Crescent Park

All available MLS property records for this building agree on a 1970 construction year. No remarks indicate a different build year or complete rebuild.

Listings repeatedly reference a '17th Floor' unit and property data confirms units up to floor 17. No listing mentions any higher floors or penthouse level, so the building is treated as 17 stories tall.

At least one listing describes Crescent Park as 'a boutique building with only 62 units total.' No alternate unit totals are mentioned across the other remarks, so 62 units is adopted.

I found qualitative support for owner occupancy in the phrase 'high owner occupancy,' but no explicit percentage such as 80% owner occupied. Because numeric values must not be changed without explicit evidence, the current value of 40 is retained with low confidence and cannot be confirmed from the remarks.

I searched for explicit counts such as '2 elevators,' '4 elevators,' or 'multiple elevators.' The remarks only confirm that elevators exist, so the current value of 2 is retained with low confidence because there is no evidence to confirm or deny the count.

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 listings indicate central AC in the HOA inclusions, and none of the public remarks reference central air or AC as an included utility. The building is repeatedly marketed as naturally cooled by trade winds, so central AC being included in fees is very unlikely.

10 of 16 current MLS listings have CABTV in association_fee_includes and prior reviews rated cable inclusion as Medium confidence (9 of 13). None of the public remarks explicitly mention 'cable' or 'internet'—evidence is primarily from repeated MLS checkbox entries across multiple agents, which could be copy/paste; included with implied confidence.

Across the remarks reviewed, none explicitly mention common area electricity or similar building power coverage. The mentions are consistent for other fee items, but this feature appears to be inferred from MLS checkbox data rather than confirmed by agent remarks.

No listing indicates co-op taxes in the fee inclusions, and the building is consistently described as a condo, not a co-op. This makes it virtually certain that cooperative taxes are not part of the maintenance fees.

None of the recent listings check the MLS box for electricity included in HOA fees. Given the lack of any remark mentioning power included, it is very likely that unit electricity is billed separately and not part of the maintenance fee.

No listing shows gas in the association fee inclusions, and there is no mention of gas appliances or gas utilities in the remarks. This strongly indicates that gas is not included in the maintenance fees (and may not be present at all).

Only 1 of 20 listings mentions HOTWAT, compared with 15 of 20 listing WTRHTR, which is strong evidence against building-supplied hot water being included. No public remark confirms hot water inclusion; the isolated HOTWAT entry appears likely to be an MLS data inconsistency or copy-paste error.

I found no public-remark support for internet being included in the HOA/maintenance fee. While current MLS data shows INTSER in many listings, the absence of any agent-confirmed internet language makes this feature unsubstantiated in the remarks.

None of the listings indicate marina fees or access as part of the HOA, and the remarks focus on proximity to beach, park, and zoo rather than any boating facility. This makes it virtually certain that marina costs are not included in the maintenance fees.

Sewer inclusion is unanimously supported by the MLS data, with SEWER listed on all 20 listings. A current remark explicitly says maintenance fees cover “water, sewer, trash, and cable,” confirming the feature across the building rather than relying only on copied checkbox data.

Water inclusion is strongly confirmed across the building: all 20 of 20 listings include WATER in the association fee data. The public remarks explicitly state that maintenance fees cover “water, sewer, trash, and cable,” providing confirmation from listing narrative as well as the MLS checkbox.

BBQ facilities are consistently confirmed across the listings, with repeated phrases including "BBQ area," "pool and BBQ area," "bbq area," and "grill amenities." The 20/20 MLS amenity matches and repeated descriptions from multiple listings strongly support this as a building-level feature.

Public remarks in multiple listings clearly state 'Surfboard and bike storage available for small monthly cost,' directly confirming on-site bicycle storage. The same amenity is described consistently across more than one listing, indicating a real building feature rather than a copy/paste mistake. Even though agents are not checking the bike-storage box, the written remarks provide high-confidence evidence that bike storage exists.

Listings emphasize beach and park access but never mention boat slips, docks, or marina facilities. Given the location context and MLS data, the building clearly does not have a boat dock or marina access.

No public remarks mention any car wash or vehicle wash area, while only 3 of 15 MLS records show the car-wash checkbox. Given the historical high confidence that the building lacks a car wash and the absence of any descriptive remarks, the car wash feature is very likely not present (agent checkbox inconsistency suspected).

The building is repeatedly described as a “boutique” condo with limited amenities, and no listing mentions any clubhouse or community center. MLS data also omits this amenity entirely, supporting that a clubhouse is not present.

No remarks use the words 'concierge' or 'front desk,' even where building operations are discussed. The presence of a resident manager without any concierge-related language suggests there is management but not a true concierge service.

Remarks note pet policies only in terms of asking the listing agent, without describing any on-site pet or dog park facilities. With no text or MLS support for such an amenity, the building does not appear to have a dog park.

Agents consistently refer to an 'on-site resident manager' but never to a doorman or lobby attendant, which would normally be a strong selling point if present. The combination of detailed remarks and unchecked MLS data strongly indicates there is no doorman service.

Across 13 listings, none of the remarks reference a gym, fitness center, or exercise room. The MLS amenities checkbox for exercise room is never selected, and amenity descriptions are consistent and limited to pool and BBQ, indicating the building does not offer a fitness facility.

The building is described as a boutique condo with modest amenities, not as a full-service luxury tower. With no mention of complimentary car or limo services, this amenity can be safely ruled out.

Amenity lists focus on pool, BBQ, resident manager, security, and storage, with no indication of any formal meeting or conference space. The consistent omission in both remarks and MLS suggests the building does not offer a meeting room.

At least 8 of 13 listings mention lanais (wrap-around, open, and enclosed) as major features of the units. Phrases like '300 sq ft wrap-around lanai' and 'large enclosed lanai' show that patio/deck-style outdoor spaces are typical in this building, not a one-off penthouse feature.

The area offers outdoor recreation, but there is no explicit mention of a jogging or walking path within the building’s grounds. MLS data also omits this feature, so the building is not represented as having its own jogging path.

Family-friendly attractions like the park and zoo are emphasized, but no common-area play structure or kids’ playground is described within the building. The consistent MLS and remarks pattern indicates there is no playground amenity.

Across all remarks the outdoor references are only to lanais, the pool, BBQ area, and nearby Kapiolani Park or the beach. The building is an older boutique high-rise in Waikiki, making private yards for units highly unlikely.

Amenity descriptions are brief and consistent and never include any golf or putting facilities. Given the building’s small, boutique profile and lack of MLS indication, a putting green is very unlikely to exist.

There are no clear current remarks using "recreation area," "rec area," or "recreation deck." One listing references outdoor recreation in the surrounding neighborhood, but that is not a building amenity; the feature is retained only because historical evidence was previously high confidence, with reduced confidence due to weak current support.

Agents consistently list amenities as pool, BBQ area, resident manager, security, and storage, with no reference to a rec room or game room. The absence from both remarks and MLS checkboxes indicates there is no dedicated recreation room.

Dining options are clearly off-site in the surrounding Waikiki area. The absence of any on-premises restaurant in multiple descriptions and MLS confirms the building does not include its own restaurant.

Agents highlight views from lanais and units but never reference a shared rooftop terrace or deck. The lack of mention across many listings and the absence from MLS amenities indicate there are no rooftop amenities.

Amenity descriptions are consistent and limited to pool, BBQ, resident manager, security, and storage. The total absence of any reference to a sauna supports that the building does not have this feature.

Multiple listings describe 'Surfboard and bike storage available for small monthly cost,' showing the building offers dedicated storage areas beyond the unit. This phrasing appears in at least two separate listings, suggesting a stable building amenity rather than a one-off agent error. Although only 1/13 MLS entries mark storage in amenities, the repeated remarks provide stronger evidence that storage units/lockers are available.

Surfboard storage is directly confirmed in multiple public remarks, including listings that pair it with bike storage. The references also indicate that access may involve a small monthly cost.

Remarks repeatedly highlight proximity to Kapiolani Park’s tennis courts, but never describe any on-site tennis facility. Combined with the MLS showing no tennis court amenity, this strongly indicates the building does not have its own tennis court.

Trash chute is supported by strong MLS consistency and direct building-specific language. Although only one provided remark explicitly mentions it, the phrase "elevators and trash chute" confirms a shared building system, while the 16/20 MLS matches and prior high confidence reinforce the conclusion.

Parking is consistently described as assigned covered stalls plus a few guest stalls, with no reference to any staffed parking services. Given 13 detailed listings and no mention of valet, the building very likely does not offer valet service.

Remarks talk about 'covered ground-level parking near the main entrance' and 'four guest stalls' but never mention a gate, perimeter wall, or fenced enclosure. Given the urban Waikiki setting and lack of any 'gated' or 'fenced' language, the building likely does not have wall or fence perimeter security.

The whirlpool reference applies to a private bathtub within a unit rather than a common-area spa amenity. Since MLS amenities and other listings do not describe any shared whirlpool or hot tub, the building does not offer a whirlpool facility.

At least 15 of the provided listing remarks explicitly mention a building pool, using phrases such as "heated pool," "tiled pool," "tiled swimming pool," "outdoor pool," and "pool and BBQ area." The evidence is strong across numerous listings and agents, and it aligns with the current MLS data showing pool amenities in 20/20 listings; this is clearly a shared building amenity rather than isolated copy-paste checkbox data.

Heated pool is supported by direct language in the current remarks: "heated pool." The MLS amenities also show HEAPOO in 1 of 19 listings, which aligns with the remark and suggests the heated feature exists, though it is not consistently repeated across the full set.

A pool is confirmed by multiple listings, consistent with the building context. However, none of the public remarks identify it as a saltwater pool.

In-unit laundry is strongly supported across the building: at least 7 listings explicitly mention washer/dryer, including "washer/dryer in the unit," "Washer and Dryer in the unit," "Wash & Dryer in Unit," and "Full size washer and dryer." The evidence comes from multiple listing remarks and is reinforced by current MLS inclusions showing washer/dryer in 20/20 listings, although some remarks may be repeated or copied.

Across all provided listings, building amenities are described repeatedly, but there is no mention of shared or community laundry despite consistent mention of other amenities. Combined with 0/13 MLS amenities for community laundry and repeated emphasis on in‑unit washers/dryers, the evidence suggests the building does not have separate community laundry facilities.

The listings primarily mention washers and dryers inside individual units. They provide no evidence that community laundry exists or requires payment.

The remarks describe in-unit washers and dryers and one unit's exclusive laundry room, but do not indicate community laundry facilities on every floor. No wording supports floor-by-floor laundry.

The building clearly provides parking, with nearly every listing describing a dedicated stall or space. Phrases like '1 assigned garaged parking' and 'one covered parking stall' appear across multiple agents’ remarks, aligning with 13/13 MLS records showing parking features selected.

Assigned parking is strongly supported by the current MLS pattern and multiple listing remarks. At least 3 listings explicitly use "assigned" or "assigned garaged parking," while several others describe a unit-specific included stall; the evidence is consistent across listings rather than limited to a single agent.

Covered parking is conclusively supported across the building, with explicit mentions in well over 10 listings and current MLS coverage in 20/20 listings. Key phrases include "one covered parking stall," "covered ground-level parking," and "covered parking near the main entrance," appearing across multiple listing descriptions.

I searched for deeded parking, owned parking, parking included in the deed, and owned-stall language. None was found; the repeated descriptions indicate assigned or included parking without establishing deeded ownership.

There is no reference to EV or charging stations in any of the marketing remarks, even where other amenities are carefully listed. Combined with 0/13 MLS checkboxes for EV charging, this strongly indicates the building does not currently offer EV parking or chargers.

I searched for parking fees, parking rental charges, and additional monthly parking costs. No parking-specific amount was found, and the listed monthly charges do not identify a parking fee.

Guest parking is supported by both the current MLS pattern and several independent-looking remarks. At least 5 listings explicitly mention guest parking or specific guest-stall counts, including four guest stalls, providing strong evidence that the building offers visitor parking.

Listings emphasize building security with comments like 'secured entry' and 'video surveillance,' and tie parking to these secured access points (e.g., stalls 'near the main entrance' and 'next to secured entrance'). While not explicitly calling it 'gated parking,' the combination of remarks and an MLS SECENT flag suggests parking is within a secured-access area.

Parking is consistently described as a single stall or space per unit without any reference to tandem or back-to-back layouts. The complete absence of TANDEM in MLS records supports that tandem parking is not offered here.

The building is characterized as a boutique condo with self-park covered stalls and guest stalls, but no listings reference any valet or attended parking. With MLS also never marking VALET, it is safe to conclude valet parking is not provided.

I searched for parking waitlist and parking availability-control language. None was found; listings instead describe assigned or included stalls and guest parking.

Remarks highlight convenience of elevators ('one covered parking stall located close to elevators') but do not describe them as keyed, fob-access, or restricted. Given the detailed mention of other security features without any elevator-security language, keyed elevator access is unlikely.

The building appears to have general secured entry and video surveillance. No specific card- or fob-based access system is identified.

No remarks reference a security guard, 24-hour security, or on-site security staff, even when agents highlight other building features. With 0/13 MLS entries marking a guard and no textual evidence, this building is very likely not staffed by a security guard service.

The remarks mention a resident manager, secured entry, and video surveillance, but those do not establish a security patrol service. No direct patrol language appears.

At least two listings describe the building as having 'secured entrance, video surveillance' or 'secured entry, video surveillance,' directly confirming video security. Other agents reference a 'secure building,' supporting that some form of camera-based security is in place.

0 of 13 listings indicate central A/C in MLS checkboxes, and no public remarks reference central air, HVAC, or forced-air systems. Instead, agents highlight natural ventilation (trade winds, cooler side of building, open-air hallways), strongly suggesting there is no central air conditioning system in the building.

1 of 13 listings has the split A/C inclusion box checked, and no remarks say the building prohibits or entirely lacks A/C systems. Although no remarks explicitly tout mini-splits, this MLS evidence suggests at least one unit has a split system, so the building is treated as offering split A/C in some units.

No listings explicitly mention "window AC," "window air conditioner," or "window unit." One listing refers to an "updated AC system," while ACWIUN appears in 7 of 20 MLS records, indicating the feature is likely available in at least some units but is supported primarily by repeated MLS checkbox data rather than multiple agent remarks.

Concrete construction is strongly supported by the current MLS data: 20/20 listings mark the building as CONCRE. No public remarks explicitly say "concrete construction," but the complete agreement across listings and prior high confidence make this a reliable building-level feature rather than an isolated agent entry.

Only 2/15 current MLS listings include DOUWAL and none of the public remarks mention 'double wall' (no quotes). This is weak and inconsistent evidence (may be agent checkbox error), so the building is marked as possibly having double-wall construction but with low confidence.

Across all listings there is no MLS or remarks evidence of hollow tile construction. Agents consistently only indicate concrete, so hollow tile is very unlikely as a primary construction type.

Masonry/stucco construction is not supported: only 1/20 listings checks MASSTU, and none of the remarks mention "masonry" or "stucco." The isolated checkbox conflicts with the building's prior high-confidence absence and appears more likely to be copy-paste or agent error.

There is no remark-based support for steel frame construction in any of the provided listings. Given the strong and repeated concrete classification in the MLS history, the steel-frame checkbox appears to be a likely data entry or copy/paste issue rather than a true building feature.

Very little support for slab foundation: 1 of 17 current listings show SLAB in the MLS field, but historical data consistently showed no slab construction and none of the public remarks mention 'slab' or 'concrete slab'. The single MLS entry appears to be an outlier / likely data entry error, so slab foundation is not supported.

No analysis available

No listing selects wood frame in MLS, and remarks consistently describe a multi-story concrete-style tower rather than a low-rise wood building. Given the building height and location, primary wood-frame construction would be highly unlikely.

Above-ground construction is supported by 8/20 current MLS listings and by repeated references to high-floor units, including the 9th, 11th, 14th, and 17th floors. No public remark explicitly uses the phrase "above ground," so confidence is moderate rather than definitive.

No agent marks brick construction in MLS, and none of the public remarks mention brick facades or brick-and-mortar construction. The style and location strongly match concrete high-rise condos, not brick buildings.

No listing indicates single-wall construction and none of the narratives reference it; instead, they describe a multi-story condo with elevators and concrete-like characteristics. Given the building form, single-wall construction can be confidently excluded.

The remarks permit longer-term or mid-term rentals but explicitly impose a 30-day minimum. Under the stated rules, this means short-term rental is not allowed.

I searched for hotel pool and managed hotel-rental language and found none. Because the building does not permit nightly or weekly STR, hotel-pool participation must also be false.

I searched for mandatory pool, required rental-program participation, and no-opt-out language. None was found; moreover, the STR prerequisite is not satisfied.

Two of the 13 listings clearly advertise 'Fee Simple' ownership at Crescent Park. Other listings don’t contradict this, indicating the building includes both fee simple and leasehold units.

At least six of the 13 listings are clearly leasehold, using terms like 'LEASEHOLD Property,' 'leasehold boutique condo,' and 'Leasehold land tenure until 2046' with stated lease rents. The building therefore has both leasehold and fee simple units; among explicit mentions, at least 6 listings are LH and 2 are FS, with one lease reported expiring in 2046.

The building is repeatedly described as leasehold, although some individual listings describe fee-simple units. The explicit lease expiration date appearing across multiple remarks is 2046, with no later extension year identified.

I searched the remarks for VA-approved status, VA financing, and VA loan acceptance. None were found, while several listings specifically mention conventional bank financing or seller financing.

I searched for fully insured, full insurance, comprehensive building insurance, walls-in coverage, and similar HOA insurance language. The remarks do not mention building insurance coverage, so the feature is set to false with medium-low confidence based on the absence of a statement.

Across 13 listings, agents repeatedly highlight building features such as pool, BBQ, security, and resident manager, but none mention fire sprinklers or a sprinkler system, and 12/13 listings do not check the sprinkler amenity. This pattern strongly indicates the building is not fully sprinklered and that the lone checkbox is inaccurate.

I searched for statements such as fire/life safety evaluation passed, FLSE passed, fire safety certified, life safety compliant, or passed fire inspection. None of these or equivalent compliance statements were found, so the feature is set to false with medium-low confidence based on absence of evidence.

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

Ocean views are strongly supported across the building, with 13 of 20 current listings marked OCEAN and numerous independent remarks explicitly mentioning ocean or water views. Repeated phrases such as "ocean views," "ocean breeze," and "peekaboo ocean view" indicate this is a legitimate building-level feature rather than a single copied description.

Mountain views are strongly supported by multiple remarks, including explicit references to 'Koolau Mountains' and 'mountain (Mauka) views.' The evidence is broad across several listings, reinforcing that the building offers units with mountain views.

Diamond Head views are among the strongest-supported features, appearing in 17 of 20 current MLS listings and repeatedly confirmed in detailed remarks from multiple listings. Key descriptions include "best unobstructed views EVER of Diamond Head," "Gorgeous Views of Diamond Head," and "stunning views of Diamond Head," demonstrating broad and consistent support.

City views are well supported by multiple current remarks, including explicit phrases like 'city views' and 'Waikiki skyline.' The repeated mentions across listings suggest this is a real building-level offering, not an MLS checkbox artifact.

Remarks emphasize coastal living, ocean proximity, and 'coastal' lifestyle (e.g., 'coastal living', 'steps from the Beach'), and COASTL appears in some MLS entries. Although explicit 'coastline' wording is less frequent, the repeated ocean/coastal context implies coastline-view units exist.

Several remarks highlight views of Kapiolani Park and "Park, Zoo" across the street, which are effectively landscaped/garden-type outlooks. Coupled with one MLS listing checking GARDEN, this supports that some units have garden/park views.

At least one remark explicitly lists 'Ala Wai Golf Course' as a view alongside Diamond Head and skyline. While less frequently mentioned than ocean/diamond head, the explicit reference (and an MLS GOLCOU flag historically) indicates some units have golf course views.

Marina/canal-type views have limited support: 2 of 17 MLS view_descriptions mark MARCAN but none of the public remarks explicitly say "marina", "harbor" or "canal". This yields moderate (implied) confidence that some units may have marina/canal views, but agent remarks do not corroborate.

Sunrise views are well supported, with 12 of 20 current listings marked SUNRIS and several detailed remarks explicitly describing sunrise or morning views. Examples include "Watch sunrise over Diamond Head while having your morning coffee" and "enjoy ... gorgeous sunset and sunrise views," confirming the feature across multiple units.

Sunset views are less frequently noted but do appear: 1 of 16 current listings flags sunset and several remarks explicitly say "gorgeous sunset and sunrise views" and "enjoy... gorgeous sunset and sunrise views." While less common than other view types, multiple remarks confirm that some units have sunset/western exposures.

Across all remarks, views are of Diamond Head, ocean, park, zoo, golf course, and city, with no hint of a cemetery. The complete absence of CEMETA in 13 MLS records and the described neighborhood context make cemetery views highly unlikely.

The remarks mention ocean, Diamond Head, sunrise, sunset, park, mountain, and city views. They do not state that fireworks can be viewed from a unit or the building.

No analysis available

Remarks clearly indicate pets are permitted in some form, with explicit 'Comfort pets OK' and repeated invitations to 'Inquire...if you have a pet.' No listing states 'no pets', so the building should be treated as pets allowed, likely with restrictions/approval.

At least 6 listings explicitly mention the feature, using phrases including "resident manager," "on site resident manager," and "On-site resident manager." The evidence is consistent across multiple listing remarks and is reinforced by RESMAN appearing in all 20 current MLS listings, indicating a genuine building-level amenity rather than an isolated copy-paste error.

The building is zoned Resort and allows 30+ day rentals, supporting medium-term vacation use but not nightly hotel operations. The absence of any hotel-related services or 'condotel' language across 13 listings strongly indicates it is not a condotel.

All available public remarks (17 listings) consistently describe Crescent Park as a condominium or fee-simple/leasehold property using phrases like 'condo', 'condominium', 'Fee Simple', and 'Leasehold' (e.g., 'Boutique condominium', 'FEE SIMPLE', 'Leasehold land tenure until 2046'). Current MLS checkbox metadata shows 0/17 listings with COOTAX in association_fee_includes, and no remarks mention cooperative or co‑op ownership. Evidence is strong and consistent across multiple agents, so the building should not be listed as a co-op.