Hawaiian King

Both MLS property data (36/36 listings) and remarks ('Hawaiian King was built in 1959') agree on the construction year. This consistent cross‑source evidence supports 1959 as the accurate year built.

All MLS unit floor numbers observed are between 0 and 5, with 5 being the highest across 36 listings. Remarks such as 'higher floor' and 'no unit above' support that the top residential level is the 5th floor, indicating a 5‑story building.

No listing remarks state the total number of units in Hawaiian King (no phrases like 'X‑unit building' or 'one of X units'). Without explicit data, the building’s unit count cannot be determined from current sources.

Remarks emphasize investment and short-term rental potential but never provide a numerical owner-occupancy rate. Without explicit figures in the listings, the prior 17% value is kept, though it cannot be confirmed from current remarks.

Remarks confirm that the building has at least one elevator but never specify a count. Given the existing data of 1 elevator and the 6-story, 40-unit context, keeping 1 is reasonable though the exact number is not explicitly documented in remarks.

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.

Listings consistently describe window A/C or split A/C within individual units, with no suggestion of a building-wide central AC system or AC costs covered by the HOA. MLS association_fee_includes entries never mark central AC (0/20). Together this indicates central air is not a building-provided, fee-included service.

Multiple remarks describe the monthly maintenance or associated HOA charges as including cable, e.g., 'MF includes water, sewer, cable, internet, on-site manager, and common area maintenance.' Other listings break out a required 'Spectrum bulk cable/internet' fee in addition to the base maintenance. Combined with 14/20 MLS entries checking CABTV, this strongly indicates building fees include bulk cable service.

Several remarks note that the monthly maintenance fee covers 'common area maintenance' in addition to utilities like water and sewer. With 15 of 20 MLS entries flagging other common expenses, it is clear that common area operating costs (including common-area electricity) are paid through the HOA fees. Buyers can expect building common areas to be powered and maintained from these dues.

The building is repeatedly described as a leasehold condo with lease rent obligations to Queen Emma Land Co./Queen Emma Trust, not as a cooperative. No listing mentions co-op taxes being part of the fees, and the corresponding MLS checkbox is never used. This confirms cooperative taxes are not included in the maintenance fees.

Remarks clearly separate electricity from the maintenance fee, explaining that power is sub-metered and billed separately as an 'other fee.' No listing claims electricity is included, and the MLS checkbox for electric-included is never selected. This provides strong evidence that unit electricity is not covered by the HOA fees.

Listings discuss electricity, water, and sewer in relation to the maintenance fees but never mention gas lines or gas-inclusive utilities. Given the all-electric descriptions (range, A/C) and the absence of the gas-included MLS code, gas service is not part of the HOA-paid utilities. Buyers should not expect gas to be included in building fees.

Remarks never mention hot water as an included utility, and MLS data strongly favors in-unit water heaters (WTRHTR) over a building-supplied hot water system. With the HOTWAT checkbox almost never used, the evidence points to hot water not being a common utility paid through the HOA. This suggests individual units handle their own hot water costs.

Public remarks explicitly say that the MF includes internet alongside water, sewer, and cable in at least one listing. Several others list a required 'Spectrum bulk cable/internet' fee as part of the monthly building charges. Together with MLS usage of the internet-included code, this supports that building fees cover bulk internet service.

All marketing focuses on proximity to beaches, shopping, and dining in central Waikiki, with no suggestion of on-site marina access or boat slips. The MLS association_fee_includes field never lists marina-related fees. This indicates there is no marina component included in the building's maintenance charges.

Multiple agents note that sewer charges are bundled into the monthly maintenance fee, often grouped with water and cable. With nearly all MLS entries marking sewer as included, the evidence is strong that residents do not pay a separate sewer bill. Buyers can reasonably expect sewer service to be covered by the HOA dues.

Several listings clearly state 'MF includes water, sewer, cable...' or similar language, showing that unit water usage is paid via the HOA rather than billed separately. The majority of MLS records also flag water as included. This provides strong building-wide evidence that water service is covered by the maintenance fees.

Multiple independent remarks describe a 'BBQ area', 'pool side tables, umbrellas, Tiki torches & BBQ', 'outdoor grill', and 'BBQ patio area'. This is a core, repeatedly advertised amenity of the building.

The building’s amenities are consistently described as including pool, BBQ area, community laundry, lounge, convenience mart, bar, secured entry, and on-site manager, with no reference to any bicycle storage. This pattern is consistent across many different agents and listings. The total absence of bike-related features in both remarks and amenity data strongly indicates that the building does not provide dedicated bike storage.

All listings emphasize walkable access to beaches and Waikiki attractions rather than direct waterfront docking. This, combined with MLS data, makes it virtually certain there is no boat dock or marina access.

Agents repeatedly stress that there is 'no parking in this building', and there is no reference to any vehicle wash area. It is therefore highly unlikely that a car wash amenity exists.

The building is consistently described as having a courtyard with pool/BBQ and community laundry, but there is no reference to a separate clubhouse or recreation center. Given both remarks and MLS data, a clubhouse is very unlikely.

At least one agent explicitly advertises a 'property manager/concierge on-site', and others independently confirm an on-site or resident manager. This repeated emphasis on staffed on-site management supports the presence of a concierge-type service at the building.

Across all descriptions of outdoor amenities (pool, BBQ, lounge, courtyard), there is never any mention of a pet or dog area. Given this and the MLS data, the building almost certainly does not have a dog park.

Across all remarks, staff are referenced as 'on-site manager', 'resident manager onsite', or 'on-site management', with no indication of a doorman-type service. Given the consistent terminology and MLS data, the building almost certainly does not have a doorman.

Across numerous remarks, agents consistently highlight the pool, BBQ, community laundry, lounge areas, and on-site manager but never a gym or fitness center. Given the comprehensive amenity marketing and MLS data, the building very likely does not have an exercise room.

Despite detailed marketing of investment potential and amenities, none of the agents describe any chauffeur or limousine-style service. This strongly indicates the building does not offer limo or house car service.

While agents note lounge areas and a community lounge by the pool, they never describe a dedicated meeting or conference room. The absence in both narrative and MLS amenities points to there being no meeting room.

Many listings describe lanais and outdoor common areas, e.g., '1 Brdm/1Bath ~ Apt w/ Lanai', 'wrap-around lanai', 'large lanai', and 'BBQ patio area'. Several remarks also reference relaxing by the pool-side lounge or outdoor grill, indicating both unit lanais and shared patio/deck-style spaces are a core feature of the building.

Remarks focus on proximity to Waikiki, beaches, and city life, but they do not describe any dedicated jogging or walking path within the property. This makes it very likely that no such path amenity exists.

The building is marketed for Waikiki lifestyle, pool, BBQ, and lounge areas, but there is no reference to any kids’ play structure or tot lot. This strongly indicates there is no playground amenity.

Listings consistently mention 'lanai', 'courtyard', 'pool', and 'BBQ' but never 'yard', 'private yard', or fenced yard space. The outdoor areas described are shared amenities or lanais, not private yard spaces, so buyers should not expect private yard access in this building.

Given how prominently agents feature other outdoor amenities, a putting green would almost certainly be mentioned if it existed. Its total absence from remarks and MLS suggests there is no putting green.

Remarks repeatedly reference a 'central courtyard', 'tropical courtyard', 'poolside lounge', 'community area', and 'lounge area' around the pool and BBQ. This clearly indicates a shared recreation/amenity deck-style area in the building.

Agents describe 'lounge space', 'community lounge', and poolside seating as outdoor common areas, without any indication of a dedicated indoor rec or game room. Given the detailed amenity descriptions and MLS data, a recreation room is unlikely to exist.

Multiple remarks describe a mini mart, bar, and specifically a 'Restaurant at entrance to building', indicating commercial dining uses integrated with the property. Buyers can reasonably expect on-site food/drink options as part of the building environment.

Agents emphasize ground-level and courtyard amenities only, with no suggestion of rooftop amenities or views from a shared roof deck. This strong and consistent omission makes it very likely there is no rooftop amenity.

Given the detailed descriptions of building amenities and vintage character, the absence of any reference to sauna or steam facilities suggests that no such amenity exists in this building.

None of the listings explicitly mention building storage units or lockers, even when giving long amenity lists. One listing notes an 'extended lanai area perfect for extra storage space,' which refers to private unit space rather than a shared storage facility. Given the consistent omission of storage in remarks and 0/20 storage-related amenity checkboxes at the building level, it is very likely this building does not offer separate storage units.

The public remarks describe many amenities (pool, BBQ, community laundry, lounge, convenience mart, bar, secured entry, resident manager) but never reference any surfboard or board storage. I specifically searched for terms like 'surfboard storage', 'board storage', 'surf storage', and 'bike and surfboard storage' and found no matches. In the absence of any mention, it is likely the building does not offer dedicated surfboard storage or it is not being advertised.

Listings thoroughly market the building’s outdoor amenities (pool, courtyard, BBQ, lounge) but never mention tennis. The consistent omission plus MLS data strongly indicates there is no tennis court.

While not all agents would necessarily highlight trash chutes, the MLS amenities uniformly omit it and the focus is on community laundry and courtyard amenities. This suggests the building likely relies on other trash handling methods and does not have a trash chute system.

Remarks repeatedly emphasize the absence of parking, with phrases like 'There is no parking in this building' and 'NO parking on property'. With no on-site parking at all and no mention of valet in any listing, the building clearly does not offer valet service.

Multiple agents, in separately written remarks, reference a 'secure gated entry and elevator', 'gated complex', and 'Pool with secure courtyard'. Combined with MLS gated/wall-fence indications, this strongly supports that the building is enclosed by a gate/fence providing perimeter security.

Amenity descriptions are specific to the pool and courtyard area without any reference to a separate hot tub or spa. The consistent omission in both remarks and MLS data makes a whirlpool very unlikely.

Multiple listings explicitly mention a building pool, using phrases like 'swimming pool', 'onsite pool', 'pool, BBQ patio area', and 'relax by the pool-side lounge surrounded by tropical landscaping.' MLS amenities also show 19 of 20 listings with a pool-related checkbox selected, and the descriptions come from many different agents with varied wording. This provides strong building-level evidence that Hawaiian King has a shared swimming pool available to residents/guests.

Across all provided remarks, the building pool is consistently described only as 'pool' or 'swimming pool' with no references to it being heated, even in detailed amenity lists. MLS amenities likewise show zero instances of any heated-pool checkbox or feature code. The consistent omission of any 'heated' description, despite frequent mention of the pool itself, strongly indicates the pool is not heated.

Remarks were scanned for terms like 'salt water pool', 'saltwater', 'salt pool', or 'saline' and none were found. Given repeated generic references only to a standard pool and no evidence of saltwater, the pool is marked as not saltwater with medium confidence.

Several listings specifically describe in-unit laundry, including quotes like 'in unit washer and dryer' and 'Washer/dryer in the unit,' in addition to 3/20 MLS entries checking the washer/dryer inclusion. While not every unit has it, these remarks confirm that some Hawaiian King units offer in‑unit laundry, making it a relevant searchable feature for this building.

Community/shared laundry is mentioned across a large majority of listings with phrases like 'Community laundry,' 'There’s community laundry onsite,' 'laundry room,' and 'on-site community laundry facility,' matching 16/20 MLS checkbox entries. This strong, repeated evidence from multiple agents confirms that Hawaiian King has a shared/community laundry facility available to residents.

I looked for indicators such as 'coin laundry', 'coin-op', 'card-operated', 'quarters', or similar language tied to the community laundry and found no such mentions. Because payment is never referenced in any listing, the laundry is assumed not explicitly paid based on available remarks.

The public remarks consistently reference a shared community laundry or laundry room but never specify that laundry facilities are located on each floor. I searched for phrases like 'laundry on every floor' or 'laundry room on each floor' and found none, so this feature is marked as not present.

All MLS entries mark parking as NONE, and multiple independent remarks clearly state there is no parking in the building or on the property. No listing describes any on-site stalls, garages, or lots, indicating that the building offers no parking at all.

No listing mentions assigned, reserved, or deeded stalls, and several explicitly state there is no parking in the building or on the property. With MLS also showing no assigned parking codes, it is effectively certain there is no assigned parking here.

Multiple remarks emphasize that there is no parking, and none reference a garage, carport, or covered stalls. Combined with MLS parking_features=NONE across all listings, this strongly confirms there is no covered parking.

Because the building is repeatedly advertised as having no parking at all, there cannot be any deeded (owned) parking stalls associated with units. I searched for phrases like 'deeded parking', 'owned stall', and 'parking included in deed' and found only explicit statements that no parking exists.

There are repeated statements that the building has no parking at all, and no agent mentions any EV charging or stations. Given the complete absence of both parking and EV-related remarks, EV parking/charging is not present.

Given that the building advertises no parking on property, there is no building-provided parking to charge a monthly fee for. I searched for 'parking fee', 'monthly parking charge', and 'additional parking cost' and found no indications of any such fee.

Listings stress the lack of parking rather than any availability for residents or visitors, and none mention guest or visitor stalls. This makes it effectively certain that there is no guest parking at the building.

The only secured entry referenced is for pedestrian building access, not for a parking facility, and all data agree the building has no parking at all. Therefore there is no secured-entry parking to advertise.

Given that the building is consistently described as having no parking, there is no opportunity for any tandem-style arrangement. The complete absence of tandem-related language across all remarks corroborates this.

Agents highlight the lack of parking rather than any managed parking option, and there are zero mentions of valet or attended parking. This clearly indicates that valet parking is not offered at this building.

Because the building has no on-site parking, a parking waitlist would not be applicable. I specifically looked for 'parking waitlist' and 'waiting list for parking' in the remarks and found no mentions.

Phrases like 'secure gated entry and elevator' appear repeatedly, but they read as a secure building entrance plus a standard elevator, not as a keyed elevator system. With no explicit 'keyed' or 'fob' references across many independent remarks, a keyed-elevator security feature is very unlikely.

Listings consistently describe secured or gated entry but never specify key card, fob, or other electronic access. Searched for terms like 'key card', 'fob', 'card reader', and 'electronic access' with no matches, so presence of a card/fob system cannot be confirmed and is treated as unlikely.

No listings describe a 'security guard', '24-hour security', or similar; instead they note 'on-site manager', 'resident manager onsite', or 'on-site management'. With 0/20 MLS records checking a security-guard amenity and no textual support, this building is very likely not guard-serviced.

Multiple listings discuss amenities and security-related features but none mention any form of security patrol. Searched for 'security patrol', 'roving security', and similar phrases and found no evidence, so a patrol service is assumed not present.

Multiple agents highlight 'secured entry' or 'secure gated entry' but never mention cameras or video surveillance. Given 0/20 MLS mentions and the consistent omission of any video-security language, it is highly likely the building does not offer marketed video security as an amenity.

No listings check a central AC box in MLS (0/20), and remarks consistently describe unit-level systems like 'window A/C' and 'split AC' rather than any central air. Given the 1959 vintage and repeated emphasis on individual AC units, there is strong evidence the building does not have central air conditioning.

Multiple independent remarks state that specific units have split systems (e.g., 'Fully renovated including Split AC' and '2 split air conditioning systems'), and 2/20 listings check the split AC inclusion. This indicates that while not universal, split AC is present in at least some units and is a legitimate feature for this building.

Window air conditioners are widely reported, with 14/20 listings checking the window AC box and multiple remarks specifically listing 'window A/C' among unit features. The consistency across many agents and units provides strong evidence that window AC units are common in this building.

Across the building, 18/20 recent MLS listings mark construction as concrete (CONCRE), and no listings mention any alternative primary structure. Remarks emphasize a 1950s ‘art deco’/‘vintage’ Waikiki condo, which in this area and era is almost always reinforced concrete construction. The single BRICK and a couple MASSTU entries are more consistent with exterior finishes than with the primary structure.

There are no MLS or remark references to double-wall construction, and the building is characterized as a concrete vintage Waikiki condo. Double-wall is primarily relevant to wood-frame houses rather than midrise concrete condo structures. Given the consistent data, double-wall construction is very unlikely here.

Across all provided listings, hollow tile is never checked or described. While some older Hawaii structures use hollow tile, MLS data for this building does not support it, and agents instead overwhelmingly flag concrete construction. In the absence of any direct mention or coding, hollow-tile construction is unlikely.

A small but notable subset of listings (2/20) mark MASSTU, suggesting some agents recognize masonry/stucco as part of the exterior construction or finish. The 1950s ‘art deco’ and ‘old Hawaiian charm’ descriptions are consistent with stuccoed masonry over a concrete structure. Although not universally checked, the pattern and typical local building practices support treating masonry/stucco as present.

MLS data shows zero use of the steel-frame (STEFRA) code for this building, while concrete is consistently selected. The building is repeatedly described as a 1950s ‘art deco’/‘vintage’ Waikiki condo rather than a modern steel tower. This combination makes true steel-frame construction very unlikely.

While only 2/20 listings explicitly flag SLAB, none conflict with that designation, and the building’s era and concrete construction strongly imply a concrete slab-type foundation. Agents often under-mark slab for condo buildings, so partial MLS usage still carries weight. On balance, it is reasonable to treat a concrete slab foundation as present, though with moderate confidence.

No analysis available

None of the MLS entries indicate wood frame construction, and 18/20 explicitly indicate concrete instead. The building is a 1959 Waikiki condo, and in this submarket such buildings are concrete rather than wood frame. Given the consistent MLS pattern and local building norms, wood-frame construction is very unlikely.

A minority of MLS entries (4/20) explicitly mark the building as above-ground (ABOGRO), and none suggest any basement or partially below-grade design. Given the building’s midrise condo form in central Waikiki, it is inherently an above-ground structure. The partial but consistent MLS coding supports including above-ground construction as an implied feature.

Brick construction is not described anywhere in the extensive remarks, despite many references to the building’s style and age. MLS data shows just 1/20 listings with BRICK versus 18/20 with concrete, a pattern typical of a miscoded checkbox. Given local norms (concrete, not brick, for 1950s Waikiki condos), the building is very unlikely to be brick-constructed.

Single-wall construction is never mentioned in remarks and is not selected in any MLS construction materials for this building. In Honolulu, single-wall is largely limited to older detached homes, not midcentury concrete condo buildings like this one. This makes single-wall construction effectively ruled out for this property.

Short-term rentals are clearly allowed in this building, with several remarks referencing legal STRs, nonconforming hotel status, and the ability to rent for less than 30 days. Although one remark claims it is not zoned for STR, the overwhelming majority and specificity of other remarks indicate STR is permitted. This is treated as a legal short-term rental building.

No listing mentions participation in a branded or centralized hotel rental pool program. The language consistently frames rentals as individually managed (e.g., Airbnb, personal investment units), suggesting there is no building-wide hotel pool.

Participation in any rental program appears optional, as units are used both as residences and as voluntary STR investments. Given the absence of a hotel pool and explicit evidence of flexible owner use, a mandatory hotel pool can be ruled out.

All provided listings describe the property as leasehold only and repeatedly note that fee ownership is not available, with no exceptions. There are 0 observed Fee Simple listings versus many Leasehold listings, indicating the building does not offer FS units.

All tenure‑related remarks describe Hawaiian King as leasehold, with repeated phrases like 'leasehold property,' 'lease expires in 2036,' and requirements to apply with Queen Emma Land Co/Trust. Every observed listing is Leasehold (many of them) and none are Fee Simple, confirming leasehold tenure for the building.

The building is clearly described as leasehold, with repeated references that the lease or ground lease expires in 2036 across numerous independent remarks. Given the strong consistency of 2036 as the end date, the leasehold expiry year is set to 2036.

The public remarks were searched for terms like 'VA approved', 'VA financing', and 'VA loans accepted' and none were found. In the absence of any indication that VA financing is allowed, this building is treated as not VA-approved based on available information.

Public remarks were scanned for references to full HOA insurance coverage, including 'walls-in' or comparable terms, and none were present. Given this absence despite detailed fee descriptions, it is unlikely the building is advertised as fully insured by the HOA.

Across all provided remarks, there are no references to fire sprinklers or a sprinkler system among the building amenities. Given the building’s age, style, and lack of textual confirmation, sprinklers are unlikely, though not definitively ruled out.

Listings were checked for terms such as 'fire life safety evaluation passed', 'FLSE', 'fire inspection', or similar and none were found. In the absence of any mention, it is more likely the building is not explicitly marketed as having passed such an evaluation.

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

Agents repeatedly highlight that the building is a few blocks from Waikiki Beach but never describe any ocean or shoreline views from units or lanais. With 0/20 MLS view_descriptions indicating ocean views and no textual references, it is very likely this building does not offer meaningful ocean-view units.

One listing for a 4th floor unit specifically advertises a "partial Mountain View" from the large lanai. This direct wording shows that at least some units in the building enjoy mountain views, so buyers searching for mountain views should consider this building.

Remarks frequently describe location near Waikiki Beach, International Marketplace, and Kapiolani Park but never reference Diamond Head views. Given the total absence of Diamond Head mentions and zero MLS checkboxes for this view, it is very likely no units offer a notable Diamond Head view.

The building is repeatedly described as being in the "heart of Waikiki" with lanais overlooking Nohonani Street and surrounding urban activity, which indicates typical city/streetscape views from some units. Combined with 4/20 MLS entries checked for CITY view, this supports that the building offers city-view units.

Agents consistently sell the short walking distance to the beach rather than any views of the coastline itself. The absence of coastline-related wording and MLS tags strongly suggests that coastline views are not available from this building.

Remarks repeatedly highlight a central or tropical courtyard with pool, BBQ, lounge, and abundant greenery, including phrases like "surrounded by lots of greenery" and "tropical landscaping." Ground-floor and pool-adjacent units clearly look onto these landscaped courtyard areas, so garden/courtyard views are a real feature of this building.

Agents discuss proximity to Kapiolani Park, the zoo, and Waikiki attractions, but there are no claims of seeing a golf course from any unit. The combination of 0 golf-course view checkboxes and no textual mentions indicates this building does not offer golf-course views.

Although Waikiki is near the Ala Wai Canal and harbor areas, none of the many unit descriptions reference canal, harbor, or marina outlooks. With zero MLS marina-view checkboxes and no textual evidence, marina views are very unlikely in this building.

While many remarks mention enjoying the pool or lanai and soaking up the sun, they never specify sunrise views or morning/east-facing outlooks. Given the total lack of such language and no MLS checkboxes, sunrise views are unlikely to be a notable building feature.

Listings focus on location and amenities but do not promote sunset vistas or evening views from the units or lanais. With zero MLS indications and no textual mentions, there is no reliable evidence that this building offers recognized sunset views.

All descriptions emphasize an urban, resort-like environment with courtyards, pools, and nearby commercial and beach amenities, and never reference a cemetery. With no MLS or textual evidence, cemetery views can be confidently ruled out as a building feature.

Listings were checked for phrases such as 'fireworks view', 'watch fireworks from lanai', or 'see fireworks from the unit' and none were present. Without explicit mention of fireworks views from the building, this feature is assumed not to be a notable characteristic.

No analysis available

Dozens of remarks focus on lease terms, short-term rental legality, amenities, and location but are completely silent on pets. Because there is neither 'pets allowed' language nor explicit 'no pets' language, the building cannot be reliably advertised as pet-friendly.

Several independent remarks state that Hawaiian King has an on‑site or resident manager, e.g., 'on-site manager' and 'property manager/concierge on-site.' This repeated wording across different listings confirms the presence of a resident/on‑site manager at the building.

Several listings emphasize that Hawaiian King is a legal short-term rental with 'nonconforming hotel status' and is 'exempted from the STP permit to rent for less then 30 days legally'. This repeated description of hotel-status operations across different agents aligns with condotel characteristics rather than a standard residential-only condominium.

The building is repeatedly described as a 'leasehold' condominium with lease rent, renegotiation dates, and lessor approval, but never as a cooperative or co-op. The absence of co-op language in remarks and MLS data strongly indicates it is not a cooperative building.