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.

No building-level owner-occupancy percentage or statements such as "majority owner occupied" were found. The 17.00% current value is retained because the remarks do not explicitly contradict it, but confidence remains low.

The remarks repeatedly confirm that the building has an elevator. They do not specify a number greater than one, so the current value of 1 is supported by the available evidence.

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.

Cable inclusion is strongly supported across the listings, with at least 10 remarks referencing 'Spectrum bulk cable/internet' and explicit statements that the maintenance fee includes cable. The repeated language across multiple listings appears partly copy-pasted, but it is corroborated by the current MLS checkbox data and historical high confidence.

Multiple listings explicitly note that maintenance fees cover common area maintenance and on-site manager services ('common area maintenance', 'on-site manager'), consistent with the high historical occurrence (15/20). The repeated, consistent language across agents indicates a building-level inclusion.

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.

No listings explicitly mention hot water being included in the maintenance fee. Multiple remarks state that maintenance fees include water and sewer, while current MLS data is dominated by WTRHTR (9/20) rather than HOTWAT (1/20), supporting correction/retention of false.

Internet inclusion is repeatedly documented, with at least 10 remarks mentioning 'Spectrum Bulk Cable/Internet' and two remarks explicitly stating that the maintenance fee includes internet. Although several descriptions use copied fee language, the evidence is consistent across listings and supported by the current MLS data.

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.

Sewer inclusion is explicitly stated in at least 3 listings, including the phrases 'maintenance fee includes water, sewer, cable, internet' and 'MF includes water, sewer, cable.' This is reinforced by the very strong current MLS presence of SEWER on 18 of 20 listings and the prior high-confidence assessment.

Water inclusion is explicitly mentioned in at least 3 listings, including 'Monthly Maintenance Fee includes water, sewer, cable, internet' and 'MF includes water, sewer, cable.' The repeated statements across listings, combined with WATER appearing on 17 of 20 current MLS records, provide strong building-level support.

BBQ facilities are consistently documented across numerous independent listing remarks, including "poolside tables, tiki torches & BBQ," "central courtyard, swimming pool, BBQ area," and "outdoor BBQ lounge area." The repeated descriptions across well over 15 listings strongly support that the building offers a shared BBQ/grilling area rather than this being an isolated or copied checkbox claim.

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.

At least 20 listings mention patio/deck-related outdoor space, most commonly using phrases such as 'lanai,' 'large private lanai,' 'wrap-around lanai,' and '2 lanais.' Multiple independent remarks also identify building outdoor amenities including a 'BBQ patio area,' poolside areas, and outdoor lounge/BBQ spaces, while 11 of 20 current MLS records include PATDEC/COVPAT. The evidence is strong and consistent across listings, not merely an isolated checkbox or apparent copy-paste error.

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.

Mixed evidence: historical MLS data gave high confidence for a trash chute, but current agent remarks across the dataset do not mention a trash/garbage/refuse chute. Because of the prior high-confidence MLS entry but no corroborating recent remarks, the feature is included with moderate confidence (implied) and should be verified with building management or owner.

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.

The pool is confirmed across many listings, with at least 18 of 20 current MLS records containing pool-related amenities and numerous remarks explicitly mentioning a building or community swimming pool. Repeated descriptions include poolside seating, lounge areas, BBQ facilities, and a pool near ground-floor units, indicating strong multi-agent evidence rather than an isolated checkbox or copy-paste entry.

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 overwhelmingly supported across the listings: at least 17 of 20 have the COMLAU amenity, and more than 15 remarks explicitly mention it. Repeated descriptions include "Community laundry on site," "Laundry Room on site (first floor)," "on-site laundry," and "laundry room," confirming a building-level shared laundry facility rather than in-unit laundry.

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.

At least 10 listings explicitly mention that the building has no parking, with consistent phrases such as 'Sorry No parking' and 'No parking in this building.' The evidence is strong across multiple remarks and agrees with the historical MLS data showing NONE in 19 of 20 listings; there is no credible indication of a parking feature or a recent change.

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.

The listings consistently indicate that the building has no parking. Therefore, there is no deeded or owned parking associated with the units.

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.

The remarks were searched for parking fees, parking rental charges, and additional parking costs, but none were found. Because the building is repeatedly described as having no parking, a parking fee appears inapplicable, but no specific fee value is provided.

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.

The remarks were searched for parking waitlist language and no such references were found. The repeated statements that the building has no parking make a parking waitlist unlikely.

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.

At least 9 current remarks explicitly mention window air conditioning, including multiple Hawaiian King descriptions stating "window A/C" or "window A/C unit," plus another describing the "comfort of your window A/C." Evidence is strong across repeated listings and consistent with the prior high-confidence determination and 18/20 current MLS inclusions, although some wording appears copy-pasted.

All 20 of 20 current listings identify concrete construction through the CONCRE material code. Although the remarks do not explicitly use phrases such as “concrete building” or “reinforced concrete,” the evidence is consistent across all listings and is stronger than the absence of narrative mentions.

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.

Four of 20 current listings identify MASSTU in the construction materials. None of the provided remarks explicitly mention “masonry,” “stucco,” or “masonry and stucco,” so the support is limited and may reflect copied MLS data, but there is also no evidence that the feature should be removed.

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.

Two of 20 listings explicitly use the SLAB construction-material code. No public remarks quote “concrete slab” or “solid concrete foundation,” so the evidence is not explicit across agents; however, the positive MLS designations and lack of contradiction support retaining the feature 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.

Above-ground construction is only weakly supported in the MLS data: 4 of 20 listings explicitly mark ABOGRO, while the public remarks are silent on construction style. Because there are no remarks indicating a basement or partially below-grade design, the safest read is that the building is likely above ground, but this may also reflect copy/paste checkbox usage.

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.

The remarks contain extensive evidence that short-term rentals are allowed, including active vacation-rental operations and legal nonconforming hotel status. One listing says rentals must be for a minimum of 30 days and another says the property is not zoned short-term rental, but these conflicting unit-level remarks are outweighed by repeated building-level legal STR statements.

The remarks were searched for hotel rental pool, hotel program, and hotel-managed rental language, but none was found. Nonconforming hotel status supports STR legality but does not establish participation in a hotel rental pool.

The remarks were searched for mandatory hotel pool, required participation, and inability to opt out. None were found, and the absence of any identified hotel rental pool means mandatory participation is not supported.

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 property is consistently described as leasehold, with numerous remarks identifying the lease expiration as 2036. One listing notes the lease was renegotiated in March 2021 and still expires in 2036; the 2031 date mentioned elsewhere is a renegotiation date, not the expiration date.

The remarks were searched for VA approval, VA financing, and VA loan acceptance, but none were found. Repeated cash-only statements strongly support that VA financing is not available or accepted.

The remarks were searched for statements describing HOA-provided full or comprehensive building insurance and walls-in coverage. No such statement appears, so full insurance cannot be confirmed; under the stated rules, the value is false with medium-low confidence.

No provided listing remarks mention fire sprinklers or a sprinkler system. The feature appears in only 2 of 20 current MLS records, with no supporting language across the remarks and a prior low-confidence assessment, so it is omitted as likely an unverified MLS checkbox.

The remarks were searched for explicit fire/life safety evaluation or inspection approval language. Nothing was found, so there is insufficient evidence to confirm that the building passed; under the stated rules, the value remains false with medium-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

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.

At least 2 current listings explicitly mention mountain-related views: one quotes "partial Mountain View" and another identifies a lanai "on mountain side." This is consistent with the prior high-confidence evidence that some units offer mountain views, so the building should retain this feature even though views vary by unit.

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.

Evidence for city views is moderate rather than overwhelming: 5 of 20 MLS listings explicitly mark CITY, while most others show NONE. The remarks repeatedly place the building in the "heart of Waikiki" and reference "vibrant Waikiki city life," suggesting an urban setting with at least some city-facing units, but most remarks do not explicitly call out a city view.

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.

None of the 20 current listings explicitly mention sunset views or related indicators such as western exposure or evening sun. Several listings use generic view language or mention treetop/mountain views, but there is no consistent sunset evidence across agents, supporting omission of this feature.

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.

At least 7 current remarks explicitly mention an on-site or resident manager, including "property manager/concierge on-site," "on-site management," and "resident manager onsite." The repeated descriptions across multiple listing styles and the historical high-confidence finding strongly support that Hawaiian King has a resident manager.

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.