Kuhio Plaza

The MLS property field consistently reports 1966 as the construction year across all available listings, and no remarks suggest a different build or rebuild date. 1966 is therefore accepted as the building’s year built.

Listings for Kuhio Plaza include units as high as #110x, establishing that the building has at least 11 residential floors. No remarks mention a higher or “top” floor, so 11 floors is used as the working building total based on current MLS data.

At least five separate listing remarks repeat that there are 'only 4 units per floor,' and units are observed on up to the 11th floor. This strongly implies approximately 44 units in the building (4 units × 11 floors).

I looked for owner-occupancy indicators such as exact percentages, "highly owner occupied," or "majority owner occupied," but found none. Since there is no remark-based evidence to change the existing value, the current 45% is kept with low confidence.

I looked for direct statements like "2 elevators," "4 elevators," or "multiple elevators," but found none. The remarks confirm the building has at least one elevator, but they do not provide a count, so the current value is retained with low confidence.

Calculated from the lowest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.

Calculated from the highest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.

Calculated from association fees observed in penthouse unit listings for this building.

Listings describe AC units in each condo (window or split) but do not state that central AC costs are included in maintenance fees. The absence of the ACCEN checkbox in all MLS records strongly suggests central AC is not an included association utility.

None of the reviewed listings indicate that cable TV is included in the maintenance or HOA fees. With 0/9 MLS records checking the cable TV inclusion box and no textual mention, it is very likely that cable is paid separately by unit owners.

Common area electricity appears to be included in the HOA/maintenance fees based on current MLS data: 10 of 11 listings check OTCOEX. The public remarks across many agents focus on unit features and do not discuss the fee breakdown, so this is driven primarily by the consistently checked MLS field rather than copy-pasted remarks.

No listing indicates that co-op taxes are part of the fees, and the building is treated as a condo rather than a cooperative. This strongly supports that cooperative taxes are not included in the maintenance fees.

There is no mention of owner-unit electricity being covered by the association in either MLS checkboxes or remarks. This pattern across all listings indicates unit electrical service is likely paid separately by owners.

No MLS data or text indicates that gas is included in the association fees. With 0/9 listings checking the gas inclusion field, gas costs are very likely not part of the maintenance fee.

All units are noted as having their own water heaters, which is a strong indicator that hot water is not a centralized building utility included in HOA fees. The consistent absence of HOTWAT supports that hot water is not included in maintenance charges.

No listing suggests that building-provided internet is bundled with HOA fees. The lack of the INTSER checkbox across all MLS entries indicates internet is likely contracted and paid by owners individually.

The building is portrayed as a landlocked Waikiki condo near the beach, not a marina property. With no MLS checkboxes or text referencing a marina or boat-slip fees, marina costs are almost certainly not part of the maintenance fee.

Sewer is consistently included in the association fees, with 11 of 11 current listings showing SEWER. Public remarks do not explicitly mention sewer, but there is no conflicting evidence and the MLS field is unanimous across listings.

Water is included in the HOA/maintenance fees according to current MLS data, with 11 of 11 listings showing WATER. The public remarks do not explicitly call this out, but there is strong agreement in the listing data and no sign of a correction.

The remarks focus on proximity to Waikiki Beach, parks, and restaurants, but never mention any BBQ or grill area in the building. With all 9 MLS entries leaving BBQ unchecked, the evidence indicates there is no shared BBQ facility.

Remarks consistently mention nearby Biki bike stations and bike-friendly access but never describe on-site bike storage, and 0/9 listings indicate BSTORAG in amenities. This consistent absence across multiple listings suggests the building does not provide dedicated bicycle storage facilities.

Remarks consistently focus on being '1–1.5 blocks from Waikiki Beach' and near surfing, snorkeling, and paddling spots, but never suggest private dock access or boat slips. With 0/9 MLS listings indicating a marina or boat dock, this building does not provide boat docking facilities.

Multiple listings mention 'one assigned parking spot' or 'one secured, covered parking stall' yet none describe a vehicle wash station. With 0/9 MLS amenity flags, the building appears not to offer a car wash facility.

The building is described as a mid-rise, secure, pet-friendly condo with four units per floor, but no clubhouse or community center is mentioned. Given 0/9 MLS checkboxes for this feature, a clubhouse is very unlikely.

Despite detailed descriptions of upgrades and location, none of the 9 sets of remarks refer to concierge or any kind of front desk service. The focus on self-service amenities and fob access strongly suggests there is no concierge in this building.

Multiple remarks call the building 'pet-friendly,' but none refer to an on-site dog park or pet exercise area. With 0/9 MLS entries marking a dog park, it is very likely that only pet allowance exists, not a dedicated dog park.

If there were a doorman or lobby attendant, it would almost certainly be featured in remarks and selected in MLS amenities, but neither occurs in any of the 9 listings. The security described is key/fob-based, not staffed, so the building is best characterized as having no doorman service.

None of the 9 listings for this building mention an exercise room, gym, or fitness center in the remarks. MLS amenity checkboxes are uniformly unchecked for this feature, while other building details like community laundry and fire alarm upgrades are explicitly described, suggesting no on-site exercise room exists.

Transportation references are limited to 'public transit nearby,' 'busline,' and Biki bike stations, with no mention of building-provided car or limousine service. The absence of any such description across 9 listings and MLS data indicates there is no limo or house car service.

Remarks focus on residential and lifestyle features and omit any reference to meeting or conference facilities. With no MLS listings showing a meeting room amenity, it appears the building does not offer one.

At least 4 listings mention lanais, describing 'generous size lanai' and specific lanai square footage. This shows that units in the building offer patio/deck-style outdoor space that buyers can use.

Agents point to 'Diamond head hiking' and Kapiolani Park as nearby outdoor options rather than describing a dedicated jogging path on the property. With no MLS indication of jogging/walking paths, the building likely lacks this amenity.

Family-oriented nearby attractions are mentioned (Kapiolani Park, Honolulu Zoo, Aquarium), yet there is no mention of a kids' play area or playground within the building. All 9 MLS listings omit a playground amenity, indicating none exists on-site.

Across all provided listings, outdoor space is only described as lanais, with no reference to any yard or ground-level private outdoor area. Given the mid-rise, urban condo setting, it is very unlikely that any units have a private yard.

Marketing remarks do not mention any golf-related amenities such as a putting green. The complete absence from MLS amenity checkboxes supports that the building does not have a putting green.

Agents repeatedly sell the location (beach, parks, zoo, aquarium) rather than on-site recreation spaces and never reference a recreation deck or amenity area. The consistent absence in MLS amenities supports that there is no shared recreation area on the property.

Remarks emphasize unit upgrades, parking, pet-friendliness, and community laundry but do not mention any shared rec room or game room. With 0/9 MLS listings indicating such an amenity, it is very likely absent.

The building is marketed for its access to surrounding dining and the new Target at the International Marketplace, not for having its own restaurant. Since no listings or MLS entries indicate in-building dining, an on-site restaurant is very unlikely.

Agents highlight lanais and ocean breezes but never describe a shared rooftop terrace or roof deck, which would typically be a selling point in Waikiki. Consistent omission in both remarks and MLS suggests there are no rooftop amenities.

Amenity descriptions center on security, pet-friendliness, parking, and community laundry, with no mention of any sauna or steam room. Since no MLS entries mark a sauna amenity, the building almost certainly lacks this feature.

No listing remarks reference storage lockers or extra storage, and 0/9 listings have any storage-related MLS amenities checked. Given multiple different agents and timeframes with consistent omission, this strongly suggests the building does not offer dedicated storage units as a notable amenity.

I searched for explicit references to surfboard storage, board storage, surf storage, or bike-and-surfboard storage. The listings emphasize surfing nearby, but they do not mention any storage facility for boards.

Agents describe nearby 'closeby Tennis/Pickleball play' and 'closeby Tennis/Pickleball courts' along with Kapiolani Park and other area attractions, indicating public facilities rather than building amenities. All 9 MLS listings leave tennis court unchecked, so the building itself does not appear to have courts.

Trash chute access is strongly confirmed for Kuhio Plaza. The current remarks explicitly say "Convenient trash chute," and the MLS history shows 12/12 listings with TRACHU checked. This appears consistent across multiple agents/listings and is not just a one-off mention.

Parking is consistently described as assigned or deeded self-parking in the garage or basement. There are no references to valet parking or valet service in any remarks, so the building almost certainly does not offer valet.

Agents repeatedly highlight the urban, walkable setting 'just a block' or '1.5 blocks' from Waikiki Beach with easy access to shops and transit, but there is no mention of the property being gated, fenced, or walled. References to 'secured, covered parking' do not imply a full perimeter wall or gated community, so wall/fence should be considered absent.

Given Waikiki marketing norms, a hot tub or spa would be prominently advertised if present, but no listing references one. The consistent lack of this amenity in MLS data strongly suggests there is no whirlpool or hot tub in the building.

None of the 9 listings reference a pool, swimming pool, or similar amenity in the remarks, and MLS amenity fields for pool are unchecked across all units. This consistent absence across multiple agents strongly suggests the building has no shared pool.

Since there is no evidence of any pool in 9 listings and no heated pool features are checked in the MLS data, a heated pool is effectively impossible. The complete lack of remarks like 'heated pool' or 'warm pool' across all units supports this conclusion.

I searched for phrases like "salt water pool," "saltwater pool," "salt pool," and similar wording. The remarks reference nearby fitness/pool amenities off-site, but there is no evidence that this building has a salt pool.

Evidence for in-unit laundry is moderate: 2 of 11 current listings include washer/dryer in the inclusions. Public remarks do not strongly describe it as a building-wide standard, but one listing explicitly notes that owners can 'install your own washer and dryer inside your unit,' which supports availability in at least some units rather than a copy-paste error.

This feature is strongly confirmed across the building. Multiple listings explicitly mention shared laundry facilities, including "laundry room on every floor," "community laundry on each floor," and "coin laundry is on each floor." The evidence is consistent across many listings and appears to be repeated by multiple agents, not a one-off remark.

Coin laundry indicates the laundry facilities require payment. I searched for any mention of free laundry or in-unit-only laundry replacing the community laundry, but the paid community laundry wording is clear.

The public remarks repeatedly and explicitly state that laundry is available on every floor. I looked for contradictory wording or any indication that laundry is centralized elsewhere, but found none.

Every listing for this building mentions an included parking stall, with phrases like “1 parking,” “One covered parking stall,” and “One secured, covered parking stall in garage,” indicating that each unit comes with building parking. MLS data also consistently shows parking-related features on 9/9 listings and never indicates 'NONE', so it is clear the building provides on-site parking.

Assigned parking is strongly supported across the listings, with multiple explicit references to 'assigned,' 'designated assigned,' 'deeded,' and 'dedicated secure parking.' The evidence is consistent across several remarks and appears to be genuine building-level parking, not a one-off agent checkbox.

Covered parking is well documented in the remarks and aligns with the high-confidence MLS history. Multiple listings reference underground, garage, or covered stalls, indicating the building offers covered parking rather than this being a copied checkbox error.

Multiple listings explicitly describe the parking as deeded, including "deeded covered parking stall" and "1 deeded parking spot." This is strong direct evidence that parking is deeded with the unit.

None of the listings reference EV charging stations, Tesla chargers, or any kind of vehicle charging, even when describing parking in detail. The MLS data for 9/9 listings also omits any EV charging flag, so the building is very likely not offering dedicated EV charging at this time.

I searched for terms like parking fee, monthly parking charge, rental cost, or additional parking cost. The listings mention assigned, deeded, secured, and covered parking stalls, but none state an explicit monthly fee.

While parking for the units is repeatedly described, no listing mentions “guest parking” or “visitor parking,” which agents typically highlight if present. With 0/9 MLS entries indicating guest parking and no textual references, the building likely does not provide dedicated guest parking stalls.

Secured parking entry is clearly present in the building, with multiple listings mentioning remote-access gates or secure parking. Although fewer MLS checkboxes show SECENT, the public remarks are explicit and consistent enough to support the feature.

Parking is repeatedly described in terms of being assigned, large, or covered, but never as tandem or back-to-back. Given the complete absence of tandem references in both remarks and MLS data, it is very likely that tandem parking is not a feature of this building.

The listings focus on assigned and secure garage parking but never mention valet or attended services, which are typically prominently advertised if available. With no textual or MLS indication of valet parking across multiple agents’ listings, the building almost certainly does not offer valet parking.

I looked for language such as parking waitlist, waiting list, or joining a queue for parking. The remarks only indicate that units come with assigned or secured parking, with no evidence of a waitlist system.

At least one listing clearly describes 'secure fob-only lobby entry, secure fob-only elevator use,' indicating elevator access is controlled by a fob system. Because this is an infrastructure feature of the building, it applies to all units and should be included even though the ELEVAT amenity is unchecked in the MLS.

The listings clearly indicate card/fob-based access security for the building. I found repeated mentions of fob-only entry and elevator access, which strongly supports this feature.

No remarks across 9 different listings reference a security guard, 24/7 security, or any on-site security personnel, despite multiple mentions of other security aspects like 'secure building' and 'secure fob-only lobby entry.' The MLS security-guard amenity is also never checked, indicating this building does not offer staffed guard service.

I looked for language indicating active patrol service such as security patrol, roving security, or patrolled building. The remarks consistently describe secured garage/lobby/elevator access, but do not mention patrols.

Remarks do not contain any references to cameras or video surveillance—only to access controls like 'secure fob-only lobby entry'—and agents otherwise highlight safety-related upgrades like the new fire alarm system. With SECSYS absent from all MLS entries, it appears the building does not have a marketed video security system.

No listing remarks mention 'central AC' or similar, and the central AC MLS checkbox is 0/9. Multiple listings instead highlight 'new window AC units' or 'Split AC in every room,' suggesting the building relies on individual AC systems rather than central air.

At least one unit’s remarks clearly state 'Split AC in every room,' and split AC appears in the inclusions for 2/9 listings. This indicates that the building offers (and allows) split AC systems in some units.

Window AC is supported by both historical MLS inclusions and current remarks. One listing explicitly says "new window AC units," and the MLS checkbox has remained frequently checked (7/12 current listings). This looks like a building feature that is commonly reused in listing remarks rather than a one-off copy/paste error.

Concrete construction is strongly supported by the MLS data: 12 of 12 current listings show CONCRE, which is consistent across the building and suggests the field is not a copy-paste anomaly. Public remarks do not frequently state it outright, but one listing describes the building as having "solid construction," which aligns with the MLS material data and reinforces the feature.

Agents consistently classify the building as concrete and never as double-wall, and the mid-rise condo form makes framed double-wall construction unlikely. Thus, double-wall construction is very likely not applicable here.

Two of the nine listings mark hollow tile construction in addition to concrete, while the others simply omit it. Although remarks do not mention it explicitly, this recurring checkbox across multiple agents suggests the building likely includes some hollow tile construction components.

Masonry/stucco appears only in 2 of 11 current MLS entries, while the remarks are silent on any masonry or stucco construction. Earlier analysis was already high confidence that the building is concrete, so these checked boxes likely reflect MLS copy/paste or miscoding rather than a verified change. The evidence is too weak to treat this as a confirmed building feature, but current data does show some agent-level inconsistency.

Steel frame is not well supported: only 1 of 11 listings currently checks STEFRA, and none of the remarks describe steel-frame construction or any structural change. Historical evidence points to concrete construction instead, so this appears to be a weak, possibly erroneous MLS checkbox. Confidence is low because the remarks do not corroborate it.

No agents have selected the slab construction option or referred to a concrete slab foundation in remarks. Given this complete absence and alternative construction codes being used instead, slab construction is unlikely as a defining building feature.

No analysis available

No listings indicate wood frame construction and all instead mark concrete, with remarks aligning with a concrete mid-rise building. Given the unanimous MLS data and building type, wood frame construction can be confidently ruled out.

Three of nine listings mark above-ground construction and the building is a multi-story mid-rise, which is consistent with an above-ground structural classification. While remarks do not mention it directly, the repeated MLS selection across several agents supports including above-ground construction.

No agents have checked brick construction and none of the public remarks describe brick exterior or brick construction. Combined with the consistent concrete classification, brick construction can be confidently excluded.

No listings indicate single-wall construction, and the building type (Waikiki mid-rise, all listings marking concrete) is incompatible with old-style single-wall structures. Single-wall construction can therefore be confidently ruled out.

The remarks directly refer to the property as a "savvy STR investment," which strongly indicates short-term rentals are allowed. I also looked for contradictory language like 30-day minimums or owner-occupant-only restrictions and found none.

Because the listings show short-term rental interest, I checked carefully for hotel-pool wording such as hotel rental program, Hilton/Trump/Ritz pool, or hotel-managed operations. None appears in the remarks, so there is no evidence this building participates in a hotel pool.

I searched for signs of a mandatory hotel pool or required rental participation, and found none. The remarks suggest short-term rental interest is possible, but they do not say owners must join a rental program or cannot opt out, so this is not supported.

Across 9 listings there are 0 explicitly marked Fee Simple units and no remarks using 'fee simple' or similar language. Tenure appears to be omitted rather than clearly identified, so Fee Simple presence remains uncertain and is treated as not evidenced here.

There are 0 listings explicitly marked Leasehold and no remarks reference any ground lease or lease expiration. As with Fee Simple, tenure is simply not specified, so Leasehold is treated as not evidenced rather than clearly absent.

I looked for land-tenure wording such as leasehold, ground lease, lease expiry, or renewal/extension dates, but nothing was stated. Because no specific 4-digit expiration year appears in the remarks, the lease expiry remains unknown.

I searched the public remarks for any VA-loan approval language and found none. The listings focus on location, unit updates, parking, and investment/STR appeal, but do not mention VA financing status.

I searched the public remarks for insurance-related wording such as "fully insured," "walls-in coverage," "full insurance," and comparable phrases. Nothing in the listing remarks confirms this feature, so it remains unknown from the remarks and is not overridden.

Across the provided listings, 0 explicitly mention a fire sprinkler system. Several remarks reference a "new fire alarm system," "fire system," or compliance with the city's new fire safety law, but that is not the same as sprinklers. Given the lack of explicit sprinkler language and the highly copy-pasted style of the remarks, this feature should not be treated as verified.

Multiple listings reference fire alarm/fire system upgrades and compliance with the city's latest fire safety requirements, which is strong evidence the building passed the relevant fire/life safety evaluation. This is direct public-remarks evidence, so confidence is high.

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

No analysis available

Ocean views are strongly supported at the building level. At least 4-5 listings explicitly mention ocean views in remarks, and the current MLS data shows 5/12 listings with OCEAN in the view field and none with NONE. This looks consistent across multiple agents rather than a one-off copy-paste.

Mountain views are supported, though mentioned less often than ocean or city views. Current remarks explicitly call out 'mountain views' in at least one listing, and the MLS view data shows 6/12 listings marked MOUNTA with no NONE entries. That combination is enough to treat this as a real building-level option.

Diamond Head views are supported: CURRENT MLS shows 3/10 listings with Diamond Head in view_descriptions and multiple remarks directly mention 'Diamond Head' and 'Diamond Head and surf zone ocean views' or being on the 'Diamond Head ... corner.' Multiple agents reference the view, indicating some units offer Diamond Head vistas.

City views appear to be a consistent feature of the building. The current MLS dataset shows 10/12 listings with CITY in the view field and none reporting NONE, which is strong building-level evidence. Public remarks reinforce the urban/Waikiki setting, though most agents do not explicitly spell out 'city view' in the narrative.

Agents specifically describe 'ocean views' but never refer to broader coastline or shoreline panoramas, and the MLS data never checks COASTLINE. This pattern suggests that while some units see the ocean, extended coastline views are not a distinct or marketed feature.

Listings talk about 'lush parks' and nearby outdoor spaces but do not describe any specific garden or courtyard views from the building itself. With 0 of 9 MLS entries checking GARDEN, it appears garden views are not a notable or marketed building feature.

Neither the MLS data nor the narrative remarks reference any golf course views, even though agents repeatedly highlight other nearby attractions. The complete lack of mention across multiple listings strongly indicates that golf course views are not a feature of this building.

Across nine listings, no MLS view field checked marina/harbor/canal, and no public remarks describe any harbor or canal outlook despite emphasizing nearby amenities and views. This consistent absence suggests the building does not meaningfully offer marina or harbor views as a selling point.

While there are references to morning activities and beach proximity, no listing explicitly advertises sunrise views or eastern exposure. The absence of SUNRISE in all MLS view fields and narrative text suggests sunrise views are not a distinct selling point for this building.

Sunset views are not supported by the public remarks. While 1/12 current MLS listings has SUNSET checked, none of the remarks describe sunset, western exposure, or related evening views, and prior review found the same lack of confirmation. This appears more like MLS inconsistency than a reliable building-level feature.

Across all provided listings, there is no mention in MLS view fields or remarks of any cemetery view, positive or negative. Given the level of detail agents provide about other views and surroundings, this strong and consistent silence indicates the building does not overlook a cemetery in a way that affects unit views.

I searched for explicit language such as "fireworks view," "see fireworks from unit," or "watch fireworks from the lanai." The remarks discuss ocean views, beach proximity, and Waikiki lifestyle, but nothing indicates a view of Friday night fireworks from the building.

No analysis available

At least 5 listings describe the building as pet-friendly, including one that states 'Pet Friendly 1 pet up to 45 lbs'. This is strong, repeated evidence from multiple agents that pets are allowed in the building.

The RESMAN amenity is present in all current MLS listings reviewed (11/11), which is a strong consistency signal for a building-level feature. Public remarks do not explicitly say "resident manager" or "on-site manager," but the repeated MLS checkbox across listings suggests the building does have a resident manager on-site.

Remarks frame the condos as suitable for vacation or investment but do not describe any hotel-style management or programs. The absence of any condotel-specific language across many listings indicates the building does not operate as a condotel.

Listings consistently refer to these units as condos, with no mention of co-op shares or cooperative ownership structures. Combined with the lack of any COOTAX indicator, this strongly supports that the building is not a co-op.