Overall sentiment in the reviews is strongly mixed but leans positive in many respects: The Princess Martha is repeatedly described as a beautiful, historic, well-restored 1920s hotel converted into an independent living community with striking architecture, a dramatic lobby, and frequent comments about charm and ambiance. Many reviewers emphasize the downtown St. Petersburg location as a major selling point — walkable to museums, theaters, parks, restaurants, concerts and sports venues — and several note spectacular water and city views from higher or corner units. For prospective residents who value cultural access, a social calendar and a hotel-like environment, the community consistently ranks high.
Staff and social life are among the most frequently praised elements. A large number of reviews describe staff as friendly, caring and attentive; specific roles repeatedly called out include the Life Enrichment/Activities director (commonly described as outstanding), kitchen waitstaff, and maintenance or janitorial teams. Reviewers commonly report a warm, family-like atmosphere where staff know residents’ names and preferences. The activities program is extensive and varied — examples across reviews include bingo, bridge, book club, writers’ workshop, tai chi, yoga, water aerobics, movie nights, shopping trips, dolphin cruises, and frequent outings — and many residents say they made friends quickly and appreciate the social life, happy hours and regular entertainers.
Facilities and amenities are strong selling points for many reviewers. The property offers multiple apartment floor plans, a range of on-site amenities (heated pool/rooftop pool, physical therapy room, exercise classes), three meals a day served in an elegant dining room, bi-weekly light housekeeping, and scheduled transportation. Several reviewers noted additional healthcare touchpoints such as weekly doctor visits and on-call nursing resources, though the facility is repeatedly described as an independent living community rather than an assisted living or memory-care licensed site. Maintenance and janitorial teams earn praise in many accounts for responsiveness and building upkeep, and many residents describe the community as clean, well-tended and comfortable.
Dining is a major theme and a clear split among reviewers. Many describe the food as excellent — creative, healthy, locally sourced, inventive menus, chef demos and outstanding dining-room service — and cite attentive servers and gourmet meals as highlights. Conversely, a significant number of reviews raise serious concerns about dining quality and kitchen operations: complaints include cold meals, inconsistent cooking (overcooked or undercooked meat), portion-size and blandness issues, and occasions when meals ran out. More alarmingly, multiple reviews allege pest problems in and around the kitchen (roaches, rats) and claim sanitation deficiencies, plus reports of high kitchen staff turnover and at least one allegation of unprofessional or impaired behavior by a chef. These kitchen and sanitation allegations are among the most consequential negative patterns because they affect safety and trust in the food program.
Management, operations and workplace culture show a wide range of experiences in the reviews. Many accounts praise engaged, hands-on leadership and courteous marketing and administrative staff; some reviewers mention transparent admissions processes and helpful tours. Other reviews paint a very different picture: complaints about poor communication, abrupt or inconsistent discipline, blocked phone numbers, surprise fees, opaque policies (for example, bans from dining for certain medical conditions), claims of nickel-and-diming, and allegations of a toxic workplace that harms staff morale and residents’ experience. A handful of reviews even allege fake reviews and unsafe or code-violating conditions. This divergence suggests uneven management consistency over time or variation between different departments and staff shifts.
Infrastructure and building-condition concerns are noticeable and recurring. While many reviewers praise the restoration and ongoing maintenance, there are repeated reports of water intrusion, leaking walls, plaster damage, termites, aging window sills, removed or malfunctioning air conditioning units in parts of the building, and broken or limited elevators that produce crowding during peak times. Several reviewers also describe narrow, dark corridors and some apartments that are small or lack natural light. These issues suggest that the historic fabric of the building requires ongoing capital maintenance and that some systems may be under stress or undergoing repair at times.
Care limitations and suitability: A critical, consistent theme is that Princess Martha is an independent-living community and not licensed for assisted living; hospice can be arranged but the community does not provide higher levels of care on site. Multiple reviewers warned that worsening health or increased care needs will require finding another community or assisted living, and several families moved loved ones out for that reason. For prospective residents and families, this is central: the property fits active, independent seniors who want cultural access, social life and meals provided, but it is not appropriate for those who expect in-house skilled nursing or assisted living services.
Patterns and red flags: While many glowing reviews describe staff, dining and atmosphere, there is a consistent cluster of serious allegations that should not be ignored: pest infestations tied to the kitchen and basement, sanitation concerns, reports of kitchen staff misconduct or impairment, water damage and infrastructure problems, and accusations of poor management transparency or workplace toxicity. Because these issues appear repeatedly across independent reviews, they represent meaningful risk areas that warrant direct inquiry by prospective residents and families.
Practical recommendations based on the review patterns: Prospective residents should (1) tour multiple times including during mealtime to assess food service and dining-room operations; (2) request recent sanitation inspection records and pest-control logs for the kitchen and building; (3) ask explicitly about elevator reliability, recent water-intrusion repairs, termite treatment and a capital-maintenance plan; (4) verify staffing stability in the dining/kitchen department and policies for staff conduct/drug-testing; (5) confirm the community’s licensure status and limits on in-house care to understand future care pathways; (6) clarify all extra fees and policies (dining restrictions, facility charges, parking) in writing; and (7) talk to current residents in varied parts of the building for a more representative view of day-to-day life.
Bottom line: The Princess Martha presents a compelling option for independent seniors seeking a historic, centrally located, activity-rich community with strong social life, many supporters praise its staff, dining and charm. However, the recurring complaints about kitchen sanitation and pests, occasional infrastructure failures, management inconsistencies, and the clear limitation to independent living mean that prospective residents and family decision-makers should conduct targeted due diligence (especially around kitchen sanitation, maintenance records and licensure) before committing. The experience can be excellent for many residents, but the negative patterns reported by multiple reviewers are significant enough to require verification and follow-up during any tour or decision process.
