1930 Union Street, Clearwater, FL 33763
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Union House Costs & Pricing
Union House offers competitive monthly rates for its residents, providing a cost-effective alternative compared to broader regional averages. For semi-private accommodations, the monthly fee is $2,200, which is notably lower than both Pinellas County's average of $2,765 and the state of Florida's average of $3,009. Similarly, the private room option at Union House is priced at $2,400, significantly undercutting Pinellas County's average of $3,602 and Florida's statewide figure of $3,699. This positioning not only underscores Union House's commitment to affordability but also highlights its appeal for individuals seeking quality care without the financial burden often associated with similar living arrangements in the area.
| Floor plans | Union House | Pinellas County | Florida |
|---|---|---|---|
| Semi-Private | $2,200 | $2,765 | $3,009 |
| Private | $2,400 | $3,602 | $3,699 |
Assisted Living communities with a similar price nearby
Overall Review of Union House
Pros
The staff are outstanding and caring.
Residents enjoy home-made meals and can order what they want.
The staff really care about the residents.
The manager is caring and shows love to everyone.
The community is very clean.
They offer great activities that are outstanding.
It has a family touch.
The home-cooked meals look healthy and taste great, and they accommodate different dietary plans.
The facility offers affordable basics and is clean.
Cons
She was very unhappy.
The place is run down.
Review
Union House in Clearwater is best suited for seniors who want a small, homelike setting where staff know residents well, meals are cooked on site, and a family-style atmosphere is valued over formal campus amenities. The community operates as two connected houses with a modest resident count, which fosters personal attention and a sense of belonging rather than a clinical, impersonal feel. A resident who lived there highlighted how the hands-on operator and long-time staff created a comfortable, intimate environment, walking outdoors, socializing, and enjoying organized activities. For families seeking a place where care feels personal and readily adjustable to individual preferences, this setup can be a strong fit.
Those who should consider alternatives are families prioritizing scale, polish, and high-level clinical support. One harsh review warns against placing a loved one here, describing the facility as run down and suggesting serious shortcomings in maintenance and oversight. While other reviews glow about care and the homey feel, this stark caution cannot be dismissed. If reputation hinges on consistent upkeep, safety assurances, and comprehensive medical supervision from licensed nurses around the clock, a larger, more resource-rich community may better meet those expectations. The contrast in experiences signals a need for thorough, in-person assessment before deciding.
The strongest positives center on care quality, warmth, and customized meals. Several residents and families praise staff for being attentive, compassionate, and actively involved in daily routines. Handled medications, laundry service, and a reliable schedule of activities, bingo, movies, walks, and opportunities for social connection, create a lived-in, comforting rhythm. The meals are described as home-cooked and adaptable to dietary needs, with mention of managers who are genuinely engaged and approachable. The clean environment and a âfamily touchâ reinforce a sense that this is a place where residents feel seen and valued, not simply cared for in a generic way.
However, the main drawbacks revolve around maintenance and the risk of inconsistent quality. The most vocal critique points to a run-down appearance and overall management issues that can eclipse even the strongest personal touches. In a setting this small, any lapse in upkeep or staffing reliability can have outsized effects on safety, morale, and day-to-day functioning. The tension between a genuine, hands-on operator and the reality of older, limited infrastructure is real here. Families must weigh the comfort of a homey vibe against the possibility of aging facilities and variable oversight, especially if medical complexity increases or caregiving needs become more demanding.
Operational realities matter as much as sentiment. The communityâs size, the two-home layout with a grid of roughly a dozen residents in some accounts, creates a tightly knit ecosystem where staff and managers can respond promptly. An owner who is frequently on site, combined with staff who speak a language that resonates with some residents and families, can shorten communication gaps and improve satisfaction. Yet that same small scale can magnify gaps in professional oversight if turnover occurs or if resources are stretched. Pros and cons hinge on the degree to which a family is comfortable engaging directly with leadership and willing to participate in ongoing conversations about maintenance, safety, and care plans.
In the end, Union House offers a pragmatic choice for those prioritizing warmth, personal connection, and dietary flexibility over campus breadth and clinical breadth. For families that value a âhome firstâ ethos and are prepared to manage the trade-offs of a small operation, including potential maintenance concerns and variable oversight, this community can deliver genuine quality of life. For those whose expectations center on sparkling facilities, robust 24/7 medical coverage, and consistently pristine upkeep, exploring alternatives will likely yield a better alignment. A deliberate visit, open questions about maintenance schedules, and conversations with current residents will reveal how Union House matches the specific priorities and risk tolerance of each family.












Understanding the True Cost of Assisted Living in 2025: A Comprehensive Guide
Understanding Medicaid Coverage for Assisted Living: A Comprehensive Guide
How and When Medicaid May Cover Assisted Living Costs