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 do not mention any owner-occupancy percentage or qualitative statements such as 'mostly owner-occupied.' Keeping the existing 28% value, but it is not corroborated by the listing text.

No references to elevators, lift count, or phrases like 'multiple elevators' were found in the remarks. Keeping the existing value of 1 elevator, but this is not confirmed by the listing text.

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.

Every recent listing shows common expenses included in the association fee. While remarks do not spell out common-area electricity, the consistent OTCOEX selection indicates building common power is covered by the fees.

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.

The MLS does not indicate hot water as a fee-included item, and unit-level water heaters are explicitly mentioned. This combination strongly indicates that building-supplied hot water is not part of the association fee.

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.

Sewer service is consistently shown as included in the association fee across all recent listings. This points to sewer charges being handled at the building/association level rather than billed separately to units.

Water is clearly indicated as part of the association fee on every current listing. The absence of any contrary statements in remarks supports that domestic water service is included in the maintenance fees.

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.

All 3 current MLS listings for this building include the community laundry amenity (COMLAU), with no remarks contradicting it. The uniform reporting across multiple listings and agents indicates the building provides shared/community laundry facilities.

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.

Across all three listings, each unit is advertised with a parking stall (e.g., “covered, lobby-level parking stall,” “one of the building's BEST parking stalls,” “1 covered parking stall”). Combined with MLS data showing parking on 3/3 listings and no 'NONE' flag, this indicates that the building provides parking for residents. The evidence is consistent across multiple agents and listings.

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.

Two separate listings clearly advertise a “covered, lobby-level parking stall” and “1 covered parking stall,” and MLS data for 2/3 units marks covered/garage-style parking. This shows that the building offers covered parking stalls for residents. The language is explicit and repeated across multiple listings.

No explicit language such as 'deeded parking', 'owned stall', or 'parking included in deed' appears in any of the remarks. The presence of a covered parking stall is confirmed, but its ownership status is not, so parking is assumed not deeded based on available text.

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 confirm that the unit has a covered parking stall but do not specify whether any monthly parking fee is charged. Without explicit references to a parking fee or rental arrangement, the existence and amount of any fee remain 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 describe the quality and location of the parking stall but do not reference any system for joining a waitlist for parking. In the absence of such mentions, a formal parking waitlist is assumed not to be present.

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.

2 of 3 listings mark window AC (ACWIUN) in the MLS inclusions, and no remarks conflict with that. This pattern suggests that at least some units in the building have window AC units, even though agents do not highlight them in the narrative remarks.

Multiple listings (3/3) explicitly check concrete construction in MLS, and none suggest any alternative primary structure. Given the building type and consistent MLS data, it is very likely a reinforced concrete building.

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.

Searched for terms like short-term rental, legal vacation rental, NUC, TVU, or 30-day minimum language and found none. The remarks only reference general rental income potential, which is consistent with long-term rentals, so STR is assumed not explicitly allowed based on available text.

Looked for phrases such as hotel rental pool, hotel program, managed by hotel, or participation in a named hotel operation and found none. Combined with the absence of explicit STR permissions, this indicates the building does not participate in a hotel rental pool program.

Searched for language indicating required participation in a rental or hotel pool (mandatory, must be in program, cannot opt out) and found none. The strong emphasis on owner occupancy and flexible use is inconsistent with any mandatory hotel pool requirement.

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 looked for phrases such as 'lease expires', 'leasehold', 'land lease to', or 'ground lease ends' along with a year, but none were present. Without any lease-related information, the lease expiry year cannot be determined.

The building is clearly identified as VA-approved in multiple listings. This directly indicates that VA financing is accepted. No conflicting information was found.

Listing remarks do not reference full or walls-in building insurance, comprehensive HOA coverage, or being 'fully insured.' Due to no evidence in the text, this is set to false by default with moderate uncertainty.

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, fire safety certification, or similar terms. In the absence of any evidence, this field is set to false by default but remains uncertain.

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

The first listing’s remarks describe 'stunning views of the ocean,' directly confirming that some units in this building have ocean views. Although the MLS view field doesn’t show OCEAN, narrative remarks are typically more accurate for views. This is sufficient to treat ocean view as a building-available feature.

Multiple listings highlight mountain views: one notes 'stunning views of the ... mountains' and another mentions 'beautiful mountain views from your private lanai.' A third notes 'views of Ala Wai, mountains,' showing that mountain views are a common and reliable feature of this building.

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.

The first set of remarks mentions 'stunning views of the ... city,' directly confirming city views. This is supported by MLS data where 1 of 3 listings checks CITY in the view field, indicating city views are available in this 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.

Listings repeatedly mention views of the Ala Wai, including 'Ala Wai Canal' and 'views of Ala Wai, mountains.' The MLS data also shows MARCAN on one listing, confirming that canal/marina-type views are a clear feature of this building.

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.

Despite detailed marketing language, none of the agents mention sunset views or related features like Friday night fireworks. Combined with the absence of SUNSET in MLS view fields, this strongly suggests the building is not marketed as having sunset views.

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.