Overall sentiment: The reviews present a mixed but predominantly negative picture of Alten Haus LLC. While multiple reviewers singled out the caregiving staff as a bright spot—describing caregivers as good, attentive, and liked by residents—the majority of comments raise serious concerns about the environment, maintenance, management, and basic standards of cleanliness and safety. The praise for individual caregivers is consistently overshadowed by systemic issues that reviewers describe as making the facility unfit or risky in its current state.
Care quality and staff: Reviewers repeatedly state that caregivers themselves are caring and that residents seemed to like the staff. This suggests that the day-to-day hands-on care may be relatively compassionate and that staff-resident relationships can be positive. However, reviewers also indicate that good caregiving is not enough to compensate for larger facility and management problems; staff efforts appear constrained by the facility conditions and policies set by administration.
Facilities, maintenance, and cleanliness: The most frequently reported problems center on cleanliness, maintenance, and upkeep. Reviews use strong language—"filthy houses," "bad smells," and "messy"—and give specific examples such as boxes and papers stacked throughout living spaces, overflowing ashtrays, and generally cluttered rooms. The buildings are described as outdated and in need of TLC, with slow or ineffective maintenance responses prolonging hazards and unsanitary conditions. Limited safe outdoor/patio space was noted as an additional facility shortcoming, which could reduce residents' access to safe fresh-air areas.
Health, safety, and environment: Reviewers expressed real safety and health concerns. The presence of bad odors and filth points to hygiene problems; an overflowing ashtray cited in reviews is a specific fire and health risk, and cluttered spaces present trip and emergency-evacuation hazards. Taken together, these details indicate that the facility’s physical environment could pose meaningful risks to resident well-being unless addressed.
Dining and special needs: A recurring complaint is that the facility is not accommodating special dietary needs. Reviewers reported failures to provide appropriate diets or to follow through on food-related promises. This suggests gaps in nutrition management and individualized care planning, which are important for residents with medical or dietary restrictions.
Management and administration: Management and the owners receive substantial criticism. Reviewers report unfulfilled promises by owners, poor management practices, and a general lack of responsiveness. These complaints imply systemic administrative problems that affect staffing, maintenance, and follow-through on commitments. Reviewers went as far as issuing warnings to others, indicating a loss of confidence in administration to remedy issues.
Patterns and overall assessment: The dominant themes are a contrast between good caregiving at the individual level and significant institutional failures: dirty, poorly maintained facilities; safety and hygiene concerns; inadequate attention to special diets; and unreliable management. The aggregate message from the reviews is cautionary—while residents may receive kind personal care from staff, the surrounding conditions and administrative shortcomings create risks and lower overall quality of life. Prospective residents or families should weigh the positive aspects of staff compassion against the documented problems with cleanliness, safety, facilities, and management, and should seek direct, verifiable assurances and inspections before deciding on placement.
