Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but strongly polarized: a majority of comments emphasize compassionate, familiar and skilled care—especially in memory care—while a notable minority allege serious lapses in hygiene, responsiveness and professionalism. Many families and residents praise the staff for being attentive, respectful and knowledgeable about residents’ personalities and medical needs. Multiple reviews specifically highlight that staff know residents by name, provide individualized care, and create a family-like atmosphere that improves quality of life and offers peace of mind for guardians.
Care quality and staffing emerge as central themes with contrasting experiences. Positive accounts describe amazing, enthusiastic caregivers, appropriate engagement for dementia needs, and an overall feeling that residents are safe and well looked after. These reviewers cite improvements in mood and behavior, prompt communication from staff and administrators, and helpful hands-on assistance with dressing and locating belongings. Conversely, other reviewers report worrying incidents: alleged neglect, delayed medical responses, staff sleeping or being distracted on phones, and failure to keep clothing and linens clean. These negative reports are serious and recurring enough to be a clear pattern of concern for prospective families.
Facility and cleanliness descriptions are also mixed. Many reviewers call the building beautiful, quiet, welcoming and homey, praising outdoor spaces like a courtyard and grill area used for family gatherings and barbecues. Several describe spacious apartments with private bathrooms and appreciate the smaller community scale. However, there are multiple allegations of urine odor in hallways, feces found on shower seats, unclean carpets, and inconsistent housekeeping. Some reviewers say these cleanliness problems have been addressed or improved over time, but others continue to report ongoing issues—indicating variability in day-to-day standards or improvements implemented unevenly.
Dining and amenities receive both praise and criticism. A number of families report well-prepared meals and an improving mealtime experience with more choices, while others find the food disappointing, limited in options, or not matching the costs charged. The facility’s active calendar, which includes bingo, animal therapy, Scouts visits, and family-friendly events, is widely commended and contributes to the community feel and resident engagement.
Management, transparency and reputation are recurring points of contention. Several reviewers appreciate good communication and prompt updates from administrators. At the same time, there are claims that administrators have posted favorable reviews or coerced testimonials, which raises concerns about reliability of online praise. Cost is another mixed issue: while some feel the price is justified by care and amenities, others consider the monthly fee too high relative to reported lapses in cleanliness or service.
Operational and safety issues are specific and actionable: reports of no power backup to resident rooms during outages (with the generator serving hallways only), room temperature control problems (rooms running hot), and laundry errors (missing or soiled clothing) are recurrent and concrete. These are practical concerns families should verify during a visit—ask about emergency power for resident rooms, thermostat access, laundry procedures, housekeeping schedules, and incident reporting processes.
In sum, The Landing at Saco Bay appears to offer strong memory-care programming, compassionate and invested staff, varied activities, and a pleasant physical setting according to many reviewers. At the same time, there are significant and repeated complaints about cleanliness, laundry handling, staffing behavior, inconsistent medical responsiveness, and transparency of reviews. Prospective residents and families should tour the facility multiple times (including mealtime), speak directly with caregiving staff, review housekeeping and emergency protocols, ask for recent inspection records or references, and verify current corrective actions for the specific issues flagged in negative reviews to determine whether the positive aspects reliably outweigh the reported concerns.
