Overall sentiment across reviews is mixed but consistent around a few clear themes: the facility offers many desirable independent-living amenities, friendly front-line staff, and an active social program, yet it also struggles with operational inconsistencies—most notably in dining, housekeeping, staffing, and management stability. Many reviewers praise the warm, personable nature of individual employees and highlight a strong sense of community, attractive dining rooms and common spaces, a variety of activities, and convenient on-site services such as salons, small stores, pharmacies, and transportation. Apartments are frequently described as bright and spacious with good natural light, balconies/patios, and useful in-unit or floor laundry options. Multiple reviewers specifically called out excellent tours, smooth move-ins, and individual staff members who went above and beyond, contributing to a family-like environment that many residents and families value.
Care quality and appropriateness: Most positive reviews position the community as a solid independent-living option — supportive for active, healthy seniors who want meals, activities, and social interaction. However, a recurring and important pattern is that the community is not well-suited for residents who require significant medical assistance, toileting help, medication dispensing, or higher-level memory care. Several reviewers explicitly stated that residents who need more assistance had to hire outside home-health agencies or eventually move to a different facility. There are also concerning reports about mixing memory-loss residents into largely independent living areas, leading to safety and supervision worries. In short: strong for independent-living needs, inconsistent and potentially inadequate for assisted-care needs.
Staffing and management: Reviews repeatedly praise the friendliness, compassion, and helpfulness of many staff members — from tour guides and activity directors to kitchen staff and bedside caregivers. At the same time, the community appears to be affected by staffing shortages and high turnover in several departments. These shortages manifest as slow meal service, occasional gaps in front desk coverage, reduced or inconsistent housekeeping, and diminished frequency or quality of some services. Several reviewers reported a period of brief improvement under new management followed by decline, while others pointed to ownership changes (including private-equity involvement) and resulting operational cutbacks such as layoffs of long-time chefs. Management communication and responsiveness are uneven across reviews: some residents and families praise managers who are attentive and helpful; others report being ignored, facing misleading sales practices, or experiencing poor follow-up.
Dining and housekeeping: Dining is one of the most polarizing topics. A significant portion of reviewers describe three appealing meals per day, delicious food, a beautiful dining room, and a cruise-ship-like dining experience with varied menu options. Conversely, numerous other reviews recount cold or low-quality meals, insufficient portions, limited dietary accommodations, questionable menu items, slow service, and in some cases unsanitary dining conditions (dried food or soiled chairs). Similarly, housekeeping is described as weekly and helpful when delivered, but many reviews cite declining or inconsistent cleaning standards—dirty apartments at move-in, soap scum in bathrooms, trash in laundry rooms, and even pest sightings in isolated reports. These inconsistencies suggest variability by building section, time period, or staffing levels rather than uniformly poor or excellent service.
Facilities, amenities, and physical condition: The facility offers a broad set of amenities that many residents appreciate — gym/exercise room, activity rooms, chapel, library, garden areas, fencing and outdoor patios, salons, and an on-site store and pharmacy. Renovations and interior remodeling are ongoing in many areas; reviewers note both attractive updated spaces and dated sections that need attention (showers, some apartment layouts, and wear-and-tear). Some reviewers reported infrastructure problems (water, electrical, alarm issues) and noted a lack of night security in certain reports. Overall, the physical plant is frequently described as clean and well-maintained but not uniformly so — specific problem spots and intermittent maintenance failures were reported by a subset of reviewers.
Safety and security: Several reviews flagged safety concerns that should be considered carefully: break-in attempts or security incidents, wandering by residents with memory loss, absence of night security or live-in manager in some reports, and alarm or wearable device issues. Conversely, other reviewers report good emergency response times, fencing, and an overall safe environment. These mixed reports indicate variability and suggest prospective residents and families should confirm current security arrangements, night coverage, and policies for residents with cognitive impairment.
Cost, contracts, and value: Price and value are recurring concerns. Many reviewers view the community as pricey, and there are multiple comments about rent increases, teaser introductory rates followed by post-intro hikes, and ownership-driven cost changes. Some reviewers found special offers made the community affordable and good value compared with alternatives; others described upfront non-refundable fees (one specific review noted a $3,300 non-refundable fee) and ultimately felt the community provided poor value relative to cost. Prospective residents should review current pricing, fee structures, and escalation policies closely and ask for written clarification of deposits and refundability.
Patterns and recommendations for prospective residents/families: The dominant pattern is a split between excellent experiences (warm staff, robust activities, attractive dining and common spaces) and negative experiences tied largely to operational instability (food quality swings, staffing shortages, cleanliness lapses, and management turnover). Because of this variability, visitors should: (1) prioritize an in-person tour and multiple meals to sample current dining quality and service speed; (2) inspect apartment cleanliness and recent housekeeping records; (3) ask explicitly about night security, staff-to-resident ratios, and protocols for residents with memory loss; (4) request recent staffing and turnover data and clarification of any introductory vs ongoing rates and refundable vs non-refundable fees; and (5) evaluate whether the community’s level of care matches the resident’s foreseeable needs, especially if assistance with meds or toileting may be required in the future.
Bottom line: Solista High Point (as reflected in these reviews) offers many of the hallmarks of a desirable independent-living community — friendly staff, robust activities, good common spaces, and a strong sense of community — but prospective residents must weigh those strengths against clear and recurring concerns about dining consistency, housekeeping reliability, staffing levels, management stability, security, and cost escalation. For independent, active seniors seeking social programming and amenities, it can be an excellent fit when staffing and services are at their best. For seniors with evolving healthcare needs or for families highly sensitive to consistent food service, cleanliness, and security, further due diligence and careful contract review are strongly recommended.
