Overall sentiment is mixed but leans toward caution: reviewers report meaningful positives—particularly around staff helpfulness in some cases, the convenience of independent living, in-unit amenities, reasonable rents, and available activities—alongside serious and recurring negative complaints about cleanliness, pests, maintenance, and security. The most frequent and severe concerns are sanitation and pest control (roaches reported inside apartments and in the trash compactor), visible trash and cigarette butt littering, animal odors and stray cats on the property, and descriptions of apartments and common areas as filthy. These sanitation issues are among the most consistent negative themes across reviews.
Staff and care quality are described unevenly. Several reviewers praise staff as safe, responsive, and helpful, and note prompt assistance when needed. The administrator is called nice by some residents. However, other reviewers describe poor management, slow responses to maintenance requests, and an unresponsive emergency/maintenance line. There is also mention of an over-reliance on a single person (administrator or staff member), which suggests staffing or organizational fragility. For prospective residents, this means experiences may vary widely depending on which staff members are available and how promptly issues are escalated.
Facility condition and apartment features show a split pattern. Positive notes include independent living in private apartments, in-apartment laundry and dishwashers, reasonable rent levels, and a range of activities. Some reviews describe the facility as well-maintained. On the negative side, apartments are often described as small, dark, with long hallways, and having old, cheap appliances that frequently break down. There are also physical problems such as large gaps under doors, which raise both security and insulation/energy concerns. Noise issues are reported too—loud cleaning by caregivers and stomping from units above—contributing to a less peaceful living environment for some residents.
Health and safety concerns are prominent: pest infestations (roaches), trash accumulation, cigarette litter, animal odors, and stray cats point to ongoing property maintenance and sanitation failures. Security-related problems include reports of cars being broken into and smokers congregating on balconies, sometimes blocking egress or creating fire/smoke nuisances. The combination of sanitation, pest, and security complaints constitutes a set of significant red flags that multiple reviewers mention.
Dining, utilities, and model of care are consistent across reviews: Lifestyles of Glendale is positioned as independent living (not assisted living), with no on-site dining or meals provided. Water and sewer are included in rent, while phone, electricity, TV, and Internet are billed separately. This setup will suit those seeking independent living with private apartments and in-unit appliances, but not those seeking meals or assisted-care services.
In summary, reviews present a polarized picture. Strengths include independent apartment living, some in-unit conveniences, reasonable pricing, activities, and staff who are helpful in certain instances. Major weaknesses—reported frequently enough to be considered systemic by reviewers—are sanitation and pest problems, visible trash and cigarette waste, animal/odor issues, aging appliances and maintenance failures, inconsistent management responsiveness, and some security concerns. Prospective residents should weigh the positive aspects of independent, activity-rich living and in-unit amenities against the recurring and serious complaints about cleanliness, pests, maintenance responsiveness, and safety. Where possible, visiting in person, inspecting specific units, speaking with current residents, and verifying maintenance responsiveness would be prudent steps given the variability in reviewers' experiences.
