Overall sentiment among the reviews is predominantly negative, driven largely by repeated complaints about on‑site management and office staff behavior. While several reviewers praise the maintenance staff and note that the building can look impressive, a majority of summaries focus on poor interactions with the office, limited accessibility, and a management style that many tenants find intimidating or discriminatory. These management and communication issues appear to be the primary drivers of dissatisfaction and of some residents choosing to move out.
Staff and management: Multiple reviewers describe the office staff as "power‑tripping," unapproachable, and rude. Specific employees are named in complaints, indicating strong personal negative impressions of certain staff members. Reports include an "angry office manager," locked offices, limited office hours (3–4 days per week), and phones that go unanswered. Tenants consistently report a lack of clear communication from the main office and describe the management approach as iron‑fisted or heavy‑handed — including a strict eviction/notice policy for late rent that some view as unfair. Several reviewers use terms like intimidating, discriminatory, racist, and gossiping to describe staff culture, suggesting systemic personnel problems rather than isolated incidents. A few comments suggest tenants believe corporate priorities or higher management contribute to the issue (e.g., "owner would be appalled," "concern about corporate interests").
Facilities and maintenance: The building itself draws mixed feedback. Some reviewers call it impressive, and the maintenance crew receives frequent praise ("fantastic," "maintenance man nice"). However, unit interiors are described as outdated, and building cleanliness/odors are reported as problems — multiple reviews note hallways smelling of marijuana or urine. This contrast suggests that while structural or exterior aspects may be acceptable, upkeep of common areas and interior apartment updates are uneven.
Resident experience and safety: Several reviewers express discomfort with other residents or the resident mix, describing "problematic" or "uncomfortable" neighbors. These concerns, combined with reports of strong‑arm management and a perceived culture of gossip and discrimination, have led some long‑term residents to feel mistreated or to relocate. The presence of unpleasant odors in hallways and limited oversight by office staff may contribute to perceptions of a less safe or less well‑managed living environment.
Operations and accessibility: Operational complaints are a recurring theme: locked offices, limited office hours, ignored phone calls, and poor responsiveness when issues arise. These problems exacerbate frustrations with staff behavior and make it harder for residents to resolve maintenance problems or get clear answers about policies. The eviction/late‑rent policy is cited specifically as a source of stress, suggesting that administrative processes may be inflexible or poorly communicated.
Affordability and overall value: Reviews are split regarding affordability. Some tenants praise the rent and utilities as affordable, while others state it is not an appropriate option for affordable housing, indicating varying expectations or experiences across units or tenant circumstances. Combined with the operational and staff issues, even those who find the cost reasonable may be put off by the management and building condition concerns.
Patterns and takeaways: The most consistent positive in these summaries is the maintenance staff and, for some, the basic affordability and physical appearance of the building. The most consistent negatives are related to management behavior, communication failures, limited office access, unpleasant odors in common areas, and reports of discriminatory or gossiping staff culture. These issues have tangible consequences: tenants report moving out, advising others not to rent there, and expressing broad dissatisfaction. If accurate, the reviews suggest the building would benefit most from improved office accessibility and responsiveness, staff training or personnel changes to address reported rudeness and discrimination, clearer and more compassionate enforcement of rent policies, and better upkeep of common areas to address odor and cleanliness complaints.
