Onsite vs. Offsite

[nickv1025]

So I have been seeing all your long lists of places stayed.

I've been 10 times, and I was wondering your thoughts on some things.

We stay offsite most of the time. One time we stayed at Coronado for the week. Another time, we arrived early so we stayed at Pop one night.

I think staying on site make the vacation so much better because it just feels like you are always in Disney (well, technically you are).

This year, we rented a house off 192. It was four bedroom, three (full) bath that slept up to 10. It was $99 a night.

Is there a way to beat that at a Disney hotel? Because I SO want to stay onsite, but would hate to spend so much more when other options are available.

Appreciate the help!

[alilprincessmom99]

Really the only way to get a deal that good is at one of the Values, but, if you have been accustomed to having so much room while on vacation, that might not be an alternative option for you. I have to honestly say that the only time we ever stayed offsite was back in the eighties, and it wasn't as enjoyable as staying onsite. You are correct in saying that staying onsite is a total immersion in Disney, and you can't beat that. But having a house that large with those ammenities for that price is almost unquestionable!

[SandmanGStefani24]

i've done both, and yes you can save money by staying offsite but as I found out one trip, you get what you pay for.

The trip offside most recently, I booked a room at the Days Inn on Irlo Bronson for $29 a night! Outstanding deal, but the hotel was well past it's prime, dirty, falling apart, and did I mention I was approached the first day by a local, shall we say, "merchant" selling something I wasn't interested in? I wished I had spent just a little more and stayed on property.
Maybe time has made me forget a little about how bad it was, but the long and short of it was, I got a room, a shower, and a place to sleep for $29 a night. That was pretty much all I needed. But, I am spolied by WDW resorts, and nicer hotels at other locations. I always recommed spending a little more on the hotel, as it will be well worth it. Never leaving the World is just icing on the cake! A house is a whole other animal. A value resort is the only type of hotel on WDW that can match that rate, but three full baths is almost reason enough to take the house! LOL...I would still stay on property, but that's just my two cents!

[jcvalenti]

I come at this issue from a different perspective. Our last three Disney trips we have gone down with the same large group, both of my sisters and their families, my dad, and my mother in law. There are 8 adults and 7 kids ranging in age from 10 to 2.

We can rent a very nice 6 bedroom / 4 bath house with private pool and all the amenities 5 minutes from the parks, and it comes out to $85 per night or less with 5 parties "sharing" the costs. Staying at a house allows us to put the little ones down for naps without having to stay in the room with them, and gives the adults some privacy and a chance to have some fun in spite of the kiddies. We have our own kitchen for snacks, a whole garage/game room to dry out ponchos and store strollers and fridge to make sure we have frozen ice waters and juice for the kids every day.

The only way we could do that on property is with a series of Villas, at a price of about 5x more. But there are downsides to that too (noisy neighbors, etc). With the money we save, we buy annual passes, and then we can go two summers in a row for far less money.

If we were just going with my family of four, I'd probably want to stay on property just for the "total experience", but with our situation now, we're able to save a significant amount of money and stay in a situation that just fits us better. And even though staying on property is for a "total experience", I don't think it matters that much for us, since by the time we get back to the house, the kids are just beat and all they want to do is crash and sit in the pool.