1426 Keeaumoku

No analysis available

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.

Listings emphasize ceiling fans and explicitly say A/C is allowed, which implies no central system, and no MLS records list central A/C in the fees. Central air is therefore not included in the maintenance fee.

No listing mentions cable TV as part of the HOA fees, and the cable‑included code is missing across all MLS entries. Cable service is therefore very likely billed separately.

Association fee details show OTCOEX (other common expenses/common area electricity) on every listing. This supports that common area electrical costs are included in the monthly maintenance fee.

There is no indication this is a cooperative or that co‑op taxes are charged. Association fees do not list cooperative taxes, so this fee is not included.

Association fee descriptions include water, sewer, and common expenses but not electricity. This strongly suggests unit electricity is billed separately rather than included in the maintenance fees.

One unit has a gas range, but there is no indication that gas is included in maintenance fees. Since GAS is not selected in the HOA inclusions, gas service is almost certainly billed separately.

Association fees list water and sewer but not hot water, while many units list water heaters among inclusions. This pattern strongly indicates that hot water is generated in‑unit and not included in the maintenance fees.

None of the listings claim that internet or Wi‑Fi is part of the maintenance fee, and the INTSER code is never selected. Internet service is therefore almost certainly paid separately by owners or tenants.

The building is not on a marina and no listings refer to marina access or fees. Association fees do not list marina charges, so marina fees are not included.

All provided MLS entries show sewer charges included in the maintenance fees. This indicates that sewer service is covered by the association.

Water is explicitly listed as part of the association fees across all provided listings. This confirms that domestic water usage is included in the maintenance fee.

Marketing remarks emphasize gated entry, guest parking, and private yards but never mention BBQ grills or a barbecue area. Given that BBQs are commonly advertised when present, it is very likely there is no shared BBQ amenity.

The remarks do not mention any bicycle room, racks, or storage area, and bicycle storage is not selected in MLS amenities. It is very likely there is no dedicated bike storage facility.

The property is described as near parks, schools, and shopping in Makiki, not on the waterfront. With no marina or dock references and no marina amenities in MLS, the building clearly does not have a boat dock.

None of the listings mention a car wash area, and 0/7 MLS entries have the car wash amenity selected. Given this would be a notable perk in a small Makiki complex, it is very likely no dedicated car wash facility exists.

The project is characterized as a small, gated condo complex without resort‑style amenities. Given no references to a clubhouse and no CLUHOU code, there is no on‑site clubhouse.

The project is a small gated walk‑up without any reference to staffed services beyond a resident manager. There is no concierge or front‑desk service indicated in any source.

Remarks call the building pet‑friendly but do not advertise any dedicated dog run or pet park. The absence of a dog‑park amenity code indicates there is no formal dog park on the property.

Security is described as gated, not staffed, and there is no central lobby typical of doorman buildings. The lack of DOORMA in MLS strongly indicates there is no doorman.

The building is marketed on location and basic conveniences, with no suggestion of an on‑site gym or fitness room. Given the absence of EXEROO in MLS, an exercise room is almost certainly not provided.

The building is a modest Makiki walk‑up, and luxury amenities like limousine or house car service are never mentioned. With no LIMSER code in MLS, limo service is clearly not provided.

The complex is portrayed as a modest, gated community without business or conference facilities. Since neither remarks nor MLS mark a meeting room, such a room almost certainly does not exist.

Remarks highlight “private lanai,” “small backyard,” and “spacious courtyard” attached to units. MLS amenity codes for patio/deck are also present on some records, confirming that units in this building commonly have patios, lanais, or deck‑like outdoor spaces.

While Makiki District Park nearby offers recreation, no listing suggests a dedicated jogging or walking path within the project itself. The absence of the WAJOPA amenity confirms there is no on‑site jogging path.

Listings mention Makiki District Park with pools and courts but never an on‑site children’s play area. With no playground amenity selected in MLS, the building does not have its own playground.

Several listings refer to a “private backyard,” “small backyard,” or “spacious courtyard perfect for kids, lounging, gardening and possible clothesline.” These descriptions show that some units, particularly ground‑floor ones, have truly private yard‑type outdoor areas.

The amenity package is basic, and golf or putting facilities are never discussed. The lack of a putting‑green code confirms there is no putting green on site.

Remarks focus on individual private backyards/courtyards for certain ground‑floor units, not on common recreation decks or shared rec spaces. With RECARE never checked in MLS amenities, a dedicated shared recreation area is unlikely.

Across all available remarks, there is no reference to a recreation, rec, or game room, and 0/7 MLS entries have RECROO checked. For a small Makiki walk‑up, such an amenity would typically be advertised if present, so it is very likely the building does not have a dedicated recreation room.

Agents speak of proximity to “top dining spots” and “variety of dining options,” meaning off‑site venues. There is no suggestion of a restaurant within the building, and MLS lacks a restaurant amenity.

The complex is described as a small walk‑up with focus on ground‑floor courtyards and lanais, not roof decks. Without any rooftop references or ROOFDCK code in MLS, rooftop amenities are very unlikely.

None of the remarks or MLS fields indicate any sauna or steam room at the property. Such an amenity would be prominently advertised if present, so it is almost certainly absent.

Several remarks reference a “storage area” or “big size outdoor storage” connected to units, especially ground‑floor ones. Even though the STORAG code is not checked in MLS, text remarks clearly show that some units offer additional storage space, so buyers can find units with storage in this building.

No analysis available

Agents mention nearby park tennis courts but do not claim any courts on the premises. With no tennis amenity selected in MLS, the building does not have its own tennis court.

Trash handling is not discussed, and typical trash chute language is missing from all records. In a low‑rise walk‑up, trash chutes are uncommon, so they are very likely not present.

Listings only reference regular assigned and guest parking with a gated driveway. Luxury services like valet are absent from both remarks and MLS checkboxes, so valet service is not offered.

The property is repeatedly referred to as a “gated community” with a “gated driveway,” implying perimeter fencing or walls. MLS amenity codes also include gating, confirming that the complex is enclosed by walls or fencing.

The amenity set is basic and focused on parking, gating, and laundry, with no spa‑type facilities discussed. The absence of a whirlpool code in MLS strongly indicates no hot tub or spa.

Remarks carefully say Makiki District Park has pools, indicating the amenity is off‑site. Since no MLS record shows a pool amenity, the building itself does not have a swimming pool.

Agents mention pools at nearby Makiki District Park but not within the complex, and MLS shows no pool or heated pool amenities. Without a pool, a heated pool is clearly not present.

No analysis available

One listing states there is the “option to install your own washer/dryer on the lanai,” and another mentions washer hook‑ups, while MLS data shows at least one unit with a washer/dryer included. This indicates that some units either already have, or can readily support, in‑unit laundry.

Multiple listings specifically say “community laundry” or “community laundry facilities,” and every MLS record marks COMLAU as an amenity. Shared laundry facilities are clearly available to residents.

No analysis available

No analysis available

Every unit description mentions a parking stall, often emphasizing its convenience (e.g., directly in front of the unit or as a standalone). MLS data also show parking features on 7/7 records, confirming that on‑site parking is available at this building.

Multiple listings state “1 assigned parking stall” and note advantages like being a standalone stall. With 6/7 MLS entries using ASSIGN, the building clearly provides assigned parking stalls.

Remarks emphasize open, convenient stalls (e.g., directly outside the backyard entrance) but never refer to covered parking, a garage, or carport. With no covered‑parking codes in MLS, parking is almost certainly uncovered.

No analysis available

Parking descriptions focus on basic assigned stalls and guest parking, with no indication of charging stations. For an older, modest building, the lack of EVCHRG in MLS suggests there are no dedicated EV charging spots.

Several listings state the building has “2 guest spots” or “two guest stalls,” and 6/7 MLS entries include GUEST in parking features. This is strong evidence that the building offers designated guest parking.

Listings describe the property as a “gated community” with a “gated driveway,” and at least one MLS entry marks secured entry for parking. This indicates that vehicle access to the parking area is controlled by a gate or similar security feature.

Remarks highlight that one stall is a “standalone without any adjacent neighbors,” indicating non‑tandem stalls. Coupled with 0/7 MLS records using the TANDEM code, tandem parking is very unlikely to be a feature here.

Listings repeatedly mention assigned stalls directly in front of units and guest stalls, without any reference to valet services. With 0/7 MLS entries showing valet parking, the building clearly does not offer valet parking.

No analysis available

One remark contrasts this ground‑floor unit with buildings where “no elevators to wait for” suggests this project has no elevator at all. Without elevators, there can be no keyed elevator security system.

No analysis available

Remarks describe a “gated community” and “gated driveway” but never mention on‑site security guards or 24‑hour security personnel. With 0/7 MLS listings checking SECGUA, the building almost certainly does not provide a security guard service.

No analysis available

Listings emphasize a gated driveway/community but are silent on surveillance cameras or CCTV. Since MLS does not mark any video security system, video surveillance does not appear to be a formal amenity.

If the building had central air, it would be a key selling point; instead, listings stress ceiling fans and optional A/C. Combined with the absence of central A/C codes in MLS, the building clearly does not have central air conditioning.

Agents highlight ceiling fans and note that “a/c [is] allowed” but do not describe any existing split systems in these units. With 0/7 listings including split A/C in inclusions, split A/C systems are not a known building feature, even if owners may be allowed to add them.

If units commonly came with window A/C units, agents would usually note them, but the remarks instead focus on ceiling fans and permission to add A/C. With zero MLS inclusions for window A/C, existing window units are not a known, advertised feature of this building.

The majority of MLS records identify concrete construction, which is typical for Makiki low‑rise condos. This strongly supports that the building is primarily constructed of concrete.

Some MLS records mark double‑wall construction, and none indicate single‑wall construction. This suggests the building uses double‑wall construction in at least a substantial portion of its structure.

None of the listings report hollow tile construction; they consistently reference masonry/stucco and concrete instead. This makes hollow tile construction unlikely as a defining material.

The majority of listings identify masonry and stucco construction, and no alternative exterior type is suggested in the remarks. This provides strong evidence that the building’s primary construction is masonry/stucco.

Listings that specify construction materials point to concrete and masonry rather than steel framing. The absence of the STEFRA code makes steel‑frame construction unlikely as the main system.

Although many Hawaii buildings do sit on slabs, MLS data for this project specify concrete, masonry, and double‑wall but not slab as a distinct construction feature. In the absence of explicit slab references, we cannot treat slab construction as a defined, advertised attribute here.

No analysis available

The building’s reported materials are concrete and masonry/stucco, not wood frame. With no WOOFRA code, wood frame is unlikely to be the primary structural system.

One MLS record marks Above Ground construction (ABOGRO), and the building is described as a small Makiki walk‑up with parking at grade. This supports that the structure is standard above‑ground construction.

MLS construction fields consistently reference concrete and masonry/stucco but never brick. This indicates brick is not a primary construction material of the building.

MLS construction fields point to double‑wall, concrete, and masonry/stucco construction, with no hint of old single‑wall construction. It is therefore very unlikely that single‑wall construction characterizes this building.

No analysis available

No analysis available

No analysis available

Across all remarks there is no reference to lease rent, lease expiration, or converting to fee, which are usually emphasized in leasehold listings. This pattern strongly suggests the available units are Fee Simple and that the building offers Fee Simple ownership, with no evidence of any leasehold units.

Across all remarks, there is no reference to leasehold terms, lease rent, or lease expiration dates, which are normally highlighted for LH properties. This, combined with the absence of LH in the provided MLS summary, makes it likely that there are no leasehold units in this building.

One listing explicitly notes that the project is "VA approved!", which directly indicates that VA financing is allowed in this building. No remarks contradict this, so confidence is very high.

No analysis available

Neither the marketing remarks nor the MLS amenity checkboxes indicate the presence of a fire sprinkler system. For an older, small walk‑up in Makiki this amenity would be unusual and likely to be advertised if present, so it is very likely not available.

No analysis available

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 describe “skyline views” from the lanai but do not mention any ocean or water views. Combined with 0/7 MLS records having an ocean view selected and the Makiki inland location, it is very likely no units in this building have a true ocean view.

Agents focus on skyline views and urban convenience, not mountain vistas. The lack of mountain view codes indicates mountain views are not a notable feature of this building.

Listings only reference skyline views and proximity to Makiki Park, with no mention of Diamond Head. The lack of DIAHEA in MLS view descriptions supports that Diamond Head views are not a feature here.

Two sets of remarks mention relaxing on a lanai with a “view of the skyline” or “skyline views and a gentle tropical breeze.” Even though some MLS view fields show NONE, these textual descriptions indicate at least some units enjoy city/skyline views.

The building is inland in Makiki and views are described only as skyline. With no coastline view codes in MLS, coastline views are not a feature here.

Remarks highlight private yards and courtyards for some ground‑floor units but do not characterize them as garden views. Since MLS view codes never include GARDEN, garden view is not a marketed building feature.

The location is promoted for parks, schools, and shopping rather than golf courses. With no golf‑course view codes, the building does not offer golf course views.

None of the marketing mentions harbor, canal, or marina vistas. With no marina view codes, the building clearly does not offer marina views.

None of the marketing materials mention sunrise, eastern exposure, or morning sun as a selling point. With SUNRIS absent from MLS views, sunrise views are unlikely to be a defining feature.

Views are described generically as skyline views without mention of sunsets or western exposure. The absence of a SUNSET view code suggests sunset views are not a distinctive feature.

View descriptions focus on skyline only, with no reference to cemeteries. The CEMETA view code is never used, so cemetery views are not a noted characteristic.

No analysis available

Several listings call the project “pet-friendly” or “pet friendly (please verify),” indicating pets are allowed subject to house rules. The absence of a no‑pets restriction in MLS supports that pets are permitted in this building.

Most MLS records mark a resident manager as an amenity, suggesting on‑site management. While the public remarks don’t call this out, the consistency in MLS checkboxes supports the presence of a resident manager.

All remarks position this as a residential starter condo with long‑term occupants and VA approval, not a short‑term hotel‑style property. With 0/7 MLS entries labeled as a condotel, the building is not operating as a condotel.

Listings treat the property as a standard condo and mention VA approval, which is inconsistent with co‑op structures. The absence of coop tax codes in the fees confirms this is not a cooperative building.