Makee Ailana

MLS property data consistently shows 1967 as the year built for all three listings. The marketing language calling Makee ‘Ailana a 'vintage' and 'mid-century' building supports this construction year, providing strong, consistent evidence.

Across three listings, the highest unit floor reported in MLS data is 11, and remarks do not specify the total number of stories (e.g., 'X-story building'). In the absence of explicit statements about the top floor or total floors, the building is assumed to have 11 floors based on the highest observed unit floor.

Remarks mention a 'boutique feel (only 4 units per floor)' but never state a total number of floors or total units in the building. Because MLS unit-total fields are effectively blank (0) and there is no direct statement like 'X-unit building,' the actual total unit count remains unknown; 0 here is a placeholder for 'not determinable from available data.'

The explicit percentage of owner-occupied units is not stated in the remarks, though they suggest it may be higher than previously reported. Because no concrete alternative number is given, the existing value of 63% is retained while noting that it may underestimate current conditions.

Kept the existing value of 1 elevator because no listing remarks mention elevators, multiple elevators, or lack thereof. Searched for terms like 'elevator', 'lift', 'multiple elevators', and found no references to confirm or contradict the current data.

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.

No listing indicates central AC is included in maintenance (ACCEN is unchecked in all 3 MLS entries). Remarks focus on location and floor plans and do not mention central air or AC as an included utility, so fees are very unlikely to include central AC.

Zero of 5 public remarks mention cable TV or cable service. CABTV is checked on 5/5 current listings, but the consistent checkbox data may reflect copy-paste or unverified agent input.

Zero of 5 public remarks mention common-area electricity or common electric. OTCOEX appears on 5/5 listings, but the absence of explanatory remarks means the feature is not independently confirmed.

All available MLS data show no cooperative taxes included (COOTAX is always unchecked). Remarks describe the property as fee simple, which aligns with there being no co-op structure or co-op tax component in the maintenance fees.

None of the listings indicate electricity as an included association fee item. With ELECTR consistently absent across multiple MLS entries and no textual mention of 'electric included,' it is very likely that unit electricity is separately metered and not part of maintenance fees.

No MLS records show gas as an included fee item, and the remarks never mention gas utilities. This pattern strongly indicates gas is not provided or not included in association dues.

None of the 4 MLS listings list 'HOTWAT' as included, while 3 of 4 explicitly note in-unit water heaters (WTRHTR). Public remarks are silent on hot water, and the checklist plus unit-level water heaters strongly indicate hot water is not provided by the building (high confidence).

Zero of 5 public remarks mention included internet or Wi-Fi. Internet service is nevertheless marked on 5/5 current MLS listings, providing moderate but not independently corroborated support.

The building is presented as an 'East Waikiki' property near beaches and Kapi‘olani Park, not a marina complex, and no listing flags MARINA in the fee includes fields. The complete absence of marina references in both MLS data and remarks makes it almost certain that marina access or fees are not included.

Zero of 5 public remarks explicitly mention sewer being included. SEWER is checked on 5/5 listings and matches the prior high-confidence building-level determination.

Zero of 5 public remarks mention water being included. WATER appears on 5/5 current listings and aligns with the prior high-confidence assessment, though the remarks provide no additional confirmation.

Remarks focus on the units, lanai, views, and proximity to beaches and park, with no mention of any shared BBQ area or grills. The absence of BBQ in both remarks and amenities checkboxes across all listings indicates the building likely has no BBQ facilities.

Across all 3 listings, neither MLS checkboxes nor remarks indicate any form of bike storage, bike room, or bike racks. The only bike-related term is a neighborhood Bike Score, not an amenity. This strongly supports that the building does not have dedicated bicycle storage.

Remarks emphasize proximity to beaches and surf breaks, not boating or marina facilities. The geographic context and lack of MARINA in MLS data strongly indicate there is no boat dock or marina access.

Parking is mentioned only as '1 covered parking' without any reference to a wash bay or car wash amenity. With CRWSH not selected on any listing, the building likely has no car wash facility.

None of the remarks use terms like clubhouse, community center, or recreation center. Given 0/3 MLS checks for CLUHOU, it is very likely the building does not have a clubhouse.

Despite extensive descriptions of lifestyle and building management, there is no mention of concierge or front desk services. MLS data uniformly omits the concierge amenity, reinforcing that this is not a concierge building. Buyers should not expect concierge-style services here.

Remarks stress pet-friendliness but do not advertise any dedicated on-site dog exercise area. The combination of explicit pet policies and lack of a dog-park mention across all listings points to no dog park in the building.

The remarks emphasize a vintage, boutique, neighborly building but never reference staffed entry or a doorman. With 0/3 MLS listings indicating a doorman, the evidence strongly suggests that the building does not provide doorman service. Buyers should not expect a staffed door at this property.

Across 3 listings, agents describe the boutique nature of the building and nearby fitness options ("fitness & entertainment within mere blocks") but never mention an on-site exercise room or gym. With EXEROO unchecked on all listings, this strongly suggests the building does not have an exercise room.

Luxury services like limo or building car service are not mentioned despite detailed lifestyle descriptions. The consistent lack of LIMSER in MLS amenities makes it very likely the building offers no limo or house car service.

The focus is on residential features, pet policy, and neighborhood access with no hint of any shared meeting or conference space. Consistent absence in both remarks and MLS amenities suggests there is no meeting room.

3/3 listings mention a lanai: phrases like 'generous lanai perfect for entertaining' and 'lanai, generously-sized even by today's standards' show that units have usable deck/patio-style outdoor space. This appears consistently across multiple agents and is a core selling point of the building.

The jogging and walking opportunities described are in Kapi‘olani Park, not within the building’s grounds. With no MLS selection for WAJOPA, the building does not appear to have its own jogging or walking path.

Family-friendly amenities like playgrounds are usually highlighted, yet none of the 3 remarks reference a children’s play area or tot lot within the building. With PLYGRND absent from amenities, the building appears not to have a playground.

0/3 listings reference any 'yard', 'private yard', or fenced ground-level outdoor space, focusing solely on lanais and high-floor views. Combined with MLS data showing no PRIYAR, this strongly indicates the building does not offer private yard areas to units.

A putting green would be a distinctive amenity but is never referenced in any of the marketing remarks. Combined with 0/3 MLS checks for PUTGRE, this strongly indicates there is no putting green.

All 3 agents market the lifestyle via the surrounding park and ocean access rather than any on-site rec deck or amenity space. The consistent omission of RECARE in MLS data supports that there is no dedicated building recreation area.

Descriptions emphasize the interior unit layout and lanai but do not reference any shared rec or game room. With RECROO absent from all MLS amenity selections, the building appears not to offer a recreation room.

All food and dining references are to the surrounding Waikiki area, not to any on-site dining facility. The absence of RESTAU in MLS amenities supports that the building does not contain a restaurant.

Agents highlight views from the units and lanai but never mention a shared rooftop or roof deck, which would usually be a major selling point. With ROOFDCK not selected on any listing, the building likely lacks rooftop amenities.

Sauna facilities are typically highlighted but do not appear anywhere in the building descriptions. With SAUNA not selected in MLS across all listings, the building likely does not have a sauna.

None of the 3 listing remarks describe any building storage units or lockers, and terms like 'extra storage' or 'storage locker' never appear. While 1 of 3 listings checks storage-related boxes in amenities and another in unit features, this is not backed up by remarks and may reflect in-unit closet space. Taken together, the evidence suggests the building does not provide dedicated storage units for residents.

I searched the remarks for any reference to surfboard storage, board storage, or combined bike and surfboard storage and found none. Given the complete lack of mention and no prior data, it is moderately likely the building does not offer dedicated surfboard storage.

In Waikiki, tennis courts are typically highlighted when present, yet none of the 3 listings reference them. Combined with 0/3 MLS checks for TENCOU, it is very likely the building does not have tennis courts.

The trash chute feature is supported by MLS amenity data in 5 of 5 current listings, consistent with the previously high-confidence building record. None of the five public remarks explicitly mention a trash chute, so the evidence is primarily checkbox-based, though unanimous across listings.

All three listings refer only to 'covered parking' or '1 parking' with no hint of valet operations. Given the boutique, mid-century character described and no MLS indication of VALET, it is very likely there is no valet service at this building.

While none of the remarks use words like 'gated' or 'fenced,' a majority (2/3) of current listings mark the GATED/WALFEN amenity in MLS. This pattern across multiple agents indicates the property likely has a gated or fenced component (such as entry or parking). The feature is inferred from MLS amenity consistency rather than explicit narrative descriptions.

Given that water amenities are strong marketing points in Waikiki, their complete absence from remarks suggests there is no whirlpool or spa. 0/3 MLS checks for WHIRLP reinforce this conclusion.

Pool-related amenities appear in 5 of 5 current MLS listings, with codes including POOL, CNDAP, COMAP, and HEAPOO. One listing explicitly refers to residents gathering "poolside," providing direct confirmation, while the consistent amenity data across multiple listings supports that this is a genuine building feature rather than a single agent copy-paste error.

In 3/3 current listings, no heated-pool features are checked in MLS amenities or pool_features. The public remarks never mention a heated or warm pool, reinforcing that any on-site pool is almost certainly unheated.

The public remarks describe the building’s location, views, layouts, amenities like being pet-friendly, and rental terms, but do not mention any saltwater or saline pool system. I specifically searched for terms such as 'salt water pool', 'saltwater', 'salt pool', and 'saline' and found none, so it is likely the pool is not saltwater or at least not advertised as such.

None of the 5 provided listings explicitly mention in-unit laundry, washer/dryer, or a stacked washer/dryer. Nevertheless, the current MLS inclusions consistently list WASHER/DRYER in all 5 listings, suggesting the feature is available, though the consistency may reflect copied checkbox data.

None of the 3 current MLS listings mark community laundry in the amenities, and the remarks contain no references to shared or coin-operated laundry rooms. This consistent absence across all available data indicates the building likely does not have community laundry facilities.

The remarks were checked for indications of paid laundry such as coin-op machines, use of quarters, card-operated laundry, or laundry fees, and no such terms appeared. Without explicit evidence of a pay-per-use system, the presence of paid community laundry is considered unlikely.

The remarks were reviewed for any references to laundry on each floor, floor-by-floor laundry, or laundry rooms on every floor, and none were found. In the absence of any explicit mention of this amenity, it is assumed the building does not offer community laundry on every floor.

Parking is explicitly mentioned in all 5 of 5 listings. Key phrases include "1 covered parking," "a second parking stall is available," and "with parking," providing strong, consistent evidence across multiple remarks and MLS records.

Assigned parking is supported by 5 of 5 current MLS records with the ASSIGN designation. Public remarks mention covered parking and a second parking stall but do not explicitly say "assigned" or "reserved," so this appears to rely partly on consistently repeated MLS data that may be copy-pasted.

All 4 current MLS listings include covered parking flags, and several public remarks explicitly say '1 covered parking' (and others reference '1Prkg'/'with parking'), confirming that the building offers covered parking. Evidence is consistent across multiple agent remarks and MLS checkbox data.

The listings confirm an associated covered parking space but do not establish that it is deeded. The available evidence does not support deeded parking.

Across all current listings there is no mention of EV charging stations in remarks, and the dedicated EVCHRG flag is not set in any MLS parking_features. Given that agents usually highlight EV charging where available, the absence across multiple listings suggests the building does not offer EV charging.

The remarks indicate that additional parking may be rented. They do not specify a monthly parking charge, so the parking fee is unknown.

Guest or visitor parking is not mentioned in any public remarks, despite detailed lifestyle descriptions. MLS fields for all listings also omit the GUEST parking flag, indicating that dedicated guest parking is not provided as a building amenity.

Neither the agent remarks nor the MLS parking_features highlight any form of secured or gated parking entry. Because secured parking is typically promoted when present, its consistent absence across 3 listings indicates that the parking is not a secured-entry facility.

Listings describe parking simply as '1 covered parking' or '1Prkg' without any tandem references. MLS data likewise omits the TANDEM flag on all current entries, supporting the conclusion that tandem parking is not a building characteristic.

The building is described as a 'friendly, boutique' mid-century community with conventional assigned parking, but no listing mentions valet or attended parking. The absence of the VALET checkbox across all MLS entries further supports that valet parking is not offered.

The remarks were searched for parking waitlist-related language. No such reference was found, so a building parking waitlist is not supported.

The listings describe the boutique feel and only four units per floor but omit any mention of secure or keyed elevator access. With the elevator security amenity unchecked in all 3 MLS entries, it is very likely the elevators are not keyed/fob-restricted. Thus, a keyed elevator system does not appear to be a building feature.

The public remarks focus on location, views, unit layout, pet policy, and community character, but do not describe any card or fob-based access system. I searched for terms like key card, keycard, fob access, electronic entry, and card reader, and found no references, so this feature is assumed not present.

No listing remarks reference a security guard or 24/7 on-site security, despite lengthy lifestyle-focused descriptions. MLS amenities for all 3 listings leave the security guard box unchecked, suggesting the building does not offer guard service. Given both the marketing language and MLS data, this appears to be a non-guarded building.

Listing descriptions emphasize the building’s management quality, neighborly ambiance, and proximity to amenities, without mentioning any security patrol or roving security service. I looked for phrases such as security patrol, roving security, and patrolled building, and since none appeared, this feature is assumed not present.

Remarks for all 3 listings focus on views, location, and building management but never mention cameras or video surveillance. The SECSYS amenity is unchecked in every case, which agents usually mark when a building promotes a formal security system. This combination points to video security not being a notable or offered building feature.

No listings mention central air conditioning in remarks, and 0 of 3 have central AC-related MLS checkboxes selected. Given this consistent absence in both structured data and narrative descriptions, it is very likely the building does not offer central AC.

No agent remarks across the 3 listings describe split or ductless systems, and the dedicated MLS checkbox is never used. This strongly suggests that split AC is not a known or marketed feature in this building.

Window AC is indicated in 3 of 5 current MLS inclusion records, compared with 1 of 3 previously, but 0 of 5 public remarks mention it. The evidence supports including the feature because multiple listings carry the structured designation, though it is not strongly corroborated across agent remarks.

Concrete construction is strongly supported across all 5 of 5 current listings. No public remarks explicitly mention concrete, but the complete MLS consistency and prior high-confidence conclusion make this a reliable building-level feature.

Moderate evidence for double‑wall construction: 3 of 4 current listings check 'DOUWAL' and prior data had medium confidence. However, none of the public remarks reference 'double wall' explicitly, so inclusion is based on repeated MLS checkbox entries rather than remark confirmation.

Two of three listings explicitly check hollow tile as a construction material, and the third does not contradict this. This pattern, combined with the building’s age and type, supports hollow tile construction as likely.

None of the provided remarks reference masonry, stucco, or masonry-and-stucco construction. The isolated 1-of-5 MLS checkbox is weak evidence and conflicts with the prior high-confidence absence of this feature.

No public remarks mention steel framing or steel-frame construction. The limited 2-of-5 MLS checkbox presence appears inconsistent and may reflect copied or unverified data, so steel-frame construction is not supported.

No listing identifies a slab foundation in the construction materials. For this mid‑century Waikiki high‑rise, the MLS pattern and typical structural design indicate it is not classified as slab construction.

No analysis available

Zero of three listings mention wood frame construction while all emphasize concrete-related materials. For a mid‑century Waikiki high‑rise, primary wood‑frame construction would be highly unlikely.

No public remarks mention above-ground construction or above-ground building materials. Although 3 of 5 current listings contain the ABOGRO code, the absence of textual confirmation and only medium historical support make this insufficient to validate the feature.

None of the listings list brick as a material, and all point to concrete construction. Given both the MLS data and local building norms, brick construction can be ruled out with high confidence.

No listing mentions single‑wall construction, and the building type (mid‑century Waikiki high‑rise) is inconsistent with it. This strongly supports that the building is not single‑wall construction.

The repeated 90-day minimum rental requirement indicates that short-term or vacation rentals are not allowed. This is explicit and consistent across multiple remarks.

The 90-day minimum rental policy prevents classification as a short-term-rental building. No hotel pool, hotel rental program, or managed hotel operation is described, and the prerequisite for this feature is not met.

The repeated 90-day minimum rental requirement rules out short-term or hotel-pool participation. The remarks also contain no statement that owners must participate in a rental program.

Multiple remarks emphasize that Makee ‘Ailana offers 'the largest FS 2BR/2BA' units in this price range and proximity to the beach, explicitly using 'FS' for fee simple. All three observed listings appear to be fee simple and none reference lease rent or leasehold, indicating that the building has fee simple units (3 of 3 listings FS, 0 LH observed).

The remarks and marketing consistently stress fee simple ('FS') ownership and never mention leasehold or any lease terms. With 0 of 3 listings marked leasehold and no lease-related language in remarks, available evidence indicates Makee ‘Ailana does not have leasehold units, and only fee simple units are observed (3 FS / 0 LH).

Multiple listings identify the property as fee simple rather than leasehold. Because no land lease applies and no lease-expiry year is mentioned, the value is null.

The remarks were searched for explicit VA-related language, including VA approved, VA financing, and VA loans accepted. None was found, so VA approval is not supported by the public remarks.

The listings do not reference being 'fully insured', 'walls-in coverage', or similar HOA-provided comprehensive insurance. In the absence of any such statements, this field is set to false by default.

Across all three listings there is no reference to 'fire sprinklers,' 'sprinkler system,' or similar, and the FIRSPR amenity is unchecked in each case. Given the building's 1967 vintage and the absence of marketing around sprinklers, the evidence strongly suggests that the building does not have a fire sprinkler system.

There is no evidence in the remarks that the building has passed a formal fire/life safety evaluation or similar certification. Searched for 'fire life safety', 'FLSE', 'fire inspection', 'life safety compliant', and found no mentions, so this is set to false by default.

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 confirmed across multiple remarks, including “ocean-view residence,” “sweeping views of the Pacific Ocean,” and “views of the blue Pacific.” The consistency across several listings and the historical high confidence support including this building feature.

No remarks or MLS view_descriptions mention any mountain or mauka views, despite extensive marketing of other view types. Given 0/3 MLS records with MOUNTA and repeated focus on ocean/park/Diamond Head instead, the building is unlikely to offer notable mountain-view units.

Diamond Head views are repeatedly documented, including “beautiful Diamond Head & ocean views,” “views of ... Diamond Head,” and “Savor a Diamond Head view.” This is strong, consistent evidence across multiple listings.

City views are supported primarily by MLS data, with CITY appearing in 4 of 5 current listings. The public remarks emphasize ocean, park, and Diamond Head views rather than explicitly saying “city view,” but the consistent current and historical MLS pattern supports inclusion.

Coastline views are supported by the current MLS designation in 4 of 5 listings, but the public remarks do not directly say “coastline view.” References to the Pacific, beaches, and surf breaks provide partial contextual support, so this feature is included with moderate confidence.

Agents repeatedly market outlooks over Kapi‘olani Park, which functions as a large landscaped garden/green view. With 2 of 3 MLS records checking GARDEN, it is clear that some stacks offer park/garden-type views.

Across three listings, there are no references to golf course outlooks despite extensive view marketing, and the MLS data never checks GOLCOU. This combination strongly indicates there are no meaningful golf course–view units in this building.

Neither the remarks nor any of the three MLS records mention marina, harbor, canal, or yacht views. Given the building’s described location by Kapi‘olani Park and lack of any MARCAN entries, marina views are very unlikely.

Across three listings there are no explicit sunrise or east-facing view references, even though view descriptions are otherwise detailed. Coupled with 0/3 MLS records marking SUNRIS, this suggests the building is not known for sunrise views.

Phrases like 'sunset cocktails' appear consistently in the marketing for multiple units, pointing to a recurring sunset-view selling point. One MLS record checks SUNSET, and no listings indicate no view, supporting that sunset views are available in this building.

There is no mention of cemetery or similar outlooks in any remarks or MLS view fields, even where negative or unusual views might otherwise be disclosed. Given the location and 0/3 CEMETA entries, cemetery views can be safely ruled out.

Looked for mentions of watching Friday night fireworks or similar directly from the unit or lanai and found none. Without explicit references, fireworks views are assumed not to be a feature.

No analysis available

2+ listings explicitly say 'Makee ‘Ailana is a well-managed, pet-friendly community (dogs up to 22 lbs)' and 'Pet-friendly, dogs of 22# max weight.' This is direct, repeated evidence from multiple agents that pets are allowed with size restrictions.

Resident manager is supported by the MLS amenity data in all 5 of 5 current listings. Remarks do not explicitly identify an on-site manager, but multiple agents describe the building as “well-managed” or “fiscally well-managed,” and the consistent RESMAN designation supports retaining the feature.

3/3 listings frame the property as a residential condominium with '90-day minimum rentals' and 'largest FS 2BR/2BA/1Prkg under $1M', with no condotel language. MLS architectural_style also lacks any CONDOT flag, strongly indicating it is not a condotel building.

Listings explicitly market the units as 'FS' 2BR/2BA condos and never reference co-op or share ownership structures. Coupled with MLS data showing no COOTAX code, this provides strong evidence that the building is not a cooperative.