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.

The remarks support the idea of strong owner occupancy by explicitly saying "high owner occupancy." However, they do not provide a numeric percentage, so the current 40.00 value is retained as the only concrete figure available.

I looked for explicit elevator counts such as "2 elevators," "4 elevators," or similar wording, but found none. The remarks only confirm that the building has elevators, so the current value of 2 is retained 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.

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).

The evidence points strongly away from hot water being included in the maintenance fee. Current MLS data is dominated by WTRHTR rather than HOTWAT, and the public remarks do not describe building-supplied hot water at all.

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 strongly confirmed. The MLS history is unanimous at 20/20, and at least one current remark explicitly states maintenance fees cover "water, sewer, trash, and cable." This looks like a consistent building-level fee item rather than a one-off agent entry.

Water inclusion is strongly confirmed across the building. The MLS data is unanimous at 20/20, and current remarks explicitly say fees cover "water, sewer, trash, and cable." The evidence is consistent across multiple listings and does not appear to be a copy-paste anomaly.

BBQ is clearly a building amenity. Current remarks mention it in many listings, using phrases like "BBQ area," "grill amenities," and "tiled swimming pool and bbq area," which appears consistent across multiple agents rather than a one-off note.

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.

Amenities are described specifically as an outdoor pool and BBQ area rather than a general recreation deck or rec area. With no explicit references and no MLS support, the building is unlikely to have a separate recreation area beyond the pool/BBQ space.

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.

This feature is directly supported by multiple remarks. The listings clearly state surfboard storage is available, often paired with bike storage and a small monthly fee.

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 appears to be a real building amenity supported by both MLS history and remarks. At least one listing explicitly states the trash chute location, and the historical checkbox frequency is strong enough to treat this as present in the building.

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.

Pool presence is strongly confirmed across the full listing set. At least 10+ remarks explicitly mention it, including phrases like "heated pool," "tiled pool," "swimming pool," and "outdoor pool," often alongside BBQ area and resident manager. The evidence is consistent across multiple agents and aligns with the MLS amenities 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.

I searched for salt water pool, saltwater pool, salt pool, and related terms. The listings confirm a swimming pool and pool upgrades, but never identify it as a saltwater pool.

In-unit laundry is strongly supported across the building. Multiple remarks explicitly mention it in at least 7 listings, including phrases such as "new washer/dryer," "washer/dryer in the unit," "Wash & Dryer in Unit," and "Full size washer and dryer." This aligns with the MLS inclusions showing washer/dryer in all current listings, so the evidence is very strong and consistent rather than copy-paste error.

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.

I looked for coin laundry, paid laundry, quarters, card-operated machines, and similar wording. The listings do not indicate any community laundry payment system, and the only laundry references are to washer/dryer in the unit.

I searched for wording like laundry on each floor, laundry room on every floor, and floor-by-floor laundry. The public remarks only describe in-unit laundry and a private/exclusive laundry room, not community laundry on every floor.

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 across the listing remarks. Multiple listings explicitly mention "one assigned covered parking stall," "1 assigned garaged parking," or a single dedicated stall, and this is consistent with the high-confidence historical MLS pattern. The evidence appears broad across different agents rather than a one-off copy/paste error.

Covered parking is clearly present in this building. Many listings describe it directly, including "covered parking," "one covered parking stall," "covered ground-level parking," and "assigned covered parking stall," reinforcing the existing high-confidence MLS evidence. The wording is consistent across multiple remarks and listing agents.

I looked for deeded, owned, or unit-attached parking language and found none. The listings consistently describe parking as covered, assigned, or included, but not deeded.

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 a separate parking charge, parking rental, or monthly parking fee and found no explicit amount. Some remarks mention included stalls and storage costs, but not a parking fee.

Guest parking is supported by both the current MLS pattern and multiple remarks. Several listings explicitly mention guest parking, including specific counts such as "x4," "four guest stalls," and "Two guest stalls at the top of the ramp," which makes the feature well supported. This looks like genuine building-level amenity evidence rather than checkbox copy-paste alone.

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 looked for any reference to a parking waitlist, joining a list, or parking availability controls and found none. The remarks describe included and guest parking only.

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.

I looked for key card access, fob access, card reader, electronic access, and keycard entry. The public remarks only support general secured entry, not a card-based security system.

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.

I searched for security patrol and similar language indicating a patrolled building. The remarks mention a resident manager, secured entry, and video surveillance, but not patrol service.

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.

Window AC appears in a minority of current MLS records (6/19) and is not explicitly described in the public remarks. Because the inclusion is repeated across multiple listings but lacks remark confirmation, this is moderate-confidence evidence and could reflect MLS copy/paste rather than a universally described feature.

This feature is strongly supported at the building level. The MLS history shows 20/20 current listings marking the building as concrete construction, and the public remarks across many agents are consistent with the same building without any conflicting construction description. There is no evidence of an alternative construction type in the remarks.

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.

The MLS data never flags masonry/stucco for this building, and public remarks describe it as a typical older Waikiki condo tower rather than a masonry-stucco low- or mid-rise. This makes masonry/stucco construction highly unlikely as a primary type.

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 has some MLS support, with 7 of 20 current listings checking the box. The public remarks do not explicitly confirm it, so this appears to be a moderate-confidence building attribute based mainly on MLS consensus rather than direct descriptive evidence.

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 public remarks clearly permit rentals, but only at a 30-day minimum. That means short-term nightly or weekly rentals are not allowed, while mid-term rentals are allowed.

I searched for hotel pool, hotel rental program, and similar managed-rental language and found none. Because the building only allows 30-day minimum rentals, it does not appear to participate in a hotel-style rental pool.

I looked for language saying owners must participate in a rental pool or cannot opt out, and found none. The remarks indicate rentals are allowed, not required, and owners can use the unit as a second home.

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 clearly described as leasehold in several listings. The expiry year is explicitly given as 2046, and no newer extension date appears in the remarks.

I searched for references to VA approval, VA loans accepted, or VA financing and found none. The public remarks instead discuss conventional financing and seller financing options, which does not indicate VA eligibility.

I looked for language indicating the HOA provides full or walls-in insurance coverage, but the remarks do not mention insurance coverage at all. With no public remark evidence, this is left unconfirmed.

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 the public remarks for any indication that the building passed a fire/life safety evaluation or fire inspection compliance, but found nothing. Because there is no explicit evidence in the remarks, this remains unconfirmed.

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 clearly supported across many listings, with numerous remarks mentioning 'ocean views,' 'panoramic views,' and 'water/ocean breeze' language tied to the view. This appears to be consistent across multiple agents rather than a copy-paste error.

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 one of the strongest supported features for this building. Numerous listings explicitly mention 'Diamond Head views,' 'best unobstructed views EVER of Diamond Head,' and 'watch sunrise over Diamond Head,' showing repeated confirmation rather than a one-off remark. Historical MLS data also strongly supports this feature.

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.

Several listings explicitly mention sunrise/morning sun and eastern exposure (e.g., 'Watch sunrise over Diamond Head', 'sunrise views'). Combined with SUNRIS in CURRENT MLS DATA, this supports that sunrise views are available in the building.

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.

I searched for direct phrases like fireworks view, watch fireworks from the lanai, or see fireworks from the unit. The remarks discuss ocean, Diamond Head, park, and sunset/sunrise views, but nothing about fireworks views from 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.

Strong, repeated evidence across the listings supports resident_manager=true. Multiple remarks explicitly say "resident manager" or "on-site resident manager," and the current MLS amenities are 20/20 checked for RESMAN. This appears to be consistent building-level information rather than a one-off agent 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.