Staying on Property vs off Property

[mrzrich]

What do you mean by officially not on property? It is through the gates of WDW. It also sits right next to CBR. I was there last week and it seemed to me that it was on Disney owned land. I googled that and everything I read leads me to believe that it is on property. I have also stayed at DVC villas and yes they are very nice also. For the money and a good location we would stay at WBC again.

It's technically not on property. That piece of land was never owned by disney. Apparently it was a piece of land that the original owner just wouldn't sell to Walt.

 

[joedplumber]

I prefer to say that WBC is within the Main Gates of WDW.

 

[daytondisney]

Officially not on property. I'll take the Disney 100% immersion Magic over cheaper off site hotels. Spacious enough , especially DVC villas . Everybody has to do what they have to do for their family.

Most offsiters in this forum would agree. Not too many arguing that the Motel 6 is better than a Disney Resort because the former is cheaper. Most are comparing, at minimum, a 3BR townhome to a Disney Value.

Everybody has to do what they have to do for their family.

Yup.

 

[Kemorr]

Officially not on property. I'll take the Disney 100% immersion Magic over cheaper off site hotels. Spacious enough , especially DVC villas . Everybody has to do what they have to do for their family.

Unfortunately, I don't think DVC is spacious enough. I intensely dislike cramming all three of my kids into one bedroom (if we get a 2 bedroom villa). Yes, I could get a 3 bed villa but then two of my kids STILL have to share (or the adults have to give up all bedrooms to the kids and sleep on a pull out sofa - no thank you) and I have to pay a ridiculous amount of money per night for that (like $1500 MINIMUM). I've paid that much per night for a hotel before but they were way, way, way, WAY nicer than any Disney 3 bed DVC villa. As my kids age and a good night sleep becomes less important (more able to handle some tiredness) and they have better self control (less shenanigans at bedtime when sharing), a 2 bed villa will become more appealing.

Edited to add that I know WBC isn't "on property" in terms of the land isn't OWNED by Disney. But, it is within those gates, so I think people use that term to describe a location which is just as good, if not better, than several "on property" properties.

 

[shalom]

Frankly every off property lover always says how much cheaper it is so it IS about the money with offsiters.

I go on about how much cheaper it is because it still astonishes me how much I can get offsite for my money -- and how much more we'd have to pay onsite to get something that offers less of what we most want! Orlando is overbuilt, so we can find some real deals there for resorts with some pretty snazzy amenities. Some of my kids were gung ho for staying onsite right up until they saw the model DVC unit (we don't do motels for more than a day or two at a time), at which point their interest cooled. Most DVC units seem really cramped to us, partly because of the square footage, but also because of the lay out.

For instance, OKW has the largest regular units, but you can only seat four people at the dining room table... in a unit that sleeps eight. DVC units tend to spend a lot of space on the master bath and stuff we don't care much about. Plus we have yet to stay in an Orlando resort as small as the OKW 2 BR just in terms of square footage -- Orlando is overbuilt, meaning there's a lot of choice and it's pretty easy to find big units there.

I really want to give onsite a shot, but not at the cost of my family's comfort. But soon enough my older ones will be staying somewhere on their own, I'm thinkin', at which time we'll fit nicely in a DVC 2 BR.

I was thinking more along the lines of purchasing. I figure maybe the cost of ownership over 25 years would be the same as shelling out $1,000 a year for offsite lodging.

Be aware that many timesharers can trade into DVC for less than it costs just in yearly fees to own DVC -- without paying the big upfront cost for DVC points. Last time I crunched the numbers, we could stay in a DVC 2 BR for $200/night offseason, and there are plenty of timesharers who pay less than we would. I'm not recommending that route if you just want to stay DVC, because Disney or RCI or an individual TS could change the rules at any time, plus timeshares have a steep learning curve and aren't for everyone. But I mention it because that's not something you want to find out after you buy DVC points.

Given the high level of activity in this thread, it leads me to think that it didn't originate in the "Orlando Hotels and Attractions" board and was moved here at some point?

It started in "Theme Park Attractions and Strategies", I believe.

 

[cruisinpan567]

My DVC ownership will pay for itself in appx 5 years. That includes maint fees over the remaining years.It can make you money down the road but not what it's designed for. You can buy resale for much less than these ridiculous "examples". I'll be vacationing "free" for an additional 20 some years.
If you were really interested I'd do some research and NOT starting from this thread . 24/7

We bought into Wilderness Lodge when they first offered it for sale. We used it regularly til about 3 hrs ago when we fell on hard times. Unfortunately we had to sell it. We did not lose any $ and it paid for itself within the first 5yrs. We would love to stay there again but cannot afford it to have the accommodations we need. So for the price and needs of our family we stayed at WBC this year. We are big fans of the parks and to us it didn't matter where we laid our heads down at night. We were happy to be back to the happiest place on earth.

 

[WILDERNESS FAN 55]

We bought into Wilderness Lodge when they first offered it for sale. We used it regularly til about 3 hrs ago when we fell on hard times. Unfortunately we had to sell it. We did not lose any $ and it paid for itself within the first 5yrs. We would love to stay there again but cannot afford it to have the accommodations we need. So for the price and needs of our family we stayed at WBC this year. We are big fans of the parks and to us it didn't matter where we laid our heads down at night. We were happy to be back to the happiest place on earth.

Sorry about your hard times ....been there done that for the last time I hope. Also sorry you had to sell .That is a wonderful DVC !

 

[dioxide45]

It started in "Theme Park Attractions and Strategies", I believe.

Thanks. I couldn't find where it was posted originally. I find it rather interesting that every Off site vs. On Site argument gets dumped over her on the Orlando Hotels and Attractions board when it could very well be put on the Disney Resorts board instead.

Though I guess if it were placed there, it would be a mutiny?

 

[HopperFan]

What do you mean by officially not on property? It is through the gates of WDW. It also sits right next to CBR. I was there last week and it seemed to me that it was on Disney owned land. I googled that and everything I read leads me to believe that it is on property. I have also stayed at DVC villas and yes they are very nice also. For the money and a good location we would stay at WBC again.

It is not on property. Disney was unable to purchase the property. It eventually got boxed in. They tried to get an exit ramp on to the highway but transportation standards would not allow for safety reasons as it's close to the intersections of two highways. It ended up in court for access on/off via Disney property which led to the entrance into Disney property. It eventually sold to a "Bonnet Creek Development group" and the construction began. I believe it was built by Fairfield Resorts and now is Wyndham after a merge or something. It built slowly and eventually added the Hilton and Waldorf. The old plans I saw once had several golf courses and more hotels planned for it. Last I heard (2012) a huge chunk was for sale for quite some time but to buy would assume alot of debt due to the structure of the entire property making it a hard sell.

The land is not Disney owned, the resort has no Disney benefits (and doubt it ever will given the history) and the only reason it has road access was a legal order.

But I have stayed there and enjoyed it very much!

 

[ddluvsdisney]

you are not on property - you get none of the on site property incentives just ask the Hilton - which tried for its guests to get EMH.

that say Wyndham is very nice. I did not enjoy it because I expected it to be better than DVC. It is not. the whirlpool tub is not a whirlpool - it is one of those spa type - tiny holes. So the good side massage did not happen.

it was on the miniature golf course - so it was pretty noisy.

it was next to one of the swimming pool that had a bar - so that was nice.

think if my guests had come would probably enjoyed it more - but they cancelled the week before.

When I say "on property" I don't mean perks like EMH. I am we'll aware you don't get that. I mean you are inside the gates. It is just as close as other " on property" resorts ( CBR is right next door.)
I have stayed at a few deluxe resorts and loved them, but to justify the money they are NOT any better than WBC.
Don't get me wrong if you can afford it on property is great! But you'll still have a great vacation even if not at a Disney resort.

Sent from my iPad using DISBoards

 

[cruisinpan567]

It is not on property. Disney was unable to purchase the property. It eventually got boxed in. They tried to get an exit ramp on to the highway but transportation standards would not allow for safety reasons as it's close to the intersections of two highways. It ended up in court for access on/off via Disney property which led to the entrance into Disney property. It eventually sold to a "Bonnet Creek Development group" and the construction began. I believe it was built by Fairfield Resorts and now is Wyndham after a merge or something. It built slowly and eventually added the Hilton and Waldorf. The old plans I saw once had several golf courses and more hotels planned for it. Last I heard (2012) a huge chunk was for sale for quite some time but to buy would assume alot of debt due to the structure of the entire property making it a hard sell.

The land is not Disney owned, the resort has no Disney benefits (and doubt it ever will given the history) and the only reason it has road access was a legal order.

But I have stayed there and enjoyed it very much!

Thx for the info. It really does make you feel like it is on Disney property. I knew the resort was not owned by Disney. I just thought they maybe leased the land. Thanks again.

 

[cruisinpan567]

When I say "on property" I don't mean perks like EMH. I am we'll aware you don't get that. I mean you are inside the gates. It is just as close as other " on property" resorts ( CBR is right next door.)
I have stayed at a few deluxe resorts and loved them, but to justify the money they are NOT any better than WBC.
Don't get me wrong if you can afford it on property is great! But you'll still have a great vacation even if not at a Disney resort.

Sent from my iPad using DISBoards

Well said. I totally agree

 

[ArwenMarie]

I think driving is a big part of it.

If you have a car at WDW, you are more likely to use it around property. My DH loves driving to the parks, he loathes public transportation, other than the monorail from the monorail resorts to MK. Anyway, I think when you are a driving visitor, you start to look at other options because you don't like the bus system anyway.

Now, my friends hate driving in Orlando and at WDW. They are Magical Express/bus service from start to finish. So they will probably always stay on-site, even if they sacrifice the size of the space.

 

[cruisinpan567]

I think driving is a big part of it.

If you have a car at WDW, you are more likely to use it around property. My DH loves driving to the parks, he loathes public transportation, other than the monorail from the monorail resorts to MK. Anyway, I think when you are a driving visitor, you start to look at other options because you don't like the bus system anyway.

Now, my friends hate driving in Orlando and at WDW. They are Magical Express/bus service from start to finish. So they will probably always stay on-site, even if they sacrifice the size of the space.

Last week was the first time we ever drove to and from the parks. I found it to be way easier than taking the buses to and from the resorts. Our furthest drive was 12mins. And leaving the parks after the fireworks was very easy.

 

[daytondisney]

We bought into Wilderness Lodge when they first offered it for sale. We used it regularly til about 3 hrs ago when we fell on hard times. Unfortunately we had to sell it. We did not lose any $ and it paid for itself within the first 5yrs. We would love to stay there again but cannot afford it to have the accommodations we need. So for the price and needs of our family we stayed at WBC this year. We are big fans of the parks and to us it didn't matter where we laid our heads down at night. We were happy to be back to the happiest place on earth.

How do you quantify "it paid for itself within 5 years?"

Do you mean that you bought in at "X" and you sold for "X + interest paid/lost while owning + maintenance fees during ownership?"

Or that by simply paying ownership maintenance fees instead of non-owner rack rate you consider the difference as money in the bank.

 

[shalom]

it could very well be put on the Disney Resorts board instead.

Though I guess if it were placed there, it would be a mutiny?

Probably not -- they have them there pretty regularly. I suspect it's because you get a better variety of responses here. In the Disney Resorts forum, at least when I was first paying attention, the "onsite or off?" threads were usually dominated with "onsite all the way" votes, with very little actual discussion. It seems to me there are more people posting there recognizing that offsite can work fine too than there used to be, but it's still more balanced here, and there's more breakdown of the specific pros and cons here as well.

I think driving is a big part of it.

Agreed. Also the dining plan -- people who really like and use the dining plan are going to miss it staying offsite. Extra magic hours can make a real difference for some people, although I don't think it's as important to most as the transportation and dining plan, and a lot of people who loved EMH are greatly annoyed by the recent cut backs.

There's also the "Disney magic" or "being in the Disney bubble" thing, which I think is a real phenomenon. Numerous companies have done blind taste tests on various products where, for instance, people will not pick their "favorite" drink if said drink doesn't have the label on it. Some people would switch after being told they picked something else as their favorite, but others insisted that their preferred drink still gives them more pleasure than the drink they picked as best tasting.

When scientists measured brain activity while they were drinking, turns out with people who respond this way, the label actually triggers a totally different pleasure center (one associated with social activity, memory serves), so while the taste alone doesn't give them as much pleasure as some competitor, the labeled drink gives them more.

I'm thinking the same phenomenon happens with Disney -- the sheer fact that some people are staying onsite gives them an added boost of pleasure. If that's how someone is wired, then staying onsite really may be worth considerably more... to that person. Or maybe "to that person at that point in time" -- I suspect some people who were once "onsite all the way" but have switched to offsite unless Disney has a real deal did once get a buzz out of the Disney label, but it just doesn't work that way anymore.

People are complicated.

 

[cruisinpan567]

How do you quantify "it paid for itself within 5 years?"

Do you mean that you bought in at "X" and you sold for "X + interest paid/lost while owning + maintenance fees during ownership?"

Or that by simply paying ownership maintenance fees instead of non-owner rack rate you consider the difference as money in the bank.

I guess what I was trying to say that what we would have paid each year for our stay at WLV or and other DVC resort would have cost x amount of $. But in those 5 years we only paid the maintenance fees. To stay at those resorts is very expensive for someone who does not own DVC. I believe it was well worth the initial investment. Would do it all over again in a heartbeat.

 

[ArwenMarie]

Agreed. Also the dining plan -- people who really like and use the dining plan are going to miss it staying offsite. Extra magic hours can make a real difference for some people, although I don't think it's as important to most as the transportation and dining plan, and a lot of people who loved EMH are greatly annoyed by the recent cut backs.

I'm thinking the same phenomenon happens with Disney -- the sheer fact that some people are staying onsite gives them an added boost of pleasure. If that's how someone is wired, then staying onsite really may be worth considerably more... to that person. Or maybe "to that person at that point in time" -- I suspect some people who were once "onsite all the way" but have switched to offsite unless Disney has a real deal did once get a buzz out of the Disney label, but it just doesn't work that way anymore.

People are complicated.

Interesting points!

The dining plan, that is a big one too. My friends I mentioned, who always stay onsite because they don't like to drive...they also LOVE the dining plan, and they never get it for free. They like the idea of having everything paid off before they go. They did a lot of all-inclusives before they had kids, so I think they sort of model their vacations on that.

I totally agree with your point about the label. If it gives you more satisfaction, then it absolutely is worth the premium.

 

[shalom]

How do you quantify "it paid for itself within 5 years?"

If someone is onsite only, goes every year, intends to continue going every year for another decade or so, usually stays deluxe, and pays for the points with cash upfront, DVC can make financial sense. If someone normally goes only at peak times when it's tough to find discounts, even more so. I also know people who've paid off their DVC purchase by renting it out part time; DVC is one of the rare timeshares that rent for more than the yearly fees.

Of course, buying DVC is gambling on the future -- unhappy DVC owners I've seen are people who borrowed to pay but miscalculated on their future finances and are now trapped with a Timeshare that they owe more on than they can sell it for; or people who lost interest in going to the parks sooner than expected; or people with unexpected health issues or some other problem keeping them home; a few rare individuals who have discovered that they like some (much cheaper) offsite resorts just as well; and one person who was outraged to discover they could have traded in cheaper with another Timeshare and now resents their purchase.

DVC keeps its resale value a lot better than most Timeshares, so aside from those in the first category, most unhappy owners have the opportunity to sell and recoup their money. I think I crunched the numbers once and it even made financial sense for people who stay in mods and (maybe) values, if they normally need two rooms for their family as we do, and if they'd end up using the kitchen for some of their meals (which not every one does, of course).

IMHO, doesn't make any financial sense to buy DVC unless you're onsite only. (Or if you already have a TS rental biz and want to rent the points, I suppose, although I don't expect there are many who can pull that off.) But if people are going to be paying deluxe onsite prices anyhow, DVC will likely save them money, and until and unless Disney decides to quit selling DVC (which seems unlikely), Disney's motivated to keep it that way.

 

[daytondisney]

I guess what I was trying to say that what we would have paid each year for our stay at WLV or and other DVC resort would have cost x amount of $. But in those 5 years we only paid the maintenance fees. To stay at those resorts is very expensive for someone who does not own DVC. I believe it was well worth the initial investment. Would do it all over again in a heartbeat.

That's what I thought you meant. It makes total sense if, like shalom says, you are committed to onsite and can go regularly. Disneys ROFR and fee schedule insures that the point rental and resale market have a solid floor for those who want to cash out.