Overall sentiment across the reviews is positive, with repeated praise for the quality of care, the staff, and the dining experience, but tempered by concerns about building age and suitability for residents with significant mobility or high-care needs.
Care quality and staff: Multiple reviewers highlight management and staff as a key strength. The director and assistant are described as "great," and staff are characterized as friendly and caring. Reviewers specifically note that staff interactions keep residents happy and that the community atmosphere is welcoming. One reviewer explicitly says the facility keeps their step‑mother happy, and another notes their mother eats there daily, indicating consistent satisfaction with day‑to‑day care and social support.
Dining and safety: Dining is a standout positive across the reviews. Food is described as "awesome," with specific mentions such as grilled fish on Fridays. Reviewers appreciate both the quality and regularity of meals, and at least one family praised the facility for delivering meals during icy weather to keep residents safe. The combination of good food and safety‑minded service contributes strongly to resident satisfaction.
Activities and transportation: The community offers an active schedule with games and organized activities as well as regular outings (horse races, library visits, grocery trips). Transportation support for medical appointments within roughly 10 miles is called out as a practical convenience. These offerings support social engagement and access to routine needs, which reviewers view positively.
Facilities and building condition: Reviews present a mixed but generally acceptable picture of the physical plant. The property is described as well maintained, clean, and "not shabby," yet repeatedly noted as an older building that is "not fancy" and has areas "not in as good a condition." Some reviewers find the building "nice looking" overall, but others flag specific practical issues: a bathtub in some units is seen as a drawback for residents with limited mobility, and there can be a long walk from some living areas to the community building. These factors make the site less suitable for very frail seniors or those who require shorter, easier access to communal spaces.
Suitability and fit: A recurring theme is that Renaissance Village is a good fit for many residents—particularly those who are relatively independent, socially active, and appreciative of good food and friendly staff—but it may not meet the needs of everyone. At least one reviewer said it was "not a good fit for my dad," and another pointed out it is "not ideal for a 94‑year‑old," underscoring that families should carefully assess mobility and care needs relative to the facility layout and services.
Value and operational notes: Pricing is reported to be about the same as other local options, suggesting competitive positioning rather than a bargain or premium. One reviewer expressed a desire for more energy efficiency at the facility, which is a less common but notable operational suggestion.
Bottom line: Renaissance Village receives consistent praise for its staff, management, dining, cleanliness, and social programming, making it a strong option for independent to moderately independent seniors who value community and good meals. The primary caveats are the age of the building, some accessibility issues (bathtubs, longer walks to the community building), and potential mismatch for very frail residents. Prospective residents and families should weigh the excellent staff and dining against the facility’s physical layout and accessibility when deciding whether it is the right fit.
