Overall sentiment from the collected reviews is predominantly negative, with repeated and specific complaints about management, administration, and basic building maintenance contrasted against consistent praise for the building's historic beauty and potentially low rent. The reviews paint a picture of a visually appealing property — an older hotel-style building with striking floors, a grand stairway, and a chandelier — that is undermined by operational failures and poor resident experience.
Management and administration emerge as the primary concerns. Multiple reviews note chronic mismanagement, frequent changes in management staff, and an apparent inability to track and process essential paperwork (recertification forms and rental assistance documentation were reported lost). Tenants describe ignored attempts to rectify errors and poor follow-through from staff. There are also reports of eviction-related problems, which, combined with lost paperwork, suggest administrative instability that can have serious financial and housing consequences for residents.
Communications and customer service problems are a consistent theme. Reviewers describe poor phone etiquette, inadequate information about vacancies, and a need for basic customer service training. The presence of workers who do not speak the same language as residents at building entrances was mentioned as creating communication barriers; whether this refers to maintenance contractors or front-desk staff, it contributes to residents feeling uncomfortable or out of the loop. Several reviewers explicitly call the overall handling unprofessional.
Facilities and maintenance issues are detailed and recurring. While the property’s historic aesthetic is praised, practical upkeep appears lacking: units were reportedly dirty at move-in (filthy carpets and stoves), there are signs of needed pest control or building spraying, and renovation work has produced constant noise. Only one elevator being in service was noted, which is a significant accessibility and convenience concern in a multi-story building. Temperature control problems — units being too hot or too cold — further indicate that mechanical systems and routine maintenance may be inadequate.
Safety, privacy, and move-in experience concerns are also present. Reports of no-notice entries into units raise privacy and safety worries for residents. Several reviewers stated they discovered problems only after moving in, indicating that unit condition reporting and turnover procedures may be insufficient. The move-in experience is frequently described as negative due to unclean units and poor communication about what to expect.
There is little or no information in the reviews about care quality (health or personal care services), dining, or activities, which suggests either those services are not a focus at this property (it may be primarily apartments rather than full-service senior care) or reviewers did not evaluate them. The strong emphasis in reviews is on housing management, building condition, and administrative reliability rather than on programming or resident services.
In summary, the property receives strong marks for historic character and aesthetics but shows systemic operational problems that materially affect resident experience: unreliable management, lost paperwork with potentially serious consequences, poor customer service, cleanliness and maintenance deficits, accessibility problems (limited elevator service), and privacy/safety concerns from no-notice entries. Prospective residents should weigh the building’s architectural appeal and reported affordability against repeated complaints about administration, cleanliness, maintenance, and communication. If considering this property, ask for written documentation about move-in cleaning and inspection procedures, management turnover and escalation contacts, elevator and HVAC maintenance schedules, and guarantees about how paperwork for subsidies or recertification is handled and tracked.
