Elms
Preliminary Information – Full Audit Pending
This buildings features were determined from publicly available data, including MLS listings. While we cross-referenced additional data sources, it still likely contains incomplete or inaccurate information, as it has not yet been personally verified.
Once a building has been fully audited, this page will be replaced with an in-depth analysis featuring verified details and photos of every key feature.
Until then, we provide a data‑driven overview that blends statistical analysis of the checkbox selections agents make in MLS with an AI‑powered read of their public remarks—yielding a clearer picture of the building than raw listings alone.
If this building is important to your search, you can help prioritize it for a full audit by requesting one below. To see what a complete report looks like, check out the example full report.
Elms
Building Overview
Elms in Ala Moana-Kakaako — built 1979; pets not allowed and short-term rentals prohibited (based on MLS data).
About Elms
Based on MLS data, Elms is a condominium building located in the Ala Moana-Kakaako neighborhood. The building was built in 1979. Size and construction type are not specified in the available MLS records.
According to available records, key policies for Elms include no pets allowed and no short-term rentals permitted. The MLS data does not list specific on-site amenities or common-area features.
Management company, parking provisions, maintenance fees, and other operational details are not provided in the MLS data available for this listing. Buyers should verify all building specifics, rules, and fee information with their agent or the managing entity before making any decisions.
Building Features & Data Confidence
All features from MLS data with AI-assisted confidence analysis. Click each category to expand and see details.
No analysis available
I searched for exact percentages and phrases like 'mostly owner occupied,' 'highly owner occupied,' or similar ownership-mix statements, but found none. The remarks mention one unit as tenant-occupied, but that does not establish the building-wide owner occupancy rate.
I searched the public remarks for explicit elevator counts or general references like 'multiple elevators' and found nothing. Since there is no stated number in the remarks, the elevator count cannot be confirmed from this data.
Calculated from the lowest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.
Calculated from the highest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.
Calculated from association fees observed in penthouse unit listings for this building.
No analysis available
Cable service is directly confirmed in the remarks, including the phrase "the HOA fee includes Cable/Internet." This is strong evidence and matches the existing MLS checkbox data, so cable should remain included.
I found no agent remarks describing common area electricity, common electric, or building power being included. Because the MLS checkbox history for this item was only low confidence and the remarks are silent, there is not enough evidence to validate it.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
The remarks do not reference hot water inclusion, and there is no strong agent confirmation supporting this fee item. Historical data showed HOTWAT checked in MLS, but without public corroboration this remains unverified.
Internet service is explicitly confirmed by the remarks with the phrase "the HOA fee includes Cable/Internet." This aligns with the prior high-confidence understanding and strongly supports keeping internet included.
No analysis available
There are no public-remark references to sewer being covered by the maintenance fee. With only low-confidence MLS checkbox history and no agent confirmation, this feature is not validated.
The remarks do not mention water inclusion in the HOA fee. Since the historical MLS signal was low-confidence and there is no direct confirmation, this remains unverified.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Storage access appears to be a real building/unit feature for The Elms. At least 3 listings explicitly mention it in remarks, with phrases like "extra storage unit," "storage included with the unit," and "the unit comes with storage." The MLS data also supports this, with storage appearing in both amenities and unit features across multiple listings, so this does not look like a one-off copy/paste error.
No analysis available
No analysis available
The building is listed with trash chute amenity in 8 of 9 current MLS listings, suggesting it is likely a real building feature. No public remarks mention a "trash chute," "garbage chute," or "refuse chute," so the evidence comes from MLS amenity data and may reflect copy-paste behavior by agents.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
In-unit laundry is strongly supported across the current remarks: at least 5 listings explicitly mention washer/dryer in the unit. Phrases like "sleek LG washer/dryer," "washer/dryer in unit," and "washer/dryer tucked in-kitchen" appear in multiple listings, which looks consistent rather than a one-off copy-paste error. This confirms the building offers in-unit laundry.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Parking is clearly available for this building. Current MLS data shows parking in all 9/9 listings, and multiple public remarks explicitly describe parking as assigned, covered, or a parking stall. The evidence is consistent across several agents and does not appear to be a one-off checkbox error.
Assigned parking is strongly supported for this building. At least 7 of 9 current listings carry ASSIGN in MLS data, and the public remarks repeatedly reinforce it with explicit wording about assigned or assigned-covered stalls. This is consistent across multiple listings and appears reliable rather than copied without basis.
Public remarks across multiple listings repeatedly reference covered parking (e.g., 'assigned covered parking', 'assigned-covered parking stall', 'assigned, covered parking stall'), and the MLS parking features show covered parking in 5 of 7 listings. The consistent language across listings supports inclusion of covered parking as a building feature.
I searched for wording like deeded parking, owned stall, or parking included in deed. The listings consistently mention assigned or covered parking, which confirms parking access but not that the stall is deeded to the unit.
No analysis available
I looked for monthly parking fees, parking rental costs, or any additional parking charge language. The remarks only mention assigned parking and do not state any separate parking fee.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
I searched for references to a parking waitlist, parking waiting list, or joining a list for stalls. The remarks indicate assigned parking but do not mention any waitlist system.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
MLS inclusions show 4 of 8 listings checked ACWIUN, and at least one public remark explicitly states '2 window unit ACs.' One other remark mentions 'highly efficient air conditioning' while several units note only cross-breezes/trade winds. Given multiple MLS checkboxes plus an explicit remark, there is strong evidence that some units in the building have window/wall air conditioners.
All 8 current MLS listings for the building list construction_materials='CONCRE', though none of the public remarks (0/8) explicitly mention concrete or 'reinforced concrete'. Historical confidence was Medium; MLS checkbox consistency across all listings supports including this feature, but the lack of explicit agent remarks suggests a moderate (not maximal) confidence level.
A single MLS listing (1/7) flags 'DOUWAL' (double wall) in construction materials, but the collective public remarks make no mention of double-wall or two-wall construction. The evidence is limited to one checkbox and not supported by agent remarks, so confidence is moderate.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Two of the seven MLS listings include 'SLAB' in construction materials (2/7), but none of the public remarks mention 'concrete slab' or a slab foundation. The feature is present in MLS checkbox data only and lacks corroborating remarks, so confidence is moderate and cautious.
No analysis available
No analysis available
One of seven current MLS entries lists 'ABOGRO' (above ground) as a construction material (1/7), but none of the public remarks mention 'above ground' construction or related phrasing. This is based solely on a single MLS checkbox and is not corroborated in the remarks.
One of the seven current MLS listings includes 'BRICK' in construction materials (1/7), but none of the public remarks reference brick exterior or brick-and-mortar construction. This feature appears only in a single MLS checkbox entry and is not corroborated by listing remarks, so confidence is moderate but limited.
No analysis available
I searched the remarks for short-term rental permission language such as STR allowed, NUC, TVU, or vacation rental references. Nothing in the listings suggests that short-term rentals are allowed in this building.
I looked for hotel pool or hotel-rental-program wording such as Hilton pool, Ritz pool, or managed-by-hotel language. There is no sign of a hotel-style rental pool, and since STR is not evidenced, this must be false.
I searched for wording like mandatory hotel pool, required participation, or cannot opt out. The remarks contain no such language, and there is no indication that owners must participate in any rental pool.
No analysis available
No analysis available
I looked for ground lease language such as lease expiry year, leasehold end date, renewed-through wording, or any 4-digit lease expiration year. Nothing in the remarks indicates a leasehold tenure or provides a lease expiry date.
I searched the public remarks for explicit VA approval language and found none. There is no evidence in the listings that this building is VA-approved, so this remains unconfirmed and is treated as false based on absence of supporting remarks.
The remarks repeatedly state that the building is '100% hurricane insurance' and '100% Hurricane insured,' which is strong explicit evidence of full building insurance coverage. This is a direct match to the insured_fully feature.
No analysis available
I looked for fire/life safety evaluation language such as 'FLSE passed,' 'passed fire inspection,' or 'life safety compliant,' but found no such references. Without an explicit remark, this feature cannot be verified from the listing text.
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
No analysis available
Three of seven current MLS listings reference mountain views (3/7 include MOUNTA). Public remarks explicitly mention 'mountain view' and 'mauka' in multiple agent descriptions, indicating several units offer mountain views rather than a single mistaken checkbox.
No analysis available
City views are clearly supported across the listings: at least 5 remarks explicitly mention city, skyline, or urban views, often alongside mountain or sunrise views. The repeated language across multiple listings suggests this is a real building-level feature rather than a copy-paste checkbox error, and it aligns with the prior high-confidence MLS evidence.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Although none of the seven MLS view_descriptions include SUNRIS (0/7), at least one public remark explicitly advertises 'sunrise views' alongside city and mountain views. This explicit agent remark indicates some units offer sunrise/eastern exposures even if the MLS checkbox field currently shows none.
No explicit mentions of sunset or western/exposure in the remarks provided; remarks refer to 'sunrise' or morning views in a couple of listings but not sunsets. Only 1 of 8 MLS view_descriptions lists SUNSET historically, and current agent remarks do not corroborate it, so sunset views are unlikely to be a building-level feature.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Strong building-level evidence supports a resident manager on-site. The current MLS amenities show RESMAN in 8 of 9 listings, and the public remarks directly confirm it with the phrase 'resident manager on site.' This looks like consistent listing data rather than a one-off agent error.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Confidence levels are based on MLS checkbox data and AI analysis of listing remarks. High = strong evidence, Medium = some evidence, Low = limited or conflicting evidence. Buyers should always verify critical details independently.