Overall sentiment across reviews is mixed but leans toward two dominant narratives: a strong, person-centered caregiving culture and attractive, modern facilities on one hand, and persistent operational issues—especially around staffing, management, and certain levels of care—on the other. Many families praise the warmth and compassion of direct-care staff, the personalized touches (staff knowing residents’ names and preferences), variety of activities and outings, bright/new construction and decor, and convenient 50th & France location. Multiple reviewers reported that residents are comfortable, engaged, and in some cases have improved health and wellbeing after moving in. On the amenities side, reviewers highlighted an on-site restaurant, physical therapy services, heated garage, regular events, and a calendar full of activities that create a lively, social environment.
Staff and direct care: The dominant positive theme is that direct-care staff are frequently described as friendly, caring, and responsive. Many reviews note a person-first approach, individualized care plans, regular care conferences, and staff who form real relationships with residents. These strengths translate into tangible satisfaction for some families — “dad is extremely happy,” “perfect fit for mom,” and reports of staff who call residents by name and remember personal preferences. However, this positive view is tempered by repeated reports of staffing instability: shortages, high turnover, and dependency on agency/temporary caregivers. These staffing issues are reported to affect consistency of care, communication, and confidence among families. Some reviewers explicitly stated that while many individual staff are wonderful, overall staffing ratios are insufficient, and the quality can vary by shift or unit.
Care quality and safety, with emphasis on Specialty/Memory Care: A pronounced and recurring concern involves Specialty Care / Memory Care. Several reviewers said programming is lacking in afternoons and evenings, leaving residents to wander or watch TV for long periods. There are specific reports of safety issues and lower-quality care in these units, with families filing complaints with the Department of Health in some cases. While some families described compassionate memory-care staff and positive experiences, the overall pattern is mixed — good care for residents with mild, passive memory impairment, but problematic for those needing higher supervision and engagement. Multiple reviews urged families to be vigilant, to advocate strongly for loved ones (some using room cameras), and to consider external advocacy (Elder Voice Advocates was explicitly mentioned).
Management, administration and operational concerns: Several reviews criticized the facility’s administration as inexperienced or poorly managed. Complaints include poor communication, desk staff who appear unable to run or train workers, and leadership turnover (mentions of issues involving the executive director and regional director of nursing). These management concerns are frequently tied to the staffing problems and to perceptions that the facility—being for-profit—prioritizes revenue over care. Conversely, other reviewers reported positive changes under current leadership, describing times when the facility was adequately staffed and well-managed; this variability suggests operational inconsistency over time or between shifts/units.
Dining and activities: Reviews paint a mixed picture on dining. Many reviewers praise food as good, home-cooked, plain and simple (some appreciate this), and note an elegant dining area and social dining environment. Others report subpar meals or decline in dining quality. Activities are consistently highlighted as a strength: a full calendar, frequent outings, concerts, plays, and social events that create a lively atmosphere. For families seeking engagement and social opportunities, the community’s programming is frequently singled out as a major positive.
Facilities, cleanliness and value: The property itself receives broad praise for its design, brightness, and decor; reviewers mention natural light, a 5-star hotel feel, and clean common areas. Some reviews note upcoming improvements (flooring installation) and that rooms are new, spacious and well-lit, though a few reviewers found assisted living rooms too small. Cleanliness received generally positive comments but there are isolated reports of cleanliness issues. Cost and value are persistent concerns: multiple reviewers cited the high private-pay price (around $9,000/month) and questioned whether that cost matches the consistency of care, especially given reports of staffing and management problems. For some families the facility is worth the cost because of staff and amenities; for others the expense compounded by care concerns led them to recommend non-profit alternatives.
Patterns, recommendations and final assessment: The reviews suggest that experiences vary considerably depending on unit, shift, and the needs of the resident. Strengths center on direct-care staff who are compassionate and engaged, strong social programming, modern facilities, and convenience of location. The main weaknesses are systemic: ongoing staffing shortages, reliance on agency staff, inconsistent management, and specific safety and programming gaps in Specialty/Memory Care—particularly in afternoons/evenings. Families with loved ones who require high levels of supervision, specialized memory care, or consistent staffing should approach with caution: review staffing patterns, ask about use of agency caregivers, inspect the memory-care schedule for afternoon/evening engagement, and consider bringing an advocate or remote monitoring until confidence is established. Those prioritizing amenities, social life, and a warm direct-care culture may find The Waters on 50th a very good fit, but prospective residents and families should perform detailed due diligence regarding staffing stability, administrative responsiveness, and unit-level safety and quality before committing.
