Asbury Dwellings Inc

Pros

• Ms Evans is a tremendous asset to Asbury.
• The property manager Ms. Evans is wonderful and cares for her residents.
• The whole team is super friendly and helpful.
• The 24-hour front desk security is a plus.
• Management is awesome, caring, and patient.
• Residents are happy to live in a beautiful, affordable apartment for seniors.
• Ms Webb has been extremely helpful throughout the application process for my mother.
• The reviews describe the rental experience as the best.

Cons

• Ms. Evans is described as incompetent and very rude, caring only about her authority.
• She does not show respect to residents or employees.
• The building is insecure, with back/side doors barely hanging on and unsafe conditions.
• She abuses her power by threatening eviction, banning visitors, and being unavailable by phone.
• She is accused of inappropriate relations with residents' family members and giving them special attention.
• She allegedly left an elderly man locked out of his unit for more than 24 hours.
• She is alleged to have filed a false police report to get someone removed.

Review

Asbury Dwellings presents itself in these passages as a place with real potential, but one where the experience of living there depends a great deal on who you interact with and when you come to terms with the building's management. Across many comments, residents describe a spectrum of experiences that range from surprisingly positive to alarmingly negative, all centered around the management team led by Ms. Evans. On one end, tenants praise the staff as caring, responsive, and genuinely helpful, while on the other, they accuse the office of incompetence, arrogance, and misconduct that affects daily life, safety, and privacy. The result is a complicated picture of a community that some residents cherish for its location, security presence, and activity options, and others view as a place where basic needs and dignity are at risk.

Security and maintenance emerge as the most contentious points. Several reviews express concrete concerns about the physical state of the building: back and side doors described as barely hanging on their latches, unresolved for months, and a sense that the building's security is fragile in the face of a recent break-in. There are reports of a 24-hour front desk in some reviews that is seen as a positive security feature, while others complain that the security office is nearly impossible to reach, and that the overall security of the property does not meet the expectations of elderly residents who require steady protection. One account mentions a resident who was locked out for more than a day, raising fears about how quickly help would arrive in an emergency. Alongside these concerns, there are mentions of repairs being started but not finished, and a recurring theme that water pressure remains inadequate, all of which contribute to an impression of a building that looks good but does not always operate smoothly in day-to-day life.

Within this arena of safety and reliability, the management style of Ms. Evans stands out as both a source of praise and a source of contention. Some residents describe her as a tremendous asset to Asbury, noting her attentiveness, follow-through on applications and requests, and a general sense that she cares about tenants' well-being. A few accounts speak highly of the management team as a whole, highlighting friendliness, patience, and a supportive atmosphere, with remarks about how the office staff and maintenance crews are responsive and courteous. In this view, Ms. Evans is a central figure who makes the complex feel organized and approachable, contributing to a positive living experience and a sense of security.

Conversely, other residents paint a starkly different portrait of the same manager. They describe Ms. Evans as insufferable, frequently late, unavailable by phone, and domineering in a way that feels punitive to tenants. Some allege a pattern of threats against residents, including threats to evict, and they accuse the manager of showing favoritism toward certain visitors and dismissing concerns that don't align with her preferences. There are charges of unethical behavior, including accusations that the manager has abused power, conducted private interactions that feel improper, and even engaged in actions perceived as harassment or retaliation. A few reviews go as far as claiming that a false police report was made and alleging involvement in personal misconduct or nepotism. It is important to note that these are allegations raised by residents, sometimes with references to reports or witnesses, but they remain claims within the shared narratives of the building's residents rather than independently verified facts.

The conversations about management also touch on privacy and professionalism in sensitive matters. Several tenants report that the office staff handle highly personal documents - such as Social Security numbers, birth certificates, and bank statements - which raises concerns about confidentiality and trust. A number of reviews point to a culture in which residents feel pressured to post positive reviews, or where negative feedback is met with resistance rather than constructive responses. In this sense, the social climate around the office and its communications matters just as much as the physical state of the building. Some residents who have lived in the building for many years express nostalgia for a time when repairs were more consistent, when interactions with staff felt more respectful, and when the overall atmosphere did not revolve so heavily around asserting authority.

Despite the conflicting experiences, a common thread among many residents is the sense that the property has true potential. People repeatedly describe the building as fairly nice and well-suited for seniors, with an appealing location and a strong sense of community among residents who know one another. The presence of secure access and a generally pleasant environment for social activities are highlighted as significant positives. The contrast between the ideal of a well-kept, safe, and supportive place to live and the lived reality of inconsistent management and security issues creates a tension that many residents acknowledge. Some long-term tenants speak positively about the ability to enjoy quiet, clean surroundings, meaningful activities, and a friendly tenant board, while others insist that without better management - from timely communications to consistent repairs and more professional handling of sensitive information - the property cannot live up to its potential.

In sum, the body of reviews surrounding Asbury Dwellings presents a property that at its core appears to be a desirable home for many seniors but is hampered by a division in experiences with its leadership. The facility's physical safety, security, and regulatory concerns clash with accounts of a responsive and caring management team. Prospective residents and their families are left weighing a mix of highly favorable testimonials about friendliness, security presence, and a sense of community against serious warnings about unresponsiveness, questionable management practices, and privacy issues. The recurring question is whether changes in management approach, communication, and consistency in repairs and security could reconcile these divergent experiences and unlock the full promise that many residents say the building once held.

This area of Washington, DC offers a convenient and vibrant urban lifestyle with easy access to public transportation, dining options, healthcare facilities, cafes, pharmacies, theaters, parks, physicians' offices, and places of worship. The proximity to Shaw-Howard University Metro Station and various cultural and entertainment venues make it an ideal location for seniors looking to stay active and engaged in the community. Additionally, the presence of reputable hospitals such as Howard University Hospital and Children's National Medical Center ensures quality healthcare services are readily available. Overall, this neighborhood provides a well-rounded living environment for seniors seeking a dynamic city experience in Washington, DC.

Transportation

• Shaw-Howard University Metro Station (0.2 miles)
• McPherson Square Metro Station (0.9 miles)
• Metro Center Metro Station (1 miles)
• Judiciary Square Metro Station (1 miles)
• NoMa-Gallaudet U Metro Station (1 miles)
• Union Station Metro (1.2 miles)
• Federal Triangle Metro Station (1.3 miles)

Restaurants

• Right Proper Brewing Company (0.2 miles)
• Rumi’s Kitchen (0.5 miles)
• Le Diplomate (0.6 miles)
• Garden District (0.6 miles)
• Chicken + Whiskey (0.6 miles)
• Number Nine (0.6 miles)
• Republic Cantina (0.6 miles)

Hospitals

• Howard University Hospital (0.4 miles)
• Children's National Medical Center (1.1 miles)
• Medstar Washington Hospital Center (1.2 miles)

Cafes

• The Coffee Bar (0.4 miles)
• Unconventional Diner (0.4 miles)
• L Street Coffee (0.5 miles)
• A Baked Joint (0.7 miles)
• Dolcezza (0.8 miles)
• Tatte Bakery & Cafe (1.1 miles)
• Wine & Butter Cafe & Market (2.2 miles)

Pharmacies

• CVS Pharmacy (0.6 miles)
• Walgreens (0.6 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (0.6 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (0.7 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (0.8 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (0.8 miles)
• Walgreens (0.8 miles)

Theaters

• Regal Gallery Place & 4DX (0.9 miles)
• Alamo Drafthouse Cinema DC Bryant Street (1.5 miles)
• AMC Georgetown 14 (2.2 miles)

Parks

• S Street Dog Park (0.9 miles)
• Meridian Hill Park (1.1 miles)
• Capitol Reflecting Pool (1.6 miles)
• Stanton Park (1.7 miles)
• West Potomac Park (2.1 miles)
• Southwest Duck Pond (2.3 miles)
• Lincoln Park (2.3 miles)

Physicians

• One Medical (1.1 miles)
• Children's National - Main Hospital (1.1 miles)
• One Medical (1.2 miles)
• The Centers For Advanced Orthopaedics (1.2 miles)
• American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (2 miles)

Places of Worship

• St Joseph Catholic Church on Capitol Hill (1.6 miles)
• Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception (1.9 miles)
• St Peter's School on Capitol Hill (2.2 miles)