Mel Mel Z
I’m updating this review after getting the review response from the management. I was gonna put the nonsense frustration to an end, but after seeing the management’s comment, I’m updating once again. THERE WAS NOOOO DRY WALL DAMAGE, non identified during the inspections list, and is only brought up by management during the phone conversations when I demanded why there were 8 hours spent to “repair” the “damages” as shown in this review here. Stating “dry wall damage” was found in the apartment is not truthful. There’s still no evidence to be found for particular dry wall damage. The condition, again, are only cosmetics at best. I’ve consulted my lawyers and friends in law, and they found the supposed evidence mentioned by their inspector absurd and laughable. If it wasn’t because of the time consideration, and that the management has softened up their demand of “8 hours repairs”, I would have pursued actions in the small claims court. ——————update 1/22/2026———- I’m posting this to document my move-out experience, which was extremely upsetting and felt fundamentally unfair. I paid close to $7,000 per month for a one-bedroom and consistently treated the building and staff with respect. Shortly after moving in last year, the then-superintendent encouraged me to leave a 5-star review, which I did. I also tipped building staff during Thanksgiving one week after moving in. I mention this only to show that I was a cooperative, good-faith tenant from the start. Before moving out, I completed an in-person pre-move-out inspection with the superintendent, who told me the apartment looked great, was in excellent condition, and that I had nothing to worry about. After I vacated, however, the final inspection was conducted without me present, by a different staff member, and reached conclusions that directly contradicted what I was told. I was charged for 8 hours of painting, despite there being no wall damage—only minor, cosmetic surface marks consistent with normal living. When I pushed back and asked for clarification, management doubled down and insisted these cosmetic issues constituted “damage” requiring retexturing, despite no holes, cracks, or visible drywall damage. During a follow-up call, the manager further stated that part of the charge was for “drywall repair,” even though no drywall repair was ever identified during the pre–move-out inspection and no such damage existed in the unit. The shifting explanations—painting, retexturing, and then drywall repair—were especially concerning and made the justification for the charges feel inconsistent and retrofitted after the fact. What was especially concerning was the inspection report itself. In one section, an area was marked as a “dirty wall” based on three small strands of hair, documented with three separate photos as evidence. These kinds of findings were then used to justify significant charges, including repainting and other deductions. The overall process felt one-sided and lacked transparency. Tenants are reassured during the pre-inspection, only to face aggressive and highly technical charges after they’ve already moved out and no longer have leverage. Vague standards like “rent-ready” were cited afterward to justify what appeared to be routine turnover work and subjective aesthetic judgments. For a RENTAL building at this price point, I expected a much more consistent and good-faith move-out process. I’m sharing this so future renters understand how security deposit deductions and inspections are handled here, and so they know to document everything carefully and push for a in person, official move out inspection when the building doesn’t offer you this option. Posting some “Dirty” walls photos quoted in their inspection evidence list. Also including the most “serious” photo evidence which they claim needs “retexturing” and “repair”