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 explicit owner-occupancy statements and found none in the public remarks. Per rules, when a current numeric owner_occupancy exists and remarks do not mention it, retain the current value but mark confidence low and note lack of corroborating evidence.

I searched the public remarks for explicit counts (e.g., '2 elevators', 'four elevators') and found no explicit statement of number. The only mention was a proximity reference to 'the elevator.' Per rules, keep the current numeric value when remarks do not mention this field.

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.

MLS checkboxes list cable TV in 18 of 20 units (strong pattern). Public remarks contain no evidence that cable service was removed; multiple listings reference in-unit TVs but not exclusion of building cable. Overall evidence across agents is strong and consistent with previous MLS data.

More than half of MLS entries (11 of 20) include common area electricity in HOA inclusions. Public remarks are silent on billing for common area electric and do not indicate a change, so inclusion is implied across multiple listings though not explicitly described in remarks.

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.

Strong evidence that hot water is not included in the association fee: 15 of 20 listings reference WTRHTR and only 1 lists HOTWAT, and multiple public remarks explicitly state 'new water heater' or other in-unit water heater notes. This indicates hot water is supplied by individual unit water heaters and not bundled into HOA fees.

Internet service appears inconsistently in MLS checkbox data (5/20 listings) and public remarks contain no statements like 'internet included' or 'wifi in HOA'; unit-level notes (e.g., 'dedicated ethernet line') are not evidence of building-wide internet inclusion, so it's unlikely that internet is included in the maintenance fee.

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.

A large majority of MLS listings (18 of 20) list sewer as included in association fees. Remarks do not mention separate sewer billing or changes, so the evidence across listings is strong that sewer is included.

Nearly all MLS entries (19 of 20) list water as included in HOA fees. Remarks mention in-unit water heaters but do not dispute building-level water billing; overall evidence across agents strongly supports water being included.

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 (historical MLS: 8/20) explicitly list a 'car wash area' as a building amenity; public remarks repeatedly state phrases like 'car wash area' and 'car wash.' Evidence appears in several agents' remarks rather than a single copy/paste, supporting inclusion with high confidence.

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 current listings describe significant outdoor lanai space for units along with shared rooftop deck amenities, using phrases like 'spacious covered lanai', 'enclosed lanai', and 'large rooftop deck with stunning sunset and ocean views.' At least five separate agents mention a rooftop deck/rooftop area, and well over ten listings reference usable lanais, reinforcing that patio/deck-style outdoor spaces are a clear, established feature of this building. This evidence, consistent with prior high-confidence data, confirms that buyers can expect both private lanais and common rooftop deck areas here.

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.

Review of 20 listings shows 0/20 with storage/extra storage checked in amenities and no remarks mentioning storage lockers, storage units, or dedicated extra storage areas. The only 'storage' language refers to kitchen cabinetry inside a unit, not building-level lockers. With many other amenities consistently advertised, the consistent absence of storage-unit references strongly indicates the building does not provide this feature.

Searched for 'surfboard storage', 'board storage', 'surf storage', and references to bike and surfboard storage. The public remarks contain no references to surfboard storage facilities.

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.

High-strength evidence: MLS amenity checkbox reports TRACHU in 18/20 listings and earlier historical data was high confidence. Multiple agent remarks explicitly state 'trash chute' (e.g., 'Building amenities include ... trash chute'), appearing across different listings/agents rather than as a single outlier, supporting 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.

Confirmed absence of any pool references in the public remarks and building context shows no pool. Therefore a salt water pool does not exist in the building.

The majority of unit remarks advertise in-unit laundry — MLS summary noted 18/20 listings with washer/dryer inclusions and many current public remarks repeat phrases like "in-unit washer/dryer" and "washer & dryer in the unit." This explicit language appears across multiple listings/agents rather than a single outlier, indicating strong evidence 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.

Searched for 'coin laundry', 'coin-op', 'paid laundry', 'quarters' and similar terms. Remarks make no reference to paid community laundry; most units advertise in-unit washer/dryer instead.

Searched for phrases like 'laundry on each floor', 'laundry room on every floor', and 'floor-by-floor laundry'. All public remarks reference an in-unit washer/dryer and do not describe community laundry on any floors.

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 assigned parking is provided: historical MLS checkboxes show 17/20 listings with assigned parking and many remarks explicitly state 'one assigned parking stall', 'one assigned, secure garage parking stall' or 'three assigned ... stalls'. Statements appear across multiple agent remarks and unit ads, indicating this is a consistent building-level feature.

Clear evidence of covered parking: 17/20 MLS records include covered/garage flags and numerous remarks across listings mention 'secure garage', 'covered parking stall', or 'covered secured parking'. Multiple listings reference a gated/secured garage and covered stalls, supporting high confidence that the building has covered parking.

Public remarks repeatedly state assigned/assigned covered/secure parking stalls and even mention parking stalls being purchased separately, which indicates parking is deeded/owned with units. I reviewed all remarks for terms like 'deeded parking', 'assigned stall', and 'purchased separately' and found several explicit mentions supporting deeded parking.

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.

The remarks explicitly identify a monthly parking fee of $40 ('Other monthly fee $40 is parking fee.'). I searched the remarks for 'parking fee', 'monthly parking', and related phrasing and found this direct statement.

Guest parking is offered: MLS data lists guest parking in many records (14/20) and public remarks across numerous listings reference guest/visitor stalls (e.g., 'guest parking available on the 6th floor', '8 guest parking stalls', 'ample guest parking'), indicating consistent availability of guest parking in the building.

Agents consistently describe the parking as secured or gated, using phrases like 'secure parking garage,' 'gated parking garage,' and 'secured, covered parking.' Together with SECENT checked in 14/20 MLS listings, this demonstrates that La Casa’s parking is accessed through a secured entry system.

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.

There are many references to assigned parking and guest parking, but no explicit mention of a parking waitlist system in any listing. I searched the remarks for terms like 'parking waitlist', 'waiting list', or instructions to 'join waitlist' and found no occurrences, so no evidence of a waitlist is present in the remarks.

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.

Searched for 'key card', 'fob access', 'card reader', and similar phrases. The remarks explicitly state keyed access is required for building and elevator entry, indicating electronic/card/fob style controlled access is present.

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.

Searched for 'security patrol', 'roving security', and similar terms. Listings describe resident manager, secured building, gated parking and cameras, but do not state there is a security patrol service.

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.

High-confidence evidence that units in this building have window/wall AC. MLS inclusions show 14 of 20 listings checked ACWIUN, and at least 6–8 different public remarks explicitly mention AC or specific window/room units — quotes include 'air conditioning units in the living room and bedroom', 'LG a/c in the bedroom', and 'Two AC units'. The repeated MLS checkbox plus multiple agents' remarks (not isolated to a single listing) indicate this is a building-level/common-unit feature buyers should expect.

Historical MLS checkbox data shows 17 of 20 recent listings list 'CONCRE' for construction materials, providing strong evidence the building is concrete. None of the current public remarks mention a different construction material or describe a recent change; no agents' remarks explicitly contradict the MLS checkbox. Given the high historical consistency and lack of contrary remarks, we consider construction_concrete to be present with high confidence.

La Casa is consistently represented as a concrete high‑rise, and double-wall construction appears only in a small minority of MLS checkboxes (5/20) with no supporting detail in any remarks. Given the building type and the inconsistent, uncorroborated checkbox usage, double-wall construction is very likely not a true building feature here.

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.

Several listings (6/20) mark masonry/stucco in the construction materials, and the remaining listings generally omit this field instead of specifying an alternative construction type. Although no remarks mention stucco explicitly, the repeated selection by multiple agents suggests the building incorporates masonry/stucco elements over its concrete structure.

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.

Some agents (3/20) identify a slab foundation in MLS, and none select alternative foundation types or mention posts/pier construction. Given the building’s scale, concrete structure, and garage/rooftop configuration, a concrete slab/mat foundation is the standard and most plausible method of construction. Physical building norms plus the MLS pattern provide strong support that slab construction applies here.

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.

Most agents do not mark 'above ground' for this building, and no remarks describe a special raised or pier-type above-ground structure—only a normal high-rise condo over a parking garage. The few ABOGRO selections appear inconsistent and are likely checkbox noise. This supports treating 'above ground' as not a defining construction type for the building.

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.

Multiple remarks explicitly note a 30-day minimum rental policy (e.g., 'allows 30-day rentals', 'building is currently allowing 30-day minimum rentals'), which per the provided definition means short-term rentals (less than 30 days) are not allowed. I searched for phrases like 'short-term rental allowed', 'STR permitted', 'vacation rental' and found only references to the 30-day minimum.

Because the building enforces a 30-day minimum (short-term rentals are not permitted), hotel rental pool participation cannot apply. Additionally, I searched the remarks for 'hotel rental pool', 'hotel rental program', and brand-managed pool references and found none.

Short-term rentals are not permitted (30-day minimum), so a mandatory hotel pool is not applicable. I also searched for phrases like 'mandatory', 'required to participate', and 'cannot opt out' in relation to rental pools and found no mentions.

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 listings explicitly describe the unit as 'FEE SIMPLE', so leasehold expiry is not applicable. I searched the remarks for phrases like 'lease expires', 'land lease to', 'leasehold expiring', and any 4-digit year references related to lease expiry and found none. Therefore the lease expiry year is not applicable and returned as null.

Multiple listings in the public remarks explicitly call the building VA-approved (e.g., 'VA APPROVED', 'VA-approved'), indicating the building is eligible for VA financing. I searched the remarks for phrases like 'VA approved', 'VA financing', and 'VA loans' and found direct mentions.

Multiple listings explicitly declare the building is fully insured (quotes above). This is clear, repeated language in the remarks, so set to 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 remarks for phrases indicating a passed fire/life safety evaluation (e.g., 'FLSE passed', 'fire safety certified', 'passed fire inspection') and found none. With no explicit mentions and no current true value, set to false with medium confidence (absence is likely indicates not stated).

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 listing remarks across the provided public_remarks explicitly mention ocean or ocean-facing views (I count ~15 remarks referencing ocean or 'ocean views', including phrases like “stunning sunset and Ocean views,” “Ala Wai, Ocean,” and “spectacular ocean views” on the rooftop). Evidence is consistent across many agent remarks and aligns with prior high historical confidence, so the building offers ocean-view units.

Numerous listing remarks (approximately 12 distinct mentions) reference mountain or mauka views, with quotes like “sweeping city, mountain, and ocean views,” “beautiful mountain and Waikiki city views,” and “sunrise, mountain…views.” The repeated, consistent references across listings and previous high confidence indicate the building offers mountain-view units.

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.

Many listing remarks (approximately 15 distinct mentions) explicitly state city or Waikiki/cityscape views, with lines such as “sweeping city, mountain, and ocean views,” “watch the city light up,” and “Waikiki city views.” The consistency across multiple agent remarks and historical data supports inclusion of city views for the building.

Agents consistently market 'ocean views' but never use 'coastline' or similar terms across many listings, even when highlighting 360° rooftop vistas. Given 0/20 COASTL tags and the lack of coastline-specific language, it is very likely the building is not characterized by distinct coastline views.

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.

Several listing remarks (about 8 distinct mentions) reference the Ala Wai canal/harbor or canal views—examples include “Ala Wai canal,” “Ala Wai, Ocean,” and “peek-a-boo canal views.” While less frequent than ocean/city/mountain mentions, the repeated explicit references across listings support that some units have marina/Canal/Ala Wai views.

Several remarks explicitly note sunrise views and east-facing lanais (phrases like “Enjoy the sunrise” and “east-facing”), demonstrating that some units in the building have sunrise/morning sun exposure.

Rooftop amenities and at least one unit lanai are marketed with direct sunset language ('stunning sunset and ocean views', 'enjoy the sunset every day', 'watch the sun set and the city light up'). This repeated, explicit phrasing confirms the building offers notable sunset viewing opportunities.

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.

Searched for explicit phrases indicating fireworks can be viewed from the unit or building (e.g., 'watch fireworks from lanai', 'fireworks view from unit'). Remarks reference proximity to Friday night fireworks but do not explicitly claim a view from the property.

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.

At least six distinct listings describe the building as having a 'resident manager' or 'on-site resident manager', in contexts listing core building amenities. The consistency across many agents and listings provides very strong evidence of an on-site resident manager.

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.