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.

I searched for a stated owner-occupancy percentage or descriptive wording indicating a high owner-occupied ratio. The listings mention owner-occupants and investors in general, but that is not enough to infer a specific occupancy rate, so the current value of 49 remains.

I looked for explicit elevator-count language in the public remarks, including phrases like a specific number of elevators or references to multiple elevators. The remarks only indicate elevator access and that elevators were updated, so there is no evidence to change the current value of 2.

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 marking CABTV as included, and none of the remarks provide any evidence that this changed. This is consistent across multiple agents and likely not a one-off listing error.

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.

Hot water inclusion is not supported by the current evidence. Only 1 of 20 recent MLS listings checks HOTWAT, while most list WTRHTR, and multiple public remarks mention a new or replaced water heater inside the unit. That pattern indicates the fee does not include building-supplied hot water.

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.

Sewer is included with very high confidence. Recent MLS data shows 18 of 20 listings marking SEWER as included, and the public remarks contain no contrary evidence. This looks like a building-level fee item that has been consistently reported by multiple agents.

Water inclusion is supported at very high confidence. Nineteen of 20 recent MLS listings list WATER as included in the association fee, and the public remarks do not suggest any change. This is broad, repeated evidence across multiple listings rather than a single agent's entry.

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.

Strong evidence the building has car wash facilities. Several remarks explicitly mention a 'car wash area,' and the feature appears in recurring listing copy across multiple agents, suggesting a shared building amenity rather than a one-off note.

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.

Strong evidence across many listings shows this building offers patio/deck-type amenities. At least 15+ remarks mention a private lanai or balcony, and several also explicitly reference a shared rooftop deck with ocean/sunset views. The consistency across multiple agents suggests this is a real, building-level feature rather than copy-paste error.

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 looked for surfboard storage or any combined board-storage amenity and found nothing in the public remarks. The listings mention parking, rooftop space, and car wash areas, but not surfboard storage.

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.

Trash chute is strongly supported as a building amenity. Multiple current listings explicitly mention 'trash chute,' matching the already strong MLS pattern, so this appears to be a consistent shared feature rather than copy-paste error.

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 looked for references to a pool and specifically to saltwater or saline pool wording, but found none. The building context also indicates no pool, so there is no public-remarks evidence to support a saltwater pool.

In-unit laundry is strongly supported for La Casa. Roughly 20+ remarks explicitly mention 'in-unit washer/dryer,' 'washer and dryer in unit,' 'stacked washer and dryer,' or 'washer/dryer is in the unit,' indicating this is not a copy-paste anomaly but a consistent building feature available in many units.

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 the remarks for coin laundry, card-operated machines, laundry fees, or other paid-laundry wording and found nothing. The listings repeatedly reference in-unit washer/dryer instead, which does not support community paid laundry.

I looked for explicit phrases like "laundry on every floor," "laundry room on each floor," and similar wording, but the remarks only mention in-unit washer/dryer. There is no public-remarks evidence that the building has community laundry on every floor.

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 parking is assigned/reserved in this building. Multiple listings explicitly say 'assigned parking,' 'assigned covered parking stalls,' and 'reserved stall,' and the current MLS data shows 16/20 records with ASSIGN. The consistency across many remarks suggests this is a real building feature, not a copy-paste anomaly.

Clear evidence that the building offers covered parking. Listings describe 'three assigned covered parking stalls,' 'secured, covered parking,' 'covered and secured parking,' and 'one secured covered parking stall,' while MLS data shows 17/20 records with covered/garage indicators. The evidence is strong and repeated across many remarks.

I looked for explicit language like deeded parking, owned stall, or parking included in deed. The remarks only support assigned parking stalls, so deeded parking is not confirmed.

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.

There is direct public evidence of a monthly parking charge of $40. Because the fee is explicitly stated, this is a high-confidence numeric extraction.

Guest parking is well supported by the remarks and MLS data. Multiple listings reference 'guest parking available,' 'guest stalls,' and '8 guest parking stalls,' and 14/20 current MLS records include guest parking. This appears to be a consistent building amenity rather than a one-off note.

The building clearly has secured-entry parking. Listings mention 'secure gated garage,' 'gated parking,' 'secured parking,' 'keyed access,' and even cameras/keyed access for entry, with 13/20 MLS records reflecting secured entry. The evidence is consistent across multiple listings and agents.

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.

I searched for phrases like parking waitlist, waiting list, or joining a list for parking and found none. The listings consistently describe assigned parking, which does not indicate a waitlist system.

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.

Multiple listings describe secured entry with keyed elevator access and restricted entry through registered security apparatus. That is strong public-remarks evidence of a card/fob-style security access system.

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 any mention of patrol service, roving security, or a patrolled building and found none. The remarks describe secured access and a resident manager, but not security patrol.

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 building-level evidence supports concrete construction. 17 of 20 recent MLS listings use 'CONCRE' in construction_materials, and none of the public remarks suggest a change away from concrete. This appears to be consistent MLS data rather than copy-paste speculation, with no conflicting site-visit or owner verification.

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.

The public remarks repeatedly reference a 30-day minimum rental policy. Per the provided definition, that means short-term rentals are not allowed in this building.

I searched for hotel rental pool, hotel program, managed-by-hotel, Hilton/Trump/Ritz pool language, and found nothing. Since short-term rentals are not allowed, hotel pool participation must be false.

I looked for mandatory pool wording such as required participation, cannot opt out, or must rent, and found no evidence. Because the building does not allow short-term rentals, mandatory hotel pool participation is also false.

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.

I searched for leasehold wording such as lease expiry, ground lease end dates, renewal terms, or an extended lease year. Instead, the public remarks identify the property as fee simple, so there is no lease expiry year to extract.

The listings directly and repeatedly state that La Casa is VA approved, which is strong public evidence that VA financing is accepted. No contradictory language appears in the remarks.

The remarks repeatedly and explicitly state that the building is fully insured, which directly matches the walls-in/full insurance definition. This is strong, consistent evidence across multiple listings, so the feature should remain true.

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 remarks for any language indicating the building passed a fire/life safety evaluation or similar fire-safety compliance wording. Nothing was found, so there is no remark-based evidence to mark this feature as passed.

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.

Strong evidence across many listings supports mountain views in this building. Multiple agents describe units with "mountain views," "mauka" orientation, and combined "city and mountain views," suggesting this is a recurring building feature rather than a one-off statement.

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.

City views are mentioned in many listings, with repeated language such as "sweeping city views," "city and mountain views," and "Waikiki city views." The consistency across multiple remarks and agents indicates this is a well-supported building-level view feature.

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.

A public remark explicitly references the "famous Friday night fireworks" in the context of the building’s location, and the same listing emphasizes ocean/sunset rooftop views. Because the request requires a view from the building, this is the strongest available evidence from the remarks set.

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.

Resident manager is strongly supported across the current remarks, with well over 10 listings explicitly mentioning it. Phrases include "resident manager," "on-site manager," and "on-site resident manager," suggesting this is a building-level amenity rather than a one-off agent error. This aligns with the prior high-confidence MLS history, so the feature should remain included.

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.