Overall sentiment in these reviews is mixed but leans positive with strong and repeated praise for the staff, community atmosphere, and value. Across many accounts reviewers highlight friendly, caring and attentive caregivers and nurses; several people named specific staff (nurses, directors of nursing, housekeepers) as exceptional. Many families report that residents settled in well, formed social connections, enjoy activities, and appreciate the apartment-style living with good natural light, river views, and spacious layouts. The presence of on-site medical services and laundry/cleaning amenities is frequently noted as a practical benefit, and many describe the campus as safe, welcoming, and reasonably priced relative to regional alternatives.
Care quality and staff performance are the most consistently positive themes. Reviewers repeatedly emphasize compassionate nursing and caregiving, helpful administrative staff during moves, and responsive handling of general resident needs. Memory care receives some praise where staff were described as kind and attentive; smaller memory care settings were appreciated by some families for the individualized attention. Multiple accounts describe the community as having a family atmosphere, with spiritual programming (chapel/church services), intergenerational connections, and a robust calendar of social events and outings, including shopping buses and theater excursions.
However, several recurring and significant concerns emerge that prospective families should weigh carefully. Dining quality is the most frequently criticized area: many reviewers describe the food as poor, poorly prepared, or not healthy, with multiple reports of inconsistent quality (ranging from “very good” to “terrible”). More serious were isolated reports of kitchen hygiene and staff conduct — examples include gloves being worn while using a phone, a dirty-looking cook, and shouting between dining staff that upset servers. Relatedly, dining service logistics (set meal times, limited breakfast options in some reports) and billing/dining administration have been criticized.
Facility condition and campus layout are mixed topics. Several reviewers praise the remodeled apartments, attractive dining room with river views, and clean updated units; others describe parts of the campus as an old hospital conversion with dark hallways, dated carpeting, poor lighting, bent blinds, dirty windows, and cosmetic neglect (dead planters at the entrance). Operational issues such as elevators occasionally getting stuck, needed maintenance repairs (e.g., a reported hole in a ceiling), and front-exterior cleanliness were cited. The campus scale and configuration also matter to some residents: the community can require long walks between buildings and be overwhelming for those who prefer smaller settings.
Memory care and dementia suitability show divergent experiences. Some reports praise attentive memory-care staff and a small, secure unit, but multiple reviewers indicate memory care is limited in size (approximately 14–15 rooms), at times understaffed (reports of only two staff on a call), and lacking in outdoor access for residents. Several families explicitly stated that the memory care was not a good fit for their loved one with advancing dementia and planned to relocate. Activity engagement for memory care residents was also inconsistent — some group areas reportedly had residents just staring at the TV rather than participating in structured engagement.
Management, communication, and administrative consistency are additional mixed themes. While many families praise helpful directors and attentive administrators who aided moves and communicated well, other reviews describe disappointing management lapses: poor communication during critical events (including no calls to a family while a resident was hospitalized), a director being on leave/out of the country during a crisis, billing errors, and unsatisfactory responses to maintenance or scheduling issues. These mixed reports suggest variability in leadership responsiveness depending on timing, staff on duty, or individual managers.
In summary, Living Fox Knoll Village presents as a community with many strong attributes: compassionate and engaged staff; attractive and remodeled apartment options with good natural light and views; a variety of activities and social programming; practical on-site medical and laundry services; and generally favorable value for cost-conscious families. At the same time, prospective residents and families should investigate dining quality and kitchen hygiene practices, evaluate memory care staffing and outdoor access if dementia needs are present, inspect the specific apartment/unit condition (lighting, blinds, windows), and clarify administration communication and billing practices. A thorough, in-person tour (including during a meal service and, if possible, a visit to memory care at activity time) and conversations about staffing ratios, recent maintenance work, and emergency communication protocols would help families determine whether this community is the right fit given the variability reported in reviews.
