Where would you otherwise stay?

[ZerasPride]

We always stayed in a deluxe resort I voted for that option if DVC were not in the picture. I do admit that after staying in DVC accommodations it would be hard to do the one room thing again. Hubby and I took a long weekend for ourselves this past summer and stayed in a nice room at a Ritz Carlton and I could not believe how small just a regular hotel room can seem after staying in a 2 bedroom DVC villa! We are really spoiled.

 

[RoutemanDan]

We would alternate between Deluxe and Moderates and not go nearly as much as we do now.

 

[anniet]

I voted offsite hotel, but I was really split between that and WDW moderate. Since we've spent more time at Tropical Palms, which is right NEXT to Celebration, and probably would have continued to stay there in order to make our yearly trips of two weeks affordable, I had to go with offsite.

 

[SheriB]

Having stayed both off and on-site, I'd rather stay on-site in a moderate than off-site in a deluxe (location, location, location). I know we simply could not afford an on-site deluxe for 7 to 10 days every year (or every other for that matter).

Sheri

 

[Denine]

It is hard to say. I voted off site, becuse that's where we stayed prior to owning DVC in 1995. We got married in 1991 and had been to WDW twice before joining.
I remember looking at the brochures and wanting to stay at Caribbean Beach, but not wanting to spend the money.
We are older now, and would probably like to stay on property, but would most likely stay off site because of cost.

 

[PKS44]

Posting to bump and to reiterate...I am not surprised that DVC allows people to visit more often, but it does seem that it has to be negatively affecting the demand for all those hotel rooms they have built...this coupled with the economy and 9/11 has to be having some negative effect on hotel occupancy...I would envision this holding prices down UNLESS they really do something special to attract more people to WDW or they close down some of the excess hotel capacity (like not re-opening CBR when they say they will)

Paul

 

[AKemel]

I voted Deluxe. In my opinion DVC is much more than new hotel rooms. With DVC we go 3 times a year and spend more money in the parks, while before, we would have gone once a year and spent less money in the parks, so money is still being spent. Also, a big point, when you are in DVC you will be coming back. Without it you may never come back.

 

[DemoBri1]

I would definitely stay on property, and preferably in a Deluxe (since I am now totally spoiled by the Deluxe experience). If the budget wouldn't allow us to do that then it would have to be a Moderate or All-Stars.

The off-site experiences my wife and I and the rest of her family have had from various off-site excursions soured any benefit that you would reap from the cheaper costs.

For instance, on our last stay at WDW, we decided to move to an off-site Embassy Suites because we were going to do Sea World, Universal and Daytona the last four days of our trip. Let me tell you that you should never stay anywhere on International Drive when there is a football game going on at the Citrus Bowl!! I was born and raised in Chicago, and have never seen a bottleneck of traffic that I experienced there.

My in-laws stayed at an off-site timeshare condo complex (the location escapes me at the moment) last March. During the day it was fine, but at night they said they came home to what appeared to be "gang-like" gatherings of youths in the parking lots. They moved over to YC two days later.

 

[DiznEeyore]

We would be staying at the Values, pure and simple. We've stayed at the moderates and most of the deluxes, and unless we were able to get a great rate, they're not worth it to us. If DVC didn't exist, the All Stars would be just fine.

 

[Doctor P]

I tend to be value-oriented and we had a great experience at All Star Movies in 1999, so we would probably opt for value resorts to maximize our ability to go to Disney.

 

[colleen costello]

For our family the moderates are "just right." The values are too small as we drive and have TONS of stuff. If I stay in a room that little I go a bit psycho. The Deluxe resorts are great but I couldn't sleep at night for worrying about the bill! The moderates are, as Mary Poppins says "practically perfect in every way." I love Riverside and recently spent a night at Coronado, which was great. Which moderate we would choose would depend on which one had the best rate at the time.

Incidentally, if I had a camper, it would be Ft. Wilderness. That place is magical, and it's the best bargain going! The cabins are great, too, although no "bargain." Someday when I am retired, I am going to get one of those silvery trailers and spend my winters with Mickey!

 

[skorpie]

If I had to stay somewhere other than a DVC resort, it would probably Shades Of Green. As a matter of fact, we will stay there next July to help save weekend points. My other choice is the Polynesian!

 

[msdis]

Very interesting poll and thread....... You are proving your theory correct. We were moderates before and still would be. In fact we miss it sometimes. We are also in the process of selling some of our DVC because it no longer meets our needs(got a little carried away and bought too much) and after the panic stage passed we agreed that if we have limited ourselves too much with what we have left we will just stay in a moderates just like we always did. DVC is a disease! We never would have gone no wheres near as much as we have in the last 3 years w/o DVC. Nor would we have spent anywheres near as much on vacations as we have.

 

[dmoore22]

I cast my vote for the All-Stars. Value plus the cosmopolitan atmosphere really adds to the experience. Not to forget the efficient transportation to the parks.

 

[BCVOwner2002]

If we did not purchase DVC we would continue to stay at the moderately priced hotels on property. Although we have stayed at BC/YC in the past, we cab stay longer by staying at a moderate. The reasons we prefer to stay on property are:

1. Transportation - we usually don't rent a car;
2. The Disney charm - we have never had a bad experience with a CM but can't say that about the Hilton at DTD staff;
3. Familiarity - after staying at CBR 2 or 3 times, we felt very comfortable letting our DS go to the game room, pool, etc. without us.

Annmarie

 

[slp87]

In '00 we stayed at an off site resort. We had not stayed offsite since '78 & a quick trip in '86. As much as we loved the place we stayed we absolutely hated being off site. We love the quick bus ride to the parks, how easy it is to return in the afternoons. That is the trip that convinced us to join DVC! But DVC or not, we would always stay on site!!!

 

[raidermatt]

Moderates for us.

Proabably another important question to judge the true impact, PKS, is to also ask whether we would visit WDW more, less or the same if we weren't in DVC. In our case, we have spent 23 nights at WDW over the last two years, and tentatively have another 12 planned for next May. However, if we didn't purchase DVC, we would likely be spending some of those nights at other destinations.

In other words, we purchased DVC because we wanted to visit WDW more, and it has helped us acheive that. Without it, we wouldn't be at WDW as much.

 

[vernon]

To a degree I agree with Matt, IMHO people have a finite amount to spend on vacations, if they hadn't bought into DVC they would spend that standard amount ( meaning less days at WDW). With the "upfront cost" of DVC I think a lot of people still spend close to what they would have done without DVC but having the accommodation paid for allows more on food,park tickets and other treats.

While some individual hotels may get slightly fewer visitors IMHO the overall effect of DVC is to bring in more money to WDW as a whole.

 

[PoohBears#1fan]

We'd stay either in Disney budget or off-site.

The price of 2 weeks at the Beach Club (from the UK) is almost as much as purchasing DVC!

 

[dianeschlicht]

And THAT is why DVC ownership makes so much sense!