 DLR hotels are just so expensive, not to mention the fact that they don't stay in the hotel room long enough to really warrant shelling out that kind of money.

 

[blackjackdelta]

If you look at reality when people say well "we only sleep and shower" so i do not need to stay on site. Most people will be at least 8 to 10 hours which to me is a huge chunk of the day.
It is just more convienent to stay on site.

Jack

 

[vettegirl]

I vote for onsite, the experience for us at the DLH was just pure magic IMO. The extra $ to me was worth it! Enjoy your trip!

 

[MrsJackSparrow4Life]

Staying on-site at DLR isn't nearly as important as it is at WDW, at least IMO. There are good neighbor hotels that are closer and cheaper than the DLR hotels and the DLR hotels don't offer nearly as many perks as the WDW ones do.

I was able to stay on-site once when Disney put the PPH on sale for $100 per night and while it was nice it wasn't anywhere near nice enough to justify spending the $200+ per night Disney normally charges.

If you are able to get a good deal, I say go for it but I would never pay rack rate if I were you.

 

[Mama Who]

There are "offsite" hotels at DLR that are literally no further from the park gates than the DLH. It isn't the same thing as being "offsite" at WDW.

I stayed at the DLH once during the bad years. It was bad. Really not worth the money. I do hope to return some time because I know that experience wasn't indicative of what most of the hotel's history has been like and when we can afford it we will do that. Right now the extra money is just too useful elsewhere.

(The year we had the bad hotel stay was also the only time I've seen dirty bathrooms and copious litter in the parks.)

 

[gcatt]

As far as distance, it's a draw. The big reasons to stay on site are being surrounded by Disneyana all the time, Magic Morning entry, and the Grand Californian entry to DCA. Preferred monorail admission and being able to send packages to your room are also nice, although not as important. There are also usually extras such as early morning hikes in GCA, story time, etc.

You can see some of the current benefits of staying at a Disney hotel at:
http://disneyland.disney.go.com/hotels/resort-benefits/

If you're a "Disney person" and you won't come back again soon, I'd splurge for on-site if possible. Either way you'll have a great time. Enjoy!

 

[Magalex]

I just posted on another thread that we are debating about a small motel vs. PPH. We are a "Disney Family" we love the Disney magic but we are WDW vets so in our mind it is always on-site. Next July 2012 will be "our first & only trip to DL" I still have time to save. Peanut butter & jelly sandwiches for dinner until next July

 

[ThePrincess&TheJohn]

Thanks everyone! I'm leaning towards a Good Neighbor hotel, I think!

 

[Thundergod]

Having stayed offsite the last two years and never staying onsite I am leaning toward staying onsite from now on.

If I can manage to eat one meal in the room and not the park plus the parking fee for each day at the park I can justify it.

I wanna experience disney all the time and not just from the time I get to the park that way I don't feel rushed to get everything done in a short amount of time.

 

[maryrm]

i was just in your predicament a few weeks ago when planning our first trip to DL. We are from the East Coast too and have visited WDW (and loved it).

We decided to stay on-site at the DLH. While I agree, its not necessary (like WDW), I like the perks of staying on-site. Also, the DLH has this great new pool slide thing that I know my kids will enjoy. I agree with deltablackjack re: 8-10 hrs is a lot of time in a room. Also, for us, staying at a nice place or should I say "the hotel" IS part of the vacation experience.

I think it comes down to personal preference. Whatever you decide, happy trails!

mary

 

[mrswh]

We have stayed offsite at the Hyatt OC in the past. Very nice hotel, easy shuttle service, etc. Last summer we decided to stay at the Grand. I doubt we will ever stay offsite again. We were able to do SO much more staying at the Grand. We were literally 90 seconds from room to DCA. Disney guests get early entry to GCH - saves an untold amount of time that would otherwise be spent in line with the crowds. Early access to WOC passes - huge benefit. We didn't even use MM, but that can also save you a lot of time. It's just so much easier to go early . . . and then zip back to your hotel for an afternoon swim while the parks are hot and crowded. The GCH entrance to DCA is quick and easy, no waiting in long lines out front.

I'm not sure I would spend as much to stay at DLH . . . though I think DLH is usually less expensive than GCH. But . . . while it may be as long a walk as an offsite hotel, it's undoubtedly a much nicer walk through DTD than on Harbor Blvd.

The bottom line is, you're going to have a great time regardless. How could you not?

 

[mousterpiece]

I've stayed offsite with my wife each time we've visited over the last 2+ years (10 times so far), but I definitely want to stay onsite, if only because we've never done so yet. But, as other posters have said, if you're not spending much time in the hotel--and if this is your only trip for a while, why would you want to?--it's best to stay offsite.

 

[Eeee-va]

If you have the money to spare and can only be there a few days, on-site sounds good to me. Though I don't think I'd ever do it at "rack rates."

I personally would rather take a trip that lasted a few days longer, than stay on-site for fewer days. For our upcoming trip, it looks like, we can stay 4 nights at a decent off-site/walking distance hotel, for the price of about 1.3 (!) nights at the Paradise Pier Hotel at rack rates.

Granted, I'm always cheap but at that price, I can't find any way to justify staying on-site, despite the excellent perks. We can eat a couple really nice dinners with a 4-night trip and still spend less than we would have if we'd stayed 2 nights at the Paradise Pier. (IF we get a good discount code, I'll investigate the possibility of a split stay, with 2 nights off-site and 2 at the Paradise Pier.)

It does come down to, you'll have fun either way. Have a great trip!

 

[twelvesixteen]

That is the question.

I have never been to Disneyland (Disneyworld twice - yay!) and am planning a trip for next summer. It may be the only time I ever get there or at least for a very long time. So my issue is, do I spend a lot of money to stay on property or not?

What are the perks to staying on property? Is it worth it?

I've checked out the hotels and think Disneyland Hotel would be the only one I'm interested in. My plan would be to fly into California, tour for a few days, go to Disney, stay about three nights, and then fly home to the East coast. On the trip would be me, my fiancee, and two friends.

Thanks for any opinions/advice!!!!

Personally, I have been to Disneyland 5 times and have always stayed on the park. There's just something about the magic that makes you want to devour it. The cast members are more than helpful and have gone out of their way to make my stay a pleasant one. I've heard about other people having complaints about their rooms, locations, etc and their process in fixing these problems was a nightmare, but for me and my family, one quick phone call and our one problem a few years back was rectified immediately and many apologies (and a super fast pass!) were given to us.

For me, I can't comment on Paradise Pier or the Grand Californian because I've never stayed at either but we're always at DLH. It got a little worn after the many many years and use that it's had to endure, but I've heard wonderful things about the renovations. The showers and linens though were always immaculate, and the TV had many many many channels - which is a luxury because we have good ol' bunny ears at home. A good thing about DLH is that the toilet has its own little room, which serves two purposes for me - one is that someone can use the toilet whilst someone else showers, which is great having four people in the room and saves a lot of time. Also, I'm really skeeved out by hotel toilets... when I get out of the shower I don't have to worry about my clothes wiping the toilet!

All in all, it's really about the magic. It's waking up to Minnie Mouse's voice instead of some hotel recording, it's Mickey's hands holding the lamps, and the light-up headboard that plays the Disney lullaby. It's the smiles and Goofy waiting for you in the lobby when you wake up, and the park music that plays on your walk there. Yes, I'm a huge cheeseball but really there is no substitute for

 

[OrcaPotter]

Like pretty much everyone else has said, if you can afford to stay on-site, go for it.

My group desperately wanted to, but one member of the group could not afford it, so we stayed at the Fairfield Inn instead and used the money saved for nicer meals.

We were in the parks pretty much from open to close, so we were only in our room to shower and sleep. However, we probably would've made time to relax in the hotel if it was owned by Disney and had a nice pool. If you don't do this, then you're overpaying. The Fairfield had Disney touches in a lot of places and we decorated the back of our door with custom magnets commemorating our trip.

When I make it back out there, I'd love to stay at the DLH or GC. Now that we've experienced most of what DLR has to offer, the need to utilize every moment in the parks won't be as great.

Bottom line: Staying offsite is just as comfortable and sometimes more convenient. The money saved can go toward other things. If you're going to be spending most of your time in the parks, save your cash and stay offsite. Otherwise, onsite would make for a nice vacation.

 

[Disneyland1084]

I've been to Disneyland about 15 times, and it wasn't until about 4 years ago that my family started staying onsight. In my opinion, if you can afford it, it's really worth it! I've stayed at all 3 DLR hotels, and Grand Cal is my absolute favorite. For some people, once you stay on sight, there's no staying anywhere else. We stay at Grand Cal for the convienience, and it's absolutely gorgeous. ...The last time I stayed off sight was in 2004 and stayed at Howard Johnson. I really liked it there. The service was great, and they're right next to Mimi's Cafe.