Ashgrove Crossing in Muncie, IN

Senior living communities with a similar price nearby

• from +$346 / mo

  Addison Place

  4.8 from 88 reviews

  $2,341 to $5,107 / month

  21.9 miles away
• from -$201 / mo

  Lynd Place

  4.6 from 93 reviews

  $1,794 to $3,436 / month

  1.6 miles away
• About the same

  Silver Birch Of Muncie

  4.5 from 62 reviews

  $2,000 / month

  3.2 miles away
• About the same

  Bethany Pointe Health Campus

  4.1 from 13 reviews

  $2,009 to $4,710 / month

  15.6 miles away
• from +$105 / mo

  Golden Living Center - Muncie

  2.8 from 37 reviews

  $2,100 / month

  2.5 miles away

Pros

• The staff is nice.
• The apartments are small but well kept.
• There are social activities like parties, games, free dinners, and barbecues.
• Rent is extremely inexpensive, about 25% of residents’ income.
• Small pets are allowed.
• There is on-site laundry for tenants.
• The place is nice, with residents gathering in larger common areas to socialize.

Cons

• Bed bugs persisted for an extended period despite extermination efforts.
• Residents had to discard furniture because of bed bugs.
• A resident's father reportedly suffered a stroke and died amid the bed bug outbreak and inadequate care.
• The staff were not as helpful as advertised when residents moved in.
• The delivery doors did not work and the building's communication system was just an answering machine.
• There was no competent staff in the building, or they were sleeping on the job.
• The reviewer warned others not to send loved ones to that place.

Review

Ashgrove Crossing in Muncie is best suited for highly independent seniors who want affordability and an active social scene, without requiring on-site nursing or regular care assistance. The community operates as an apartment-style setting with an age cap around 62+, where residents manage their own daily needs while enjoying a schedule of social events, informal gatherings, and communal activities. The units are compact but generally well maintained, and features like on-site laundry and small pet allowances add practical appeal for budget-minded households. This is not a medical or assisted-living environment, so the fit hinges on staying self-reliant while embracing a lively, budget-conscious living option.

Those who should consider alternatives are seniors who anticipate needing regular care, medication management, or 24/7 staff support. The reviews highlight a history of pest issues and variable maintenance responsiveness, which matters greatly for anyone with chronic health needs or fallibility in self-care routines. Management communication is described as inconsistent, and some residents note that doors and intercoms do not always function as expected. For families prioritizing predictable service, rapid maintenance response, and a consistently pest-free environment, a traditional assisted living or a nursing facility with stronger on-site oversight may be a safer, more reliable path.

The strongest positives, low cost, a social hub, and a sense of community, do meaningful work in offsetting several drawbacks, but not all. Affordability is real: rent is reported as a small fraction of many seniors’ income, and the property fosters social engagement through activities, meals, and gatherings that help mitigate isolation. Small pets and on-site conveniences contribute to quality of life for many residents who can live comfortably in smaller spaces. Still, these advantages are tempered by the bed bug history and the perception that pest management is reactive rather than proactive, along with limited staff availability and uneven responsiveness. In a situation where independence remains intact, the social fabric may compensate for some service gaps, but it cannot erase the risk of ongoing pest incidents or delayed fixes.

From a practical decision-making standpoint, prospective residents should prioritize transparency about recent pest control results, the current level of maintenance staffing, and the reliability of essential systems (doors, intercoms, alarms). A disciplined due-diligence walk-through is essential: verify the extermination history, inspect unit cleanliness, test door accessibility, and ask for recent references from current residents about how quickly issues are resolved. Inquire about the social worker’s schedule and what support is truly available for non-medical needs. Clarify what services, if any, are accessible through third-party providers, and whether rent includes utilities, dining options, or transportation. This clarity matters when weighing the value of the lower price against the potential hassle of ongoing pest concerns and maintenance lapses.

Ashgrove Crossing is not the right match for those who require consistent, high-touch care or have safety sensitivities tied to pest-related issues. It is a practical choice for seniors who prize affordability and community life and can navigate a setting where self-management remains the norm and pest control is an ongoing consideration. Alternatives to compare include true assisted living communities with robust on-site care, more predictable service levels, and stronger pest-management protocols, as well as other independent-living options with larger layouts and tighter operational reliability. In making a final decision, the key is aligning the level of independence and desire for social activity with expectations for cleanliness, responsiveness, and medical oversight.