Overall impression: The reviews for Southern Highland are strongly mixed, with clear and polarized themes. Many reviewers praise the staff and certain management figures, cite recent apartment upgrades, and appreciate included appliances and utilities. At the same time there are serious and recurring negative reports—most notably pest infestations (roaches and an earlier bed bug outbreak), ongoing cleanliness problems, and concerns about management effectiveness and long-term remediation. The result is a facility that presents as newly upgraded and potentially supportive for some residents, but one that also bears significant health, cleanliness, and service concerns that have materially affected other residents' experiences.
Staff and management: Staff quality is one of the most consistent positive notes: multiple reviews call staff excellent or supportive, and a manager by name (Michelle Washington) is singled out for supportive leadership. A 24-hour attendant response is praised for quickness in at least one report, and several reviewers describe management as welcoming and the staff as integral to the resident experience. However, that positive view is not unanimous: other reviews report lower-quality staff interactions and perceive lower standards of care. This split suggests variability in staff performance and/or inconsistent experiences between shifts or teams. Management is praised in some accounts for being nice and welcoming, while other reviewers label the building as poorly managed—particularly in relation to pest control and cleanliness.
Care quality and responsiveness: There are genuine strengths in responsiveness where attendants or staff are present and proactive; reviewers who highlight this attribute also report feeling supported and safe. Conversely, reports of ineffective pest control, repeated infestations despite multiple treatments, and discarded furnishings indicate failures in long-term problem resolution. The missing shower curtain incident flagged as a safety issue underscores that, for some residents, operational and safety follow-through has been insufficient. Overall, clinical or personal care may be acceptable in some cases, but facility-level care (maintenance, sanitation, pest mitigation) shows significant lapses according to several reviews.
Facilities, cleanliness, and pests: The building appears to be a split narrative: reviewers mention brand-new apartments and upgrades to the complex, yet describe an older building shell and systemic cleanliness problems. The most serious and repeatedly mentioned concern is pest infestation: roaches are reported crawling on walls, in hallways, and inside units; there is also a history of bed bug outbreaks. Multiple treatments are described as unsuccessful, furnishings were discarded after infestations, and some residents reported fear and distress on their first night because of pests. While some reviews explicitly call the facility clean and orderly, the consistent nature and severity of the pest complaints constitute a major red flag—this is not an isolated comment but a recurring pattern that affects health, comfort, and trust.
Dining and community activities: The facility has a dining hall, which could be a positive amenity, but reviewers note that meals are not yet being provided—so the presence of a dining space has not translated into dining services for all residents. Community activities and engagement receive mixed feedback: some reviewers praise resident engagement and independence, and recommend the community; others report minimal community activities and say the facility is too small for their preferences. This indicates uneven programming or differing expectations among residents. If programming is an important factor for prospective residents, the available evidence suggests it's variably implemented.
Cost, value, and unit features: Several positives are practical: apartments include appliances (stove, oven, AC, refrigerator) and utilities are paid, which simplifies budgeting. Renovations and new units are frequently noted, suggesting investment in living spaces. At the same time, some reviewers find the place pricey—an important contrast given the pest and cleanliness issues. The perception of older building infrastructure alongside new apartments may explain the combination of modern unit features with systemic maintenance problems.
Notable patterns and recommendations: The dominant negative pattern is recurring pest infestation and a perceived failure to effectively remediate it—this issue appears across multiple summaries and outweighs other negatives in severity because of health and safety implications. There is also a split in perception of staff and management: many staff members and at least one manager receive strong praise, but inconsistency in cleanliness, pest response, and activity programming undermines those strengths. For prospective residents or family members, the facility shows promising elements (supportive staff, included utilities, new units), but the pest history, reports of filth in common areas, and mixed management efficacy are substantial considerations. Prospective residents should visit multiple times (including evenings and weekends), ask for documentation of pest-control measures and their outcomes, confirm meal service status and activity schedules, and seek references from current residents to gauge consistency of care.
Conclusion: Southern Highland appears to offer some meaningful advantages—compassionate staff, managerial champions, upgraded units, and included utilities—but also faces serious and recurring sanitation and pest-control problems that have not been resolved to several reviewers' satisfaction. The overall sentiment is mixed-to-cautiously-negative when weighing these factors together: the facility could be a good fit where staff and unit amenities are the highest priorities, but the documented pest and cleanliness concerns are significant and should be thoroughly investigated before committing.
