656 Donovan Briley Blvd, North Little Rock, AR 72118
To contact a resident: (501) 758-8582
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Christopher Homes of N Little Rock Costs & Pricing
Christopher Homes of North Little Rock offers an affordable option for housing with a monthly cost of $500 for studio accommodations. This price stands in stark contrast to the average costs in Pulaski County, which reach approximately $3,859 per month, and even more so compared to the broader state average in Arkansas at around $2,863. This significant difference highlights Christopher Homes' commitment to providing accessible living arrangements that cater to budget-conscious individuals while still ensuring quality and comfort.
| Floor plans | Christopher Homes of N Little Rock | Pulaski County | Arkansas |
|---|---|---|---|
| Studio | $500 | $3,859 | $2,863 |
Senior living communities with a similar price nearby
-
from +$90 / mo
Courtyard Cottages Bryant
$590 to $695 / month17.9 miles away -
from +$35 / mo
Courtyard Cottages Jacksonville
$535 / month10.7 miles away
Overall Review of Christopher Homes of N Little Rock
Pros
The residents are very kind and the staff is top-notch.- The place is very clean and well kept, with staff who care for everyone.
- It is described as a wonderful place and a good community.
- The staff are kind and friendly, contributing to a safe environment for residents.
- Reviewers recommend these senior apartments.
Cons
The third building was infested with bedbugs.
Review
This community is best suited for seniors who want a warm, people‑first environment with dependable, friendly care and a clean, safe campus. It serves residents who value daily neatness, a sense of community, and staff who know residents by name. The combination of well‑kept spaces, a comfortable dining area, and attentive caregivers provides practical stability for families prioritizing reliability over flash. Prospective buyers should note, however, that pest management varies by building, and a uniform pest‑free guarantee across all structures may not be guaranteed; alternatives may be worth exploring for those requiring absolute consistency.
On balance, the strongest asset is the staff. Residents and families consistently describe caregivers as kind, approachable, and genuinely devoted to each resident’s well‑being, with a team that often goes beyond the basics. The community reads as clean and well maintained, with common areas and laundry spaces that feel orderly, and a dining area that is comfortable for everyday meals and social time. Testimonials about a sister thriving there underscore the practical reality: the environment supports daily comfort, predictable routines, and a reassuring sense of security when choosing a home for aging relatives.
However, two reviews flag a significant concern: infestations of bedbugs in the third building. That is not a minor caveat; it points to a real pest‑control risk that can disrupt routines and raise health and safety concerns. Another note highlights that one resident experiences a lot of traffic, which suggests noise or frequent visitors that could affect quiet living for some. While these issues are not universal across the campus, they are material enough to influence decisions, especially for families who require a pest‑free, consistently quiet environment.
The positives offset the negatives to a degree. A caring staff and a clean, safe, friendly environment can cushion the impact of a pest issue by ensuring prompt remediation and supportive responses during treatment. The reliability of maintenance, the visible emphasis on cleanliness, and the overall welcoming atmosphere help residents feel secure even when repairs or shifts in routine occur. Yet the bedbug concern remains a critical risk that could outweigh favorable impressions if remediation is slow, ineffective, or if infestations recur across buildings. In short, strong day‑to‑day care reduces harm, but it cannot fully erase the implications of a building‑specific infestation.
Who should consider alternatives? Families that require a uniform experience across all buildings or a pest‑free guarantee across the entire campus should proceed with caution or look elsewhere. If a tour reveals ongoing pest activity in the third building or if neighborhood noise remains a persistent issue, walking away could be prudent. Conversely, if a parent or relative prioritizes compassionate staff, a clean environment, and a safety net, paired with a plan to manage a building‑specific pest matter, the community remains a viable option. The key is to verify current remediation status and to clarify how future infestations would be handled before committing.
Bottom line: Christopher Homes offers a practical, compassionate home for seniors who want dependable care and a pleasant environment. It earns its value through strong staff quality, daily cleanliness, and a welcoming culture. The bedbug issue in one building and any noise concerns must be weighed against these strengths, and prospective residents should insist on building‑specific details during a tour, especially pest‑control history and remediation plans. If those assurances are solid, this community can be a solid match for a family seeking a warm, safe place with a staff‑focused ethos in North Little Rock. Schedule a focused tour with targeted questions to assess the third building’s status before making a commitment.
Active Adult Communities (55+)
Cats allowed
Dogs allowed
Adams (6 miles away)
Seniors and Modern Transportation: Exploring Uber, Lyft, and Other Ride-Hailing Options
Comprehensive Guide to Qualifying for Home Health Care Services
Powerful Realities of Elder Abuse and the Most Effective Ways to Report It
