Overall sentiment is highly polarized: many reviewers express strong satisfaction with Gardens at Town Center while others report serious concerns that significantly affect quality of life. Positive reviews emphasize caring staff members (with multiple mentions of Carrie and Rich by name), a close-knit, resident-led community, active social programming, and convenient proximity to local amenities. Negative reviews raise serious, concrete issues including smoking inside apartments despite a stated non-smoking policy, noise and thin walls, pest problems, alleged safety incidents and police involvement, and claims of many tenant deaths with sensational allegations about a burial ground and ghosts.
Care and staff: A recurring positive theme is the praise for staff responsiveness, personal attention, and particular employees who are described as professional, caring, and involved in residents' lives. Several reviewers explicitly credit staff with improving resident well-being — one reviewer said their parent was "doing well" and another said staff helped save them from homelessness. Conversely, some reviewers describe understaffing, delayed openings or services, and poor interactions with certain staff members. There are also reports of confidential matters being handled appropriately by staff, while other reviewers cite hidden charges and paperwork delays that point to administrative or communication breakdowns.
Activities, community and social life: Many positive reviews highlight an active social calendar and strong resident engagement: bingo, crafts, potlucks, pizza parties, and resident-run activities are commonly mentioned. A sense of family and friendships forming is a strong selling point for many residents. However, a few reviews mention cliques within activities and interpersonal conflicts that can diminish the social experience for some. Management and community leaders are credited with organizing meet-and-greets and formulating activities, but the perception of inclusivity appears mixed depending on the reviewer.
Facilities and apartments: Several residents praise the apartments as modern, bright, and sunlit. The location is repeatedly noted as excellent for access to banks, stores, the YMCA, and churches. Maintenance staff and the director receive positive mentions for helpfulness in some reviews, including responsiveness to requests like transportation. On the other hand, there are recurring operational and physical concerns: cigarette smoke reportedly infiltrating apartments (including through intake vents), thin walls leading to noise transfer, loud kitchen fans/lights and construction-related disturbances, and reports of bug infestations. Grounds upkeep is criticized in some reviews (sidewalk and grass maintenance) and maintenance availability is described as limited to weekdays, which some find restrictive.
Management, policies and finances: Several reviewers raise administrative concerns: hidden or additional charges appearing after signing, delayed or incomplete paperwork, and disagreements over rent increases and promises not being honored. Multiple comments allege management does not enforce the non-smoking policy effectively, contributing to indoor smoke problems that affect other residents. Some reviewers praise individual managers or directors for diligence and engagement, yet others report poor interactions and recommend against the community. These mixed reports suggest inconsistencies in policy enforcement and resident experience depending on timing, staff on duty, or individual circumstances.
Safety, health and unusual allegations: A small but vocal subset of reviews express serious safety and health worries: repeated police presence, numerous tenant deaths (one reviewer claimed "over 50 tenant deaths"), and reports of bug problems. There are also sensational allegations (an alleged burial ground and purported ghost sightings on surveillance video). These claims are serious and should be treated as reports by reviewers; they are not substantiated here beyond the summaries provided. Prospective residents and family members should seek clarification and official records regarding safety incidents and health-related events.
Patterns and recommendations for prospective residents: The reviews reveal a split between residents who highly value the community, staff, activities, and apartment quality, and those who experience significant negative issues around smoke, noise, pests, management transparency, and safety concerns. If you are considering Gardens at Town Center, the most prudent steps are: visit multiple times (including evenings and weekends) to assess noise and community atmosphere; ask management for their written smoking policy and enforcement procedures; inspect apartments for signs of pests or smoke damage; review the lease carefully for potential hidden fees and ask for explanations of all charges; confirm maintenance hours and response times; speak with current residents about day-to-day life and any safety concerns; and request documentation about incident history if safety is a priority.
In summary, Gardens at Town Center can offer a warm, active community and attentive staff that make a meaningful difference for many residents, but there are also repeated, specific complaints — particularly about smoke infiltration, noise, administrative transparency, and sporadic maintenance/grounds issues — that have produced strong dissatisfaction for others. The variability in experiences suggests the community may work very well for some residents and poorly for others, so targeted due diligence and direct inquiries are strongly advised before committing.
