Park Two

Pros

• The location of Park II could be appealing for some residents seeking urban living.
• The building has a long-standing history, as indicated by the vintage elevator.
• Some residents may appreciate the hardwood floors in their apartments, despite their quality.
• The management is responsive to city citations, ensuring that some issues are addressed when necessary.
• Residents have the opportunity to express their concerns through official channels like 311, which can promote accountability.

Cons

• The maintenance and management of Park II are consistently unresponsive and inadequate.
• The building lacks modern amenities, making it feel outdated and neglected.
• Residents have experienced unresolved issues such as leaks and mold, indicating poor maintenance.
• Heating problems have led to extremely cold temperatures inside the apartments, with one resident measuring only 40-something degrees.
• The property has received multiple citations from the city, highlighting ongoing issues that management fails to address adequately.
• There is a high turnover rate in residency, suggesting dissatisfaction among tenants due to poor management and maintenance practices.
• The manager's demeanor is described as rude, contributing to a negative living environment for residents.
• Rent increases annually without corresponding improvements in living conditions create a perception of greed among management.
• Residents report receiving minimal returns on their damage deposits, further emphasizing the theme of financial exploitation.
• The overall lack of care and friendliness in the building creates an unsuitable environment for seniors or individuals with disabilities.

Review

Living at Park II for three years proved to be a regrettable decision for one tenant who experienced ongoing challenges with maintenance and management throughout their stay. The resident's frustrations primarily stem from the inadequate response to complaints and requests for repairs, which ultimately fostered an atmosphere of disregard and neglect. As they described it, the management and maintenance teams did not even merit a single star. With amenities effectively non-existent—save for an outdated elevator dating back to the 1950s—the overall living experience left much to be desired.

One particularly troubling issue was the water leak in the wall of their apartment that persisted over the duration of their residency. This leak led to mold growth, which was neglected by management despite repeated notifications. The situation exemplified a broader pattern of unresponsiveness, as resident requests were met with excuse after excuse, demonstrating a lack of urgency or concern for tenants’ well-being. It became increasingly apparent that maintenance issues extended beyond just aesthetic concerns; residents faced significant health risks due to poor upkeep.

Temperature control posed another problem within Park II, particularly impacting those residing in units equipped with low-quality hardwood floors. During cold weather spells, heating malfunctions resulted in temperatures plunging into unlivable conditions—one occupant even reported measuring indoor temperatures in the 40-degree range despite being on the top floor of the building. Such conditions revealed deep flaws in both building design and property management priorities; clearly, tenant comfort was repeatedly overlooked.

Adding weight to these grievances is Park II’s tumultuous relationship with regulatory authorities. According to this resident's account, Park II had been cited multiple times by the city of Minneapolis—a fact corroborated by their own involvement through calls to 311 reporting violations related to living conditions. Despite addressing some issues following inspections, it seems more focused on adhering only minimally to required standards while allowing more serious problems to fester unchecked.

The financial burden placed on residents also raised concerns about fairness and transparency in rent practices. The review noted that rents increased yearly yet failed to correspond with improvements or additions in services offered—a situation highlighted by comparing costs against those at other properties providing better amenities and service quality. Furthermore, a high turnover rate among residents hinted at broader dissatisfaction among tenants who often felt compelled to vacate rather than endure subpar living conditions.

The experience culminated when this tenant sought reimbursement from their damage deposit upon moving out—only to receive less than 10% back from what had originally been paid as a $500 deposit. This experience reinforced an overarching perception of greed associated with Park II’s management structure. Particularly disconcerting was how this environment may affect vulnerable populations; given its classification as suitable housing for seniors, it's troubling that such inadequate levels of care might leave many residents—with various mental or physical disabilities—feeling isolated or unsupported.

In summary, based on this tenant’s detailed account, it becomes clear why they would strongly advise potential renters—a sentiment echoed across various platforms—to think twice before considering Park II as their next home. From neglectful maintenance practices and steep rent increases devoid of corresponding benefits, to toxic environmental factors like mold growth and unwarranted behavior from management personnel; all components paint an alarming picture indicative of systemic issues that ought not be overlooked by current or prospective residents alike.

This part of Minneapolis, Minnesota offers a variety of amenities that could be appealing to seniors looking for a comfortable and convenient place to live. With several parks nearby such as Loring Park and North Loop Dog Park, residents can enjoy outdoor activities and walking trails. There are also cafes like Dunn Brothers Coffee and Spyhouse Coffee where you can relax and socialize with friends. For dining options, restaurants like Hell's Kitchen and Inbound BrewCo provide delicious meals in a welcoming atmosphere. Additionally, there are pharmacies in close proximity for easy access to medication and healthcare needs. With hospitals like Hennepin County Medical Center and physicians' offices like Whittier Clinic nearby, residents have access to quality medical care. The area is also well-served by transportation options, making it easy to get around the city. Overall, this part of Minneapolis offers a blend of convenience, recreation, healthcare facilities, and dining options that would make it a great choice for senior living.

Parks

• Loring Park (0.1 miles)
• Gateway Dog Park - Off-Leash Play Area (0.6 miles)
• North Loop Dog Park (1.4 miles)
• Mill Ruins Park (1.4 miles)
• Boom Island Park (1.8 miles)
• Franklin Terrace Off-Leash Dog Park (2.7 miles)
• Longfellow Park (3.5 miles)

Cafes

• Dunn Brothers Coffee (0.1 miles)
• Spyhouse Coffee (0.9 miles)
• Jinx Tea (4 miles)
• Roundtable Cof (4.1 miles)
• Angel Food Bakery & Coffee Bar (5.1 miles)
• Starbucks (5.7 miles)
• Caribou Coffee (5.8 miles)

Restaurants

• 19 Bar (0.1 miles)
• Mortimer's (0.5 miles)
• Hell's Kitchen (0.6 miles)
• Gluek's Restaurant & Bar (0.9 miles)
• Cowboy Jack's (1 miles)
• Chipotle Mexican Grill (1.2 miles)
• Inbound BrewCo (1.2 miles)

Places of Worship

• Westminster Presbyterian Church (0.4 miles)
• Elim Church Center (4.9 miles)

Pharmacies

• CVS Pharmacy (0.4 miles)
• Walgreens (0.7 miles)
• Walgreens (1.3 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (1.4 miles)
• Walgreens (2.3 miles)
• Target Pharmacy (2.5 miles)
• Walgreens (2.6 miles)

Hospitals

• Csc Gi Lab (0.9 miles)
• Hennepin County Medical Center (1 miles)
• University of Minnesota Medical Center - East Bank Campus (2.5 miles)
• Regency Hospital (3 miles)
• Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital (4.7 miles)

Physicians

• Whittier Clinic (1.1 miles)
• HealthPartners Health Center for Women Clinic St Paul (3.7 miles)
• Southwest Dermatology Specialist (5.6 miles)
• Dermatology Consultants P.A. (5.8 miles)

Transportation

• Minnesota State Fair Transit Hub (5.2 miles)