Big Surf

All three MLS records for this building report year_built=1971, and no remarks suggest a different construction or full-rebuild date. This consistency supports using 1971 as the building’s construction year with high confidence.

No remarks specify the building’s story count, but MLS floor entries include 4, 5, and a clearly mis-entered '1401' which likely corresponds to unit 1401 on the 14th floor. This suggests the building rises to at least 14 stories, so 14 floors is recorded as an inferred estimate with moderate confidence.

Across three listings, there are no remarks like 'xx-unit building' or similar, and the MLS total-unit field is recorded as 0 each time, indicating missing rather than real data. The total number of units in this building remains unknown based on available information.

The remarks mention an 'owner-occupant' as a possible buyer but do not state an owner-occupancy percentage or describe the building as mostly or highly owner occupied. No evidence confirms or denies the current value, so it remains 28.0% with low confidence.

The remarks were searched for elevator counts and terms such as 'multiple elevators' or 'four elevators,' but none were found. No evidence confirms or denies the current value, so it remains 1 elevator with low confidence.

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.

None of the listings indicate that central air conditioning is included in the maintenance fee, and one listing explicitly notes split AC in the unit. This supports that AC is individually provided and not a common, fee-included service.

The association fee includes cable TV, as indicated by all 3 recent listings having cable selected in the fee-includes section. No listing remarks suggest cable is billed separately, so this appears to be a consistent building-wide feature.

None of the 4 public remarks explicitly mention common-area electricity. However, all 4 current listings identify OTCOEX/common expenses as included in the association fee, reinforcing the previously high-confidence building-level feature despite the remarks being silent.

There is no indication that co-op taxes are included in the fees and the property is marketed as a condominium in all remarks. This strongly suggests there are no cooperative taxes bundled into the maintenance charges.

The current MLS data does not show electricity as part of the association fee on any listing. Public remarks do not claim that electricity is included, indicating it is likely billed separately to unit occupants.

No listing marks gas as an included association-fee item. There is also no mention in remarks of gas utilities being covered, so gas is almost certainly not included in the maintenance fee.

No listings mention hot water as included in the maintenance fee. Three of four listings identify WTRHTR, and the absence of any contrary remarks across multiple agents strongly supports that hot water is not fee-included.

None of the listings show internet as included in the association fee. Since the remarks are silent on bundled internet or Wi-Fi, it is very likely billed separately by providers.

The building is described as being near the yacht club and beaches but not as providing marina access as part of the HOA. With no marina-related fee inclusion checked on any listing, marina costs are not included in the maintenance fee.

None of the 4 listings mention sewer in their public remarks. Sewer is nevertheless consistently listed as included in the association fee across all 4 current MLS records, with strong agreement across listings and no conflicting statements.

None of the 4 public remarks explicitly state that water is included. However, all 4 current listings list WATER as included in the association fee, providing strong and consistent MLS evidence for this building-level feature.

All 3 listings have the BBQ amenity box unchecked in MLS and none describe BBQ grills or a barbecue area. This indicates the building does not provide shared BBQ facilities.

No listing remarks mention any form of bicycle storage, bike room, or bike/surfboard storage, and the bike storage amenity is unchecked in all available MLS data. Agents focus on other selling points like flexible layouts, parking, and proximity to beaches and shopping. This consistent pattern strongly suggests the building does not offer dedicated bike storage.

Listings reference a nearby yacht club but do not state that the building has its own dock or slips, and the marina/boat-dock amenity is never checked. This strongly implies the building does not provide a boat dock.

No listing mentions a car wash station or vehicle wash area, and the car-wash amenity is 0/3. This suggests there is no car wash facility provided by the building.

No listing remarks reference a clubhouse or community center, and the clubhouse amenity is unchecked in all 3 MLS records. This indicates the building does not have a clubhouse.

For a building that does have concierge service, agents almost always advertise it, yet it is entirely absent from these remarks and from amenities. This consistent omission across multiple listings supports that the building does not offer concierge service.

The listings call the building pet-friendly but never mention a dog park, dog run, or pet area, and the dog-park amenity is 0/3. This indicates there is no dedicated dog park on-site.

Agents highlight many selling points—location, parking, pet-friendly, VA-approved—but never mention a doorman, which is typically heavily marketed. The consistent absence in remarks and amenities strongly indicates the building does not have a doorman.

None of the 3 listings mention an exercise room, fitness center, or gym, and the MLS EXEROO amenity is unchecked in all 3 cases. This strongly suggests the building does not offer a common exercise room.

Across 3 listings, there are no references to limousine or courtesy car services, and the limo-service amenity is never marked. This indicates the building does not offer limo or house-car service.

Across 3 listings, there is no mention of a meeting room, conference room, or community room, and the meeting-room amenity is 0/3. This strongly suggests there is no dedicated meeting room.

All three listings reference lanais, such as '3 separate lanais' and 'private lanai', confirming that units in this building have balcony/patio-style outdoor spaces. Despite 0/3 MLS checkbox entries, the consistent remarks across multiple agents indicate patio/deck-type amenities are present. Buyers seeking units with outdoor lanai space should consider this building.

Listings mention proximity to Ala Moana Beach Park and Magic Island but do not describe any building jogging or walking path, and the relevant amenity is 0/3. This indicates the building itself does not offer a dedicated jogging path.

No listing mentions a playground, tot lot, or kids’ play area, and the playground amenity box is unchecked in all 3 MLS records. This suggests the building does not have a playground.

Across three separate listings, there are detailed descriptions of lanais and views but no references to any private or fenced yard areas. Combined with the absence of PRIYAR in MLS amenities, the evidence strongly suggests this building does not offer private yard spaces.

None of the 3 listings describe a putting green, and the putting-green amenity is never checked. This strongly implies there is no putting green at the building.

All 3 listings omit any reference to a recreation or amenity deck, and the recreation-area checkbox is never marked. This points to there being no formal shared recreation area in the building.

None of the 3 listings describe a recreation room, game room, or similar space, and the rec-room amenity is never selected. This suggests the building lacks a dedicated recreation room.

All 3 listings highlight nearby restaurants and nightlife but never mention an on-site restaurant or café, and the restaurant amenity is unchecked. This shows the building does not contain its own restaurant.

None of the 3 listings advertise a rooftop deck or rooftop access, and the roof-deck amenity is not checked in MLS. This makes it very likely the building has no shared rooftop amenities.

All 3 listings are silent on any sauna or steam facilities, and the sauna amenity is 0/3. This indicates the building does not have a sauna.

None of the 3 listings for this building mention storage units, storage lockers, or extra storage in the remarks, and MLS amenities do not show any storage options selected. Agents instead emphasize parking, pet-friendliness, and location, which suggests storage is not a feature here. Taken together, the consistent absence of any storage references indicates the building likely does not provide storage units.

The remarks highlight location near surf spots and general building features but do not reference any surfboard or board storage amenities. Searched for terms such as 'surfboard storage', 'board storage', 'surf storage', and similar phrases and found none, so this feature is assumed not present based on available information.

There is no mention of tennis courts or tennis facilities in any of the 3 listings, and the tennis-court checkbox is 0/3. It is very likely the building has no tennis court.

None of the listings describe a trash or garbage chute, and the trash-chute amenity is 0/3. This suggests the building does not have a common trash chute system, or at least it is not recognized as an amenity by any agent.

Parking is described as standard assigned/covered stalls at lobby level, with no hint of valet or attendant services in any of the three listings. Given both the boutique nature of the building and the lack of valet mentions or MLS flags, valet service appears not to be available.

Remarks focus on walkability and proximity to beaches and shopping, without any indication of a gated or fenced-in complex. The lack of any 'gated' or 'fenced' language and unchecked related amenities strongly suggest there is no perimeter wall or fence for this building.

None of the listings describe a spa, hot tub, or whirlpool, and the whirlpool amenity box is unchecked in all MLS entries. This strongly suggests there is no whirlpool facility at the building.

Across 3 separate listings, there are no remarks referencing a pool, swimming pool, or any shared water amenity, while other building features and the proximity to beaches and surf spots are clearly promoted. MLS amenities for these listings also do not indicate a pool, suggesting the building does not have one. Based on this consistent absence, the prior lack of data is corrected to pool=false.

No listings (0/3) check heated pool-related fields or mention a heated pool in remarks, even though they discuss other amenities and location benefits. Combined with the evidence that the building lacks any pool, this strongly supports setting pool_heated=false. This corrects the absence of prior data with a high-confidence negative finding.

The public remarks describe location, layouts, upgrades, lanais, views, and building attributes like being pet-friendly and VA-approved, but do not mention any kind of pool. Specifically, there is no reference to a salt water, saltwater, saline, or salt pool. Based on this absence, the building is assumed not to have a salt water pool.

Across 3 recent listings, none include washer/dryer in the inclusions or mention in-unit laundry in remarks, despite extensively promoting other upgrades and features. This strongly suggests the building does not offer in-unit laundry in its units as a building feature buyers can expect.

Community laundry is reported in 4 of 4 current MLS listings through the COMLAU amenity code. None of the provided remarks mention laundry facilities or contradict the feature, and the uniform reporting across listings supports shared laundry in the building.

The remarks contain no references to coin-op, card-operated, or paid community laundry services. Terms such as 'coin laundry', 'laundry fee', 'card operated', or similar were not mentioned. Without explicit indications of paid community laundry, this feature is assumed not present.

The public remarks do not reference any community or shared laundry facilities, nor do they mention laundry rooms on each floor. Phrases like 'laundry on each floor' or 'laundry room every floor' were not found. In the absence of explicit evidence, this feature is assumed not present.

All 4 listings support building parking, with remarks consistently mentioning one or more parking spaces or stalls. The evidence is strong across multiple listings and agents, including references to “one parking,” “two parking,” and a spacious lobby-level parking stall.

Remarks such as “a covered, lobby-level parking stall” and “one of the building's BEST parking stalls” indicate each unit has its own specific stall, not general first-come parking. Together with one MLS entry explicitly checking ASSIGN, this supports that stalls are assigned/deeded to units. While not stated verbatim as 'assigned,' phrasing strongly implies reserved stalls.

Covered parking is confirmed by multiple listings, including the phrases “covered, lobby-level parking stall” and “1 covered parking stall.” MLS data marks covered/garage parking for 3 of 4 listings, so this appears to be a legitimate building feature rather than an isolated or unsupported checkbox.

Parking is clearly associated with the units, but the remarks do not establish ownership or deeded status. Because there is no explicit deeded-parking language, this is treated as not confirmed.

None of the three listings or MLS checkboxes reference EV charging stations, despite detailing other parking characteristics like being covered and lobby-level. Given how prominently EV charging is usually marketed, the consistent absence strongly indicates the building does not offer EV charging. This is likely an accurate reflection rather than an omission.

The remarks describe covered and lobby-level parking stalls but provide no information about whether parking incurs a monthly fee. The fee is therefore unknown.

Across all three descriptions, there is no mention of guest or visitor parking, and MLS data for all units omits any GUEST flag. In a small, ‘boutique’ Waikiki building, dedicated guest parking is uncommon and would usually be advertised if available. The evidence suggests there is no formal guest parking amenity.

None of the listings describe the parking as gated or secured, and no MLS checkbox for SECENT appears, even though other details about stall quality and location are highlighted. This pattern points to standard, non-gated parking rather than a secured-entry facility. The lack of any security-related wording across agents supports this conclusion.

All three listings refer to a single parking stall with no suggestion it is tandem or shared in a back-to-back configuration. MLS data is also uniformly negative for TANDEM. Given how tandem parking usually needs disclosure, it is very likely this building does not offer tandem stalls.

The building is repeatedly described as a 'pet-friendly, VA-approved boutique building' but never as having valet or attended parking, and all MLS data omits VALET. In this small Waikiki condo context, the absence of any reference to valet service makes it almost certain that valet parking is not offered. This is consistent across all current listings.

The listings discuss the availability and quality of the parking stalls but do not reference a parking waitlist. No evidence of a waitlist was found.

The building is described as a small, boutique condo with no references to secure or keyed elevator access in any remarks. Combined with unchecked elevator/security-related amenities, this makes it very unlikely that there is keyed elevator security.

Public remarks describe location, layout, upgrades, parking, pet-friendliness, and VA approval but do not mention any card or fob-based access system. Searched for terms like key card, fob access, card reader, and electronic entry and found no references, so this feature is likely not present.

Across 3 listings, there is no reference to a security guard or staffed security presence, and MLS amenities for security are consistently unchecked. Given that such a service is typically highlighted as a selling point, this strongly indicates the building does not offer security guard service.

Remarks highlight amenities, investment potential, and proximity to beaches and shopping without any reference to security staff or patrol services. Searched for phrases such as security patrol, roving security, and patrolled building and found no evidence of a patrol service.

The remarks emphasize location, upgrades, and parking but never mention cameras or video security, and MLS checkboxes for security systems are uniformly off. This pattern strongly suggests the building does not have a shared video surveillance system worth marketing.

Across 3 listings, there are zero central AC checkboxes and no wording like 'central air' or 'HVAC' in the remarks. AC is instead described at the individual unit level (e.g., split AC), indicating the building is not served by a central air system.

1 of 3 listings both checks the split AC inclusion (ACSPL) and explicitly says the unit 'includes split AC'. This clear, agent-written description provides strong evidence that some units in the building have split AC systems.

Window AC is indicated in 3 of 4 current MLS listings through the ACWIUN inclusion code, continuing the historical pattern of 2 of 3 listings. No remarks specifically say "window AC" or "window unit"; one listing instead states "split AC," so the evidence is moderately suggestive but may partly reflect copied MLS data.

Concrete construction is supported across all 4 current listings through the MLS construction-materials field (4/4 marked CONCRE), consistent with the prior high-confidence record (3/3 listings). None of the remarks explicitly quote “concrete,” but there are also no contradictory statements, so the consistent multi-listing MLS evidence is strong.

A majority of listings (2 of 3) explicitly mark double-wall construction in MLS with no conflicting entries. This pattern indicates the building is recognized as having double-wall construction elements.

There is no MLS or remarks evidence of hollow tile construction, with all listings instead specifying concrete. This supports that hollow tile is not a primary construction material here.

All available MLS data points to concrete construction and none to masonry/stucco. Given this consistency across three listings, it is unlikely the building is classified as masonry/stucco construction.

There are no MLS indications of a steel frame, only concrete construction across all listings. This strongly implies the building is not classified as steel-frame construction in the MLS.

At least one MLS listing marks a slab foundation, and the building’s condo form strongly aligns with slab-on-grade construction. Even though not all agents checked the box, the structural type is very likely slab.

No analysis available

No listings indicate wood frame construction and all instead specify concrete. For this type of Waikiki condo building, that strongly suggests it is not wood-frame constructed.

The sparse and inconsistent use of the above-ground checkbox, contrasted with a slab indication and the condo’s form factor, suggests the ABOGRO entry is likely an agent inconsistency. It is therefore unlikely the building is an above-ground (post/pier) type structure.

No remarks or MLS fields mention brick, and all listings show concrete construction instead. This makes it very likely the building is not brick-constructed.

MLS data favors double-wall construction and never indicates single-wall. Combined with the concrete condo building type, this strongly rules out single-wall construction.

Rental-income potential and the ability to rent portions of the property are mentioned, but these statements do not establish short-term-rental permission. No explicit STR authorization or prohibition was found, so this remains unconfirmed and is conservatively false.

I searched for hotel-pool and rental-program language and found none. Because STR permission is not established, participation in a hotel rental pool must also be false.

The remarks contain no language indicating mandatory participation in a hotel or rental pool. Since STR permission is not established, mandatory pool participation is false.

None of the three listings explicitly describe the tenure as 'fee simple' or 'FS,' and the MLS tenure flags do not show any FS entries. Given the incomplete tenure data and lack of textual confirmation, the presence of fee simple units in this building cannot be established from current evidence.

Across three listings, there are no references to 'leasehold' or lease terms, and MLS tenure flags do not show any LH entries. As with fee simple, the available data are too incomplete to confirm the existence of leasehold units in this building.

I searched for leasehold language and specific expiration or renewal years. No applicable lease-expiry information was found in the remarks.

The remarks explicitly identify the building as VA-approved, including repeated references across listings. This directly supports that VA financing is accepted.

The remarks contain no reference to the building being fully insured, having comprehensive building insurance, or providing walls-in coverage. With no current positive value or supporting evidence, the feature is set to false with medium-low confidence.

Three separate listings leave the fire-sprinkler amenity unchecked and make no textual reference to sprinklers or a fire-suppression upgrade. This consistent absence in both checkboxes and remarks is strong evidence that the building lacks a common fire-sprinkler system.

The remarks do not mention a passed fire/life safety evaluation, FLSE, fire safety certification, life safety compliance, or a passed fire inspection. With no current positive value or supporting evidence, the feature is set to false with medium-low confidence.

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

Two of four current listings explicitly mention ocean views, including "Spectacular Ocean... views" and "stunning views of the ocean." This directly confirms that at least some units in the building offer ocean views, consistent with the previously high-confidence assessment.

At least three current listings identify mountain views, with remarks citing "mountain views" and "beautiful mountain views from your private lanai." The repeated references across listings strongly confirm this building offers mountain-view units.

No listing remarks reference Diamond Head views, and 0/3 MLS view_descriptions include any Diamond Head indicator. Given how prominently agents advertise Diamond Head when available, this absence across multiple listings strongly suggests the building does not offer Diamond Head views.

One current remark directly describes "stunning views of the... city," while all four current MLS records contain CITY in their view descriptions. The combined historical and current evidence strongly supports city views being available in the building.

One unit notes 'stunning views of the ocean,' but no listing refers to coastline or shoreline views specifically. Since agents typically distinguish coastline views as a premium feature, their absence across all listings indicates coastline views are not a defining characteristic here.

All described views focus on ocean, mountains, city, and Ala Wai/Canal, with no indication of garden or courtyard aspects. The lack of GARDEN in 0/3 MLS view entries reinforces that garden views are not a feature here.

Across all three remark sets, there are references only to the Ala Wai Canal and mountains, with no mention of golf course or greens. Given that 0/3 MLS entries show GOLCOU and agents tend to highlight golf course views, it is very likely that this building does not offer golf course views.

Current listings mention the Ala Wai Canal or Ala Wai-facing orientation, which matches the marina/harbor view definition. All four MLS records contain MARCAN, and the repeated remarks confirm the building offers units with marina or canal views.

The listings emphasize cross-ventilation and 'cool, quiet side' but never reference sunrise or morning sun. With 0/3 MLS descriptions listing SUNRIS, there is no evidence that sunrise views are a recognized feature of this building.

Three of four current MLS listings contain SUNSET in their view descriptions, supporting inclusion at the building level. None of the supplied remarks explicitly describe sunset views, so this appears primarily checkbox-based rather than repeatedly confirmed in marketing language.

Across 3 detailed sets of remarks, there is no indication of cemetery views—only ocean, mountains, city, and Ala Wai are mentioned. The complete absence of cemetery references in both narrative and MLS view data supports that cemetery views are not present for this building.

I looked for phrases like 'fireworks view', 'watch fireworks from lanai', or 'see fireworks from unit' and found none. Given the detailed description of other views, the absence of any fireworks mention suggests there is no notable fireworks view.

No analysis available

Multiple listings describe the building as 'pet-friendly,' and no listing or MLS restriction contradicts this. This provides strong, consistent evidence that pets are allowed in the building, likely with standard condo rules rather than a full prohibition.

None of the three listings check the resident-manager amenity, and no phrases like 'resident manager' or 'on-site manager' appear in the remarks, despite extensive marketing of other features. This consistent omission supports the conclusion that the building does not have a resident manager.

The remarks focus on long-term flexibility (e.g., live in one part and rent the other) rather than nightly or hotel-style operations, and there is no explicit condotel or hotel-program language. In the absence of any hotel-management references or MLS condotel coding, the building is best classified as a standard condominium, not a condotel.

All listings describe the property as a condominium (e.g., 'Big Surf condo') and emphasize VA approval, a program typically associated with fee-simple condos rather than co-ops. With no mention of shares, cooperative ownership, or COOTAX coding, the building is almost certainly not a co-op.