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 for phrases such as "80% owner occupied," "majority owner occupied," or "highly owner occupied," but found no owner-occupancy data in the listing remarks. Per the rules, the current verified value of 61.00 is kept because there is no contradictory evidence.

I found a clear reference to an elevator in the building, but no public remark gives a numeric elevator count. Given the current value of 1 and no evidence of multiple elevators, the existing value is retained.

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.

No public remarks mention cable TV being included in the association fee. The evidence is weak and looks like a possible MLS checkbox copy/paste issue rather than a confirmed building feature, since none of the listings describe cable service in the HOA.

4 of 6 current listings list OTCOEX in association_fee_includes. No public remarks explicitly state 'common area electricity' or 'common electric', so inclusion is inferred from MLS checkbox across multiple listings rather than direct agent remarks; evidence is moderate and may reflect copy/paste.

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.

Gas is strongly supported by the MLS pattern: 6 of 7 current listings include GAS. Public remarks repeatedly reference gas cooking appliances, and while that does not by itself prove HOA coverage, it aligns with the high-confidence MLS data.

Hot water should be treated as not included. The MLS data is consistent across all current listings: no HOTWAT checkbox and universal WTRHTR inclusion, which is a strong indicator that hot water is provided by unit water heaters rather than the HOA.

No public remarks mention internet or WiFi being included in the maintenance fee. This appears to be an isolated MLS checkbox entry without supporting remark evidence, so it should not be treated as a confirmed building-level amenity.

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.

Sewer appears to be universally included in the association fee. All 7 current listings show SEWER checked, making this a very strong building-level feature.

Water is consistently included across the building. Every current listing (7/7) shows WATER in the association fee inclusions, which is strong evidence of a building-wide included utility.

Multiple remark blocks (at least 3–4 listings) explicitly reference BBQ/barbecue areas (quotes: 'BBQ areas', 'barbecue areas'), matching the MLS checkbox prevalence (5/6). Evidence is strong and consistent across multiple agent remarks, indicating building-level 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.

Multiple unit remarks (4 of 6 listings) explicitly mention a lanai/balcony — quotes include “expansive lanai that extends over 300 square feet,” “French-style lanai doors open to a private balcony,” and “with a lanai in a 6 story boutique condominium.” This consistent, repeated language across different listings supports that the building offers patios/decks even though a smaller number of MLS checkboxes currently list it.

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.

Putting green is explicitly mentioned in multiple remark blocks (quotes: 'putting green', 'practice putting green'), corroborated by MLS checkboxes (5/6). The evidence is strong and consistent across agents, supporting inclusion of a building 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.

MLS checkbox data indicates a recreation room in at least one listing (1/6 currently) though none of the public remarks explicitly state 'recreation room' or 'rec room'. Because historical data was high and one current listing checks the box, the building is reported to offer a rec/game room but the textual evidence is weak.

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.

Storage is referenced in multiple current remarks, including phrases like "extra storage" and "generous storage," and the MLS now shows storage in both amenities and unit features on 2 listings total. While not universal across all 7 listings, the repeated mentions suggest the building offers storage/locker options or storage associated with some 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.

The MLS data is uniformly positive for trash chute (7/7 listings), but the public remarks do not explicitly mention a trash chute or garbage chute. Because the MLS signal is consistent across all listings and there is no contrary evidence, this remains a high-confidence building feature.

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.

Strong confirmation across listings: remarks explicitly say "pool, hot tub" and "large lap-style swimming pool plus a hot tub." This matches the historical MLS pattern showing WHIRLP in all 7/7 listings, so the feature appears consistently present at the building level.

Strong building-level evidence confirms a pool at Loft at Waikiki. Public remarks from multiple listings explicitly mention the amenity in several forms, including a 'rare 65-foot lap pool' and a 'large lap-style swimming pool,' while the current MLS amenities show pool checked in all 7/7 listings. This looks consistent across agents rather than a copy-paste error.

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.

In-unit laundry is well supported for this building. The current remarks explicitly say 'New Bosch dishwasher & LG washer/dryer,' and the MLS data shows 7/7 current listings including WASHER/DRYER. Evidence is consistent across multiple listings and appears to be standard building/unit-level feature, not a one-off copy-paste error.

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.

Multiple listings reference the unit having its own stalls, including phrases like "2 parking stalls," "2 secured, covered parking stalls," and "2PKG stalls." Historical MLS data is also fairly strong, with assigned parking appearing in 5 of 7 listings. The evidence suggests the building offers assigned/reserved parking, not just generic parking.

This feature is strongly supported by both the public remarks and MLS history. One listing explicitly states "2 secured, covered parking stalls on ground level next to the elevator," and the current MLS data shows covered/garage parking in all 7 of 7 listings. Confidence is very high that the building has covered parking.

The listings confirm parking is included with the units, but they stop short of saying the stalls are deeded or owned with the unit. I looked for explicit terms like deeded parking, owned stall, or parking included in deed and found none.

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.

I searched for any reference to a parking fee, parking rental, or monthly parking charge, but there were no such mentions. The remarks only describe the parking stalls as included or secured/covered.

Guest parking appears to be available in some MLS records, with 4 of 7 current listings marked GUEST. However, none of the public remarks explicitly confirm visitor or guest parking, so this is weaker than the assigned/covered parking evidence. The available data suggests guest parking may exist, but it is not strongly corroborated in remarks.

Good evidence the parking has secured access: historically most listings flagged secured entry and the public remarks specifically say 'Includes 2 secured, covered parking stalls on ground level next to the elevator.' Four of six current MLS records list SECENT, and remarks corroborate secured parking.

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.

I looked for references to a parking waitlist, parking waiting list, or the need to join a waitlist for stalls, but found none. The remarks instead describe parking as included with the units.

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.

Central AC is explicitly mentioned in multiple current listings, including 'Central AC throughout' and 'Central AC,' which aligns with the already high-confidence MLS history. The repeated mentions across different remarks suggest this is a real building feature rather than a one-off copy/paste error.

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 strongly supported: 5 of 6 current MLS listings include CONCRE and prior analysis had High confidence. Public remarks use phrases like 'solid construction' and note robust architectural details, though they do not explicitly say 'concrete.' Evidence is consistent across multiple agent listings, suggesting the building is concrete.

Double-wall construction appears unlikely for this building: the current MLS shows only 2 of 7 listings with DOUWAL, and the remarks are silent on any double-wall or two-wall construction detail. The evidence looks like checkbox noise/copy-paste rather than a feature buyers should rely on.

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.

Masonry/stucco construction is well supported by the MLS record: 6 of 7 current listings include MASSTU, and prior reviews already rated this high confidence. The public remarks do not directly repeat the material, but there is no contradictory evidence and the listing set appears consistent across multiple agents.

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.

Concrete slab construction is not supported by the available evidence. Only 1 of 7 current listings selects SLAB, and none of the public remarks describe a concrete slab or solid concrete foundation, suggesting the MLS checkbox is likely unreliable here.

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.

The public remarks explicitly support rental use with a 30-day minimum, which means short-term/transient rentals are allowed only in that limited form rather than true short-term STR use. This is a clear building-level indication from the listings.

I searched for hotel pool language such as hotel rental pool, managed by hotel, pool program, Ritz/Hilton/Trump pool references, and found nothing. Since the remarks also describe ordinary 30-day rental allowance rather than hotel operations, hotel pool participation is not supported.

I looked for any wording that participation in a rental pool is required or mandatory, such as must rent, cannot opt out, or required program language, and found none. The remarks support flexible owner use rather than a compulsory hotel-rental arrangement.

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.

I searched the remarks for phrases like lease expires, ground lease, land lease, leasehold, and renewal dates, but found nothing. Since no leasehold/expiry information appears in the public remarks, the lease expiry year remains unknown.

This is a direct public-remarks confirmation that VA financing is available/accepted for at least this listing. The language is explicit and strong enough to support a building-level VA financing flag.

I looked for explicit insurance coverage language in the remarks and found nothing. Without a direct mention of full HOA/walls-in coverage, this cannot be confirmed from the public text.

All 6 current MLS listings include the FIRSPR amenity (6/6). One listing remark explicitly states: "In 2025, sprinkler & fire alarm systems were updated with no assessment," and the feature is consistently checked across multiple agent entries, providing strong confirmation that the building has a fire sprinkler system.

I searched for wording like FLSE passed, fire safety certified, life safety compliant, and passed fire inspection, but found none. The mention of system updates is positive, but it does not confirm a formal pass status, so this remains false based on lack of explicit evidence.

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.

City views appear in the current MLS data for 6/7 listings, which is a strong indicator that some units offer city or downtown vistas. The public remarks do not repeatedly mention city views; one listing instead describes a "tropical garden view," so this seems unit-dependent rather than a universal building feature. Still, because buyers search for buildings with any city-view units, the feature should be included.

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.

The feature appears in 3 of 7 current MLS listings as RESMAN, but the public remarks do not explicitly mention a resident, on-site, or live-in manager in any listing. This suggests moderate MLS support without corroborating narrative evidence, so it may reflect an amenity checkbox rather than repeated agent confirmation.

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.