Overall sentiment across the reviews about Cedar Crest is strongly mixed but consistent in specific ways: the physical plant, amenities, social opportunities and many staff are frequently praised, while staffing levels and operational/management issues—especially in higher-acuity care—are recurrent concerns. Many reviewers describe Cedar Crest as a resort-like, well-maintained campus with tasteful, recently renovated apartments, abundant common areas, and an extensive menu of amenities (pool, gyms, salon, theater, chapel, library, game rooms). Independent living residents and families often report a vibrant social life, lots of clubs and outings, good dining variety, and friendly, compassionate employees. Multiple accounts highlight strong, family-like community bonds, helpful move-in support, and occasions of exemplary end-of-life compassion and responsiveness from staff. Security features and on-site medical capabilities are also commonly cited as positives, as are shuttle services and conveniences like an on-site doctor, grocery, and post office.
Despite these strengths, a clear and frequent thread in the reviews is concern about care quality in assisted living and nursing areas. Numerous reviewers explicitly say the care areas are woefully understaffed, that there are not enough aides, and that response times for assistance are slow. These operational shortcomings translate into perceptions of inadequate personal care for residents who need hands-on help. Multiple reviews describe fragmented communication—no single point of contact and unclear follow-through—making family coordination and problem resolution more difficult. Several accounts also point to specific management choices that create tension: a large upfront entrance fee, pricey ongoing fees, extra charges for help, and refund policies tied to waiting-list timing that delay reimbursements. Some reviewers describe feeling pressured around charitable funds or perceiving an emphasis on aesthetics and revenue over resident-centered care.
Dining and activities elicit predominantly positive comments about variety, presentation, and the number of options, but there are consistent caveats. While many residents enjoy the food and multiple dining venues, other reviewers describe cold meals, inconsistent adherence to dietary restrictions, or cancelled/misrepresented classes and dining-room closures. Activity offerings are broad—exercise classes, art, clubs, trips, and entertainment—but some reviewers say that despite many programmed activities there is limited meaningful socialization for certain residents, and others perceive the environment as better suited to independent, active people than to those needing more personal engagement or higher levels of care.
Staff impressions are similarly dual-sided. Numerous reviewers praise staff as friendly, compassionate, and helpful—citing first-name greetings, long-tenured knowledgeable employees, and effective support during transitions or medical events. Yet multiple other reviews say staff appear overwhelmed, unclear in roles, or unresponsive, particularly in care wings. Sales and admissions staff receive mixed feedback: some tours are described as excellent and informative, while others mention evasive sales answers, pushy or dismissive behavior, and lackluster or even exclusionary tour experiences. These contrasting experiences suggest variability by department, by specific staff members, or by timing/occupancy levels.
Facility scale and logistics are another recurring theme. The campus is large and contains interconnected buildings with extensive services, which many residents value for convenience and the continuum of care. At the same time, several reviewers find the facility too big, difficult to navigate, or impersonal—issues that can contribute to a sense of isolation for some. Security and restricted access are often seen as positives, but the size and layout create signage and wayfinding challenges. Financial transparency and value-for-money are persistent concerns: while many feel the price matches the high-end accommodations and range of services, others view the cost as exorbitant, especially when combined with perceived quality gaps in personal care and slow or restrictive refund practices.
In summary, Cedar Crest appears to excel at providing an upscale, activity-rich independent living experience on an attractive, well-maintained campus with many amenities and a warm community culture for those who are mobile and socially engaged. However, potential residents and families should be cautious and do targeted due diligence if the need for assisted living or nursing care is a significant concern: reviews repeatedly flag understaffing, inconsistent care, communication breakdowns, and financial practices (high entrance fees, refund timing, fundraising pressure) as important risks. Prospective residents should tour multiple times, ask specific questions about staffing ratios and response times in assisted units, request written policies on refunds and extra charges, verify how dietary and safety needs are enforced, and speak with current families in care wings to get a clear picture of day-to-day care quality before committing.
