Overall sentiment from the review summaries is mixed but leans strongly negative, dominated by repeated and serious safety, management, and staffing concerns. Multiple reviewers report criminal activity within the building, presence of homeless or drug-affected individuals, and drunk people sleeping in shared spaces such as trash rooms and laundry rooms. These reports are paired with claims that staff and management frequently fail to act on safety issues — including a lack of nighttime checks and periods described as 12-hour gaps in monitoring — leaving residents feeling unsafe and emotionally distressed. Several reviewers explicitly say residents are scared to remain in their apartments, and there are mentions of eviction threats and housing instability, which compound the sense of precarity for tenants.
Staffing and management behavior emerge as a consistent theme. Specific employees are named (a staff member identified as 'Sherri') and described as rude, two-faced, messy, and prone to gossip and negative commentary about residents and colleagues. Reviewers assert that office staff do not respond adequately to incidents or requests, and that notifications for appointments are mishandled. There are also broader complaints about a for-profit mindset leading to poor care, inconsistent assistance, and confusion over leases and eligibility. Taken together, these management/staff issues are cited as central contributors to residents’ distrust and dissatisfaction.
Facility-related feedback is mixed. On the positive side, several reviewers call the facility beautiful and note it as clean, with a helpful maintenance person and convenient bus access. A small community room and generally adequate appearance were also mentioned. However, other reviewers contradict this with reports of a dirty building and slow or inadequate maintenance and service in some cases. This split suggests inconsistency in upkeep and day-to-day operations — some areas or times may be well-maintained while others suffer neglect.
Service and amenity issues are less prominent but still notable. Dining is described as "food OK," but there are complaints about long store-order wait times and slow service. Activities and care quality receive little specific positive mention; instead the recurring concern is that monitoring and resident assistance are insufficient. The combination of slow service, operational confusion, and poor responsiveness contributes to an overall impression of unreliable resident support.
Administrative and logistical problems appear repeatedly: appointment notification issues, lease/eligibility confusion, and even incorrect address/listing information were mentioned. These errors increase stress for residents, particularly those with health conditions or fragile housing situations. There are also mentions of a death and serious life/safety concerns that suggest lapses in emergency response or ongoing care for vulnerable tenants.
In summary, reviewers present a facility with some redeeming physical attributes (appearance, moments of cleanliness, a responsive maintenance person, and good transit access) but overshadowed by persistent and significant problems: safety and security failures, staff unprofessionalism, managerial neglect, administrative confusion, and inconsistent day-to-day services. These issues create emotional distress and housing instability for residents. Any prospective resident or family should weigh the reported safety risks and management responsiveness heavily, verify current staffing and security measures in place, and seek recent, direct information from the facility before making decisions.
