Namahana Terrace

Both available MLS records agree on year_built=1965. With no remarks indicating a different build or rebuild year, 1965 is accepted as the construction year.

A public remark calls Namahana Terrace a "5 stories condominium," giving a clear building-level floor count. No other listing contradicts this, and MLS unit floor numbers (up to 2) simply reflect individual unit locations, not total floors.

One agent notes the property as "This building with only 14 units," which strongly suggests a 14-unit condominium. No other listing provides a different unit count or conflicts with this number.

The remarks do not provide any percentage or qualitative description of owner occupancy for the subject building. Therefore, the existing value of 36.00% is kept, but with low confidence due to lack of confirming evidence in the listings.

Remarks describing multiple Waikiki buildings do not reference elevators at all (e.g., no phrases like 'elevator', 'two elevators', or 'lift'). In the absence of explicit evidence, the existing value of 0 elevators is retained but 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.

Neither listing marks central AC as an included item and the remarks do not reference central air or AC in the maintenance. The building appears to be an older small condo with no indication of HOA-covered central AC.

No listings indicate cable in the association fee includes field, and neither agent mentions cable as an included utility. This strongly suggests cable TV service is not part of the building’s maintenance fee structure.

Both listings consistently mark other common expenses in the association fee includes section. This points to the maintenance fee covering at least some common-area electricity or building operating costs.

No agent checks co-op taxes in the fee includes, and the building is described as a condo rather than a cooperative. This is strong evidence that cooperative taxes are not part of the maintenance fees.

Neither listing indicates electricity is included in the maintenance fees, and the remarks are silent on included electric service. This suggests unit electricity is likely separately metered and not part of HOA dues.

Both MLS entries show GAS checked in association fee includes, and the remarks mention a “kitchen gas stove” and “gas stove,” indicating shared gas service. The consistency across listings supports that gas is included in the maintenance fees.

There is no MLS checkbox for hot water being included and no textual mention like “hot water included in maintenance.” This indicates hot water is not clearly provided as a building-paid utility in the HOA dues.

Neither agent checks internet service as part of the association fees, and no remarks say “internet included” or similar. This strongly suggests internet is paid separately by unit owners or tenants.

There is no MLS indication of marina-related fees and no text referencing marina access or boat facilities. Given the building type and size, marina inclusion in HOA fees is highly unlikely.

One listing explicitly checks sewer as an included association fee item, while the other omits it but does include similar utilities. This pattern suggests sewer is probably covered by the maintenance fees, though documentation is slightly inconsistent.

Both listings consistently mark water as part of the association fee includes. This is strong, consistent MLS evidence that water service is included in the building’s maintenance fees.

Public remarks do not mention any BBQ, grill, or outdoor cooking area. With 0/2 MLS listings checking BBQ and no textual support, the building is assumed not to offer shared BBQ facilities.

0/2 listings mention bike storage or a bike room, and the bike storage amenity is not checked in any MLS records. In a bike‑friendly area where such features are usually advertised, the complete absence of references strongly supports that there is no dedicated bike storage in this building.

Although there are Ala Wai canal views, agents do not claim any boat dock, slip, or marina rights. Given 0/2 MLS listings marking MARINA, the building is assumed not to have a boat dock.

Public remarks do not mention any vehicle wash area or car wash station. With 0/2 MLS entries checking CRWSH, the property is treated as not having car wash facilities.

No public remarks promote a clubhouse or community center, which would typically be highlighted if present. With 0/2 MLS listings marking CLUHOU, it is very likely there is no clubhouse.

Both listings describe basic building conditions and upcoming repairs but do not mention any concierge or front-desk services. Given the building's small size and the lack of any such references, concierge service is very unlikely to exist.

Public remarks do not reference any dedicated pet or dog area. Given 0/2 MLS records marking DGPRK and the building’s small footprint, a dog park is considered absent.

2/2 listings omit any reference to a doorman or attendant, instead emphasizing gated entry. For a small Waikiki condo, a doorman would be a major selling point and is almost certainly absent if not mentioned.

No listings mention an exercise room, fitness center, or gym, and 0/2 MLS records have EXEROO checked. Given the building’s small size (14 units, 5 stories), a shared exercise room is very unlikely, so this amenity is treated as absent.

Neither listing references limousine or house car services, which are typical of large luxury towers, not small walk‑ups. With 0/2 MLS listings selecting LIMSER, it is almost certain there is no limo or car service.

Agents do not advertise any meeting or conference room. Combined with 0/2 MLS listings leaving MEEROO unchecked, the building is assumed not to provide a shared meeting room.

1/2 listings describe the unit as having "two lanais," confirming deck/patio-style outdoor space. Because any units having lanais means the building offers this feature to some buyers, it should be included as a building amenity. No remarks contradict this.

Remarks do not describe any dedicated jogging or walking path within the property. With 0/2 MLS listings selecting WAJOPA, the building is considered not to offer an internal jogging/walking path.

No agent remarks highlight a kids’ play area or playground, which would be notable in marketing. With 0/2 MLS listings selecting PLYGRND, the building likely has no playground.

0/2 listings reference any yard or private enclosed outdoor space, and the only ground-floor description refers to access to a gate and parking area, not a yard. Given the small mid-rise Waikiki condo context and absence in MLS amenities, a private yard feature is very unlikely.

A putting green is not mentioned anywhere in the marketing remarks. Combined with 0/2 MLS entries marking PUTGRE, it is effectively certain there is no putting green.

Agents do not reference any shared recreation deck or amenity space. Combined with 0/2 listings omitting RECARE, the building is considered not to have a designated recreation area.

Neither listing markets a rec room or game/entertainment room as a selling point. With 0/2 MLS listings checking RECROO, this feature is treated as not present.

Agents highlight nearby eateries and activities, suggesting dining is off‑site. Since 0/2 listings mark RESTAU and no on‑site dining is described, the building is assumed not to contain a restaurant.

Neither listing mentions a rooftop terrace or amenities, which would be a key marketing point if available. With 0/2 MLS entries checking ROOFDCK, the building is treated as not having rooftop amenities.

No mention is made of a sauna or steam facility in public remarks. With 0/2 MLS listings checking SAUNA, this amenity is treated as absent.

None of the 2 listings reference storage units, lockers, or extra storage, and the MLS amenities checkbox for storage is 0/2. Given the building’s small size and the lack of any marketing emphasis on storage, it is very likely that the building does not provide dedicated storage units for residents.

The provided public remarks reference location, renovations, security gate, and planned building improvements but do not mention any surfboard or board storage facilities. I specifically looked for terms like 'surfboard storage', 'board storage', 'surf storage', or similar phrases and found none, so this feature is assumed not present based on available information.

No agent remarks refer to tennis courts or tennis facilities, and 0/2 listings mark TENCOU. Given the very small urban Waikiki footprint, it is effectively certain there is no tennis court.

One unit is described as having direct access to the parking area and dumpster, with no mention of a chute system. With 0/2 listings omitting TRACHU and explicit reference to dumpster service, it is likely the building does not have a trash chute.

0/2 listings mention valet services or valet parking, and the property is portrayed as a modest, "cozy" 14‑unit condo without hotel-like operations. This strongly indicates there is no valet amenity at this building.

2/2 listings independently reference a gated entrance ('community gate' and 'security gate'), showing that access to the building is controlled by a physical gate. This is strong evidence that the property has a fenced or gated perimeter providing physical security.

Agent remarks do not promote any hot tub or spa amenity. Combined with 0/2 MLS entries marking WHIRLP, the building is considered not to have a whirlpool or similar facility.

Across 2 listings, none have pool-related checkboxes selected in the MLS, and the public remarks make no reference to a swimming pool or similar amenity. The descriptions focus on location, unit renovations, security gate, and upcoming building improvements, with no hints of recreational facilities like a pool. Given the consistent absence of any pool indications, this building is very likely pool-free.

None of the 2 listings reference a pool or heated pool in either MLS checkboxes or public remarks. Because the building appears not to have any pool at all, it effectively cannot offer a heated pool, making the absence of a heated pool nearly certain.

The public remarks describe location, renovations, assessments, and building improvements but do not mention any type of pool, including a saltwater pool. Searched for phrases like 'salt water pool', 'saltwater pool', 'salt pool', and 'saline pool' and found none. Given the complete absence of any pool reference, a saltwater pool is unlikely based on available remarks.

Across 2/2 recent listings, none list a washer/dryer in inclusions or mention in‑unit or stacked laundry in the remarks, even when describing renovated kitchens and new appliances. In a small 14‑unit building, this consistent omission plus the indication of shared laundry strongly suggests there are no in‑unit laundry setups available to buyers.

Both of the available listings (2/2) mark community laundry in the amenities section, and no remarks contradict this. The consistency across multiple agents/listings for a 14‑unit building is strong evidence that the building provides shared/community laundry facilities.

The provided listings do not reference any type of shared or paid laundry system such as coin-op or card-operated machines. I searched for terms like 'coin laundry', 'laundry fee', 'card-operated', and similar phrases, and since none appear, the existence of paid community laundry is unlikely based on current remarks.

The remarks describe location, renovations, security gate, and upcoming building improvements but do not mention laundry facilities on each floor. I specifically looked for phrases like 'laundry on every floor' or 'laundry room on each floor' and found none, so this feature is assumed not present based on available information.

2/2 current MLS entries explicitly show ParkingFeatures='NONE', indicating no parking is offered with units in this building. Public remarks do not describe any resident parking stalls, garages, or open parking available to occupants. The phrase 'back door straight to parking' in one listing is not detailed enough to override the explicit 'NONE' in the MLS data.

Across 2/2 listings, ParkingFeatures lacks any indication of assigned or deeded parking. Remarks contain no references to specific or reserved stalls tied to units, so there is no evidence of assigned parking in the building.

2/2 current MLS listings omit all covered/garage-related parking feature codes. Public remarks do not reference garages, carports, or covered stalls, so covered parking is unlikely to be available.

Searched for terms like 'deeded parking', 'owned stall', 'parking included in deed', and similar phrases. None were found, so deeded parking is unlikely but not definitively ruled out.

Both current listings lack any EV charging indication in the MLS checkboxes. Remarks do not mention EV stations, Tesla chargers, or any charging infrastructure, suggesting the building does not offer EV charging.

Looked for mentions of 'parking fee', 'monthly parking charge', 'rental parking', or extra parking costs. Since nothing is stated, the presence or absence of a parking fee remains unknown.

2/2 listings show no guest parking feature selected in the MLS data. The public remarks never refer to visitor or guest parking, so it is very likely the building does not provide designated guest parking.

While one listing notes that the building entrance has a security gate, neither listing indicates secured or gated parking in the MLS features. No remarks describe card-access or gated parking areas, so secured parking entry is not supported by the evidence.

Across 2/2 listings, MLS data does not mark tandem parking, and public remarks are silent on any tandem-style stalls. This strongly suggests the building does not offer tandem parking.

2/2 current listings do not indicate valet service in the MLS checkboxes. Public remarks make no mention of valet or attended parking, so the building can be confidently considered to have no valet parking.

Searched for 'parking waitlist', 'waiting list for parking', or similar phrases. None appear, so a formal parking waitlist is unlikely but not definitively ruled out.

Both listings focus on features like the ground-floor unit's doors and the entrance security gate, with no elevator details. The lack of any reference to keyed or fob-controlled elevators strongly indicates there is no secured elevator system in this building.

Searched the remarks for terms like key card access, fob access, card reader, electronic access, and keycard entry. While gates are mentioned, there is no indication that they use a card or fob system, so card access is assumed not present based on available information.

Across 2/2 listings, there are no references to a security guard or staffed security, which would typically be highlighted if present. The building is described as a small, cozy condominium with a security gate but no on-site personnel, so a guard service is very unlikely.

Searched the remarks for security patrol, roving security, patrol service, and patrolled building. Nothing indicates an active security patrol service, so it is assumed not present given the lack of any reference.

Neither listing mentions cameras or video surveillance; the only security-related feature described is a physical gate. Given the small size of the building and absence of any reference to cameras or monitoring, it is very likely there is no building-wide video security system.

Across 2 listings, 0/2 check any central AC option and no remarks mention central air, forced air, or HVAC. This small older Waikiki building is much more consistent with individual unit AC rather than a central system, so central AC is treated as not present.

Neither of the 2 listings marks split AC, and no remarks reference split or ductless systems despite detailing other upgrades. This consistent absence suggests the building’s units do not have mini-split AC systems.

Inclusions show 1/2 listings explicitly reporting a window AC unit and none reporting central or split systems. Although remarks don’t describe the AC, the single positive MLS flag plus the building type makes it likely that some units use window AC.

MLS data is consistent: 2 of 2 listings mark the building as concrete (CONCRE). Public remarks focus on renovations and assessments but do not contradict concrete construction, so this is accepted as a building characteristic.

Double wall construction (DOUWAL) appears on 2 of 2 current listings. With no contradictory information in the remarks, this is taken as a reliable indicator that the building includes double wall construction.

All available MLS data (2/2 listings) indicate hollow tile construction. Remarks focus on renovations and assessments without disputing this, so hollow tile construction is accepted with high confidence.

The MASSTU option is unchecked in both current listings. With no textual references to masonry or stucco, the evidence points to the building not being described or marketed as masonry/stucco construction.

Across both available listings, none indicate steel frame construction (STEFRA is absent). Given agents consistently check other construction types for this building, the omission of steel frame is strong evidence it is not a steel-frame building.

Both current listings omit SLAB despite checking multiple other construction materials. In the absence of any textual mention of a slab foundation, this omission is taken as strong evidence that slab is not a designated construction type for this building.

No analysis available

There is mixed MLS checkbox data for wood frame construction (1 of 2 listings shows WOOFRA). With no mention in remarks, this suggests possible partial wood framing or an agent data inconsistency, so it is included but with low confidence.

The ABOGRO checkbox is unchecked in both available MLS records. Since agents consistently mark other construction attributes but not above-ground construction, it is likely this is not considered an applicable construction type for the building.

Both listings omit BRICK from construction_materials and there are no phrases like “brick exterior” or “brick-and-mortar” in remarks. This consistent absence strongly suggests the building is not brick-constructed.

Single wall construction is not checked in either listing’s construction_materials and is never mentioned in narrative remarks. This consistent absence, especially in a concrete/hollow-tile building, strongly suggests it does not have single wall construction.

The remarks discuss location, renovations, assessments, and general investment potential but never reference any form of legal short-term or vacation rental use. I searched for phrases indicating STR permission or restriction (e.g., 30-day minimum, NUC, TVU, hotel operations) and found none, so STR is assumed not allowed by default.

The listings do not reference any hotel rental program, on-site hotel management, or participation in a branded hotel pool. I looked for terms like 'hotel rental pool', 'hotel program', or 'managed by [hotel brand]' and found none, so hotel pool participation is assumed not present.

The remarks do not suggest that owners are required to join any rental or hotel pool program and describe typical owner/investor use. I searched for indications of mandatory participation or inability to opt out and found none, so mandatory hotel pool participation is assumed not to exist.

None of the two listings are marked as Fee Simple in the tenure field, and no remarks mention fee simple ownership. However, because tenure is not clearly stated either way, this is treated as unknown rather than strong evidence that no Fee Simple units exist.

No listings are tagged as Leasehold and the public remarks are silent on any land lease or lease expiration. As with Fee Simple, the tenure type is effectively unknown rather than clearly non‑leasehold.

The remarks focus on improvements, assessments, and location, but do not discuss land tenure or any lease end date. Without an explicit lease expiry year, this field must remain unknown.

The remarks discuss renovations, assessments, and location but do not reference VA loan eligibility or approval. In the absence of any mention, this is treated as not VA-approved, though this is not certain.

Remarks reference special assessments and the financial health of the association but do not state that the building is fully insured or has walls-in coverage. In the absence of explicit statements about comprehensive insurance, this is marked as false with medium confidence.

Two listings omit fire sprinklers from their amenity checkboxes, and no remarks reference sprinklers despite discussing major building repairs. For a small 1965, 5-story, 14-unit Waikiki building, this strongly suggests there is no fire sprinkler system.

Searched for terms such as 'fire life safety evaluation', 'FLSE', 'fire safety certified', 'life safety compliant', and 'passed fire inspection' in the remarks, but none appeared. With no explicit evidence that an evaluation was passed, this field is set to false by default with medium confidence.

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

No analysis available

0 of 2 recent listings checked an ocean view, and remarks only mention “lovely views of the Ala Wai canal,” with no references to ocean, Pacific, or coastline. Given the building’s 5-story height and interior Waikiki location, ocean views appear unlikely, so this feature is not included.

1 of 2 listings explicitly checked a mountain view in MLS, and no listings indicate ‘None’ for view. Although the remarks only call out the Ala Wai canal, the MLS pattern implies at least some units enjoy mountain views, so this feature is included with moderate confidence.

0 of 2 listings mention Diamond Head in either MLS checkboxes or remarks. With no textual or MLS support across multiple listings, Diamond Head views are not considered a feature of this building.

1 of 2 listings flag a city view in MLS, and none indicate no view. Combined with the dense Waikiki location, this supports including a city view as a building-level feature with moderate confidence.

0 of 2 listings checked a coastline view, and agents describe canal, not shoreline or coastal vistas. The physical setting and absence of any coastline language support excluding this feature.

1 of 2 listings report a garden view via MLS fields, with no listings stating ‘None’ for view. This suggests some units overlook landscaped or garden areas, so a garden view is included with moderate confidence.

0 of 2 listings checked a golf course view, and the only detailed view description refers specifically to the canal, not the golf course. The absence of any golf-related view language suggests golf course views should not be included.

1 of 2 listings checked MARCAN (marina/canal) and a separate agent’s remarks describe “lovely views of the Ala Wai canal.” This consistent cross-listing evidence makes marina/canal views a confirmed building feature.

0 of 2 listings checked a sunrise view, and neither agent remarks on morning sun or sunrise vistas. In the absence of any direct evidence, sunrise views are not treated as a building-level feature.

0 of 2 listings identify a sunset view, and no remarks highlight sunsets or evening exposure. Without MLS or narrative support, a sunset view is excluded as a building feature.

0 of 2 listings indicate a cemetery view, and there is no textual mention of overlooking a cemetery. Both the geographic context and lack of MLS/remark evidence strongly indicate cemetery views are not present.

Text was checked for references to fireworks, Friday night shows, or viewing fireworks from the property and none were found. Without explicit statements, fireworks views are assumed not present but this is not definitive.

No analysis available

0/2 listings explicitly restrict pets, and MLS does not show a NOPET flag, suggesting there is no formal 'no pets' policy recorded. While not confirmed in remarks, the lack of prohibition hints that some form of pets are allowed.

The building is described as having "only 14 units" and being "under new management," but no listing mentions an on-site or resident manager and the MLS amenities omit this feature. For a small building of this size, that is strong evidence there is no resident manager on property.

0/2 listings describe any hotel-style program or condotel status, and the building is framed purely as a residential condominium. Combined with the small unit count and lack of CONDOT in MLS, this strongly indicates it is not a condotel.

Both remarks treat the property as a standard condominium, with no mention of shares, co-op, or cooperative ownership structure. The explicit 'condominium' wording and absence of coop-related MLS codes support that it is not a co-op.