Hale Walina

All available MLS property records (5 of 5) list the building as built in 1965. No remarks suggest a different construction year or a full rebuild.

The county parcel record and the single-building state registration both report 5 floors, supported by MLS listings reaching floor 5. No conflicting penthouse or unit-number evidence is present.

The county record reports 21 residential units and the single-building state registration independently reports 21; the stored value and MLS evidence do not conflict.

Owner occupancy from AOUO registration(s) 1145. Refreshed by Real_Estate_Scraper/reb_registry/propagate_owner_occupancy.py, which this lock does not block.

The remarks directly confirm that the building has one elevator. This matches the current value and is reasonable for a 5-story, 21-unit building.

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 AC costs are covered by the maintenance fee. The MLS data uniformly omits ACCEN, so central AC inclusion is very unlikely.

Maintenance fee coverage for cable TV is explicitly mentioned in one set of remarks. This is reinforced by 4 of 5 MLS listings checking CABTV, suggesting multiple agents consistently report cable as included in the fees.

Agents do not highlight common area electricity as a specific fee inclusion. The absence of the OTCOEX flag across all MLS entries suggests it is not treated as an included billable utility for marketing purposes.

Nothing in the descriptions suggests the property is a co-op or that co-op taxes are included in fees. All MLS records omit the cooperative tax inclusion code, so coop taxes are not part of the maintenance fee.

The only detailed breakdown of fee inclusions omits electricity while naming other covered utilities. With no MLS flags for ELECTR, electricity is very likely paid separately by unit owners.

Gas service is never mentioned as an amenity or included utility. The complete absence of the GAS inclusion flag across all listings indicates gas is not part of the maintenance fee.

Hot water is included in the maintenance fee, explicitly stated as "Maintenance fee covers cable TV, hot water, water, and sewer." The HOTWAT checkbox appears in 5 of 7 current listings, providing strong corroboration across the building despite not being mentioned in every remark.

Agents list specific included utilities but do not mention internet service. With no INTSER flag on any MLS records, internet is almost certainly not bundled into the maintenance fee.

None of the descriptions reference a marina, boat slips, or similar water access amenities. MLS data consistently omits MARINA, indicating there is no marina-related fee inclusion.

Sewer is included in the maintenance fee, with the remarks stating that the "Maintenance fee covers ... sewer." SEWER is selected in 6 of 7 listings, making the evidence strong and consistent across multiple records.

Water is included in the maintenance fee, explicitly described as "Maintenance fee covers cable TV, hot water, water, and sewer." WATER appears in 6 of 7 current MLS records, strongly confirming this building-level feature.

At least three remarks describe a 'BBQ area' or 'barbecue area' among the building amenities. The MLS amenity checkbox is marked in most listings, providing strong, consistent evidence that shared BBQ facilities exist.

In all 5 listings, there are no references to bike storage, bike rooms, or bike racks, and the MLS bike storage amenity is not checked. Given that other amenities are consistently advertised, the lack of any mention or checkbox support strongly indicates the building does not offer bicycle storage.

Although the building has views toward the Ala Wai, agents never claim direct marina or dock access. Given that a dock would be a major selling point, its absence in all data strongly indicates there is no boat dock.

Parking is mentioned, but no car wash or vehicle wash facility is ever described. The absence from both remarks and MLS data suggests there is no car wash amenity.

For buildings with a clubhouse, agents typically emphasize it. Here, repeated focus is only on pool, BBQ, and laundry, so the data strongly suggests there is no clubhouse.

All 5 remarks focus on pool, BBQ, elevator, laundry, and location, with no reference to concierge or front desk services. This, along with 0/5 MLS entries for CONCIE, indicates there is no concierge service in the building.

Pet-friendly status is highlighted, but no specific pet facilities are ever named. Given this and the absence of the dog-park amenity in MLS, it is very likely there is no dedicated dog park or dog run.

The building is described as a small, 21-unit property with basic amenities but no staffed entry services. The absence of any doorman-related language in remarks and 0/5 MLS DOORMA entries strongly suggest there is no doorman.

Across five listings, none mention an exercise room, fitness center, or gym. For Waikiki condos, such amenities are usually highlighted, so the consistent absence plus unchecked MLS amenity strongly indicates there is no exercise room.

Limo or house-car services are high-end amenities that would be prominently marketed. Their complete absence in remarks and MLS amenities makes it virtually certain no such service is offered.

None of the listings mention any type of meeting or conference facility. Combined with the lack of MLS checkbox selections, this indicates the building does not offer a meeting room.

Two listings describe units with a lanai, including a '52 sq ft lanai' and another that 'comes with lanai and 1 parking.' One listing also notes building amenities including a 'deck' along with the pool and BBQ. Although not every unit has a lanai, the building clearly offers patio/deck-style outdoor spaces in at least some units/common areas.

Although the location near Waikiki is discussed, there is no claim of a dedicated jogging or walking path within the property. The MLS data and remarks together indicate there is no on-site jogging path.

Listings focus on adult-oriented amenities like pool and BBQ and never mention any kids' play structures or tot lots. This pattern supports that the building does not have a playground.

Across all remarks, outdoor space is only described as lanais, a deck, pool, and BBQ area, with no hint of any yard or fenced ground-level space. Given the building’s dense Waikiki location and amenity set, it is very unlikely that any units have a true private yard.

A putting green is a distinctive amenity that would almost certainly be advertised. Since it never appears in remarks or MLS amenities, the building almost certainly lacks a putting green.

The phrase 'pool, deck, barbecue area' indicates a common outdoor deck used for recreation alongside the pool and BBQ. While only one remark is explicit and MLS checkboxes omit it, this language reasonably supports the existence of a shared recreation/amenity deck.

Agents consistently highlight only pool, BBQ, elevator, and laundry as amenities. The lack of any mention of a rec room or multipurpose room plus unchecked MLS data suggests the building does not have a recreation room.

Agents emphasize that the building is close to restaurants rather than having one in the building. This consistent language, plus unchecked MLS amenities, indicates there is no in-building restaurant or café.

Agents only mention ground-level amenities like pool and BBQ, with no sign of rooftop features. The consistent omission plus unchecked MLS data suggests there is no shared rooftop amenity.

Saunas are notable wellness amenities that agents typically advertise. The total lack of any mention plus unchecked MLS data indicates there is no sauna in the building.

Across 5 listings, 0 mention any kind of storage unit, locker, or extra storage, and the MLS storage-related amenity boxes are unchecked. Agents consistently highlight other amenities (pool, BBQ, elevator, community/on-site laundry, pet friendly) but never storage, indicating the building likely does not provide dedicated storage units.

The public remarks list amenities such as pool, BBQ area, lanai, parking, elevator, pet-friendliness, and community/on-site laundry, but do not mention any surfboard or board storage facilities. I searched specifically for terms like 'surfboard storage', 'board storage', and 'surf storage' and found no references, so it is likely this feature is not present.

Tennis courts are large amenities that agents nearly always promote when present. The complete absence of any tennis references in remarks or MLS amenities across all listings indicates there is no tennis court.

Amenities lists and remarks focus on elevator, pool, BBQ, and laundry with no reference to a trash chute. Across multiple listings this omission, plus unchecked MLS, suggests the building does not have a trash chute system.

Parking is referenced only as '1 parking' and 'alternative parking arrangements,' without any mention of valet. For a small low-rise building with basic amenities like pool, BBQ, and community laundry, the absence of any valet reference across all listings indicates valet is not offered.

No listing uses terms like gated, fenced, or enclosed to describe the building or its grounds. With 0/5 MLS entries for GATED/WALFEN and purely urban, street-front descriptions, it is very likely the property does not have a perimeter wall or fence as a notable feature.

If a hot tub or spa existed alongside the pool, agents would likely highlight it. Since only a standard pool is mentioned and the whirlpool amenity is never checked, the building likely has no whirlpool.

The pool is strongly validated across multiple listings and agents: at least 4 of the 7 provided remarks explicitly mention the building pool or pool views. The repeated descriptions identify it as a shared building amenity, not merely copied checkbox data, and they confirm the historical high-confidence finding.

Although a common pool is clearly advertised, no listing calls it a 'heated pool' or similar, and the heated-pool checkbox is unset in all MLS entries. This consistent absence across multiple detailed remarks supports that the building’s pool is not heated.

Public remarks consistently reference a pool as an amenity but provide no indication that it is a salt water or saline pool. Searched for terms like 'salt water pool', 'saltwater', 'saline', and 'salt pool' with no matches. In absence of explicit mention, it is more likely the pool is not salt water.

No listing remarks reference in-unit laundry or a washer/dryer in any unit, and 0/5 MLS listings checked washer/dryer in inclusions. Instead, every listing highlights shared/community/on-site laundry facilities, indicating laundry is provided communally rather than in individual units.

Shared laundry is strongly supported by both MLS data and multiple listing remarks: 7/7 listings include COMLAU, and 5 listings explicitly mention "community laundry," "on-site laundry facilities," or "on-site laundry." The repeated confirmation across several listings indicates a genuine building-wide amenity rather than an isolated or copied checkbox.

The remarks only state that there is community or on-site laundry and do not clarify whether use requires payment. Since there is no explicit indication of coin/card operation or fees, this is set to false with moderate uncertainty.

The listings clearly indicate that the building has shared/community laundry, but there is no language such as 'on each floor' or 'laundry room on every floor.' Based on the absence of any per-floor wording, this is marked as not having laundry on every floor, with moderate uncertainty.

Multiple listings state the unit includes '1 parking' or 'This unit has parking and not every unit in the building has parking,' confirming that the building offers on-site parking to at least some units. MLS data (3/5 listings with parking features, 2/5 with NONE) support that only some units have stalls but that parking is indeed available in the building.

At least one listing explicitly mentions an "assigned parking stall," while several others advertise "1 parking" or "1-parking" and note that not every unit has parking. Evidence is sufficient that the building offers assigned or unit-specific parking, though some repeated parking language may reflect agent copy-paste.

No public remark explicitly uses terms such as "covered parking," "garage," or "carport." However, 5 of 7 current MLS records contain covered/garage parking codes, consistent with the previously High confidence assessment and indicating that the building offers covered parking for at least some units.

Several listings confirm that this unit has one assigned parking stall and that not every unit has parking. The remarks do not establish that the stall is deeded, so deeded status remains unconfirmed.

Across all reviewed listings there is no mention of EV charging in remarks and EVCHRG is absent from the MLS parking features. Given that EV charging is a marketable amenity, this consistent silence strongly indicates the building does not offer EV charging stations.

The remarks mention assigned parking and suggest checking with the listing agent regarding alternative parking arrangements. They provide no numeric or descriptive parking fee.

No listing text refers to guest or visitor parking and GUEST is not used in any MLS parking features. This consistent absence across multiple agents strongly suggests the building does not provide designated guest parking.

Neither the MLS parking_features nor the public remarks reference secure or gated parking entry. In the context of multiple listings, this lack of mention indicates that while the building may have standard access, it likely does not offer specifically marketed secured-entry parking.

Across all available listings, there is no indication of tandem stalls in either the MLS codes or written remarks. Given agents usually disclose tandem configurations, this strongly implies the building does not offer tandem parking.

Valet parking is never referenced in any remarks and is absent from all MLS parking features. This consistent omission makes it highly likely that the building does not provide valet parking services.

The listings note that not every unit has parking, but they do not describe a formal waitlist system. No evidence of a parking waitlist was found.

While the building clearly has an elevator, none of the 5 listings mention any keyed or restricted-access elevator system. The consistent lack of such references and 0/5 MLS security elevator entries indicate there is no keyed/fob elevator security.

The public remarks describe amenities like the pool, BBQ area, elevator, community laundry, parking, and pet-friendliness but do not reference any card or fob-based entry system. I specifically looked for terms such as key card access, fob access, card reader, or electronic access and found none. In the absence of any mention, this feature is assumed not present.

Across 5 listings, there are no references to a security guard, 24/7 security, or on-site security personnel. Combined with 0/5 MLS entries for SECGUA, this strongly indicates the building does not offer security guard service.

The remarks focus on location, views, unit features, and building amenities, with no indication of a staffed or roving security patrol. I searched for references to security patrol, roving security, or patrol service and found none. Given the lack of any mention, it is likely that there is no formal security patrol service.

No listing remarks describe any video surveillance or security camera system. With 0/5 MLS entries for SECSYS and no textual hints, it is very likely the building does not have a notable video security system.

Across 5/5 current listings, no MLS checkboxes or remarks indicate central air conditioning or any building-wide HVAC system. The consistent presence of window AC in MLS data, with no countervailing remarks about central air, strongly indicates the building does not offer central AC.

None of the 5 current listings mention or checkbox split/ductless/mini-split AC, while all consistently indicate window AC instead. This pattern across multiple agents and listings supports that split AC is not a feature of this building.

Window air conditioning is supported by consistent MLS data: 7 of 7 current listings include the ACWIUN inclusion. None of the seven public remarks explicitly mentions or contradicts window AC, so the evidence is primarily checkbox-based but remains strong given the previously high-confidence history.

Concrete is consistently reported across all 7 listings, with 7/7 marking CONCRE in the construction materials. The remark describing recent “spall and painting” is consistent with concrete building maintenance, making this strong building-level evidence rather than an isolated checkbox.

Double-wall construction is mentioned by no public remarks and appears in only 3 of 7 MLS records. The minority checkbox pattern, without descriptive support across agents, is insufficient to establish this as a building feature.

Only one listing notes hollow tile, with no supporting description in the remarks. The consistent identification as concrete and absence of references to hollow tile suggest it is not a primary construction feature.

Two of five listings mark masonry/stucco, but none describe stucco or masonry exteriors in remarks. In light of unanimous concrete tags and no narrative confirmation, masonry/stucco is treated as not a confirmed building-level feature.

No listings (0/5) check steel frame, and all agree on concrete construction. There is no supporting remark suggesting a steel frame structure.

A single listing notes slab, but others do not, and there is no remark confirming a slab foundation. Due to weak and inconsistent evidence, slab construction is not confirmed as a building feature.

No analysis available

No listings (0/5) indicate wood frame construction, while all indicate concrete. Given the building type and location, it is very unlikely to be wood-frame construction.

Above-ground construction is mentioned in only one MLS checkbox and nowhere in remarks. With no consistent data or descriptive support, it is not treated as a confirmed construction feature.

Brick construction is not supported by the remarks: 0 listings mention brick, brick exterior, or brick-and-mortar construction. Although 2 of 7 listings contain a BRICK checkbox, the previously high-confidence assessment treated this as an isolated inconsistency, while the consistent concrete data points away from brick construction.

Single wall construction is not checked on any listings and is atypical for this 5-story concrete building. Remarks never mention single wall, supporting that it does not apply here.

The remarks describe the property as a residential condo with pool, BBQ, laundry, and furnished-unit features, but do not address short-term rental permissions. There is no explicit evidence that STR is allowed.

The building is described as a 21-unit residential condo rather than a hotel-operated property. No hotel rental pool language was found, and this feature cannot be true without confirmed STR allowance.

The remarks contain no evidence of any hotel rental program, mandatory or optional. Because STR allowance is not established, mandatory hotel-pool participation is false under the prerequisite rule.

At least one listing calls the unit a 'RARE FEE SIMPLE' property, confirming the presence of Fee Simple units. Among the 5 analyzed listings, 1 explicitly notes Fee Simple, while the others do not specify tenure.

One listing highlights a 'RARE FEE SIMPLE' unit, suggesting Fee Simple is unusual in this building and implying other units are likely leasehold. None of the 5 current remarks explicitly say 'leasehold', so the presence of leasehold units is inferred rather than directly stated.

The listings indicate fee-simple ownership rather than leasehold ownership. No specific lease expiry or ground-lease year is mentioned, so there is no year to extract.

The remarks discuss fee-simple ownership, location, amenities, and parking but do not address VA loan eligibility. No evidence confirms or denies VA approval.

The remarks state that maintenance fees cover cable TV, hot water, water, and sewer, but do not mention building insurance coverage. There is no evidence confirming full or walls-in insurance, so the value remains false with low confidence.

Across 5 listings, there are no remarks about fire sprinklers and no MLS amenity flags for a sprinkler system. Given the building’s age and the lack of any mention, it is very likely the building does not have a notable fire sprinkler system amenity.

The remarks discuss amenities, maintenance, spall and painting work, and maintenance fees, but do not address fire or life safety evaluation status. Because there is no current true value and no explicit evidence of passage, this remains false with low confidence.

Flood zone determined from official FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) data using building coordinates, not from agent-reported listing data.

No analysis available

Across 5 listings, none mention 'ocean', 'water', or 'coastline' views, and 0/5 MLS view_descriptions include any ocean-related term (with 3/5 explicitly marked NONE). One top-floor corner unit described as having the 'best view in the whole building' only notes views 'towards the Ala Wai and the mountains', implying ocean views are not present even from the best vantage point. This strongly indicates the building does not offer ocean-view units.

Out of 5 listings, 1 explicitly describes a top-floor corner unit with a view 'towards the Ala Wai and the mountains'. This shows that at least some units in the building have mountain views, and the detailed narrative is likely more accurate than the generic MLS checkboxes marked NONE in other listings. Buyers seeking mountain views could reasonably find suitable units in this building.

Across 5 sets of remarks, there are no mentions of 'Diamond Head' or similar phrases, and 0/5 MLS view_descriptions include any Diamond Head indicator (with several marked NONE). In Waikiki, Diamond Head views are usually prominently marketed, so the complete absence of such mentions strongly suggests this building does not offer Diamond Head views. This supports setting view_diamond_head to false.

None of the 5 listings describe any 'city' or 'urban' view, even when highlighting the 'best view in the whole building'. The only view descriptions focus on the pool, Ala Wai, and mountains, not skyline or cityscape. Given this and the absence of CITY in all MLS view_descriptions, it is unlikely that the building offers true city-view units.

Listings stress that Waikiki Beach is nearby but never claim a shoreline or coastline view, and 0/5 view_descriptions include COASTL (with several listed as NONE). The only detailed view narrative omits any mention of the ocean or coastline, focusing instead on Ala Wai and mountains. This pattern indicates the building does not provide coastline views.

The 5 listings emphasize amenities like pool, BBQ, deck, and laundry, but none mention garden, courtyard, or landscaped views. With no GARDEN indications in MLS view_descriptions and no narrative references, it appears the building does not offer distinct garden-view units. Thus view_garden is set to false with high confidence.

Across 5 listings, none describe any golf course or fairway view, even where specific views ('towards the Ala Wai and the mountains') are discussed. MLS view_descriptions likewise never list GOLCOU and several are marked NONE. This strongly suggests the building does not offer golf course views.

Out of 5 listings, 1 top-floor corner unit is described as having a view 'towards the Ala Wai and the mountains'. The Ala Wai is a canal, and the guidelines explicitly group canal views under the marina/harbor view category. This indicates that at least some units have canal/marina-type views, so view_marina should be marked true.

None of the 5 remark sets reference sunrise, morning light, or any directional exposure tied to sunrise. Given the complete absence of sunrise-related marketing and no SUNRIS flags in view_descriptions, it is very unlikely that sunrise views are a notable building feature. Therefore view_sunrise is set to false.

None of the 7 current listings mention sunset views or related phrases, and 5/7 list NONE for view descriptions. Remarks describing the building’s best view identify the Ala Wai and mountains rather than western or sunset exposure, providing strong multi-listing evidence that sunset views should be excluded.

All 5 listings situate the building amid central Waikiki commercial and resort uses, and none mention or allude to a cemetery view. Cemetery views are typically disclosed or at least noticeable in remarks when present, and 0/5 MLS view_descriptions include CEMETA. This makes it overwhelmingly likely that the building does not overlook a cemetery.

The views described focus on the Ala Wai and mountain views, with no mention of fireworks. Given that fireworks views are usually a strong selling point and would be advertised, their absence suggests units do not notably feature fireworks views.

No analysis available

One listing notes 'pet friendly, only 21 units in the building,' and another states 'This pet-friendly building offers on-site amenities….' Multiple independent agents describing the building this way provides strong evidence that pets are allowed. No listing or restriction text says 'no pets.'

There are no references to a resident or on-site manager in any remarks, and no MLS entries mark a resident manager amenity. This consistent absence strongly indicates the building does not have a resident manager on-site.

The remarks focus on residential use—location, pool, BBQ, and fee simple ownership—with no mention of hotel management, front desk, or rental programs. In Waikiki, true condotels are usually advertised explicitly as such, so the consistent omission here points to this not being a condotel building.

No listing uses terms like 'co-op,' 'cooperative,' or 'shares'—instead, ownership is described as fee simple. Combined with MLS coding that does not indicate co-op tax treatment, the evidence supports that this is a condo building rather than a cooperative.