no notes returned

The available building reviews are predominantly positive: one resident described the staff as “very welcoming and helpful,” praised the amenities, and said the move-in was smooth. The only lifestyle concern visible in the reviews was prospective noise from being “Under the airport and in front a highway”; this is a concern raised in a five-star post, not a confirmed noise complaint.

Published resident material includes pest concerns, including a review alleging “tons of small roaches” coming up from drains. A city-record summary reports open repairs involving pests, plumbing, and leaks/damp/mould, but these records are not resident ratings and do not establish that every issue remained unresolved on the research date.

Residents praised the “great” front-desk staff, secure package room, regular cleaning and a superintendent who was “very quick to respond” through the building app. Other reviews report that “Management only responds when they want,” difficult communication after move-out, strict roof rules and limited gym facilities; these complaints are materially at odds with the stronger Openigloo aggregate.

New York YIMBY reported that construction was complete by March 17, 2025, with the facade finished and construction equipment removed. The available resident comment said “walls are a bit thin”; a separate design comment criticized facade flashing coordination, while another said the bay windows were “impossible to clean.”

The only resident review located called the building “very clean” and said it had “good amenities,” although it also noted that “walls are a bit thin.” Published building materials describe a rooftop terrace, fitness center, doorman-attended lobby, parking and bike storage; these are amenity descriptions rather than resident satisfaction ratings.

no notes returned

The available building-specific review evidence is limited to the aggregate published score: “3.5 out of 5 from 2 reviews.” No readable operational comments about management, staff, security, amenities or common-area upkeep were available, so no operational theme is asserted.

Residents describe the apartments as “spacious, clean, and well finished,” and one reviewer reported no issues with drafts or noise in their unit. Countervailing infrastructure-related feedback includes smoke entering through shared vents—“Entire apt/bathroom fills with smoke smell in minutes”—and an elevator that “keeps breaking every few weeks”; these are resident reports, not an engineering inspection.

Daily-life feedback praises Luis, his wife and front-desk staff as “super friendly,” with one resident saying nearly all work orders were handled within an hour; residents also mention clean amenities, a gym, rooftop access and a pet-friendly environment. The negative reviews describe management as unresponsive—one tenant says they sent “10+ emails” without a response—and report persistent smoke, barking from the ground-floor dog daycare, and delayed deposits.

Residents reported ceiling and bathroom leaks, including sewage water, and one reviewer said rainwater entered through an improperly installed terrace door. Other reviews describe “paper thin” walls, drafts around windows, unfinished roof and gym areas, and unusually high electric bills; these are resident reports rather than an independent engineering assessment.

Daily-life feedback is sharply mixed but mostly negative: residents describe “astronomical” ConEd bills, smoke and noise, difficult access control and management silence, while others call the concierge “polite and professional” and praise the manager and staff. The strongest positive themes are convenience—“Trader Joe's is right downstairs”—and attractive, clean apartments; the strongest negative themes concern security, responsiveness and unfinished amenities.