Overall impression: Reviews for House At Westminster are mixed, with a wide gulf between residents who praise the facilities, community and individual staff members and those who report serious operational, maintenance, cleanliness and safety problems. Positive comments highlight good apartment size and features, a convenient and revitalized location, friendly neighbors, supportive moments from maintenance staff, and a range of building amenities. However, recurring and serious negative patterns — especially around pests, inconsistent management, poor public-area maintenance, and security concerns — significantly color many residents' experiences.
Facilities and location: Many reviewers note convenient location advantages: proximity to supermarkets, pharmacies, a cinema, shopping, medical facilities and public transit. Apartment features cited positively include in-unit kitchens, air conditioning, accessible design (handrails, step-in showers, wheelchair access), sprinklers, cable readiness and some brand-new or recently refreshed units. Building amenities that appear in the reviews include elevators, enclosed walkways, private dining and event space, library, TV room and social areas. These elements form a solid physical foundation and are repeatedly mentioned as reasons some residents are pleased with the community.
Care, services and dining: The facility appears to offer limited service options: a 24-hour emergency call system, optional small-fee meal service and planned activities are mentioned. However, accounts conflict about how dependable these services are. Some reviewers report meal service and activities available and adequate, while others say there are no meals, no dining program, and activities have been sporadic since 2018. Prospective residents should verify current dining options and activity schedules directly, because the presence and quality of these services appear inconsistent across time and units.
Staff and maintenance: Maintenance staff receive frequent praise for being helpful, patient and effective on individual tasks; several reviewers singled out a strong maintenance person and an efficient maintenance crew. At the same time, multiple reviews describe maintenance as overworked, understaffed, inconsistent, or very slow to complete repairs — with one review alleging repairs took as long as nine months. There are also reports that residents are charged for repairs. This split suggests day-to-day technicians may be competent and caring but hampered by management, resourcing or process problems.
Management, communication and administration: Management-related complaints are among the loudest themes. Critics describe hard-to-reach, money-oriented or uncaring management, frequent turnover (with the property manager reportedly leaving), and a sense that on-site leadership stopped caring for residents. Conversely, other residents describe positive interactions with a friendly front office and an adorable, accommodating manager or leasing agent — underscoring inconsistency in leadership and communication. These divergent accounts indicate the resident experience depends heavily on current management and that leadership instability has been a major driver of resident dissatisfaction.
Cleanliness, pests and safety: Serious concerns are reported about cleanliness and pest control. Several reviewers report roaches and bed bugs; others report that pest control is performed regularly, indicating uneven effectiveness or recurring infestation despite treatments. Public-area cleanliness problems — filthy hallways, elevator carpets not cleaned since the pandemic, overflowing dumpsters and even a unit that “smelled like someone had died” — are repeatedly cited. Safety and security reports are mixed: some reviewers describe secure entry and 24-hour staff, while others describe no on-site management, no reception, unrestricted entry by non-residents and outsiders living with residents. Additional alarming reports include drug activity on the property. These issues combine to create significant safety and comfort concerns for many reviewers.
Community and activities: Several residents praise the social environment, friendly neighbors and a sense of community — with families saying they are happy with the choice and long-term residents noting longevity (one resident cited 49 years). Where activities and resident council are active, people seem to benefit socially. Yet multiple reviews say activities are lacking or sporadic, leaving concerns about engagement for sedentary seniors. The social environment therefore appears to vary by building leadership and resident involvement.
Notable negative incidents and patterns: There are specific, serious isolated reports that should not be overlooked: pest infestations including bed bugs and cockroaches; a nine-month delay for repairs; allegations of outsiders living in units and drug activity; overflowing dumpsters and pandemic-era carpet neglect; and at least one report of an apartment smell indicating possible decomposition. These are concrete red flags that prospective residents and families should investigate carefully when touring and reviewing management responses.
Takeaway and recommendations: The reviews present a polarized picture. The facility offers many desirable physical features, an advantageous location, accessible apartments and, in some cases, supportive maintenance staff and friendly management. However, recurring and severe issues around pests, cleanliness, security, management responsiveness and maintenance timeliness have driven serious dissatisfaction among multiple reviewers. Because experiences appear highly inconsistent, anyone considering House At Westminster should: (1) tour multiple common areas and sample apartment types to check cleanliness and signs of pest activity; (2) ask for current pest-control logs and recent inspection reports; (3) inquire about average repair turnaround times and whether residents are charged for repairs; (4) confirm current on-site management/staffing and security measures (reception, controlled access, 24-hour staff); (5) request a current activities calendar and meal service details; and (6) speak directly with current residents about recent management turnover and community safety. These steps can help determine whether the property is currently well-managed and appropriate for the prospective resident’s needs.
