Loft at Waikiki

PROPERTY DATA shows year_built=2008 for 4/4 listings. A public remark also states 'constructed in 2008,' confirming the building's construction year.

Multiple listings state this is a '6 story boutique condominium' and reference a 'top-floor Penthouse' on the 6th floor, indicating 6 total floors. PROPERTY DATA also shows units up to floor 6, reinforcing that 6 is the building's full height. Evidence is explicit and consistent across listings.

One remark states '36 total units in the entire building constructed in 2008' and another says 'Only 36 units in the building and pet friendly.' With multiple independent agents citing the same number, 36 units is strongly supported.

I searched the remarks for explicit owner-occupancy language like '61% owner occupied', 'majority owner occupied', or similar and found none. Per the rules, I keep the existing value of 61.00% but with low confidence because the public remarks provide no confirmation or contradiction.

I searched the public remarks for explicit phrases like 'elevator', '1 elevator', 'two elevators', or 'multiple elevators'. Remarks mention 'next to the elevator' and 'ground level next to the elevator' but do not specify a count, so I retain the current value of 1 with low confidence due to lack of explicit confirmation.

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.

Remarks describe “Central AC” as a unit feature, not a utility covered by the association. The MLS never flags central AC as included in fees, so it is very likely not part of the maintenance inclusions.

Across all reviewed listings, there is no indication that cable TV service is included in the HOA/maintenance fee. The MLS association_fee_includes field is consistently unchecked for cable, and the public remarks are silent on cable being part of the fees.

Most listings report 'other common expenses' in the association_fee_includes field, implying the HOA covers building-level common costs such as common area power. Although remarks don’t spell out 'common area electricity' explicitly, the consistent MLS coding across multiple units supports including this feature.

Public remarks refer to the building as a boutique 'condominium' residence and never as a co-op. MLS data never shows co-op taxes included, so cooperative taxes are almost certainly not part of the maintenance fee structure.

There is no textual or MLS checkbox evidence that electricity is included in the HOA fees. Given the complete absence of ELECTR in association_fee_includes, electricity appears to be paid separately by unit owners.

The association_fee_includes field consistently shows gas included on every listing for this building. Even though the remarks do not elaborate, the uniform MLS data from multiple agents strongly supports that gas is covered by the monthly fees.

All five listings show WTRHTR (water heater) in inclusions and none list HOTWAT in association_fee_includes, indicating units have individual hot water heaters and hot water is not included in the maintenance fee. Public remarks do not state building-supplied hot water; the consistent presence of WTRHTR across multiple agents strongly supports setting this to false.

No listing remarks advertise internet or Wi-Fi as an included service, which agents typically highlight when present. The internet service checkbox is consistently unchecked, so internet is almost certainly not part of the maintenance inclusions.

Although the building is in Waikiki, none of the marketing mentions a marina or boat-related facilities. Combined with the absence of the MARINA code in all MLS fee fields, marina access or fees are not included in the maintenance charges.

Every listing (5/5) includes SEWER in the association_fee_includes field. While public remarks do not explicitly mention sewer, the uniform MLS entries across multiple listings/agents provide strong evidence that sewer is covered by the maintenance fee.

All five listings list WATER in the association_fee_includes field, indicating water is included in the HOA/maintenance fee. Although public remarks do not call out water specifically, the consistent checkbox across multiple listings and prior high confidence make this a reliable true value.

Multiple listings (MLS: 4/5) explicitly list barbecue/BBQ areas. Remarks include phrases like 'barbecue areas' and 'BBQ areas,' repeated across agent copy, providing strong, consistent evidence that the building offers BBQ/grilling facilities.

No listings (0/4) indicate bike storage in the MLS data, and no remarks mention any bicycle storage facilities. Given the detailed amenity descriptions that omit this feature, the building likely does not provide dedicated bike storage.

The condo is described as being blocks from the coastline in Waikiki, not as a waterfront/marina property. With 0/4 MLS checks and no dock-related language, it is virtually certain there is no boat dock or marina access.

Listings mention having two parking spaces but do not promote any car wash feature, which is something agents typically highlight when present. This, along with 0/4 MLS flags, makes it very likely there is no car wash amenity.

Listings describe a small 36-unit boutique condo with outdoor amenities but no separate clubhouse building or community center. The consistent absence in both MLS checkboxes and remarks indicates there is no clubhouse.

None of the listings refer to concierge, front desk, or staffed reception despite comparing the area to higher-service properties. With 0/4 MLS entries showing concierge, the evidence points to there being no concierge service in this building.

One listing calls the building pet-friendly, but there is no mention of a dedicated dog park or run. The absence of both MLS flags and textual references makes it very likely there is no separate dog park amenity.

All 3 listings describe the property’s boutique nature and amenities without any reference to a doorman or lobby attendant. Combined with the doorman checkbox being unset in all MLS data, this strongly supports that the building does not have a doorman.

Across all available listings, agents describe the pool, hot tub, putting green, and BBQ areas but never mention any gym or fitness facility. With 0/4 MLS checkboxes marked and no textual evidence, the building is very likely to have no exercise room.

Luxury-focused remarks highlight high-end finishes and location but never mention chauffeur, limo, or house car services. The lack of MLS or remark evidence indicates the building does not offer limousine or house car service.

Agents emphasize residential features and outdoor amenities only, with no mention of shared meeting or conference facilities. This, combined with unchecked MLS fields, strongly suggests there is no meeting room.

At least two distinct listings mention a lanai, including an 'expansive lanai that extends over 300 square feet' and another unit 'with a lanai in a 6 story boutique condominium.' This shows that multiple units offer deck/patio-style outdoor space even though agents did not check the PATDEC box. The evidence from remarks across different listings supports treating patio/deck as a building feature.

Although the building is near Waikiki, agents do not describe any dedicated on-site jogging or walking path. With 0/4 MLS checkmarks, it is highly likely there is no jogging path amenity within the property.

The building is positioned as a boutique luxury condo without mention of family-specific amenities like a playground. With no MLS or remark support, a playground is very likely not present.

Across all provided remarks, there is no reference to private or fenced yards or similar exclusive ground-level outdoor spaces. Descriptions focus on common amenities and lanais, not yard access for individual units. Given both the MLS data and the text evidence, private yard space does not appear to be a feature of this building.

Several listings (MLS: 4/5) explicitly mention a 'putting green' (e.g., 'putting green' appears in agent remarks). The repeated mentions across listings provide strong evidence the building has a putting green.

The building is described as having a large landscaped area that includes the pool, hot tub, putting green, and BBQ areas, providing clear shared recreation space. With multiple MLS listings marking a recreation area, this amenity is very likely present.

The amenity descriptions focus on outdoor features and never reference an indoor rec or game room. Given 0/4 MLS checkmarks and no textual support, the building almost certainly lacks a dedicated recreation room.

The building is near many restaurants but none are described as being within the condo itself. The consistent absence in MLS amenities and remarks indicates there is no on-site restaurant.

Amenity descriptions focus on landscaped pool/BBQ/putting green areas, with no indication they are on the roof or that residents have shared rooftop access. The lack of MLS and textual evidence supports that there is no rooftop amenity.

Agents list the water amenities as pool and hot tub only, with no reference to sauna or steam facilities. Given the complete absence in both MLS and remarks, the building almost certainly has no sauna.

No listings (0/4) mark storage in MLS amenities or unit features, and none of the remarks reference storage units, lockers, or extra storage. Because agents describe many building amenities (pool, hot tub, putting green, BBQ, etc.) without mentioning storage, it is likely the building does not offer dedicated storage units.

The public remarks list multiple amenities (pool, hot tub, putting green, barbecue areas, pet-friendliness, parking) but do not reference any surfboard-specific storage facilities. Given this absence and no prior data, the building is assumed not to have dedicated surfboard storage, though this cannot be confirmed definitively from these remarks alone.

Agents describe the amenity set in detail (pool, hot tub, putting green, BBQ) without any mention of tennis. With all MLS entries omitting this amenity, it is highly likely there is no tennis court at this building.

Every MLS entry (5/5) lists trash chutes as an amenity, and historical confidence was high. While remarks do not explicitly state 'trash chute' or 'garbage chute,' the consistent MLS checkbox data across listings provides strong evidence the building has a trash chute system.

The remarks describe a boutique 36-unit condominium with parking but never reference any valet services. MLS amenities also omit VALET. The consistent lack of mention across multiple listings indicates the building does not offer valet service.

The building is described as a boutique condominium in central Waikiki with landscaped privacy but no reference to being gated, fenced, or walled. With all MLS records omitting gated/wall-fence amenities, it is very likely the property does not have a dedicated perimeter wall or fence as a security feature.

All listings (MLS: 5/5) reference a pool and hot tub/whirlpool; remarks include 'hot tub' and 'a large lap-style swimming pool plus a hot tub.' Consistent, explicit mentions across listings indicate a building hot tub/whirlpool is present.

All 5 current MLS listings indicate a pool amenity and the public remarks explicitly reference 'pool' and 'large lap-style swimming pool plus a hot tub.' Multiple agent remarks consistently describe resort-style amenities including a pool and hot tub, providing strong, corroborating evidence that the building offers a common swimming pool.

Listings consistently refer to a 'large lap-style swimming pool plus a hot tub' but never describe the pool as heated. MLS pool-feature fields for all current listings omit any heated-pool indication, so the evidence suggests the building pool is not heated.

The remarks clearly state that the building has a lap-style swimming pool and hot tub but provide no indication that the pool is salt water. I searched for terms like 'salt water pool', 'saltwater', 'saline', and 'salt pool' and found no matches, so the pool is assumed not to be salt water based on available information.

All recent MLS listings for this building (5 of 5 current listings; previously 4 of 4) list WASHER/DRYER in the inclusions, indicating units include in-unit laundry. Public remarks do not explicitly mention washer/dryer, so there is a small possibility of copy/paste, but the consistent checkbox across multiple listings/agents constitutes strong evidence that the building offers in-unit laundry.

Across 4 listings, no agent checks community laundry in amenities and no remarks reference a shared or coin laundry room, even when detailing building amenities. Given that all units appear to have in-unit laundry, the evidence points to there being no community laundry facilities in this building.

Looked for terms like coin laundry, paid laundry, coin-op, card-operated machines, or laundry fees and found no references. With no evidence that shared laundry requires payment, it is assumed there is no paid community laundry system.

Searched the remarks for references to laundry on each floor, floor-by-floor laundry, or community laundry rooms and found none. Given the absence of any such mentions across multiple detailed listings, it's likely there is no community laundry on every floor.

Multiple listings confirm that units in the building come with parking, with remarks noting '2-parking' and '2PKG stalls'. All 4/4 MLS entries show parking-related features and none show 'NONE', suggesting building-wide parking is reliably available rather than a checkbox error.

Historical MLS data indicated assigned parking across most listings, and current remarks from several listings confirm dedicated stalls: quotes include "Includes 2 secured, covered parking stalls on ground level next to the elevator," "2-parking," and "2PKG stalls." Evidence is consistent across multiple listings/agents and supports assigned parking for units in this building.

All available MLS records historically flagged covered/garage parking, and the public remarks explicitly state "Includes 2 secured, covered parking stalls on ground level next to the elevator" with other listings noting "2-parking" or "2PKG stalls." Multiple agent remarks consistently describe covered/secured parking, indicating strong building-level coverage.

The listings confirm that parking stalls are provided with the units (e.g., '2-parking', '2PKG stalls'), but never specify that these stalls are deeded or owned as part of the unit. Searched for phrases like 'deeded parking', 'owned stall', and 'parking included in deed' and found none, so the presence of deeded parking is considered unlikely but not definitively ruled out.

Across four listings, no agent has checked EV charging in the MLS or mentioned EV or Tesla charging in narrative remarks. Given how marketable EV infrastructure is, its complete absence in both fields strongly suggests the building does not offer EV charging stations.

While multiple stalls are included with units, the remarks do not indicate whether there is any separate monthly parking fee. Searched explicitly for terms related to parking charges or rental, but since none were found, the presence or absence of a parking fee remains unknown.

Half of the listings mark guest parking in the MLS, and no listing marks the opposite or warns of no guest parking. While it is not emphasized in remarks, the repeated MLS selection by multiple agents indicates that the building likely offers some form of guest/visitor parking.

Most listings flag 'SECENT' (secured entry) for parking in the MLS, implying controlled or gated access. The consistency across multiple agents supports that the building’s parking area is secured rather than open to the street.

No listings mark tandem parking or describe stalls as tandem in narrative comments. Given that tandem configurations are usually disclosed, the lack of any mention across all current data indicates the building does not use tandem parking layouts.

Valet service is typically highlighted as a premium amenity, yet it appears in neither MLS checkboxes nor remarks for any of the four listings. This consistent absence strongly indicates that the building does not provide valet parking.

The remarks describe the number of parking stalls included but do not reference any waitlist system or limited parking allocation process. Based on the absence of waitlist-related language, a formal parking waitlist is assumed not to exist, though this is not definitively confirmed.

The listings highlight high ceilings, luxury appliances, and amenities but never reference restricted or keyed elevator access. Given that all MLS entries leave the elevator-security field blank, it is very likely the elevators are not advertised as keyed/fob-restricted.

The remarks describe building amenities (pool, hot tub, putting green, etc.) and unit finishes but do not reference any card or fob-based access system. I searched for terms like key card, keycard, fob, card reader, electronic access, and secure entry and found no matches, so the presence of a security card system is unlikely based on current information.

None of the 3 distinct listings mention a security guard, 24-hour security, or on-site security personnel, despite highlighting other amenities like pool, hot tub, putting green, and BBQ. Combined with 0/4 MLS records checking a guard/security box, this is strong evidence the building does not have guard service.

The descriptions focus on the building's boutique nature, amenities, and interior features without any reference to on-site or roving security staff. I searched for phrases such as security patrol, roving security, patrol service, and patrolled building and found no evidence that a security patrol service is provided.

The remarks focus on luxury finishes and recreational amenities but never mention CCTV, security cameras, or video monitoring in any of the 3 listings. With all 4 MLS entries omitting the security-system amenity, it is unlikely that notable building-wide video security is present.

Strong evidence that the building has central air: multiple public remarks explicitly state "Central AC" or "Central AC throughout," and MLS checkbox data supports it (3/5 listings list ACCEN/CENAC in unit_features and all 5 include ACCEN in inclusions). Mentions appear across different listing remarks and MLS fields rather than being an isolated copy-paste, so confidence is high.

Across all provided remarks, there is no reference to split or ductless mini-split systems, and the only cooling type called out is central AC. MLS data also shows 0/4 listings with the split AC checkbox selected. Given the building’s established central AC system, it is unlikely that split systems are a notable or offered feature here.

None of the listings describe window or wall AC units, which are typically mentioned when present since they affect livability and views. MLS inclusions also show no instances of ACWIUN across 4/4 listings, in contrast to consistent central AC references. This strongly suggests the building relies on central AC rather than window units.

Concrete construction is well supported: 4 of 5 current MLS records list CONCRE and prior analysis gave HIGH confidence (3 of 4). None of the public remarks explicitly mention construction materials, but multiple MLS records consistently indicate 'concrete' rather than wood/steel framing, so evidence across agents is strong.

Double-wall construction is unlikely: historically none of the MLS records selected DOUWAL (HIGH confidence) and only 1 of 5 current listings now checks it. No public remarks reference 'double wall' or similar phrasing, so the single MLS checkbox appears to be a probable copy/paste error and the building should be recorded as not double-wall.

Hollow tile (HOLTIL) is not selected in any of the four MLS construction_materials entries. With agents consistently using other structural categories and no remarks supporting hollow tile, this construction type is very unlikely for the building.

Every one of the four MLS listings marks masonry/stucco (MASSTU) as a construction type. This unanimity across agents, combined with the building’s style and age, strongly supports masonry/stucco construction.

All four MLS entries leave steel frame (STEFRA) unchecked, and the building is consistently categorized as concrete/masonry-stucco instead. In this context a primary steel frame would almost certainly be disclosed if present, so it is very unlikely here.

None of the four MLS listings select the concrete slab (SLAB) construction type. For a 6-story 2008 condo where agents consistently use other structural tags, it is very unlikely that the building is categorized as slab construction in MLS terms.

No analysis available

None of the four MLS records mark wood frame (WOOFRA), while multiple agents instead select concrete and masonry/stucco. For a mid-rise 2008 luxury building, pure wood-frame construction is effectively ruled out by both the MLS data and typical construction practice.

No MLS listing checks the above ground (ABOGRO) construction option. Given the standard mid-rise condo form and consistent omission in MLS, this special above-ground construction classification does not apply here.

None of the four MLS records indicate brick construction, and the public remarks do not reference any brick exterior or structure. Given local norms and the consistent absence in MLS, brick construction can be safely excluded.

Single-wall construction is never checked (SINWAL) in any MLS entry and is characteristic of much older, wood-built Hawaii homes, not 2008 luxury condos. The structure’s concrete/masonry classification further rules out single-wall construction.

Listing language specifying 30-day rentals implies shorter transient vacation rentals are not permitted. No remarks describe legal STR, NUC, TVU, or hotel-style nightly use.

The remarks do not reference a hotel rental program or affiliation with hotel operations. Given the 30-day minimum rental indication, participation in a hotel pool is effectively ruled out.

There is no language about required participation in any rental or hotel pool. With no hotel program mentioned and STR not allowed, a mandatory pool is not present.

None of the provided remarks reference 'leasehold', 'lease rent', or similar terms, which are typically highlighted when applicable in Honolulu. Based on the building’s 2008 construction, boutique profile, and external market knowledge that Loft at Waikiki units are sold fee simple, it is very likely the building has fee simple units.

Across the remarks, there is no mention of 'leasehold', 'LH', 'lease rent', or a lease expiration—language that is almost always included for leasehold properties in Honolulu. Combined with the building’s 2008 construction and market treatment as a fee simple project, there is strong evidence that the building does not offer leasehold units.

The property is marketed without any reference to being leasehold or to a land lease timeline, renewal, or expiration date. Because no lease-related year is provided, a lease expiry year cannot be established from the available information.

The remarks describe finishes, amenities, pet policy, rental period, and location but never reference VA loans or VA approval. Based on this absence in multiple listings, the building is assumed not VA-approved, though this cannot be definitively confirmed from remarks alone.

I searched for phrases such as 'fully insured', 'full insurance', 'walls-in coverage', and other HOA insurance descriptors but found none in the public remarks. Because there is no explicit mention, and no current value to preserve, I report false with medium confidence.

All current MLS entries for the building include the FIRSPR amenity (5/5 per dataset) and prior assessments rated this feature High confidence. None of the public remarks explicitly say 'sprinkler' but the consistent checkbox across multiple listings and prior high-confidence history provide strong evidence the building has a fire sprinkler system.

I searched the remarks for terms like 'fire life safety evaluation', 'FLSE passed', 'fire safety certified', and 'passed fire inspection' but found no references. With no explicit statements and no existing current value, I set this to false with medium confidence (absence of mention suggests it is not reported in public remarks).

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

None of the three distinct listings (including a penthouse) mention ocean or water views, and MLS view_descriptions never list OCEAN (1/4 instead show NONE). Given the Waikiki location, the omission across multiple agents strongly suggests there are no meaningful ocean-view units in this 6‑story building.

Multiple listings, including different stack orientations, omit any mention of mountain views and MLS view fields never include MOUNTA. This consistent absence suggests the building does not offer notable mountain-view units.

Across all provided listings, there is no reference to Diamond Head, DH, or crater views, and MLS view data never flags Diamond Head. Given how strongly agents typically highlight this, the evidence indicates no Diamond Head views are offered.

One of five recent MLS entries explicitly tags CITY in the view field, supporting that some units may offer city/downtown vistas. None of the provided public remarks mention a city or downtown view and several emphasize tropical garden or park views, so the evidence is sparse and inconsistent across agents; include the feature with low–moderate confidence.

Remarks emphasize being near the coastline but never describe actually seeing the shoreline or coast from units. Combined with MLS view data lacking COASTL, this indicates the building does not offer coastline views.

A unit is directly marketed as having ‘tropical garden view,’ and the building is noted as being shrouded in ‘island-style landscaping for privacy.’ Combined with MLS tagging of GARDEN on one listing, this is strong evidence that garden views are a building feature.

All listings omit any reference to golf-course or fairway views and MLS view fields never include GOLCOU. In a market where golf views are routinely promoted, this strongly suggests the building does not offer golf-course views.

Neither the public remarks nor any MLS view_descriptions reference marina, harbor, or canal views. Given this and the single listing with view NONE, it is very likely that the building does not offer marina-view units.

Across all available listings, sunrise or ‘morning sun’ views are never referenced, despite detailed marketing language. This consistent omission suggests the building is not recognized for sunrise views.

Multiple agents’ descriptions omit any mention of sunset or fireworks views, which would normally be marketed in Waikiki if present. This supports the conclusion that the building does not offer notable sunset-view units.

No listing references cemetery or similar views, and the surrounding area is commercial/residential Waikiki rather than cemetery-adjacent. This provides strong evidence that cemetery views are not a feature of the building.

The listings highlight garden views, high ceilings, and proximity to beaches and Waikiki but do not mention any ability to see Friday night fireworks from the building or units. Due to this lack of any fireworks-view language, it is assumed there is no notable fireworks view.

No analysis available

Multiple remarks clearly describe the property as 'pet-friendly' and 'pet friendly condominium.' With no conflicting 'no pets' restrictions in MLS, this provides strong, explicit evidence that pets are allowed in the building.

Two of five current MLS listings include the RESMAN amenity while none of the provided public remarks mention a resident or on-site manager. Because the checkbox appears in some listings but is not corroborated by remarks (possible agent copy/paste), the existence of a resident manager is plausible but only moderately supported across sources.

The building is consistently presented as a small luxury condominium, not as part of a hotel program, and there is no mention of a front desk or hotel management. A 30-day rental minimum alone does not make it a condotel, and both MLS data and remarks lack the required condotel keywords. Therefore it should not be treated as a condotel.

All descriptions call this a condominium building and make no reference to cooperative or share-based ownership. With no COOTAX or co-op language present, this building should be classified as a condo, not a co-op.