To stay on-site or not to stay on-site...

[MarcyPoo]

Hello all!

I'm a WDW vet (been going since I was out of the womb), however I have never been to Disneyland! My boyfriend and I are planning a CA trip in April, and between LA and SF we're going to spend 2 nights at DL!

Now, I am of the strong opinion that when you are going to WDW, staying on-site is a must! Is this the same for DL? Honestly, the prices of the three hotel options seem SO ridiculously high, that it makes me wonder is it worth it? Does anyone have any positive experiences staying off-site they'd like to share?

Thanks!

 

[Lilly Belle 84]

The prices are so crazy high! I'm a former DLR local coming for a visit this summer & after much back and forth I ended up getting 5 day tix and booking a room onsite for only one night to experience the amenities & take advantage of EMH for DCA and take a break during our early morning on the 60th in July. We have a budget and would have loved to make a week out of it but since I split it I was able to book a quick trip to WDW for my son & I

 

[figment_jii]

Now, I am of the strong opinion that when you are going to WDW, staying on-site is a must! Is this the same for DL? Honestly, the prices of the three hotel options seem SO ridiculously high, that it makes me wonder is it worth it? Does anyone have any positive experiences staying off-site they'd like to share?

I agree that when going to WDW, staying on-site makes a huge difference. The advantages of transportation, travel time, EMH, MDE, etc. are significant at WDW. At DLR, I don't think this is as much of the case. The three on-site hotels are very nice and it would be amazing to stay there on a regular basis, but they are somewhat price prohibitive. However, much of that is mind-set. For me, WDW is a "big" vacation, whereas DLR is more of a "long-weekend" type trip (probably the difference between driving and flying).

The two biggest reasons for staying on-site are access to EMH and staying within the "Disney Bubble". DLR's version of EMH is different from WDW. It only happens in the morning for one hour (so no evening EMHs). It's in either DL or DCA on alternating mornings (usually). EMH in DCA is only for on-site guests, but DL has both EMH and MM, so it tends to be busier.

In terms of the "Disney Bubble", it is much smaller at DLR and much easier to get outside of it (frankly, you see the "real world" from the monorail). For some people, this is a huge issue, for others it's not as much of a concern.

When at WDW, I usually stay at the Boardwalk Inn, but at DLR, I tend to stay at the Best Western Park Place Inn. I like the BWPPI because it's so close to the main entrance of the parks (closer actually than PPH or DLH). There is nothing special about the BWPPI (it's a motel), but it's been serviceable. I've always stayed at the Fairfield Inn (nicer rooms, slightly further away) and the Ramada (oldish, but they've recently re-modeled, further away). In terms of hotels, I liked the Hilton by the Convention Center, but it's a good length walk to the parks.

 

[cmrdgrs]

Hello all!

I'm a WDW vet (been going since I was out of the womb), however I have never been to Disneyland! My boyfriend and I are planning a CA trip in April, and between LA and SF we're going to spend 2 nights at DL!

Now, I am of the strong opinion that when you are going to WDW, staying on-site is a must! Is this the same for DL? Honestly, the prices of the three hotel options seem SO ridiculously high, that it makes me wonder is it worth it? Does anyone have any positive experiences staying off-site they'd like to share?

Thanks!

This is a tough call, and really only one that you can answer for yourself in regards to the money.

I have never stayed offsite, however, I have had many friends stay offsite and read many posts about hotels offsite that are less expensive than options onsite and in some cases are no further by foot (or even closer) than some of the options onsite. The reviews are that the offsite Good Neighbor hotels are acceptable. But, they also said that the only reason they stayed offsite was due to money. If the cost were the same they would not choose that option again.

I think the biggest "benefit" you get by staying onsite is that you will have access to early morning magic hours everyday, because you are a DLR guest. If you are early risers and feel that you would take advantage of this benefit, I think staying onsite is the way to go, even though it will cost you more than an offsite hotel. If the EMH has you saying *meh* I agree with you, I would not bother staying onsite.

For me personally, staying onsite is part of the feel and the magic of being at Disneyland. Staying at the DL hotels is part of the joy of the vacation for me. I see intrinsic value to being onsite beyond the money. If this just came down to dollars and cents, and it was just a hotel room, I wouldn't stay onsite.

Good luck with your decision, and have an awesome trip to DL.

 

[Nevada Jen]

I have done both. For 2 adults with no kids for 2 days I think I would lean towards staying off sight. There is a bit more of the Disney bubble at the dlh but really nothing like WDW. The off site hotels close to the gate are pretty disneyfied also. If you will use the emh both days it might be worth it. Otherwise, probably not. The money you save could easily choice the bb fantastic dinner package. With only 2 days I think that might be more important than having a Mickey lamp in your room.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

I love staying onsite and with kids we try to as much as we can. However, prior to having kids, DH & I stayed offsite and were fine. So my vote would be offsite (only because of the cost difference).

 

[Nonsuch]

...I have never been to Disneyland! My boyfriend and I are planning a CA trip in April...

Are your dates flexible?
The 60th Anniversary promotions start sometime in May (or June) which should have the least number of ride closures (renovations), providing the best possible First Visit

On the other hand, April is much better than January. January always has many closures, but the preparations for the 60th have made this year extra bad

I'm a fan of GCH, stay there if your budget allows

 

[GoBears 1980]

I am a huge advocate of staying onsite at WDW. It is unnecessary at the DLR. That isn't to say I don't like the Disney hotels, I do, but I only stay there when getting hefty discounts. Other than that we like the Marriott Residence Inn, Hotel Menage and I think we'll like the new SpringHill Suites at Anaheim Resort/Convention Center.

 

[GatorChris]

7 trips to WDW, and 2 recent trips to DL. You're right - I'd never even consider staying anywhere but a Disney resort at WDW. But for DL, I've had experiences that I'll share. The first trip, we stayed at Paradise Pier in a room overlooking the city. The second trip, we stayed at the HoJo in a Premium park-overlook room. We enjoyed our second trip as much as, and maybe even more than the first. PP is so much more expensive than a top room from Harbor Blvd, and that's the cheapest Disney has to offer.

To be honest, I never really felt the Disney bubble at PP. We had to cross a public street just to get onto Disney property, wait constantly for slow elevators, and never got that Disney feel you get at the spacious and spread out WDW resorts. It was nice, of course, to have Disney wake up calls for the kids and have a character breakfast on-site. But the price paid was just too much for what we got in my opinion. While the rooms at HoJo aren't up to Disney standards, they were still nice, the water park was great for the kids, and the walk is about the same as the distance from PP.

We'll be staying at DLH next month and maybe that will change the way I look at DLR hotels. But I'm only staying in it because we're getting a rate that's over 40% off of normal - and that's still pretty steep for me. Chances are we won't be doing this again unless I find a way to double my income.

 

[GoBears 1980]

To be honest, I never really felt the Disney bubble at PP. We had to cross a public street just to get onto Disney property, wait constantly for slow elevators, and never got that Disney feel you get at the spacious and spread out WDW resorts. It was nice, of course, to have Disney wake up calls for the kids and have a character breakfast on-site. But the price paid was just too much for what we got in my opinion. While the rooms at HoJo aren't up to Disney standards, they were still nice, the water park was great for the kids, and the walk is about the same as the distance from PP.

We'll be staying at DLH next month and maybe that will change the way I look at DLR hotels. But I'm only staying in it because we're getting a rate that's over 40% off of normal - and that's still pretty steep for me. Chances are we won't be doing this again unless I find a way to double my income.

Neither the PPH or DLH were designed or built by Disney so they feel very different from Disney hotels in WDW. The PPH especially is more like the Swan or Dolphin than a Disney hotel.

The DLH has done a nice job Disneyfying the hotel, but it still isn't like WDW.

The WDW complex was a direct reaction to Walt's revulsion at being unable to control the environment around Disneyland.

Here is Harbor Blvd in the early 60's that drove Walt to want to build WDW.

 

[GeminiAngel]

Hi! I hope you fall in love with the charm of DLR! I have stayed off and on property. I actually prefer off. Its closer to the gates if you stay across the street on Harbor Blvd. For 2 nights the resort won't have much of an impact on your trip, at least I don't think it would. My go to is Anaheim Desert Inn & Suites. Also like the Tropicana Inn. Short walk and Denny's and IHop are right there for breakfast.

I've always considered DL as a weekend get away where WDW is a vacation.

 

[Chiomaca]

I love staying onsite and with kids we try to as much as we can. However, prior to having kids, DH & I stayed offsite and were fine. So my vote would be offsite (only because of the cost difference).

This. I didn't stay onsite at DLR until I'd been visiting for decades.

When it was my brother, me, and whatever adult friends and girl/boyfriends or family going, we always stayed off site. The cost of a two floor condo at the Residence Inn let us all stay in one place with a full kitchen and the transportation to the parks was easy and inexpensive. The last time we did that, my nephews were 3 years old and 4 months old. After that we started staying onsite so that it was easier to go back to the hotel for naps or in the event of meltdowns.

At WDW, I feel like you HAVE to stay onsite to get the full benefit of the parks, I don't think that's the case at DLR.

For two adults, I'd say stay offsite and save the money for a dinner at Napa Rose or Carthay Circle. But both Grand Californian and Disneyland Hotel are nice, so if you want the Disney bubble, go for it.

 

[ValpoCory]

The cheapest way to stay onsite is the rent DVC points for a stay at the Villas at the Grand Californian (VGC). We did that in 2013, and stayed 6 nights for $178.33 per night, final cost (107 points @ $10/point) The going rental rate for private DVC points has gone up since then ($12-$14 per point), due to rising dues and increased demand, but you still should be able to get in for under $250 per night.

Once you get down to that price point, it becomes reasonable to spend a bit more for the magic of the Grand Californian. I will always rent DVC points for a stay at the VGC for future trips. It's just an amazing hotel. The park view rooms are arguably the best park views of any Disney hotel room in the world (right up there with the Bay Lake Tower Magic Kingdom view rooms). You definitely get that Disney Bubble feeling. Read my Trip Report below if you want more details.

 

[helenb]

We always stay onsite at WDW, and we always stay onsite at DLR. Both of these choices are for different reasons. At WDW, it is for location (we like the Epcot resorts) and ease of getting around. At DLR, all of the hotels are in a good location, so that is irrelevant. We stay onsite at DLR for the EMH.

At WDW, EMH is something to avoid. The EMH park is always super busy for the remainder of the day, and since it takes so long to park-hop, the one hour of EMH generally isn't worth it. While we will occasionally do evening EMH at WDW, we *never* do morning EMH, because those parks are simply more crowded. At DLR, EMH is a fantastic gift. We use it every single day. That precious hour that you get before everyone else has entered the park is golden. For us, this is worth the price of staying onsite.

Now keep in mind that we are 'early touring devotees'. We arrive at the security check well before opening and are some of the first people through the gates once the park opens. We open the EMH park *every* day. We use that magic hour to ride attractions with minimal (or no) lines and then (at DL) rope drop the rest of the park when it officially opens. This allows us so many rides during the morning hours, such that we have had a 'full day' by lunchtime. Then we retreat back to our hotel for pool time in the afternoon, before going back to the parks in the late afternoon/early evening. It's the perfect way to 'do Disney'.

If you are also early morning people, if you also highly value crowd-free touring, if you love the afternoon pool breaks, then staying onsite at DLR is of huge benefit. If you are a late sleeper, if you prefer late nights to early mornings, then the EMH benefit is useless to you and you might as well stay off site.

 

[cmrdgrs]

ValpoCory - mentioned renting at the VGC. I just wanted to say that rentals are a good option and with some work you might be able to rent for around $12 - $14pp. However, I also want to point out that point brokers (like the board sponsor David's) now pays owners $13pp for their VGC points and other point brokers pay slightly more. I believe $13.25 is the best price a broker pays currently. In the 11 month window brokers are now renting VGC for $16pp.

The prices for rentals at the VGC have been moving up and the VGC resort is the smallest in the DVC network, so it does sell out regularly within hours or days of the 7 month window opening. The VGC only has a maximum of 23 studios.

You will still pay quite a bit less by staying offsite, but I agree with ValpoCory that a rental for the VGC is the least expensive way to stay at the GCH, even at $16 or $17pp.

 

[jdb in AZ]

When we did the EMH I was surprised and disappointed at the number of rides that weren't open til regular hours. Since we've been to DLR many many times and don't go commando any more, we just sleep late. It also helps to go off-season.

We've also found that DLR hotels tend to be cheaper than WDW hotels. Maybe it was the time of year (January) and WDW hadn't lowered their holiday rates yet, but we stayed at the Grand Floridian then the Grand Californian (with a DCL Panama Canal cruise in between) and were surprised how much cheaper the Grand Californian was.

 

[MarcyPoo]

Thank you all so much! You've definitely made me feel better about the possibility of staying off-site. My BF has Marriott rewards, and it seems that there are plenty in the area! Any recommendations for Marriotts preferably within walking distance?

I also am going to look into renting DVC points. It seems like its a long shot, but might as well give it a try!

 

[Nonsuch]

...I will always rent DVC points for a stay at the VGC for future trips. It's just an amazing hotel. The park view rooms are arguably the best park views of any Disney hotel room in the world...

No argument from me

 

[Astylla]

Thank you all so much! You've definitely made me feel better about the possibility of staying off-site. My BF has Marriott rewards, and it seems that there are plenty in the area! Any recommendations for Marriotts preferably within walking distance?

I also am going to look into renting DVC points. It seems like its a long shot, but might as well give it a try!

Anaheim Marriott IS walkable ( 15-20 minutes) but I would recommend the Fairfield Marriott as it is across the street basically.

Residence Inn Maingate or Residence Inn Garden Grove are other options but I wouldn't advise walking from either.

 

[TheDoleWhipper]

If you are going to take breaks mid-day, or have time (say, on the day you arrive) where you just relax and swim planned out, stay onsite if you can afford it, there is no other decently close offsite hotel that can give you the "resort experience". And if you are used to fancy hotels, but still want one within walking distance, also stay onsite (PPH is less fancy than the other two, but cheaper).

On the other hand, if you go are going solely for the parks, no hotel breaks or anything, then you won't lose much with an offsite stay. You will save lots of money and can still stay close.

As for me, I am a big onsite advocate, but since the duration of your trip is so short, I am thinking you might not have enough time to swim and enjoy your hotel amenities. The onsite hotels are only worth it if you are going to actually use the amenities. People don't stay onsite for the room, they do for the atmosphere.

So think of what is important to you, and choose accordingly. You will have a great time wherever you choose to stay!