Overall sentiment in these reviews is mixed and polarized: many reviewers praise Friendship Village Retirement Community for warm, caring staff, active resident life, new and attractive facilities, and good dining, while other reviewers report very serious operational, ethical, and care-related concerns. Positive comments emphasize a welcoming, family-like atmosphere where residents can remain active and independent, with a wide variety of social opportunities and amenities. Negative comments include severe allegations about resident mistreatment, unclear leadership, and significant contract/pricing disputes. The combination suggests the community delivers strong experiential and social benefits for many residents but also has notable, sometimes severe, governance and operational problems reported by others.
Care quality and staff: The most frequent positive theme is that staff are caring, friendly, responsive, and attentive. Multiple reviewers explicitly call staff conscientious, helpful, and welcoming; some say residents are well taken care of and that the place feels like home. These accounts credit staff for maintaining activities, providing good daily care, and creating a family-like atmosphere. However, there are also starkly negative reports from other reviewers alleging neglect, mistreatment, and disrespect of residents; claims of unqualified staff; and statements that management does not hold staff accountable. Short staffing is mentioned repeatedly and appears to be a cross-cutting operational issue: even reviewers who praise the staff sometimes note they are short staffed and doing a “splendid job” under pressure, while others say staffing shortages have led to lapses in care. In summary, staff behavior and care quality appear to vary by unit, shift, or individual—many residents and families are satisfied, but a portion of reviewers express serious concerns.
Facilities, construction and location: Many reviewers praise the physical aspects of the community: new, beautiful buildings; configurable and good-sized rooms; attractive layout; and convenient location near Mercy One Hospital and a medical helicopter pad. Amenities such as an indoor pool, event spaces, movie nights, and transportation outings are repeatedly noted as positives. Conversely, multiple reviewers raise concerns about construction and grounds: a private park and gardens were demolished, and an addition is under construction and not yet completed. These construction-related changes appear to have caused disappointment and disruption for some reviewers. Cleanliness and organization are also noted as inconsistent—some say the campus is clean and cozy, while others point to mess and disorganization.
Activities and dining: The community receives consistently positive feedback for its activity offerings and social programming. Reviewers mention many classes, social clubs (such as a pool league), frequent outings, and events that keep residents engaged. Several comments say the community offers an excellent opportunity to remain active and live independently longer. Dining receives favorable remarks: reviewers specifically praise a new dining room and describe the food as very good. That said, COVID-19’s impact on activities is cited, with a few reviewers noting fewer activities during the pandemic and some confusion over mask guidance.
Management, pricing, and administrative issues: The most serious negative themes relate to management practices and financial transparency. Multiple reviews accuse leadership of unethical behavior, incompetence, and withholding information or inventory. There are specific allegations of bait-and-switch pricing and at least one report of an “extra $50,000 charge,” prompting at least one reviewer to say they were looking elsewhere. Several reviewers describe unclear or conflicting guidance from management (for example around masking policies) and an absence of front desk staff. These administrative concerns contrast with other reviewers’ impressions of a responsive, customer-focused environment, indicating considerable variability in administrative performance or in individual experiences. Prospective residents should view these administrative criticisms as significant and request clear, written explanations of contract terms and any fees.
Patterns, reliability of reports, and recommendations for prospective residents: The reviews form two broad clusters: one cluster of users who are very satisfied—citing caring staff, active programming, nice facilities, and good food—and another cluster who report serious problems with leadership, billing practices, staffing, and in a few cases, alleged resident mistreatment. Short staffing, construction disruption, and some cleanliness/organization issues are recurring middle-ground concerns that appear across both positive and negative reviews. Given the mix of very positive and very negative reports, prospective residents and families should investigate directly: tour the specific living area they would occupy, speak with current residents and staff on different shifts, obtain full written details on pricing and extra fees, ask about staffing ratios and turnover, and request a timeline and impact summary for ongoing construction.
In sum, Friendship Village offers many of the features seniors and families commonly seek—social life, helpful caregivers, modern facilities, and proximity to medical resources—but the community also has reported administrative and operational issues that prospective residents should carefully evaluate. The reviews suggest that experiences can vary widely; thorough, targeted due diligence will help determine whether their particular unit, contract, and expected level of care match a prospective resident’s priorities and expectations.
