Overall sentiment is highly mixed and polarized: a sizable portion of reviewers praise the staff, administrator, social environment, and recent improvements, while an equally serious set of reviews describe major safety, hygiene, and management failures. Multiple independent reports converge on two central, conflicting narratives — one of a small, personable facility with caring staff and positive social experiences for some residents, and another of systemic safety and administrative problems that put vulnerable residents at risk.
Care quality and staff: Many reviews highlight caring, attentive caregivers and an engaged director (often named Tresa). Families report that some residents are well cared for, have made friends, enjoy activities, and benefit from good social and medical fit. Several accounts praise specific staff members, note an inviting atmosphere, and describe successful events and celebrations. However, these positive accounts sit alongside serious allegations: other reviewers report staff yelling at residents, ignoring safety concerns (notably bed-bug evidence), and even threatening residents with eviction. There are also multiple allegations of abuse, neglect, guardianship controversy, and predatory behavior related to resident placement or rehoming. That juxtaposition indicates large inconsistency in staff behavior and quality of care across shifts, time periods, or possibly different units within the facility.
Facilities and safety: A recurrent and severe theme is an active bed-bug infestation that reviewers describe as widespread ("entire building infested"), with residents bitten, rooms sprayed but infestation persisting, and staff allegedly denying or minimizing the problem. Several reviews link the infestation to medical consequences — infection, hospitalization, and general deterioration of resident well-being. In addition to pests, reviewers report broken air conditioning lasting a month, malfunctioning washer and dryer machines, blood and unclean conditions left unattended, and a generally old and rundown building with damaged furniture and misleading advertising photos. Some reviews mention that parts of the facility have been upgraded and made cleaner under new management, but the serious safety problems (especially bed bugs and sanitation) are repeatedly emphasized by multiple reviewers.
Dining and resident daily life: Accounts about meals are inconsistent. A number of reviewers describe home-cooked meals, well-portioned food, and enjoyable dining during events, while others report very poor meals, small portions, and malnourishment. This split suggests either variability in meal service over time or differences in expectations and experiences among residents. Activities and social programming are often cited as positive, with residents enjoying events, friendships, and an accessible courtyard.
Management, communication, and administration: Reviews convey a sharp contrast in perception of leadership. Several families praise clear, excellent administrator communication and note improvements after changes in management. Conversely, others allege threats from owners and management — eviction threats, lack of transparency, poor communication, and even deceptive advertising. There are also mentions of potential regulatory attention (rumors of inspectors or shutdown), which contributes to perception of instability. Multiple reviewers advise speaking directly with residents before deciding, reflecting concern and advising due diligence.
Patterns and timeline nuance: The reviews suggest possible variability over time or between different reviewers’ experiences. Several entries report positive changes — "nicer, cleaner, friendlier staff" and happier residents after management changes — while others describe ongoing unresolved crises, particularly the bed-bug problem and sanitation issues. This may indicate that improvements have occurred for some aspects of the facility but that critical health- and safety-related problems either predate those improvements or persist in certain areas.
Bottom line: Midtown Manor elicits strongly conflicting impressions. Strengths include committed individual staff members, an engaged administrator in some reports, a social environment that benefits certain residents, and reports of operational improvements. But multiple, serious red flags recur across many reviews: a pervasive bed-bug infestation with inadequate responses, sanitation lapses (including blood on floors and clothing mix-ups), broken essential infrastructure (A/C, laundry), allegations of abuse and neglect, medication gaps, eviction threats, and deceptive advertising. Given the gravity and frequency of the safety-related complaints, those issues should be treated as central concerns. Prospective residents and families should seek up-to-date, direct verification — visit at different times, speak with current residents and families, ask about pest-control records and inspection reports, request documentation of licensing and incident resolution, and confirm management continuity before making placement decisions.
