Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed: multiple reviewers praise Rivers Run at RIT for its dining, social programming, apartment size and affordability, while others raise serious concerns about management decisions, service reductions, financial stability, and at least one incident of poor staff conduct. Positive comments frequently highlight food quality and variety, an outstanding chef, meal-credits and extended dining hours, and a range of activities and transportation options. Negative comments center on reported removals of core services (meals, transportation, medical and assisted-living support, housekeeping), worries about the facility's finances and management priorities, and lease changes that allegedly reduce services.
Care quality and staff: Several reviews note very friendly staff and positive interactions with leadership (director and corporate president), suggesting that day-to-day staff can be warm and helpful. However, at least one review recounts an incident where staff reacted inappropriately to a resident's husband's medical condition, indicating potential lapses in sensitivity or training. More significantly, reviewers report eliminations of medical and assisted-living supports, which—if accurate—would directly affect the level of care available on site. The combination of generally friendly staff and isolated but serious interpersonal problems points to a facility that may deliver good everyday service but could be inconsistent when handling more sensitive or clinical situations.
Facilities: Reviewers appreciate the physical layout and apartments: larger three-room units, a foyer with a kitchen cutout allowing visual access to the living room, a private dining room for events, and parking/garage options. Weekly housekeeping with sheet changes is mentioned positively by some, but other reviewers claim housekeeping has been removed—another example of conflicting reports that prospective residents should clarify. The overall impression is of comfortable apartments and some thoughtful common-area design, tempered by uncertainty about whether previously offered support services remain in place.
Dining and activities: Dining is one of the facility's strongest selling points in the reviews. The chef receives praise, meal variety is highlighted, and there are conveniences such as meal-credits and extended dining hours. Activity offerings include bingo, live music concerts (notably by the Henrietta Historical Society), and organized outings like trips to Eastman House gingerbread displays, weekly shopping trips, and transportation to local destinations. These programs suggest an active social calendar. That said, multiple reviewers also allege removal of meal services and transportation, creating a sharp contradiction with those who describe ongoing free bus service and weekly trips. This inconsistency is important because dining and transportation are core quality-of-life services for many seniors.
Management, contracts, and finances: A consistent and consequential theme among the negative comments is concern about management direction and financial stability. Reviewers allege profit-driven decision-making, lease changes that reduce services, and outright calls to remove the facility from listings. Some suggest demanding financial records—an indication of mistrust and worry about the provider’s long-term viability. At the same time, other reviews mention positive interactions with leadership, which could reflect either differing experiences across time or variable communication from management to residents. The combination of attractive pricing and reports of service removals raises a plausible interpretation: lower costs may accompany reduced services. These are significant red flags for potential residents, because they suggest that contractual expectations may not be consistently met and that service levels could change after move-in.
Notable patterns and recommendations: The reviews present a split picture—strong marks for food, apartment size, activities, and friendly staff versus serious allegations about removal of essential services and governance concerns. Many positive statements focus on daily life and amenities, while most negatives focus on higher-level management decisions and financial transparency. Given these mixed signals, prospective residents and families should verify current service offerings in writing, request up-to-date copies of leases and service agreements, ask whether staffing levels and medical supports will remain in place, and, if concerned, seek financial disclosures or assurances about the facility’s stability. Visiting, speaking with current residents about recent changes, and confirming transportation and meal-service schedules will help reconcile the conflicting reports.
In summary, Rivers Run at RIT appears to offer strong amenities—particularly in dining, apartment size, and social programming—with generally friendly staff and some praised leadership. However, multiple reviewers raise substantial concerns about management decisions that may reduce services and about the facility's financial transparency. These concerns are significant enough that they should be proactively investigated by anyone considering residency there. Clarifying current services, contractual protections, and the facility’s financial health will be essential steps before making a decision.
