Overall sentiment across these reviews is mixed, with clear strengths in apartment features and location but consistent and significant concerns about maintenance, building condition, and management/communication. Multiple reviewers praised individual apartments for being spacious, clean, and well-equipped, while others expressed frustration and anxiety about infrastructure problems and the way management handles resident issues.
Facilities and living spaces emerge as a major positive theme. Several reviewers specifically highlight larger square footage, second-floor units, long balconies with great views, and amenities such as dishwashers and walk-in tubs. Cleanliness of shown units was noted positively, and one reviewer called out a staff member by name (Nick) as pleasant during the showing. The complex is noted as pet-friendly and allows ESA dogs, which is important to pet owners. Independence Place II and the surrounding area appear convenient, with ample shopping nearby—an advantage for residents who value proximity to services and retail. Friendly neighbors were also mentioned, suggesting a generally pleasant social environment in some parts of the community.
Conversely, there are recurring and specific facility and maintenance problems. Multiple reviews report water-related issues: apartment leaks, water damage, and occasional upstairs plumbing leaks. These are symptoms of aging building infrastructure, which reviewers explicitly call out. Compounding the physical problems is a pattern of unresponsive maintenance; residents described maintenance as slow or non-communicative when addressing leaks and damage. These building-condition issues tie directly into reported safety concerns, elevating them beyond mere inconveniences to potential health and safety hazards for residents.
Staffing and management receive mixed to negative feedback. While at least one staff interaction was positive, reviewers repeatedly describe disrespectful staff behavior, poor communication skills, and unprofessional management interactions. Several comments indicate residents feel treated poorly, and these interpersonal issues appear to compound the frustration caused by unresolved maintenance problems. Management decisions also factor into dissatisfaction: reviewers mention rent increases and note that ownership is out-of-state. The combination of higher costs, distant ownership, and perceived poor responsiveness creates a pattern where residents feel financial pressure without appropriate onsite advocacy or accountability.
Pets and neighbors are a nuanced area. The community’s pet-friendly policy and allowance of ESA dogs are important pros for many residents, but some reviews also note problematic dogs—"dogs not nice"—which may indicate inconsistent enforcement of pet rules or variability in resident behavior. This suggests that while pet accommodations are a strength, they also introduce interpersonal and safety concerns when pet behavior isn't well managed.
Notably absent from the reviews are detailed mentions of organized activities, dining services, medical or caregiving quality, or formal programs—areas often important to senior living residents. The feedback is concentrated on apartment quality, maintenance, staffing interactions, and management practices, which suggests those are the most salient day-to-day concerns for current residents and prospective renters evaluating the property.
In summary, prospective residents should weigh the strong unit-level features—spacious layouts, balconies, in-unit amenities, cleanliness in some units, and a convenient location—against recurring and concrete negatives: aging infrastructure with water/plumbing problems, slow or unresponsive maintenance, safety worries, and problematic staff/management communication and professionalism. The reports of rent increases and out-of-state ownership add a financial and governance dimension to those concerns. If you prioritize apartment size, outdoor space, pet policies, and nearby shopping, the property can be attractive; however, if prompt maintenance, building safety, and respectful, communicative management are priorities, the patterns in these reviews suggest caution and a need to get explicit, documented commitments on maintenance response times and management practices before committing.
