Guess which feature Lennar decided to skip on their newest high density development?

A. Balconies

B. Parking

C. Elevators

D. Secure access points

Answer: C

Residents of the Chapman Commons and similar condo communities enjoy the use of an elevator to access the higher floors. Imagine this building without an elevator and just stairs?

What your mid rise condo community had NO ELEVATORS?

Imagine this scenario: you’ve just returned home to your condo, arms full of groceries, a baby in a car seat, and you’re eyeing a staircase that leads up three stories to your door.

This might sound like a quirky “what if,” but it’s actually a reality in one of Lennar Homes’ recent projects called Amaris in Irvine’s Great Park. Lennar built this community of mid-rise condos entirely without elevators, aiming to keep HOA costs down. It’s an unusual move, especially in Southern California, where convenience is king and most mid-rise buildings feature elevators as a given.

The Impact on Daily Life and HOA Costs

Now, let’s think about how this would translate if your condo community adopted a similar design. All high density communities currently enjoy the convenience of elevators, making it easier to get from parking to your front door. If those elevators were gone, residents would not only have to adjust to a more physically demanding lifestyle—think lugging groceries or furniture up several flights of stairs—but it could also influence property values and market appeal.

While Amaris has private garages for each residence, the similar communities offering flats on a high floor with private garages like 100 West, A-Town, and The Domain all have elevators to go up to the top floor.

On the plus side, removing elevators does save on maintenance costs and can lower HOA fees. In the case of Amaris, Lennar aimed to reduce the HOA burden by skipping elevators altogether. For a newer community like Amaris, HOA costs are still around $600 a month, which is already on the higher side. So it begs the question: would that cost be even higher if elevators were included?

How the Market Reacted to Amaris and Implications on New Projects

What makes the Amaris experiment especially interesting is that, despite the lack of elevators, the community still sold out. Even more telling, the largest floor plans — many of which were located on the third floor — reportedly sold for around $1.3 million. That’s a strong signal that buyers were willing to accept the trade-off in exchange for newer construction, location, and overall design.

It’s fair to argue that Amaris may be a somewhat isolated case. Irvine has a long track record of absorbing new housing almost regardless of configuration. There’s a strong sentiment in the market that “you can build just about anything in Irvine and buyers will show up,” especially when inventory is tight and the neighborhood planning is as polished as Great Park.

Anaheim, however, may not get the same automatic pass. Buyers there tend to be more price-sensitive and more value-driven, which could make an elevator-free mid-rise a tougher sell on paper. Also, the recent incentives being offered by Lennar on their current townhome community “Brio” might make them more cautious. That said, Amaris gives builders like Lennar a real-world data point they can point to: proof that buyers will accept stairs — even to upper-level units — if the pricing, design, and long-term HOA structure make sense.

If Lennar does pursue an Amaris-style project on their high-density land in A-Town, it would likely be a calculated risk, not an experiment. The success at Amaris gives them justification to try a similar model, especially if keeping HOA costs in check becomes a bigger selling point in the next cycle. For buyers and existing condo owners, it’s a reminder that design decisions once considered “non-starters” can quickly become normalized when the market proves they work.

In Southern California, what direction did builders take after experimenting with work-live condos?

A. Building more work-live units
B. Conventional townhomes and condos
C. More detached homes
D. Steel high-rise buildings

Answer: B.

Why Are Builders Moving Away from Live-Work Communities?*

In the early 2000s, live-work units seemed like a brilliant idea. Picture this: a home where you could run a small shop or office on the ground floor and live upstairs. It made perfect sense in an era when more people were working from home and when small-scale Amazon retail partnerships were on the rise. It felt like a no-brainer at the time.

But fast-forward to today, and we’re seeing fewer and fewer of these live-work communities being built. Here’s why.

1. The Changing Tides of Demand
Initially, these mixed-use spaces were ahead of their time. They catered to a growing crowd of remote workers and small business owners who dreamed of a short commute—just down the stairs. With the surge in home-based businesses, it was logical to create spaces that blended living and working. Yet, as the housing market evolved, these units started to lose their luster compared to pure residential properties.

2. The Shrinking Buyer Pool
One of the biggest challenges with live-work units is that they appeal to a narrower slice of the market. While some buyers love the idea, many others see it as less flexible or less practical. As a result, these properties often sit on the market longer and may even require price reductions to attract buyers. For example, in communities like Harbor Lofts, we’ve seen live-work units lingering while more traditional condos move quickly.

3. A Real-World Example: The Harbor Lofts Case (and the Parking Puzzle)
Let’s take a concrete example from Harbor Lofts. The last live-work unit there took significantly longer to sell than its purely residential neighbors. Not only did it face a smaller buyer pool, but it also ran into issues with lending. Mixed-use properties can sometimes give lenders pause, adding complexity to the transaction.

But there’s another layer to this story: parking. In a mixed-use development that includes retail or commercial space, you often need more parking to accommodate not just residents but also customers. Harbor Lofts, for instance, faces a busy street like Harbor Boulevard. While that streetfront sounds great in theory, parking is a real challenge in that area. The same goes for places like Brea Street Lofts, where retail units mean you need even more parking than a typical residential complex. Unfortunately, street parking isn’t always plentiful, and not all cities welcome the idea of clogging up their streets with extra cars.

In short, the parking dilemma is just another piece of the puzzle that makes live-work units a tougher sell. It’s a practical consideration that can further limit the appeal of these properties, making developers think twice before building more of them.

Mixed use makes it difficult for appraisers as well as there really aren’t any viable comps within the same city.

Conclusion
In the end, while live-work units had their moment, the market has largely shifted toward maximizing residential use. That means builders find it more profitable to create straightforward townhomes or condos without the added complexity. For buyers and sellers, it’s just something to keep in mind. And if you’re curious about these unique communities, feel free to check out places like Artist Village, Santiago Street Lofts, Soco Walk, Vantis, and Brea Street Lofts on our site.