Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed and notably polarized. Many reviewers praise the physical aspects of Washington Square: the property is described as attractive, well-kept, and well maintained, with new apartments and townhomes that meet residents' needs. Several residents explicitly say the apartments have everything they need and describe the facility as a fantastic or wonderful place to retire. Rent is repeatedly called reasonable or a good price by multiple reviewers, and the small-town, welcoming community and proximity to family are listed as meaningful positives. A Bible study is available, providing at least one organized social or spiritual option for residents.
Facilities and maintenance receive consistently positive remarks. The buildings and grounds are often described as clean and well maintained, and maintenance staff are singled out for praise for being attentive and responsive. These concrete strengths—new housing stock, cleanliness, and capable maintenance—are the clearest, most consistent positive themes across the feedback.
By contrast, management and governance are where the largest and most recurrent concerns appear. Reviews show a sharp divide: some residents praise a particular property manager as wonderful, fair, honest, and responsive, while many others report diminished or inconsistent management, alleging favoritism, managerial inaction, and a lack of follow-through on complaints. Several reviewers say management rarely shows up, dismisses or loses complaints, blames others without evidence, or fails to enforce community rules. This inconsistent management presence and handling of issues is a primary driver of resident frustration and a frequent reason for negative overall impressions.
Safety, privacy, and community enforcement are additional areas of concern. Multiple reviewers mention insufficient policing or enforcement of rules, with reports of residents smoking weed on site and a general sense that problematic behaviors go unchecked. Privacy worries arise from claims that resident information is shared inappropriately and from reports that maintenance staff sometimes enter apartments without the resident present—both serious issues for a senior population that values safety and confidentiality. Parking also draws criticism: limited handicapped spaces, confusing visitor parking policies, and other parking friction points are repeatedly mentioned.
Activities and resident life beyond the physical plant appear limited. Apart from Bible study, reviewers note a lack of planned activities and the absence of an activity coordinator, suggesting opportunities to improve social engagement and programming for seniors. Financial transparency and affordability are other recurring themes: while many call rent reasonable, some report unexplained rent increases and express a desire for more affordable housing options, which contributes to dissatisfaction among a subset of residents.
In summary, Washington Square has solid, tangible strengths in its physical plant, upkeep, and some staff (especially maintenance), and it offers a pleasant, small-town setting that fits many seniors' needs. However, inconsistent management, perceived favoritism, poor complaint handling, privacy and security concerns, limited programming, and parking/logistical problems create significant and recurring negative impressions. The reviews suggest the facility would benefit most from more consistent, transparent, and accountable management practices, clearer parking and privacy policies, better enforcement of community rules, and expanded resident activities to address the gaps that are causing frustration for many residents.







