[phayes93]

I will be visiting a friend in So. Calif. - prolly in January - and want to make a side trip to DL. I've been there once a few years ago and stayed at the Disneyland Pacific Hotel (I think it's called something else now). Being a veteran WDW junkie, I of course want to stay on site, but the options at DL are very few (3). I think the Grand Californian looks fantastic and I checked with Mousketrips and Keith told me a two-nite, three-day trip, including park passes would run about $1,000.

Question: Is it worth it?

[The Goof Father]

The Grand Californian is excellent and is often compared to the Wilderness Lodge at WDW. It is the hotel of choice to my family (my wife most of all). The location is nicest, because your walks tend to be the shortest to the parks or the Downtown Disney mall area. The atmosphere is great and the CMs are curteous.

The DLH is our second choice.

Our last trip was to the GC, but we may choose the DLH for our December trip. It will be a budgetary choice, because we prefer the GC.

[Andrea]

If you've got the money, go for it. Why not? But I've never felt the lack by staying off site. Never spend much time in the room anyway!

[geeman]

Last year, I celebrated my birthday weekend with a great stay at the Grand Californian. I was recently daydreaming about that trip just the other day. I have only stayed on site during my visits to Disneyland, and the reasons are plentiful.
a) You don't need a car. You leave your resort and you walk a bit and you are THERE!
b) You can go back and relax whenever you choose, and come back and enjoy more of the park later!
c) You come back from the park at night and look out the windows of your hotel or hotel room, and still see the park there, alive and glimmering.

If you can spring for it, the Grand Californian was worth the extra amount. I think it's my all-time favorite resort (running neck and neck with AKL).

I also stayed at The Disneyland Hotel a few years ago and enjoyed my stay there, too.

While you could save a bundle by staying offsite, some of the offsite hotels are actually just across the road from the park, so you're not technically "off-site".

I look forward to returning to DL someday, and already know that I'll want to stay at GC again.

[CerealBoxQueen]

I've wondered about staying on site, but it's too expensive for my blood and I just don't see many extra's for the money.

[daisyd]

If you will feel like you missed out by not staying at a full service hotel with a great pool that is as close to the parks as you can get, then it's worth it. I think it's the nicest hotel in the area for a trip to DL. If it's in your budget, go for it.

[dznygrl]

I would say absolutely, if you're going for the GC or DLH. I'm not so sure I would consider PP "worth it", just because it's a longer walk and not as nicely-themed. If I had to choose between PP and off-site, I would probably choose off-site to save a little more money. But that's just me!

But if I could afford DLH or the GC, I would definitely go for it!! The location & themes are wonderful.

[phayes93]

Thanks. The reviews of GC are about what I expected. It looks like we'll be giving it a try! We were supposed to be in So. Calif. this summer, but our plans were cancelled, so I'm glad I'll stil be able to get to DL during the 50th celebration (at least I HOPE it will still be going on....) We made it to WDW for about 2 weeks in May, right after all the hoopla started...

[RickL.]

If "off site" is a consideration.......for my money, the "Candy Cane Inn" simply cannot be beat.

[The Goof Father]

I have also heard that the Candy Cane Inn is quite nice for its price... I tried to book a room there two different times in the late '90s but there was no room for me.

[dznygrl]

Originally Posted by RickL.

If "off site" is a consideration.......for my money, the "Candy Cane Inn" simply cannot be beat.

I agree wholeheartedly! The CCI is my second choice after any of the Disney resorts!