5000 S. 107th Street, Greenfield, WI 53228
To contact a resident: (414) 425-4008
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Lexington Village Apartments Costs & Pricing
Lexington Village Apartments presents an appealing option for renters seeking affordability in Waukesha County, particularly when compared to broader state averages. For a one-bedroom unit, the monthly cost stands at $731, significantly lower than the county's average of $2,752 and the statewide figure of $3,412. Similarly, two-bedroom apartments at Lexington Village are priced at $876, again offering considerable savings relative to Waukesha County's average of $2,524 and Wisconsin's overall average of $3,111. These competitive pricing structures not only enhance accessibility for residents but also position Lexington Village as an attractive choice in a region where housing costs can often be daunting.
| Floor plans | Lexington Village Apartments | Waukesha County | Wisconsin |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Bedroom | $731 | $2,752 | $3,412 |
| 2 Bedrooms | $876 | $2,524 | $3,111 |
Independent Living communities with a similar price nearby
Overall Review of Lexington Village Apartments
Pros
They have lived there for over two years and love it.
They have made lots of friends.
The staff are great.
Their dog is really popular there.
Cons
None present.
Review
Lexington Village Apartments in Greenfield, WI is best suited for seniors who want an active social life in a pet-friendly setting and who can function comfortably with a straightforward, staff-supported living arrangement. The core appeal is community: residents seem to form connections quickly, and the environment supports regular interactions, casual gatherings, and a sense of belonging. For a resident who values companionship, easy access to friendly faces, and a living space where a dog can be a welcome part of daily routine, this community offers a practical, livable option without demanding intensive caregiving or complex programming. It favors those who prefer a warm, neighborly atmosphere over ultra-structured or clinical environments.
Those who may want to consider alternatives are seniors who require more intensive assistance, strong privacy boundaries, or a tighter budget. If daily needs include substantial in-home care, 24/7 on-site staffing, or meticulous control over every service expense, this property may feel limited. Similarly, residents seeking a quieter, more isolated living experience, or who prioritize a broader array of high-end amenities and formal programming, might be better served elsewhere. The absence of detailed care options and a broader services menu could push some toward communities that specialize in full-service assisted living or larger independent living campuses with deeper on-site resources.
The primary positives here, genuine opportunity to make friends, responsive and friendly staff, and a clearly dog-friendly culture, offer meaningful ballast for daily life. A strong social fabric reduces loneliness and creates practical networks for casual help and shared activities. The staffâs approachable demeanor appears to translate into smoother day-to-day interactions, helping residents navigate routines with less friction. In short, the value proposition centers on connection, approachable human warmth, and an environment where a pet can thrive, which together can significantly elevate quality of life for those who prioritize social engagement.
There is a notable caveat tied to the limited review set: one resident rated the community poorly, signaling that not every experience will meet expectations. The lack of detail leaves questions about consistency, value for money, maintenance responsiveness, or space and amenity adequacy. Given the duality of the reviews, this is not a definitive indictment, but it does suggest that prospective movers should probe deeper into operational realities before committing. In particular, inquiries into maintenance turnaround, rent structure, and what is included in the monthly cost will illuminate whether the perceived benefits hold steady over time.
When weighed against the cons, the pros still carry significant weight for the right audience. The social energy and pet-friendly climate function as intrinsic, ongoing benefits that can offset a more modest amenity slate or a lean service package. For residents who value daily interaction, informal support networks, and the comfort of a shared courtyard or common spaces where a dog can be part of the routine, Lexington Village delivers tangible living satisfaction. Those who can tolerate a potential variability in upkeep or cost clarity will likely find the balance favorable, provided due diligence confirms that the operating expectations align with personal needs and budget.
In the end, the decision hinges on priorities. If the aim is to embrace an approachable, sociable setting where neighbors become friends and four-legged companions feel at home, Lexington Village is worth a serious look. Schedule a tour, ask pointed questions about maintenance response times, inclusions in monthly fees, and any limits on community activities, and assess whether the cadence of life here matches daily preferences. For seniors seeking more robust on-site care, greater quiet, or a broader amenity suite tied to higher price points, alternatives, whether other independent living options or full-service assisted living, should be explored to ensure the choice aligns with long-term well-being and financial comfort.













A Detailed Examination of Nursing Home Costs Across the U.S.
Exploring Nonmedical Home Care: Understanding Services, Costs, and Financial Approaches
Engaging Brain Games and Innovative Apps to Keep Senior Minds Active