Golden Age Apartments

Pros

• The building is clean.
• The staff are nice; they fix apartments.
• Residents can meet new friends there.
• It is a nice place to live.
• It is a great place to live.
• It is clean and up to date.
• The property is very nice and well kept.

Cons

• The front desk staff was described as standoffish and insistent on delivering to each resident's door.
• A rotting stench from one room reportedly made the driver physically ill.
• Residents allegedly answered the door while nude on two occasions.
• The front desk refused to provide an entry code, citing that the building was secure.
• The manager was described as rude with a "it's her way or the highway" attitude.
• Government-subsidized elderly housing was described as a place where residents are treated like prisoners to a degree.
• The environment was described as lacking accessibility and filled with drama.
• There were cautions about possible drug trafficking and overall safety concerns in the place.

Review

A large subsidized senior housing complex has drawn a wide and sometimes contradictory set of impressions from the people who live there, visit, or work nearby. On one hand, there are plenty of residents who praise the place as clean, well kept, and a reasonable home for aging relatives or themselves. On the other hand, there are strong warnings about management style, privacy concerns, and delicate safety issues that have left some people feeling unwelcome or unsafe. The experiences span a spectrum from genuine warmth and practical convenience to friction, drama, and a sense that rules are enforced with little regard for the people those rules are meant to serve.

A recurring thread among those who visit or work at the property is the friction surrounding access and day-to-day operations. A FedEx delivery person who worked the area describes a tense start, when the front desk staff insisted on a specific delivery ritual - ringing a random resident, waiting for a response, and then delivering to each unit in sequence. That approach felt intrusive and impractical to the driver, who also faced disturbing conditions inside the building - an overwhelming stench from a single room and moments when residents answered doors while nude. The driver recalls feeling unsafe and uncomfortable in trying to perform their job, particularly as coronavirus concerns loomed during the pandemic; the implication was that bringing packages into the building could pose a risk to many vulnerable residents.

The tension intensified when the driver proposed safer, more convenient alternatives, such as leaving packages in a rec room, the office, or the mail room, rather than forcing door-to-door delivery. The front desk staff reportedly stood firm on a policy that prioritized delivering to each residence's door, citing security as a justification. The driver felt the insistence on door-to-door delivery, combined with accessibility barriers (no entry code given, and the building deemed "secure"), created a situation where a straightforward courier job became a source of conflict. The confrontation grew acrimonious, with insults exchanged as the driver insisted on a more practical approach. Eventually, the driver chose to drop packages at a bench near the front rather than continue the door-to-door routine, which only fueled further hostility from staff, who insisted the driver was not doing their job.

Viewing the incident through a gendered lens, the driver, a woman, notes that she expected understanding from a fellow woman in a position of front-line responsibility - someone she believed would appreciate safety concerns and the realities of working with an elderly population. The disappointment she describes centers on the perception that the staff member was dismissive rather than accommodating, failing to recognize legitimate concerns about privacy, personal boundaries, and the health risks inherent in delivering to a building where residents live in close quarters. The resulting disagreement is framed as more than a simple work conflict: it felt like a fault line between routine service and the personal and safety boundaries of both staff and residents.

Beyond that particular incident, this complex has elicited a broad mix of reviews from a larger community. Some residents and visitors describe the building as clean, well maintained, and nicely run, with staff who are responsive and capable of fixing apartments, letting people make new friends, and generally creating a pleasant living environment. A few people repeatedly affirm that the property is nice, well kept, and convenient enough for daily life, with mentions of accessibility features and an improving infrastructure. Others, however, paint a harsher portrait: accounts of a rude manager who seems to insist on her own way, a sense that residents are treated more like prisoners than tenants, and a climate of constant drama. There are warnings about drug trafficking rumors and other safety concerns, along with skepticism about how the system handles privacy, security, and the overall quality of life for elderly residents.

The conflicting narratives suggest a place where positives and negatives sit side by side, sometimes in sharp contrast. Some residents feel a genuine sense of community, describing neighborhoods within the complex where they have formed friendships and where the physical upkeep reflects care and pride. Others describe encounters with staff or administrators who feel inflexible, unaccommodating, or dismissive, sometimes turning routine interactions into stressful experiences. A few comments hint at broader issues in subsidized housing for seniors - fragile balance between efficient service and the need to protect a vulnerable population, the complexities of building access in older structures, and the reality that a single facility can host a range of experiences from bright and hopeful to tense and unsettled.

Taken together, the impressions point to a property that can be a good home for some, but that requires careful consideration for others. For prospective residents or their families, the message is not simply that the building is good or bad; rather, it's that the experience depends heavily on factors such as the quality of day-to-day management, the willingness of staff to accommodate reasonable requests, the degree to which privacy and safety are respected, and how well the building's routines align with the needs and habits of elderly residents. The stories about clean hallways and friendly neighbors sit alongside warnings about rude management, restrictive policies, and safety-related disputes. Anyone looking at this place would do well to weigh these varied experiences, perhaps visit in person, talk to current residents, and assess whether the environment aligns with their expectations for safety, accessibility, and daily life in a subsidized senior housing setting.

This area of Norwich, New York, offers a convenient and well-rounded community for senior living. With several places of worship nearby, including the Christian Missionary Alliance Church and St. Paul's Catholic Church, residents can easily access spiritual support and services. Pharmacies such as Walgreens and Service Pharmacy are within close proximity for any medical needs. There are also various dining options like Johnny B's and The Artists Palette to enjoy meals out with friends or family. Parks like East Park and Bowman Lake State Park provide opportunities for outdoor recreation and relaxation. Additionally, Chenango Memorial Hospital is located nearby for convenient healthcare services, along with several physicians' offices for regular check-ups. Overall, this area offers a peaceful and supportive environment for seniors looking to settle down in Norwich.

Places of Worship

• Christian Missionary Alliance Church (0.1 miles)
• Bible Baptist Church (0.3 miles)
• United Church of Christ First Congregational (0.3 miles)
• Connolly & Connolly (0.3 miles)
• Connolly Joseph F Rev & Bonnie S (0.3 miles)
• St Paul's Catholic Church (0.4 miles)
• Emmanuel Episcopal Church (0.4 miles)

Pharmacies

• Walgreens (0.1 miles)
• Service Pharmacy (0.3 miles)
• Norwich Pharmaceuticals (4.4 miles)
• Osg Norwich Pharmacutical (4.6 miles)
• Pharmassist (7.2 miles)
• Bartles Pharmacy (7.4 miles)
• Service Pharmacy (10.1 miles)

Restaurants

• Johnny B's (0.2 miles)
• Park Place Restaurant and Lounge (0.2 miles)
• VIP Lounge (0.2 miles)
• The Artists Palette (0.3 miles)
• Nina's Pizzeria & Restaurant (0.3 miles)
• Becky's Place (0.7 miles)
• McDonald's (0.9 miles)

Parks

• East Park (0.2 miles)
• West Park (0.2 miles)
• Bowman Lake State Park (0.3 miles)
• Peacock Park Manor (0.4 miles)
• Weiler Park (0.6 miles)
• South Broad Street Park (0.9 miles)
• Sherburne Hertitage Park (10.8 miles)

Cafes

• Wild Owl Cafe (0.3 miles)

Theaters

• Colonia Theatre (0.3 miles)
• Earlville Opera House (14.3 miles)

Hospitals

• Chenango Memorial Hospital (0.5 miles)
• UHS Chenango Memorial Hospital (0.6 miles)
• Chenango Memorial Hospital (0.6 miles)

Physicians

• Family Planning of South Central New York (0.5 miles)
• Janet Martin MD (0.5 miles)
• Chenango Memorial Hospital, Womens Health Center (0.6 miles)
• Converse Allan MD (0.6 miles)
• UHS Primary Care (0.6 miles)
• Prenatal Care & Assistance Program (0.6 miles)
• Karen R Banks Lindner (0.7 miles)

Transportation

• U-Haul Neighborhood Dealer (6.7 miles)
• Natures Expression Taxidermy Studio (14.6 miles)