La Casa

MLS property data is fully consistent, with 24/24 listings reporting the building was built in 1976. No remarks contradict or suggest a later reconstruction date.

The highest observed unit floor in MLS data is 23 (with other units on floors 7–22) and no remarks specify a higher or total floor count. This supports estimating the building at 23 floors, though it is only moderately certain since roof amenities are mentioned but not floor-numbered.

No listing remarks state a total unit count (e.g., 'X-unit building'), and no reliable MLS field is provided. As a result, the total number of units cannot be determined from the available data.

Public remarks do not mention owner-occupancy percentage or related phrases. Per numeric-field rules, keep the current value (49.0) with low confidence and note there's no evidence in the remarks to confirm or deny it.

Public remarks mention elevator access/security (e.g., 'keyed elevator access'), but do not provide an explicit elevator count. Per rules, retain the current numeric value (2) with low confidence since there is no explicit number in the remarks.

Calculated from the lowest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.

Calculated from the highest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.

Calculated from association fees observed in penthouse unit listings for this building.

Public remarks repeatedly mention room/unit AC (window or split-type) and never describe central air conditioning or building-chilled water systems. With 0 of 20 listings checking central AC in the fee-includes field, there is strong evidence that central AC is not provided or included in the maintenance fees. Buyers should assume individual AC, not a central building system.

Cable TV inclusion appears to be a building-level fee feature with very high confidence. Recent MLS data shows 18 of 20 listings mark CABTV as included in association fees, and none of the public remarks suggest cable is separately billed. This looks consistent across multiple listings rather than a one-off agent copy-paste issue.

10 of 20 current MLS listings indicate common area electricity (OTCOEX) is included in association fees. Remarks are silent on common electric billing, so inclusion is based primarily on consistent MLS checkbox usage across multiple listings (moderate confidence, possibly copy/paste).

Multiple remarks highlight 'FEE SIMPLE' ownership, which is inconsistent with a co-op structure that would have co-op taxes built into monthly charges. With 0 of 20 listings checking the co-op tax inclusion field, there is overwhelming evidence that cooperative taxes are not applicable here. The building should be treated as a fee simple condo, not a co-op.

None of the reviewed listings indicate that in-unit electricity is part of the monthly maintenance fee, and 0/20 agents marked electricity as included in the MLS fields. Public remarks are silent on any 'all-utilities-included' arrangement, which is usually advertised if present. It is therefore very likely that unit electricity is billed separately to owners/tenants.

Across all listings, there is no indication that the building uses or includes gas service—no agents checked a gas-included field and no remarks mention gas ranges or gas utilities. The building appears to be all-electric, so gas is not an HOA-included utility. Buyers should assume no gas service and no gas charges in the maintenance fee.

Only 1 of 20 MLS listings checked HOTWAT, while 17 of 20 list WTRHTR (unit water heater). Multiple public remarks explicitly state 'new water heater' or 'new water heater installed', strongly indicating hot water is provided by unit heaters and not covered by association fees.

7 of 20 current MLS listings indicate internet service (INTSER) is included in association fees. Public remarks do not mention internet/wifi; the evidence comes from several agents' MLS checkboxes and suggests some units/assessments include internet, but confidence is moderate due to lack of explicit remarks.

None of the listings describe marina access, boat slips, or related HOA-covered charges, and 0/20 MLS entries flag any marina inclusion. The building is positioned near beaches and parks rather than a marina facility. There is extremely strong evidence that marina fees or access are not included in the maintenance fee.

18 of 20 recent MLS listings indicate SEWER is included in association fees. Public remarks contain no statements about separate sewer billing; combined MLS consistency across multiple listings yields high confidence that sewer is included in the association fees.

19 of 20 MLS listings list WATER as included in association fees. Public remarks do not contradict this and the consistency across many agent listings provides strong evidence that water is included in the association fees.

None of the listings advertise any BBQ, grill, or outdoor cooking facilities in the building. The complete absence of MLS BBQ checkmarks supports that La Casa does not provide a designated BBQ area.

Across 20 listings, there are no remarks referencing bike storage, bicycle rooms, or bike racks, and 0/20 have a bike-storage amenity checked in the MLS data. Given that agents consistently highlight other building amenities, the complete lack of any bicycle-storage mention provides strong evidence that the building does not offer dedicated bike storage.

Listings emphasize proximity to beaches, parks, and the Ala Wai canal but never discuss dock or mooring access. The MLS data confirms there is no marina amenity associated with the building.

Multiple listings (MLS: 10 of 20 currently checked CRWSH) and numerous public remarks explicitly state a "car wash area" or "car wash" (e.g., "building has a car wash area", "car wash area"). The mention appears consistently across different remark blocks (likely multiple agent entries or copy/paste), providing strong corroboration that the building offers a car wash facility.

Agent remarks focus on rooftop amenities, parking, and pet-friendliness but never reference a clubhouse-type facility. The absence of MLS clubhouse selections strongly supports that there is no clubhouse in this building.

Remarks focus on a resident manager and building security, with no indication of concierge or front-desk services. Combined with all MLS records leaving concierge unchecked, this supports a high-confidence conclusion that no concierge service is offered.

Remarks emphasize that La Casa is pet-friendly but never mention any dedicated dog-park or pet-run facility. The lack of MLS dog-park selections supports that there is no on-site dog park.

Across 20 listings, agents consistently highlight a resident manager and secure entry but never a doorman or lobby attendant. The absence of any such mention plus unchecked MLS data strongly indicates there is no doorman at this building.

Across all provided remarks there are no references to a gym, fitness room, or exercise facilities. Combined with the fact that agents have not checked the MLS exercise-room amenity, this strongly suggests the building does not offer a dedicated exercise room.

Despite being in a luxury-adjacent area, none of the agents describe any limousine, town car, or courtesy car service. The MLS data fully aligns with this, indicating the building does not provide limo or car service.

None of the remarks describe any dedicated meeting or conference space. Together with the MLS data, this indicates that La Casa does not offer a formal meeting room amenity.

Multiple listing remarks consistently describe private lanais/balconies (quotes include 'generous 104 sq ft lanai' and 'spacious 56 sqf open balcony') and a shared rooftop deck ('large rooftop deck', 'roof top deck with spectacular ocean views'). Evidence appears across many agent remarks and aligns with prior high confidence, indicating the building offers patios/decks to buyers.

The rooftop deck is large enough that an agent suggests you can 'jog around in a closed loop,' but it is not marketed as a formal jogging/walking path amenity. Given the lack of MLS indication of a jogging path, this appears to be casual use of the rooftop, not a dedicated path feature.

Listings do not advertise any children's playground or tot lot, which is typically highlighted in family-oriented buildings. The MLS data corroborates that there is no dedicated playground amenity.

None of the listings describe any private or fenced yard space—only lanais and a rooftop deck are mentioned. Given the high-rise urban setting and absence of PRIYAR in MLS, it is very likely the building does not offer private yard areas.

Agent comments focus on the rooftop deck, views, and proximity to the Ala Wai Golf Course but never mention an on-site putting green. With no MLS support, it is very likely the building lacks a putting green.

Remarks refer to a 'large rooftop deck' and 'serene rooftop amenities' where residents can relax, practice yoga, or jog in a closed loop, indicating a common recreation space. Even though the MLS RECARE box is not checked, repeated detailed descriptions from different agents confirm the presence of a usable recreation deck.

Agents consistently highlight only the rooftop and parking/manager features, with no references to a dedicated recreation or game room. The lack of MLS RECROO selections further indicates there is no separate recreation room.

Agents highlight proximity to many dining options and explicitly reference off-site restaurants and a café in neighboring buildings. Since no one describes an in-building restaurant or dining facility, the building should not be considered to have a restaurant amenity.

Multiple agents explicitly highlight a rooftop deck/area with sunset, ocean, and 360° views and note it as a place to relax, practice yoga, or jog. This repeated, detailed description across many listings provides very strong evidence that the building has common rooftop amenities accessible to residents.

At least some current listings (historical MLS: 5/20) explicitly mention a rooftop sauna—one remark even notes 'men & women's sauna!'—and multiple agent remarks reference rooftop amenities. The explicit wording supports inclusion with high confidence, though mentions are fewer than other amenities.

No listings' public remarks mention storage lockers, storage units, or dedicated storage areas (0/20). The MLS amenities checkbox shows STORAG/ADDLVSTORAG in 1/20 listings, but this appears isolated and likely a copy‑paste error; historical review was high confidence that the building does not offer storage lockers, so the feature is omitted.

I searched remarks for surfboard or board storage references and found none. Given the absence of any mention and no current building data indicating such storage, this is recorded as false with medium confidence.

No agent comments describe tennis courts or tennis facilities. Given that no MLS listings report this amenity, it is highly likely the building has no tennis court.

Strong, consistent evidence: MLS indicates 17 of 20 listings include TRACHU and many public remarks explicitly state "trash chute" (e.g., "trash chute, car wash area"). The repeated, explicit mentions across multiple listings/agents provide high confidence that the building has a trash chute system.

Multiple remarks emphasize assigned and guest parking in a secured garage but never mention valet service. The combination of description and MLS data strongly indicates there is no valet parking at this building.

Agents specifically reference gated/secured parking and garage access, not a gated or fenced complex or perimeter wall. Given the unchecked MLS gated/wall-fence amenity and the parking-specific context of 'gated,' the evidence points to no building-level wall/fence enclosure.

Across all remarks there is no indication of any shared hot tub or spa facility in the building. Given the brand-name appliance reference and near-universal absence of the MLS whirlpool amenity, it is very likely the building has no whirlpool/hot tub feature.

Across 20 listings, none have a pool amenity checked in MLS and none of the remarks mention a pool, lap pool, or swimming pool. Instead, agents consistently highlight a rooftop deck/area, saunas, and guest parking, suggesting these are the primary amenities and confirming the building does not offer a pool.

There is no mention of a heated pool or heated swimming facility in any of the 20 listings or remarks, and MLS data shows no pool or heated-pool features checked. Given the clear evidence that the building lacks a pool, a heated pool can be confidently ruled out.

I specifically searched the remarks for 'pool', 'salt water pool', 'saltwater', and similar terms and found no pool references. Given the building context that lists no pool and no remarks indicating one, salt pool is false with high confidence.

High and consistent evidence that some units at La Casa have in-unit laundry: historical MLS data indicated 17 of 20 listings included washer/dryer, and the current public remarks repeatedly state "in-unit washer/dryer", "washer and dryer in unit", and "stacked washer/dryer" across multiple agent listings. Mentions appear in many listings from different agents (some repeated language suggests partial copy-paste), but the volume and consistency of explicit phrasing provide strong confirmation that the building offers units with in-unit laundry.

Across all provided remarks, there is no reference to shared/community laundry, even when other amenities are described in detail, and 0/20 recent MLS entries flag a community laundry feature. Given the strong and repeated focus on in-unit washer/dryers instead, it is highly likely the building does not offer a separate community laundry facility. This appears to correct any prior assumptions that such a shared laundry might exist.

I searched for terms such as 'coin laundry', 'coin-op', 'quarters', and 'card operated' and found no references. All laundry references indicate in-unit washers/dryers, not paid community laundry.

I searched the remarks for phrases like 'laundry on each floor', 'laundry room on every floor', and 'floor-by-floor laundry' and found none. Listings consistently reference in-unit washer/dryers rather than community laundry facilities.

All 20 current MLS listings indicate the presence of parking, and multiple remarks reference a parking stall or a parking garage for each unit. Buyers can expect the building to provide on-site parking options.

Strong evidence that the building offers assigned/reserved parking: 16 of 20 current MLS records list assigned parking and many remarks explicitly state phrases like 'one assigned', 'one assigned, secure garage parking stall' and 'three assigned, secure, covered parking stalls.' Evidence is consistent across multiple agent remarks and aligns with historical MLS data.

Clear evidence of covered parking: 17 of 20 current MLS records show covered/garage parking and numerous remarks specifically reference 'covered' or 'secure garage' stalls. Multiple listings describe covered/garage stalls near the elevator and covered assigned stalls, confirming building-level covered parking.

Listings repeatedly mention assigned/secured/covered parking stalls and that some stalls were 'purchased separately' in one listing, but there is no explicit statement that parking is deeded. Searched for terms 'deeded', 'deed', 'owned parking', and 'parking included in deed' with no matches.

Neither the MLS data nor any of the public remarks reference EV charging or stations. This strongly indicates that EV charging is not currently available in the building’s parking facilities.

Public remarks include a clear mention of a $40 monthly parking fee. I searched all remarks for 'parking fee'/'monthly parking' and found this explicit $40 figure.

Evidence supports guest parking being available: 14 of 20 current MLS records list guest parking and multiple public remarks reference 'guest stalls', '8 guest parking stalls', and 'guest parking on the 6th floor.' These consistent mentions across listings indicate building-level guest parking.

Strong evidence of secured-entry parking: 13 of 20 current MLS records list secured entry and many remarks explicitly mention 'gated parking', 'secured garage', 'gated guest parking', and keyed access/register-required entry. Multiple agents describe gated/secure access to the parking areas, indicating building-level secured parking.

Neither MLS data nor remarks mention tandem or back-to-back stalls, even in listings that describe parking in detail. This makes it very unlikely that tandem parking is a notable or offered configuration in the building.

All descriptions focus on assigned and guest stalls in a secured garage, with no reference to valet service. The consistent omission across all listings strongly indicates the building does not offer valet parking.

Listings describe assigned stalls, guest parking, and some purchased stalls but do not reference a parking waitlist. I searched for 'waitlist', 'waiting list', and related phrases and found none.

Remarks explicitly say keyed access is required for elevator entry, indicating restricted elevator access. This is a clear, detailed, building-level description that outweighs the unchecked MLS amenity box.

I searched for 'key card', 'fob access', and 'keyed access' and found explicit language indicating card/registered keyed access for building and elevators. This supports a high-confidence true for card/fob access security.

Across 20 listings, agents describe a resident manager, secure building/garage, and keyed access but never mention a security guard or 24/7 security. With MLS guard amenity unchecked on all listings and consistent omission in remarks, this is strong evidence that the building has no security guard service.

I searched for 'security patrol', 'roving security', and similar terms and found none. The building has a resident manager and secured/gated access but no explicit patrol service mentioned, so security patrol is marked false with medium confidence.

At least one listing clearly notes 'secured building with cameras,' which is a building-level feature, not unit-specific. Even though agents do not check the MLS security system box, the explicit camera mention provides high-confidence evidence of video surveillance in the building.

Across all provided remarks, cooling is only described via individual air conditioning units in specific rooms, with no mention of central air or a building-wide HVAC system. MLS checkbox data (0/20 for central AC) supports the absence of central AC, so the building is very likely not served by central air conditioning.

None of the listings explicitly describe split or ductless mini-split systems, and the dedicated MLS checkbox for split AC is never selected. The recurring references are to standard room AC units, so it is very unlikely that the building’s units use split AC systems.

Historical MLS inclusions flagged window AC in 16 of 20 listings. At least 7 separate public remarks explicitly mention air conditioning—phrases include 'AC comfort', 'LG a/c in the bedroom', 'Two AC units provide year-round comfort', and 'air conditioning units in the living room and bedroom'—and appear across multiple agent listings, aligning with the checkbox data, so the building-level window AC feature is supported.

Strong evidence: 17 of 20 recent MLS listings list 'CONCRE' indicating reinforced concrete construction. Public remarks do not discuss a change and do not contradict concrete construction, and the historical confidence was high — include feature with high confidence.

Limited evidence: 6 of 20 MLS listings list 'DOUWAL' (double-wall). Public remarks do not mention double-wall or related construction details, so include as available/possible with low-to-moderate confidence — could reflect partial building areas or inconsistent agent checkbox usage.

None of the listings reference hollow tile walls or construction, either in checkboxes or narrative remarks. The building is instead repeatedly characterized through amenities (rooftop deck, garage, guest parking) typical of reinforced-concrete towers. This provides strong evidence that hollow tile is not a primary construction type here.

Moderate evidence: 6 of 20 recent MLS listings list 'MASSTU' (masonry/stucco). Public remarks across listings do not mention masonry or stucco (no phrases like 'masonry' or 'stucco'), so include as a possible building material with moderate confidence; may reflect partial or secondary materials or inconsistent agent reporting.

All 20 listings omit any reference to steel frame construction, and 17 instead explicitly mark concrete in the MLS checkboxes. The remarks describe a conventional Waikiki concrete condo tower with no mention of structural steel framing. This makes it very likely the building is not classified as steel frame construction in MLS terms.

1 of 20 current MLS listings explicitly lists 'SLAB' foundation; historical notes indicate a few agents previously selected slab. None of the public remarks discuss foundation type or a recent foundation change, so inclusion is based on limited MLS checkbox evidence and given moderate confidence.

No analysis available

None of the 20 listings mark wood frame construction, and no remarks use terms like 'wood frame' or describe a low-rise house-type structure. The consistent description of a secured, multi-story condo with rooftop deck and structured parking strongly indicates non-wood high-rise construction. This supports confidently excluding wood frame as the primary building construction.

4 of 20 MLS listings identify 'above ground' construction. Public remarks across listings do not describe a raised/pier structure or mention recent changes, so the evidence is limited to MLS checkbox entries across several agents and is treated as implied (moderate confidence).

Across all public remarks there are no references to 'brick exterior', 'brick construction', or similar wording. In the MLS materials data, brick is never selected for this building. Given local building norms and the lack of any brick-related descriptions, brick construction can be safely ruled out.

No listing identifies single wall construction, and none of the remarks use phrases like 'single wall' or 'old Hawaiian style'. Instead, they describe a secured, elevator-served condo with garage parking and rooftop amenities, which is inconsistent with single wall construction. This makes it virtually certain the building is not single wall.

Several listings explicitly state the building enforces a 30-day minimum for rentals, meaning short-term rentals under 30 days are not allowed. I looked for phrases indicating STRs are permitted (e.g., 'short-term rental allowed', 'vacation rental allowed') and found none.

There is no indication the building participates in a hotel rental pool; combined with the 30-day minimum policy (STRs not allowed), participation in a hotel rental pool is not supported by the remarks. Searched for 'hotel rental pool', 'hotel rental program', and specific hotel names with no matches.

No listing indicates any mandatory participation in a rental pool, and because short-term rentals are not permitted (30-day minimum), a mandatory hotel pool cannot apply. I searched for 'mandatory hotel pool', 'required to participate', and similar phrases and found none.

Multiple listings describe fee-simple ownership, including one stating 'Don’t miss this opportunity to own FEE SIMPLE one bedroom.' Among the 20 listings reviewed, none are marked leasehold, indicating the building offers fee-simple units and appears predominantly fee simple.

Across all provided listings, there are no mentions of leasehold tenure or lease terms, and the land tenure field never indicates LH. Combined with explicit fee-simple marketing, this strongly suggests the building does not have leasehold units.

The remarks describe the unit/building as fee simple (not leasehold), so a lease expiry year is not applicable. I searched for phrases like 'lease expires', 'land lease to', and 'leasehold' and found none.

Multiple listings explicitly state the building is VA-approved, indicating VA financing is accepted for units in this building. Examples include 'VA approved' and 'La Casa is VA-approved.'

Several listings explicitly state full building insurance/walls-in coverage (quotes include 'La Casa is FULLY INSURED' and '100% Insured as of 2026'), so mark insured_fully = true with high confidence.

Historic MLS data previously flagged the building as having FIRSPR (high prior confidence), but across ~30 public remarks provided no listing text mentions 'sprinkler', 'sprinkler system', or 'fire suppression'. Only 1 of 20 current listings shows the FIRSPR amenity checkbox. Given the lack of explicit remarks and the isolated checkbox, the feature’s presence is uncertain—kept as possible but with low confidence.

I searched the public remarks for phrases like 'fire life safety evaluation passed', 'FLSE passed', 'fire safety certified', and 'passed fire inspection' and found none. With no current value provided in remarks, set to false with medium confidence (absence likely indicates not stated publicly).

Flood zone determined from official FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) data using building coordinates, not from agent-reported listing data.

No analysis available

Multiple listings and remarks explicitly cite ocean views and rooftop ocean panoramas (e.g., "sweeping ... ocean views", "rooftop deck with stunning ocean views"). Current remarks corroborate historical data (8 of 20 listings flag OCEAN in view_descriptions) and the evidence is strong across multiple agents/listings.

Numerous listings explicitly mention mountain/mauka views (e.g., "mountain views", "Diamond Head" and "mauka view" phrasing appears across remarks). Current remarks confirm the historical pattern (12 of 20 listings flag MOUNTA), indicating the building offers mountain views.

There is at least one clear listing remark stating “Gorgeous Diamond Head and city views from the spacious lanai,” supporting that some units provide Diamond Head views. While not ubiquitous across all remarks, the explicit mention plus prior high confidence indicates the building offers Diamond Head-view units.

The public remarks frequently reference city and Waikiki views (e.g., "sweeping city ... views", "watch the city light up", "Waikiki views"), consistent with the historical data (17 of 20 listings flag CITY). Evidence is strong and consistent across multiple listings/agents.

While many remarks mention ocean and rooftop ocean/sunset views, none of the current remarks use the specific 'coastline/shoreline/coastal' terminology. Given consistent absence of that exact descriptor across multiple agent remarks, 'view_coastline' is not supported.

Across all provided listings, no agent ever references garden, courtyard, or landscaped views despite frequently describing other view types in detail. Combined with 0/20 GARDEN in MLS, this strongly indicates garden views are not a notable or distinct feature of this building.

There are explicit mentions of views of the Ala Wai Golf Course in several remarks (notably “Ala Wai Golf Course and canal views”), indicating some units overlook the golf course.

Multiple listings/remarks explicitly mention views of the Ala Wai canal/harbor (e.g., 'Ala Wai canal view', 'Ala Wai and canal views'), providing good building-level evidence that some units offer marina/canal/harbor views.

Several listings explicitly promote sunrise/eastern exposure (phrases like 'enjoy the sunrise', 'east-facing lanai', 'morning sun'), indicating multiple units/building orientations provide sunrise views.

Multiple current public remarks (at least 8 separate listing remarks in this batch) explicitly mention sunset views — key phrases include 'stunning sunset and Ocean views', 'rooftop deck perfect for panoramic sunsets', 'sweeping ocean and sunset views', and 'enjoy the sunset every day'. These sunset claims are repeated by different listing remarks and align with prior high-confidence historical data that rooftop and some lanais were marketed for sunset views, so evidence is strong and consistent across agents rather than a single copy/paste instance.

Multiple listings describe the immediate surroundings and views in detail, but no cemetery is ever referenced. Combined with 0/20 MLS cemetery flags and the urban Waikiki location, this strongly supports that the building does not have cemetery views.

I looked for explicit phrases like 'watch fireworks from lanai' or 'see fireworks from unit' but found only generic references to the Friday night fireworks and proximity. Because there is no explicit statement that fireworks are visible FROM the unit/building, this is recorded as false with low-moderate confidence.

No analysis available

No analysis available

Over ten listings call the building 'pet friendly', including one specifying 'PETS ALLOWED - no restrictions' and several repeating 'Pet Friendly (verify)'. This consistent language across different agents confirms that pets are allowed in the building.

Historic MLS data indicated High confidence that La Casa has a resident/on-site manager. In the current batch of public remarks at least 12 separate listing remarks explicitly mention a resident or on-site manager—phrases quoted include "on-site resident manager", "resident manager", and "on-site manager"—showing consistent confirmation across multiple agents rather than an isolated mention.

Listings market the property as a residential condo with at least a 30-day minimum rental and make no reference to hotel operations or a condotel program. Combined with MLS data, this strongly supports that the building is not a condotel.

The building is described as fee simple and there are no cooperative-ownership terms in any of the listings. MLS coding also lacks co-op indicators, so this building is almost certainly not a co-op.