As the first signs of Fall begin to creep up on us, staff writer Steve Russo answers some reader mail on the debate of staying on- or off-site at Walt Disney World. (“On or Off Site?” July 17, 2009)
Chris writes:
Right on Steve. I couldn’t imagine staying off property. I firmly believe that Walt’s intentions in buying up all of that land in Florida was to create a total escape for his guests. Once I drive through those gateways into Walt Disney World, I don’t want to see a gas station or a supermarket or a drug store or anything that hasn’t been created or manipulated by Disney. I just don’t. The escape is real if I allow it to be, and I always throw myself completely into it.
Yeah, I’m with you. Once I see the purple road signs I’m “home” – at least for the length of the stay.
Bob B. writes:
Well here are my thoughts; it really depends on who all is going! When my family sent me by myself on a “get dad the heck out of the house trip” I ended up staying off site. By myself I did not use any of the extraneous hotel amenities other then sleeping, showering and breakfast. I spent the whole day in the parks. I also must add I took a shuttle to the hotel from the airport and used the hotels shuttle to the parks. Now when I took the whole family it was just the opposite. We stayed on site and made use of the swimming pools the restaurants and relaxed in the middle of the day, grabbed a transportation bus and went when we felt like it.
Great points but I’m curious… what do I need to do to get my family to send me on a “get dad the heck out of the house trip?” I’d stay in the refrigerator box if I could make that happen.
Seriously, you make an excellent point. In the somewhat rare case that the resort is truly only for sleeping and showering, I wouldn’t require much. Still, I think I’d probably opt for one of the Value resorts – I still need my theming. Thanks for writing.
Dan Y. writes:
An excellent display of the pros and cons of lodging at Walt Disney World. I have only one thing to add – a combination you didn’t include. While you’re staying on-site, you can take advantage of Disney transportation. I still prefer to rent my own car at the Orlando airport, and then avoid all of those pesky buses on property. I don’t like waiting even ten minutes, when I could be in my vehicle and headed for the parks. I don’t mind the parking lot trams at all. And in the case of the Magic Kingdom, parking and then riding either a monorail or a ferry (my choice) is an important part of the theme park experience. Plus, I tend to close out a park and then linger after closing, shopping and people watching. It makes it much easier to find my car in the now mostly empty parking lot!
You’re certainly not alone in your preference for a personal car. Many others share that view.
Frank C. writes:
That was a very enjoyable article. The one thing I would add is that, for me, the Extra Magic Hours benefit is not an advantage of staying on-site, or at least it is an advantage of which I do not take advantage.
The days that a park offers Extra Magic Hours are the most crowded days for that that park throughout that day. For me, the extra hour with somewhat less crowding is not worth the multiple hours of significantly greater crowding. I don’t like to park hop much because it uses too much of my vacation time on buses.
Even with all that, I ALWAYS stay on-site when I visit. The extra immersion means a lot to me and the only place I can get it is on-site. I can stay in nice resort hotels on any vacation; I can only stay at a Disney resort when I am on a Disney vacation.
I’m in agreement with you on Extra Magic Hours… mostly. We rarely take advantage of it for the reasons you state – the Extra Magic Hours park tends to be more crowded. We have made the rare exception though, usually later in our trip. We’re early risers and we may get to a park for Extra Magic Hours to hit the two or three E-ticket attractions before moving on. Other than that, I think you’re right on.
Lisa B. writes:
First Steve, I love to read your articles. Always the devil’s advocate. That line about showing your key from Larry’s Shady motel was hilarious. Anyway, I am big proponent of staying on property. I considerate myself pretty knowledgeable about all things Disney.
At work, I spend lunch hours planning trips for coworkers who are newbies. They usually try to squeeze in Theme Parks, Water Parks and Downtown Disney in four to five days due to economic restraints. I always tell them to stay on property. Let’s face it, Disney is a VERY intimidating vacation for people who have never been there before. It’s extremely overwhelming. With the magical express delivering you right to your hotel door, Walt Disney World bus transportation (probably not a great thing to discuss after the recent two-bus crash), and the wonderful cast members helping you at the hotel, you can’t go wrong. If there is a problem at check in or during your stay, they really work diligently to rectify the problem.
You feel like you’ve had the total Disney experience from the hotel theming and pools when you go back for a swim or your afternoon nap. Nothing like looking out of your hotel door at Woody or Buzz Lightyear to get you in the Disney spirit. Also, the early morning/late evening park hours for resort guests really comes in handy during peak season and holiday visits. You can’t get that from staying at Larry’s.
Thank you for those nice words… and I totally agree with everything you’ve said.
Kelly writes:
My family and I have stayed at both on- and off-site hotels. I will have to say that there is nothing that compares to the on-site Disney Resorts. We have stayed at the Contemporary, Wilderness, Polynesian and the Caribbean Beach. They are all beautifully themed and appointed. I too love the convenience of going to the parks and coming back in the afternoon to hit the pool with my kids. The “feel” and convenience of a Disney resort can not be beat. The cost might be a little extra but with all the added benefits and ease it is truly worth and can make a huge difference in your vacation experience!
Well said… I can’t add a thing. Thanks for writing.
Rich writes:
Interesting and only slightly biased article. I think an important thing missing from the on/off site debate is “when” you visit. I typically go during the off season like the first or second week in December. We used to always stay in the parks but they kept bumping the price up and reducing what you got (early mornings replaced by character caravan was the last straw) so we started staying offsite.
We last went in late April, 2009 and got a three bedroom condo with a full kitchen, hot tub and Jacuzzi for $79 per night. There wasn’t any traffic getting into the park, the rental car was $100 for the week and we didn’t even use a tank of gas. We go often enough for season passes to pay off so there’s no additional money for parking. Judging from what I was shelling out for the Port Orleans, I’m guessing something similar in Disney World would run me at least $350 a night. Other than the Disney Vacation Club I don’t think they even have accommodations like this.
If I was going during the peak season I’d probably stay in a nicely themed Disney refrigerator box for a lot of the reasons you mentioned. I’ve got no intention of going during the peak season.
You and I share a love of the “off season.” Most of my visits have been in December – February, avoiding Christmas week of course. Your points are very valid. As I said, “…off-site hotels typically offer more room for the same money or an equivalent room for less money”. The deal you quoted for $79 is certainly exceptional.
I do have a question; you rented a car for $100 per week. I’ve seen others state equivalent deals but, no matter how many discount codes I try, I can never get a rental vehicle, even a compact, for less than $180-$200 per week after fees and taxes. What am I doing wrong?
Kelly Z. writes:
I think the best one can do is review the pros and cons of staying on and off property versus budget. Budget is the driving force for the majority these days. Case-in-point, my sisters family. She and her husband have four children, and they really wanted to visit Walt Disney World for a family vacation. Their options for a week-long visit on-property (single room for the six of them) ranged from $2000 to over $6000 — not including food or park tickets. They decided to rent transportation and accommodations off-property and stayed in a gorgeous house with their very own hot tub (outside), screened in pool, and in-house washer/dryer for a mere $99 per night. They purchased tickets through my brother-in-law’s employer at a discount, and left dining on the fly (for the most part) because they had a full kitchen at the house.
Personally, I prefer on-property, but we’re only a lot of four so we fit in any room at any price range we set for our vacation. To me, it’s not a vacation if I have to cook, clean and do laundry, although the personal hot tub did catch my interest! I’m definitely with you on the “ON-PROPERTY” option, for a potpourri of reasons.
Yes, there are countless situations where off-property makes the most sense, and it’s hard to argue with the sometimes great deals on vacation properties. Me? I have a distinct preference for on-site and would probably shorten or delay a trip to make the budget fit. But we’re all different and there’s nothing wrong with that.
