Overall sentiment is mixed but leans positive in terms of the physical apartment units, building cleanliness, communal amenities, and certain staff members — especially maintenance. Multiple reviewers describe the apartments and building as "nice," "very nice," or "well maintained," and highlight conveniences such as on-site laundry and a recreational room. The property is characterized as a small, secured highrise that is retirement-friendly and "not bad for elderly people," suggesting it meets basic needs and comforts for many residents.
Staff and care quality show a split in perception. Several comments praise staff as "nice" and "hospitable," and maintenance personnel are singled out for positive performance. That said, there are notable complaints that contradict the otherwise positive view of upkeep: some reviewers say maintenance requests were left unresolved and cite ongoing maintenance problems. This mixed feedback points to variability in responsiveness — while some maintenance staff are praised, other issues appear to persist or are not consistently addressed.
Facilities and amenities are viewed favorably. Residents appreciate on-site laundry and a recreational room, which supports social activity and convenience. The building’s small, secured highrise format is seen as a positive for seniors who want a controlled, manageable environment. Cleanliness and routine maintenance are mentioned positively by multiple reviewers, reinforcing that the property can be well kept overall.
Management and pest/maintenance concerns are the most serious negative themes. Several reviewers report bedbugs and a pest infestation, and they describe these problems as unresolved. These accounts represent a major red flag: pest issues combined with comments about unaddressed maintenance indicate potential health and habitability concerns if accurate. Management itself is criticized sharply by multiple reviewers — described as "mean" and "unresponsive," with claims that the manager "won't listen to residents' problems." This repeated characterization suggests systemic issues with leadership, tenant relations, and follow-through on problems when they arise.
Social environment and location also deserve attention. Some reviewers mention "drama among tenants," indicating interpersonal conflict or a tense community atmosphere for some residents. The location provides views of Route 65, railroad tracks, and the river; while a river view can be appealing, reviewers explicitly note the view is "not spectacular" and the proximity to a highway and railroad could imply noise or less-desirable sightlines for others.
In summary, Conway Towers appears to offer comfortable, clean apartments with useful amenities and a generally retirement-friendly, secure building format. Many residents have positive interactions with staff and are satisfied with the physical environment. However, serious concerns about pest infestations, inconsistent or unresolved maintenance, and an allegedly unresponsive manager are recurring and significant themes that temper the positive impressions. Prospective residents should weigh the favorable aspects (unit quality, on-site laundry, recreational spaces, secure small building, and some praised staff) against the documented negatives — especially the reports of bedbugs and management responsiveness — and seek up-to-date confirmation from current residents or management about pest control and maintenance policies before deciding.
