8135 International Blvd, Oakland, CA 94621
To contact a resident: (510) 562-2771
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Overall Review of Allen Temple Arms l&ll
Pros
The facility is described as nice.- One reviewer regards it as the best place to live in Oakland.
Cons
The staff are uneducated, unprofessional, and very rude for no reason.- There are concerns about how rent payments are processed and whether tenants are charged the correct amounts.
- The area around the facility is terrible, with no tenant parking and serious safety risks.
- The staff are new and give short, vague, unhelpful responses.
- The property has roaches, prompting considerations to move.
- The gated parking area experiences frequent car break-ins and weak security, despite cameras and guards.
Review
Allen Temple Arms II in Oakland is best suited for seniors and families who must keep housing costs dramatically low and who can tolerate a challenging service environment. The building itself is described as a nice-enough facility, but the daily experience hinges on the people running it and the neighborhood that surrounds it. In practical terms, this community rewards limited expectations on staff responsiveness and clear communication, but those rewards evaporate fast if safety, cleanliness, or consistent rent handling become everyday concerns.
Those who may want to consider alternatives are seniors who require reliable, respectful staff and a secure, well-maintained surrounding. Families evaluating care and housing options for a loved one should be cautious here if dependable management, prompt problem-solving, and predictable financial practices are nonnegotiable. The consensus from multiple accounts is that the operational and social environment at this community often falls short of what families expect for peaceful, dignified aging.
Pros are real in appearance if examined on the surface. The facility itself is described as nice, with a gated parking area and camera coverage that, in theory, should offer some level of security. For residents who prioritize a low-cost footprint and can overlook inconsistencies in service delivery, the physical plant can feel like a reasonable baseline. The presence of a church affiliation, noted anecdotally, may lend a sense of community tone or culture, which can matter to people seeking a familiar, faith-rooted environment.
However, the cons consistently overwhelm any upside. Staff are repeatedly labeled uneducated and rude, with several respondents reporting dismissive or unhelpful responses to routine questions or needs, an untenable dynamic when daily assistance or timely information is essential. Rent-processing and billing concerns surface as a serious red flag, casting doubt on transparency and financial reliability. The neighborhood itself is described as unsafe, with concerns about car break-ins and a lack of nearby amenities, which compounds worries about attending medical appointments or running errands. Pests like roaches, and ongoing concerns about drug use in the vicinity, further undermine quality of life and trust in management. The overall impression is of a facility that does not consistently respond with urgency or competence to resident needs.
In terms of how any marginal benefits might offset these major drawbacks, the balance tips decisively against staying. The promise of lower rent or a comfortable building is not enough to compensate for rude interaction, opaque billing, and real safety and maintenance risks. The weak security impression, despite a gated lot and cameras, does not reassure when reports describe car break-ins and drug activity with little visible, effective policing. Cleanliness and maintenance gaps (roaches noted by families) are especially corrosive to daily living, and they undermine the dignity and comfort expected in senior housing. The net effect is a recommendation to pursue alternatives unless the financial imperative truly overrides every other criterion.
For families considering next steps, several practical moves will clarify fit before committing. Demand a detailed, itemized rent ledger and a clear explanation of any past billing disputes; insist on a thorough tour at different times to observe staff interactions and accessibility; verify maintenance response times and pest-control records; ask for independent references from current residents about safety, parking, and courtesy of staff; scrutinize the entry system and guest policies to ensure they accommodate visitors who may assist a loved one. Compare these findings with other Oakland options that consistently rate higher for safety, staff competency, and resident satisfaction. When in doubt, prioritize communities with proven reliability in billing, respectful communication, and a secure, well-maintained environment, because affordability cannot justify compromising daily safety and dignity.
Active Adult Communities (55+)
Metropolitan Oakland International (3 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