Ala Wai Townhouse

All available MLS records for this building consistently report a 1973 construction year. No remarks suggest a different build or full rebuild date, so 1973 is accepted as the year built.

The highest unit floor reported in MLS data is 20, and no remarks reference any higher stories or additional towers. A penthouse listing plus the absence of higher floor numbers strongly indicates a 20‑story building.

No listing remarks state how many units are in the building (such as '109‑unit building' or similar). Without explicit references, the total unit count cannot be determined from the available data.

I searched for a specific owner-occupancy figure or descriptive language such as highly owner occupied or majority owner occupied, but found none. Since the remarks do not provide a new value, I kept the current owner-occupancy figure of 43%.

I found multiple mentions of elevator access, including a keyed elevator and plural elevators, which confirms the building has elevators. However, the remarks do not state a number, so I kept the current value of 2 and did not infer beyond the existing data.

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.

No listing checks central A/C in the fee-includes section, and the remarks emphasize natural breezes and lanais rather than central cooling systems. This strongly indicates that central air conditioning is not a building-supplied service included in the maintenance fee.

Cable TV inclusion appears to be present in some building listings, with 12/20 current MLS records marking CABTV in association fees. There are no public remarks confirming cable, so this looks more like mixed MLS checkbox data than explicit agent verification.

Common-area electricity appears in a substantial minority of the listings, with 10 of 20 showing OTCOEX. The remarks themselves do not explicitly say 'common area electricity,' but the repeated MLS pattern suggests the building likely includes this in the maintenance fee.

No listing indicates cooperative taxes in the HOA, and the property is consistently described as a leasehold/fee simple condo, not a co-op. This makes it clear that cooperative taxes are not included in the maintenance fees.

Electricity inclusion is very weak in the current MLS data, with just 1 of 20 listings checked. No public remarks support this, so the evidence points to the maintenance fee not including unit electricity.

No MLS record indicates gas in the association fee, and the remarks are silent on gas usage or systems. This strongly indicates that gas is not provided by the building or included in the maintenance fees.

Hot water inclusion is not well supported here. Only 2 of 20 listings mark HOTWAT, while 8 of 20 include WTRHTR, which strongly suggests in-unit water heaters rather than building-supplied hot water.

Internet inclusion is only weakly represented in the MLS data, with 3 of 20 listings checking INTSER. The public remarks do not mention internet service as part of the fee, so this feature is likely not included.

No MLS data or remarks indicate any marina-related amenities or fees being part of the HOA. The building fronts the canal but does not present itself as a marina property, so marina fees are not included in the maintenance costs.

Sewer inclusion is strongly supported by the MLS data, with 16 of 20 listings checking SEWER. This is a consistent building-level pattern and looks reliable despite the lack of explicit mention in the remarks.

Water inclusion is one of the strongest signals in the dataset, with 17 of 20 listings showing WATER in association_fee_includes. The public remarks do not contradict this, and the repeated MLS pattern strongly supports it.

Agents repeatedly describe the pool, security, pet-friendliness, and storage but never refer to any BBQ or grill facilities. With no MLS checkboxes or textual mentions, a BBQ area is very unlikely.

Two listings explicitly note board/bike storage, including the phrase 'Amenities include a pool (newly renovated), surfboard & bicycle storage,' which clearly indicates a dedicated area for bicycles. Another listing mentions 'surf board storage' in the amenity list, supporting the existence of a shared storage room or racks for surfboards and bikes. Multiple independent remarks override the absence of the MLS checkbox and support including bike storage as a building feature.

Water and golf-course views are used as selling points, but there is no suggestion of actual dock or marina facilities. Given how prominently such an amenity would be marketed, and its absence from MLS data, a boat dock almost certainly does not exist.

Parking is repeatedly described (covered, outside, rooftop distinctions) but never a car wash facility. The strong majority of MLS entries omit CRWSH, suggesting the few positive checks are likely agent error and that no dedicated car wash exists.

Agents consistently market building security, pet-friendliness, and the pool but never mention a clubhouse. The complete lack of MLS or textual evidence indicates no clubhouse amenity.

Agents consistently describe the building as secure and well-managed with a resident/on-site manager, but no listing advertises concierge or front-desk services. In a market where concierge is a selling point and would be mentioned, this absence plus the unchecked MLS field strongly indicates there is no concierge service.

Pet-friendliness and security are emphasized, but there is no reference to a dedicated dog park or pet exercise area. With no MLS indication, a dog park likely does not exist.

Remarks highlight an 'on-site manager' or 'Resident manager on premises' but never a doorman or lobby attendant. Given the detailed security descriptions and the complete absence of any 'doorman' language, it is very likely the building does not offer doorman service. Buyers seeking a doorman would not find evidence for one here.

There are no references to an exercise room, gym, or fitness center in any of the remarks. With 0 of 20 listings checking EXEROO in amenities, it is very likely this building does not offer a shared exercise facility.

This mid-market Waikiki building is marketed around flexibility and location, not luxury chauffeur services. With no textual or MLS evidence, limo or house-car service can be ruled out.

There is no indication of any shared meeting or conference facilities in marketing materials. With no MLS or remarks support, a meeting room is very unlikely.

Current remarks across many listings repeatedly mention lanais, including standard, covered, enclosed, and even a large rooftop lanai (e.g., '667 sq. ft. rooftop lanai', 'covered lanai has been seamlessly integrated', 'lanai to enjoy cool tradewinds'). These references appear in well over ten separate unit descriptions from different agents, indicating that lanais/deck-like outdoor spaces are a common feature of the building. Combined with prior high-confidence data, this strongly supports that the building offers patio/deck (lanai) amenities in at least some units.

The convenience of nearby urban amenities is highlighted, not an internal jogging or walking trail. With no MLS or text evidence, a dedicated jogging path is unlikely.

Agents market the pool and location near beaches and parks but never a children's playground on-site. The absence in both MLS data and remarks strongly suggests there is no playground amenity.

All outdoor areas are described as lanais or rooftop lanai spaces, with no references to yards or enclosed ground-level outdoor areas. Given the high-rise setting and zero mentions across many listings, the building is very unlikely to offer private yard space.

Although the building overlooks a golf course, no unit description refers to a practice putting green or similar facility. Combined with 0 MLS checkboxes, it is almost certain there is no putting green.

Remarks focus on proximity to beaches, shops, and the pool rather than any recreation deck or amenity area. With 0 MLS flags for RECARE, a shared recreation area is unlikely.

Agents highlight flexible layouts and a pool but never describe any rec or game room. The total absence in both remarks and MLS amenities suggests no dedicated recreation room exists.

Restaurants are consistently described as nearby, not within the building. The absence of any 'on-site dining' language and 0 MLS flags support that there is no in-building restaurant.

The only rooftop reference is an exclusive penthouse rooftop lanai, which per guidelines should not be treated as a building-wide amenity. With no mentions of a common roof deck and 0 MLS flags, a shared rooftop amenity is unlikely.

Even detailed amenity descriptions (pool, storage, keyed elevator, resident manager) omit any sauna or steam room. The complete lack of MLS or text support indicates there is no sauna.

Multiple current listings mention storage in the building, with phrases like 'surfboard & bicycle storage' and 'surf board storage.' That is enough to support a building-level storage amenity, even though the historical MLS signal was weak and no remarks specifically say 'storage locker' or 'extra storage.'

This feature is directly confirmed in multiple remarks, including explicit references to surfboard storage and surf board storage. The evidence is repeated and unambiguous.

None of the marketing remarks across many listings reference a tennis court or tennis facilities. Combined with 0 MLS checkboxes, this strongly indicates the building does not have tennis courts.

Trash chute access appears to be a real building feature. Historical MLS data is very strong (18 of 20 listings include TRACHU), and one current remark explicitly mentions a "private trash chute." The repeated MLS flagging suggests this is not just agent copy-paste noise, and the explicit remark confirms the amenity.

Listings emphasize specific assigned parking stalls (covered, rooftop, or outside) rather than any staffed parking service. The complete absence of 'valet' references across all remarks strongly indicates the building does not offer valet service.

Listings focus on security via keyed entry, keyed elevators, and video cameras, but never reference a gated or fenced perimeter or walled enclosure. The lack of any 'gated' or 'fenced' language, together with MLS data, indicates the building does not have a notable wall/fence or gated-complex feature. Buyers seeking a gated or walled community would likely not consider this building to have that characteristic.

Agents call out the pool multiple times yet never reference any spa or hot tub, which would typically be highlighted. With 0 MLS checkmarks for WHIRLP, a whirlpool amenity is unlikely.

Pool is strongly supported across the listing set for Ala Wai Townhouse. Multiple remarks from different listings explicitly mention a shared pool, including phrases like "a pool," "communal pool," and "Amenities include a pool (newly renovated)." This appears consistent across agents and aligns with the historically high-confidence MLS amenity data.

Across all provided remarks, the pool is never described as heated, and MLS pool-feature fields for heating are unused (0/20). Given the consistent omission of any heating references while the pool itself is repeatedly noted, it is very likely the building’s pool is not heated.

I looked for explicit salt-water pool language such as "salt water pool," "saltwater pool," or "saline pool." The remarks confirm a pool exists, but none specify that it is a salt pool.

Laundry in unit is strongly supported for Ala Wai Townhouse. Multiple current remarks explicitly say 'in-unit washer and dryer' or 'in-unit washer/dryer,' and the MLS inclusions data shows washer/dryer in 18 of 20 listings. The evidence is consistent across several agents and does not look like a one-off copy-paste error.

Across all reviewed remarks, amenities such as pool, surfboard and bicycle storage, security, and keyed elevators are mentioned, but no listing references a shared laundry room, coin laundry, or laundry facilities on site. MLS amenity data likewise shows no community laundry flag on any of the 20 listings. This pattern indicates the building likely does not have dedicated community laundry facilities.

I looked for indicators of paid laundry such as coin-operated machines, card access, quarters, or laundry fees. The public remarks mention in-unit washer/dryer but do not reference any paid community laundry system.

I searched the remarks for wording like "laundry on each floor," "laundry room on every floor," or similar floor-specific community laundry references. The remarks only mention an in-unit washer/dryer and do not describe any shared laundry facilities on each floor.

Multiple listings explicitly mention parking, e.g., 'Parking stall 99 is a wide stall on the top floor of the parking garage,' '1 covered parking,' and '1 parking unit.' With 20/20 MLS entries indicating parking and numerous remarks confirming both garage and outside stalls, it is clear the building offers parking. Evidence comes from many different listings, not just a single agent’s copy-paste.

Strong evidence that parking is assigned/reserved in this building. Several listings explicitly mention 'assigned covered parking,' '1 assigned, covered parking space,' and '1 assigned covered parking stall,' matching the already high-confidence MLS history (16/20 listings). The consistency across multiple remarks suggests this is a real building-level feature, not a copy-paste error.

Covered parking is strongly supported across many listings. At least several remarks explicitly mention 'covered parking,' 'assigned covered parking,' 'parking garage,' and 'covered parking on the second floor,' confirming a garage/covered stall setup. Historical MLS data also shows strong support (16/20 listings), so this feature should be retained with very high confidence.

I searched for explicit deeded-parking language such as deeded stall, owned parking, or parking included in the deed, and found none. The remarks only indicate assigned or covered parking, which is not enough to confirm deeded ownership.

Across all reviewed listings, there are no references to EV charging stations or related amenities, and agents consistently leave the EVCHRG field unchecked. Given the number of independent listings and the absence of any textual mention, it is very likely the building does not currently offer EV charging.

I looked for parking fee language such as monthly parking charge, parking rental, or additional parking cost, and found nothing. The remarks mention parking availability and assignment, but not any separate fee.

None of the public remarks describe guest or visitor parking, and the GUEST checkbox is not used in any current MLS entries for this building. With multiple agents marketing the property without highlighting guest stalls, it is highly likely the building does not provide dedicated guest parking.

Remarks focus on building security—'secure, well-managed,' 'keyed entry to the lobby area and elevators,' and 'video security'—but do not describe gates or secure entry specifically for the parking area. Combined with the absence of the SECENT flag in MLS data, this strongly suggests the parking itself does not have a separate secured entry feature.

Listings consistently describe individual parking stalls and never mention 'tandem' or back-to-back configurations. With no TANDEM selections in the MLS and no textual evidence, it is very likely that tandem parking is not a feature of this building’s parking setup.

Across numerous listings, agents highlight features like the pool, security, flexible layouts, and assigned/covered stalls, but never mention valet parking or attendant services. The complete absence of the VALET code and any textual reference supports the conclusion that valet parking is not available at this building.

I searched for explicit waitlist language such as parking waitlist, waiting list, or join the waitlist for parking, and found none. The listings describe assigned or covered parking, but no evidence of a waitlist program.

At least four listings reference secure elevator access, using phrases like 'keyed elevator,' 'building security includes keyed entry and elevators,' and 'keyed entry to the lobby area and elevators.' These consistent, detailed descriptions from different agents confirm that elevator access is controlled by a key or similar system building-wide. This repeated remark evidence is much stronger than the unchecked MLS amenity field.

The listings describe the building as secured with keyed entry to the lobby and elevators, including a keyed elevator. That is strong evidence of a card/key-based access security system.

Multiple listings describe the building as 'secure' or 'secured' and note an on-site/resident manager, but none mention a security guard or 24/7 security staff. Given 0/20 MLS checkboxes and the detailed security descriptions that omit any guard reference, this strongly indicates there is no staffed security-guard service. If a guard were present, Waikiki agents would typically advertise it.

I searched for terms like "security patrol," "roving security," and "patrolled building." The remarks describe the building as secure and well-managed, but do not mention any patrol service.

One listing states the building has 'video security,' and another notes that 'Building security includes keyed entry and elevators, security camera.' These differing but consistent phrasings across separate listings show the building is monitored by security cameras. The repetition across agents outweighs the unchecked MLS amenity box.

No listings (0/20) check any central AC-related MLS fields or mention central air/HVAC in remarks. Instead, several listings highlight tradewinds and breezes as the cooling source, indicating the building does not have a central air conditioning system.

Neither the MLS checkbox data nor any of the 20 sets of remarks mention split/ductless/mini-split AC. This consistent absence across many independently written listings supports that split AC is not a feature of this building’s units.

Window AC is not supported by the public remarks in these listings. Only 1 of 20 MLS records shows the ACWIUN inclusion checkbox, while the remarks are silent about air conditioning, suggesting this is likely an agent-entered MLS inconsistency rather than a real building feature.

Concrete construction is strongly supported by the MLS history, with 18/20 current listings marked CONCRE. The remarks across multiple agents focus on the same Ala Wai Townhouse building and do not suggest any material change, so this appears to be stable, repeated MLS data rather than a one-off checkbox error.

Double wall construction is not supported by the public remarks, and only a small minority of listings mark it in MLS. Because the feature is not described by agents and appears in just 4 of 20 records, it looks like inconsistent checkbox data rather than a confirmed building characteristic.

No listing selects hollow tile and no remarks hint at hollow-tile walls. Given the high-rise condo context, hollow-tile construction is very unlikely here.

Despite many listings and detailed remarks, none describe masonry or stucco construction and the MLS checkboxes do not show MASSTU. With concrete already strongly indicated, masonry/stucco construction appears unlikely for this building.

All listings that indicate a material choose concrete and none select steel frame, and the building type/location strongly suggest reinforced concrete rather than structural steel. There is no remark-level evidence of steel framing.

At least one MLS entry identifies slab construction, and the building’s high-rise reinforced-concrete form strongly implies a concrete slab foundation. Even though most agents don’t check this box, physical construction norms support slab construction for this property.

No analysis available

No listings select wood frame construction, and the building is a high-rise in Waikiki where primary wood-frame structures are extremely unlikely. With MLS consensus on concrete and no textual hints of wood framing, wood frame can be ruled out.

Above-ground construction is weakly supported at best: 6 of 20 MLS listings check it, but no public remarks mention it. The remarks consistently read like a conventional high-rise condominium, which suggests this is not a verified building feature and may be copy-paste MLS data.

One listing out of twenty indicates brick, but 17 indicate concrete and none of the public remarks mention brick or masonry facades. This pattern, combined with typical local building practice, strongly suggests the building is not brick construction.

There is no MLS or remark evidence of single-wall construction and the building type (high-rise condo) is fundamentally inconsistent with it. Single-wall construction can be confidently ruled out.

The remarks repeatedly and directly prohibit short-term rentals in this building. That is clear evidence STRs are not allowed here.

I searched for hotel rental pool, hotel-managed, Hilton/Trump/Ritz pool, or similar terms and found none. Since short-term rentals are explicitly prohibited, a hotel pool program cannot apply.

I looked for language indicating mandatory participation, required rental program, or cannot-opt-out terms and found nothing. Because STR is not allowed, mandatory pool participation is also not applicable.

Multiple listings explain that owners can or do acquire the fee simple interest, such as 'Sellers in escrow for fee purchase' and 'Package sale includes both the Fee Simple interest and the Leasehold interest.' While most current offerings are leasehold, at least one listing already holds both interests and others reference completed fee purchases, confirming that fee simple units exist in this building.

At least 9 of the compiled listings clearly state the properties are leasehold, often in all caps ('LEASEHOLD Unit', 'This is a leasehold property') and reference lease details like 'lease till June 2029,' 'Fee expires in 2029,' and 'lease rent fixed at $108.16.' Most recent offerings are leasehold, with fee simple interests available or already purchased in some cases, so the building contains both leasehold and fee simple interests, but leasehold units are the majority.

The lease expiry year is consistently referenced as 2029 across the remarks. One listing gives a more specific June 2029 date, which aligns with the broader 2029 references.

The public remarks explicitly mention a VA assumption opportunity and state the property is available to both VA and non-VA buyers. That is strong evidence the building/unit can be financed with VA-related financing in at least some sales context.

I looked for explicit insurance wording that would indicate the building is fully insured by the HOA or has walls-in coverage. The public remarks do not mention insurance coverage at all, so there is no basis to mark this as true.

Across all provided listings, there are no references to fire sprinklers or a sprinkler system, and agents did not check a sprinkler amenity in MLS. Because silence is not definitive evidence either way, the presence of fire sprinklers cannot be determined from current information.

I searched the remarks for fire/life safety evaluation language such as FLSE passed, fire safety certified, and passed fire inspection, but found nothing. With no supporting evidence in the listings, this remains unconfirmed and is treated as not mentioned in the public remarks.

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 data points confirm ocean views are available in this building. A high-floor listing explicitly advertises 'stunning ocean, mountain and city views,' and MLS view_descriptions include OCEAN for 1 of 20 listings with none marked as having no view. Even if limited to higher floors, this is enough for buyers specifically seeking ocean-view options in the building.

Mountain views are heavily and consistently advertised across many listings, with phrases like 'breathtaking panoramic views of the mountains,' 'Diamond Head and Koolau Mountains,' and 'beautiful views of the city, mountains, & Ala Wai canal.' With 8 of 20 MLS entries checking MOUNTAIN and no units marked as having no view, evidence is strong that this building offers multiple mountain-view units across different stacks and floors.

Multiple listings explicitly mention Diamond Head views, including "views of the Ala Wai Canal, Diamond Head and Koolau Mountains" and "expansive views of Diamond Head." This is consistent with the historical high-confidence signal and appears across several remarks from different listings, not just copy-paste checkbox data.

Strong evidence that the building offers city-view units. At least 4 listings explicitly mention city views or city lights, and the historical MLS data already shows CITY in 8/20 view descriptions, which is consistent across multiple remarks and not just copy-paste noise.

Where ocean-related views are mentioned, they are described simply as 'ocean views' or 'Ala Wai Canal' views, never as coastline or shoreline panoramas. Given 0/20 MLS coastline entries and no textual mentions, coastline views do not appear to be a distinct or marketed building feature.

There is limited but direct MLS checkbox evidence that at least one unit has a garden view, likely over landscaped or courtyard areas. While not a major marketing focus, this suggests some units may look onto greenery rather than only water or cityscape.

The evidence strongly supports golf course views for some units in the building. Several listings explicitly call out Ala Wai Golf Course views, and the historical MLS checkbox data confirms this is a recurring feature rather than an isolated agent error.

Very strong evidence that the building offers marina/canal-view units. Many listings mention the Ala Wai Canal or canal views, and the current remarks are consistent with the high historical frequency (12/20 MARCAN), indicating this is a real recurring building feature.

There is strong evidence that the building offers sunrise views in at least some units. Multiple remarks explicitly reference 'sunrise mornings' and morning light, and the historical MLS data shows 5/20 listings with SUNRIS in the view descriptions. This appears to be consistent building-level marketing rather than a one-off copy-paste error.

There is credible evidence that some units offer sunset views or evening sun exposure. The remarks specifically reference 'evening sunsets' and 'evening city lights,' which aligns with the feature definition, even though the MLS view field only shows 1/20 SUNSET. Because the remarks come from multiple listings and agents, this looks like a real building option rather than a checkbox-only artifact.

All available data emphasize canal, golf course, mountain, city, and occasional ocean views, with no hint of a nearby cemetery in any marketing or MLS view field. This strongly indicates the building does not have cemetery views.

I searched for explicit statements like seeing fireworks from the lanai, unit, or building. The remarks mention canal, golf course, city, mountain, and ocean views, but nothing about Friday night fireworks views.

No analysis available

No analysis available

Multiple independent remarks clearly describe the building as 'pet-friendly' and allow pets, without any conflicting 'no pets' language. This consistent wording across many listings provides very strong evidence that pets are allowed in the building.

Resident manager is strongly supported for Ala Wai Townhouse/Ala Wai Townhouses. Multiple current listings explicitly mention a resident manager on-site, with phrases like 'on-site Resident Manager,' 'on-site manager that lives in the building,' and 'Resident manager on premises.' The evidence appears consistent across multiple listings and agents, not just a single copy-pasted remark.

The property is consistently marketed as a condo/leasehold apartment with long-term use and explicit prohibition of short-term rentals. The absence of any hotel-program language and the stated rental limits indicate it does not operate as a condotel.

Remarks discuss leasehold vs. fee simple interests and purchasing the fee, which is standard for condos in this area, and never reference cooperative ownership. This strongly supports that the building is a condominium, not a co-op.