Overall sentiment across reviews for The Landmark of Fridley is mixed to negative, with a clear split between the physical facility and the operational/care realities. Most reviewers agree the building itself is new, bright, and attractive: reviewers repeatedly mention a beautiful entryway, clean common areas, nicely sized private apartments (including some with full kitchens and in-unit washer/dryer), and a cozy, home-like feel for many residents. Some families explicitly state they are very happy with the placement and praised particular staff members and meal experiences.
However, those positives are frequently undermined by recurrent operational problems. A dominant theme is understaffing and very high staff turnover. Multiple reviews describe inexperienced or untrained aides (with night staff called out specifically), slow or limited responses to call-buttons, aides who are inattentive or on their phones, and variability in care quality across shifts. Several reviewers reported medication errors or misleading statements about medication administration, and a number reported that nursing support is insufficient — that the community is not set up to manage residents with increasing nursing needs. These issues combine to create real safety and quality-of-care concerns for a subset of residents.
Management, communication, and accountability are another strong negative theme. Numerous reviewers describe poor outreach and communication from leadership, an unempathetic or unavailable executive director, refusal to speak with families, and administrative turnover that leaves policies inconsistent. There are multiple complaints that promises made during touring or move-in were not honored — ranging from program and activity commitments to rent-credit denials and being misled about services. Some families report that internal investigations were opaque or handled defensively, with no apology when errors occurred. These reports suggest a pattern of poor transparency and inconsistent follow-through from the administrative team.
Dining and activities generate polarized feedback. A few reviewers praise the meals as delicious, but more commonly meals are described as cafeteria-style, underwhelming, cold or overcooked, and below average. Activities are frequently criticized as limited, repetitive, or infantilizing — particularly in Memory Care where reviewers describe programming that felt demeaning (examples such as residents watching very juvenile programming were cited). Several families felt the community lacked engaging, appropriate memory-care activities and that outdoor/secure patio access was restricted or limited.
Cleanliness and housekeeping also show mixed reports. Many reviewers say the community is generally clean and well-maintained, yet others report that weekly cleaning is neglected, bedding is not changed reliably, and family members had to perform cleaning tasks themselves. Facility oversight is described as inconsistent — with no clear staff member accountable for facilities/cleanliness in some accounts.
Financial and administrative cautions appear repeatedly. Reviewers warn prospective residents to be careful with money: there are comments about misleading financial statements, denied credits, unexpected fees (including a cited one-time $500 pet fee), and perceived inflexibility from management when problems arise. One reviewer noted a visitor ban and service denial tied to a credit dispute, illustrating how administrative conflicts can directly affect resident experience.
Notable patterns: many reviews describe an initially promising tour and first impressions that later deteriorated as daily operations failed to match marketing promises. There is a broad variability of experience — while some families are very satisfied, many others report serious lapses in care, medication handling, and leadership responsiveness. Memory Care is a particular area of concern: reviewers explicitly warned that the community may not be suitable for people with early dementia due to limited, unstimulating, or infantilizing programming and insufficient specialized staff.
Recommendations for prospective residents/families: verify staffing levels and turnover, ask specifically about nurse coverage and medication protocols, request documented examples of recent incidents and corrective actions, observe mealtimes and an activity session, confirm housekeeping schedules and written guarantees, and get any promises from sales staff written into the contract. Ask for references from current families, and check how management responds to complaints — small differences in leadership responsiveness were a major determinant of reviewer satisfaction. In summary, The Landmark of Fridley offers an appealing physical environment and some caring frontline staff, but consistent concerns about staffing, clinical oversight, management transparency, dining, and engagement programming warrant careful due diligence before moving a loved one in, especially anyone with memory-care needs.
