Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but leans toward a positive appraisal of Astoria II’s physical environment and many front-line caregivers, tempered by recurring concerns about some aspects of management, communication, and programming.
On the positive side, multiple reviewers emphasize the facility’s homelike, intimate feel. The small size and “homey” décor, sunny well-appointed private bedrooms with en-suite toilets, and a spotless environment with no odors are consistently mentioned. Families appreciated that the neighborhood is wheelchair-friendly for walks and that the community is dog-friendly. Cleanliness and a pleasant physical setting were repeatedly highlighted, as were family-friendly policies such as encouragement of twice-daily visits. The presence of hands-on owners and managers who are often on-site—and caregivers who were described as devoted, loving, and attentive—contributed to several long-term positive experiences (including at least one five-year positive tenure and accounts of residents spending their final years comfortably at the home). Specific staff members (Inna was named) and the caregiving team were singled out for responsiveness and for helping residents adapt.
Care quality is portrayed unevenly. Many reviewers praised attentive, caring staff who ask good questions and address specific needs; these accounts describe responsive, personalized care and an environment that felt safe and warm to some families. Conversely, other reviews report instances where residents’ needs were not attended to, and families experienced poor communication about care. This split suggests variability in day-to-day attention or differences in expectations between families. Several reviews point to an impression of excellent hands-on caregiving and engagement from owners and staff, while others describe combative interactions with staff or management and a lack of personal warmth.
Dining and activities show similar mixed patterns. A strength noted is flexible dining that accommodated dietary restrictions. However, some reviewers raised concerns about meal quality (meals described as not fresh) and an apparent lack of organized entertainment or activities in certain accounts. Prospective residents and families should therefore clarify current menus and activity schedules, since reviews indicate inconsistent experiences in these areas.
Management, cleanliness of equipment, and cost are recurring themes among the negatives. While the building and rooms are repeatedly described as very clean, there are specific complaints about the cleanliness of mobility equipment (wheelchairs described as filthy in one review). Some families perceived the administration as money-focused, and one review specifically lists pricing thresholds (wheelchair not less than 3000, private room 3500), indicating concerns about cost and value. Communication problems and reports of combative staff/management also appear in several summaries; these issues appear to drive the most dissatisfaction among the negative reviews.
In summary, Astoria II presents as a small, well-kept, and family-oriented facility with many strengths: clean, comfortable private rooms, a homelike atmosphere, accommodating dining for dietary needs, wheelchair-friendly surroundings, dog-friendly policies, and several highly praised caregivers and hands-on owners. However, there are notable and recurring concerns that potential residents and families should probe further: variability in warmth and attentiveness from staff, occasional poor communication, reported deficiencies in activities and meal freshness, cleanliness of certain equipment, and perceptions of high cost or a money-focused administration. The reviews suggest real strengths in personalized care and environment alongside management and consistency issues that merit direct questions during tours and references checks.
