Overall sentiment from the reviews leans negative, with a mix of a few positive notes about staff effort but multiple significant concerns about care quality, cleanliness, and facility stability. While some reviewers say staff are helpful and that employees attempt to engage residents, a larger set of comments highlights troubling issues that substantially affect the perceived quality of the community.
Care quality and staffing present a mixed but worrisome picture. On the positive side, reviewers specifically mention helpful staff and that employees try to engage residents, indicating there are caregivers who make an effort to connect and provide assistance. However, this is counterbalanced by explicit complaints of rude nurses and statements that overall quality is "very poor." The juxtaposition of helpers and rudeness suggests inconsistency in staff behavior or uneven training/oversight: some staff members may be attentive while others may provide substandard interpersonal care. Several reviews also describe the place as feeling like a nursing home, which can imply a more institutional, clinical approach rather than a homelike assisted living atmosphere.
Facility condition and cleanliness are a clear area of concern. Reviews specifically call out poor cleanliness and hygiene problems. Additionally, there is mention that doors were shuttered last year and that the facility has been closed down, which raises red flags about operational stability, maintenance, and management follow-through. A shuttering or closure — even temporary — can exacerbate cleanliness and upkeep issues and can signal broader problems with ownership, licensing, or finances.
Resident life and activities appear limited. Multiple comments indicate that residents are "not very active," although staff are reported to be attempting to engage them. That combination suggests that programming and social opportunities may exist in intent but are insufficient in frequency, variety, or effectiveness to keep residents consistently engaged. The "nursing home" feel reported by reviewers may also contribute to lower activity levels if the environment is more clinical and less social.
Cost and value are another recurring complaint: reviewers specifically note that the community is more expensive than other options. When higher price is paired with reports of poor cleanliness, mixed staff behavior, limited resident engagement, and possible operational instability, perceived value declines. Prospective residents or families comparing options would likely view the price point as unjustified given the negative issues raised.
Notably absent from the reviews are specific comments about dining, medical outcomes, specialty services, or recreational program details beyond staff engagement attempts. The presence of comments about shuttered doors and closure, however, is a significant operational concern that should be clarified before considering placement. Taken together, the pattern in these summaries points to a facility with some caring individuals on staff but with substantive problems in consistency of care, cleanliness, resident activity, and operational reliability.
Given the mixture of helpful staff and serious negative reports, it would be prudent for anyone considering this community to verify the facility's current operational status, ask for recent inspection or licensing records, tour the premises in person to assess cleanliness and activity levels, and speak directly with multiple staff members and current residents or families to get a fuller, up-to-date picture. The reviews suggest potential, but also significant risks that should be resolved or explained by management before moving forward.
