Oahu Surf 2

The MLS property data for all four listings unanimously lists the building’s construction year as 1971. With no remarks indicating a different build or full reconstruction date, 1971 is highly reliable as the year built.

Across four listings, the highest observed unit floor is 12, indicating the building is at least 12 stories tall. No public remarks mention a higher floor count, and the building’s rooftop pool is typical of a 12-story Waikiki midrise, so 12 floors is the best-supported estimate.

No listing remarks state the total number of units in the building, and the NumberOfUnitsTotal MLS field is reported as zero for all listings, which is clearly non-informative. As a result, the building’s unit count remains unknown from the available data.

I searched for explicit percentages like "80% owner occupied" and phrases such as "majority owner occupied" or "high owner occupancy," but found nothing in the remarks. The current value of 52.0 is retained because there is no remarks-based evidence to override it.

I searched the remarks for explicit elevator counts and terms like "elevators," "multiple elevators," or similar building-access references, but none were mentioned. The current value of 2 is kept because there is no evidence in the remarks to confirm or deny it.

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.

One listing notes “AC is allowed in this unit,” indicating individually installed AC rather than a building-supplied central system. With no ACCEN box checked and no mention of central AC being included, maintenance fees almost certainly do not include central AC.

One of six current listings checks CABTV in the association_fee_includes. None of the public remarks mention 'cable' or 'cable TV included', and historical notes warn of copy/paste. The evidence for cable being included is weak (1/6 MLS checks), so this is marked true with moderate confidence.

Evidence points to common-area electricity being included in the maintenance fee. MLS data shows OTCOEX in 8 of 10 current listings, and the building remarks repeatedly reference shared amenities like the rooftop pool/deck and secured common spaces, which fits this checkbox pattern. No remarks contradict it, so this looks like a building-level inclusion rather than copy-paste noise.

No listing marks co-op taxes as included and the building is marketed as a condo (not a cooperative). This strongly indicates there are no co-op taxes included in the maintenance fees.

This is very strong evidence that electricity is included. All 10 current listings mark ELECTR, and the remarks contain an explicit confirmation, making this one of the clearest features in the dataset. The consistency across listings suggests this is a real building-wide inclusion, not a mistaken MLS checkbox.

Across 4 listings, the GAS field is never selected and there is no mention of gas utilities in the remarks. This strongly suggests gas is not included in the maintenance fees (and likely not provided by the building).

Hot water appears to be included in the maintenance fees based on the current MLS pattern. Eight of 10 current listings mark HOTWAT, while the public remarks do not mention any change or exception. One listing has WTRHTR, but the overall building-level evidence still supports hot water inclusion.

No listing checks the internet-service-included field, and there are no phrases like “internet included” or “Wi-Fi included in HOA” in the remarks. This pattern indicates internet is not included in the maintenance fees.

The building is described as being by the Ala Wai Canal but not as having marina facilities or boat slips. With 0/4 marina checkboxes and no textual references, marina-related costs are almost certainly not included in the maintenance fees.

Sewer inclusion is strongly supported by the current MLS data. Every current listing marks SEWER, and none of the public remarks suggest otherwise. This is a high-confidence building-level feature.

Water is included in the maintenance fees with very high confidence. All 10 current listings mark WATER, and the remarks across listings do not introduce any exception or change. The agreement across listings suggests a stable building-level inclusion.

No listing remarks mention BBQ or grilling areas and agents consistently do not mark BBQ in the amenities. This indicates the building likely does not have BBQ facilities.

Across 4 listings, there are no mentions of bike storage, bike room, or bike racks in the building, and MLS amenities never flag bike storage. The sole bike reference is to nearby Biki bike-share, which is off-site, so current evidence indicates the building does not provide its own dedicated bicycle storage.

Despite the canal-side location, no listing advertises boating or docking facilities. This suggests the building does not provide a boat dock or marina access.

Parking is mentioned (secured and tandem), but no listing describes a car wash facility. This suggests the building does not provide a car wash amenity.

No listing describes or checks a clubhouse amenity. This is strong evidence that the building does not have a clubhouse.

The remarks market location, pool, parking, and layouts but never mention any concierge or front desk service. With all MLS entries also leaving concierge-related amenities unchecked, the building almost certainly does not offer concierge services.

There are no references to pet or dog exercise facilities in remarks, and the MLS amenities never indicate such a feature. This strongly suggests there is no dog park in the building.

None of the listings reference a doorman or lobby attendant, and the MLS amenity is consistently unchecked. This makes it very likely the building does not provide a doorman service.

Across 4 listings, there is no mention of a gym or fitness center and the MLS amenity for EXEROO is never selected. This strongly suggests the building does not offer an exercise room.

The property is presented as a standard Waikiki condo without high-end chauffeur or house-car services. The absence of any such mention strongly indicates no limo or car service is offered.

Agents do not advertise or select a meeting room amenity and remarks focus strictly on residential and pool features. This indicates there is no dedicated meeting room.

Strong, repeated evidence across the listings supports patio/deck amenities in this building. At least 7 remarks mention outdoor space such as 'wrap around lanai,' 'nice covered lanai,' 'private lanai,' 'large lanai,' 'patio running around the outside of unit,' and 'rooftop pool deck.' The consistency across multiple listings suggests this is a real shared building feature, not just copied checkbox data.

While the location is walkable to Waikiki and Ala Moana, no listing describes dedicated jogging or walking paths on-site. This supports that there is no formal jogging path amenity.

The building is marketed mainly for adult/urban use with pool and lanai features; playground-related terms never appear. This indicates the building does not offer a children's playground.

Across all remarks, outdoor space is described only as lanais/patios, never as a yard or fenced/private yard. Given the high-rise configuration and 0/4 MLS PRIYAR flags, it is very unlikely the building offers private yard areas.

Neither MLS data nor remarks suggest any putting green or golf practice area. It is almost certain the building has no putting green.

While there is a rooftop pool, no listing calls it a recreation or amenity deck and most agents leave RECARE unchecked. This points to the absence of a distinct, advertised recreation area beyond the pool itself.

Agents do not mark a recreation room amenity and remarks focus on the pool and lanais only. This suggests the building lacks a dedicated recreation room.

Listings emphasize proximity to Waikiki restaurants but never state an in-building restaurant or café. MLS amenities also omit RESTAU, indicating there is no on-site restaurant.

Remarks state 'Take a dip in the sparkling rooftop pool' and 'The building features a roof top pool with views in all directions', and another says 'take a stroll up to the rooftop pool'. This provides clear, repeated evidence that the building has rooftop amenities.

Listings highlight the rooftop pool but omit any reference to a sauna or steam facility. This indicates the building does not have a sauna.

Storage appears to be a real building feature. Across the provided remarks, 1 listing explicitly says "extra storage," while the MLS data also shows storage checked in multiple current listings (amenities and unit features). The evidence is consistent and likely reflects a genuine building amenity rather than a copy-paste error.

I looked for surfboard-specific storage amenities, including combined bike and surfboard storage. The remarks mention extra storage in one listing, but nothing identifies surfboard storage.

There are no references to tennis courts in any remarks and MLS data shows no agents selecting TENCOU. Given the small Waikiki condo context, the building almost certainly has no tennis court.

Strong building-level evidence supports a trash chute: 9 of 10 current MLS listings include the TRACHU amenity. None of the public remarks explicitly mention a trash/garbage/refuse chute, but the recurring MLS checkbox across listings suggests this is a copied, building-level amenity rather than a one-off unit feature.

The remarks reference '2 secured parking', '1 covered, secured parking', and a 'tandem parking stall' but never valet or valet parking. This consistent description across listings strongly suggests there is no valet service at the building.

Three listings do not mark any gated or walled feature and none of the remarks describe the property as gated or fenced. The lone gated/wall/fence checkbox without supporting remarks appears inconsistent, so the building is unlikely to have a notable perimeter wall or gated enclosure.

Descriptions focus on a rooftop pool with views and do not reference any separate hot tub or spa feature. This supports that there is no whirlpool amenity.

Strong evidence supports a building pool. At least 4 listings explicitly mention a pool, including phrases like "rooftop pool deck," "sparkling rooftop pool," "roof top pool with views in all directions," and "take a stroll up to the rooftop pool." The MLS amenity data is also fully consistent across 10/10 listings, so this appears to be a real shared building amenity rather than an agent copy-paste mistake.

Across four separate listings, the pool is described multiple times but never as heated, and no heated-pool options are selected in MLS. This consistent omission strongly suggests the building’s rooftop pool is not heated.

I searched the remarks for any saltwater-pool language. The listings mention a rooftop pool and pool deck, but nothing indicates the pool is salt water.

Strong and repeated evidence that this building offers in-unit laundry. At least 4 listings explicitly mention it, using phrases like "in-unit washer and dryer," "full size stacked front-loading washer and dryer," and "washer & dryer conveniently located in the unit." The consistency across multiple remarks suggests this is not just copy-paste checkbox data but a real building feature.

None of the four listings mention shared or community laundry (e.g., laundry room, coin laundry), and all 4/4 MLS entries omit the community laundry amenity. Given that building-level amenities are typically marked consistently when present, this provides strong evidence that there is no community laundry in the building. Therefore, the feature is set to false with high confidence.

I looked for wording that would indicate paid shared laundry, such as coin laundry or card-operated machines. The remarks only reference in-unit washer/dryer, so there is no evidence of paid community laundry.

I searched the public remarks for references to laundry facilities on each floor or any shared community laundry area. The listings only mention in-unit washer and dryer, which does not support community laundry on every floor.

Every listing for this building includes at least one parking stall in MLS parking_features, and the remarks reference stalls with the units (e.g., '2 secured parking', '1 tandem parking stall'). This strongly indicates the building offers on-site parking for its units.

Assigned parking is strongly confirmed across multiple current listings, with several explicit references to "assigned covered parking" and "assigned covered tandem parking." The evidence appears consistent across different remarks/agents, not just a single copy-paste mention, and it aligns with the prior high-confidence building data.

Covered parking is clearly present for this building and is mentioned in multiple listings. The remarks consistently describe covered/secured parking and tandem covered stalls, reinforcing the existing MLS data rather than suggesting any change.

I searched for deeded, owned, or parking-in-the-deed language and found no such mention. The remarks consistently describe the parking as assigned, which does not indicate deeded ownership.

There is no mention of EV charging in any remarks and no EVCHRG checkbox used in MLS for any listing. Given the complete absence of references, the building likely does not offer dedicated EV charging stations.

I looked for parking fee, monthly parking charge, or parking rental language and found none. The remarks only state that parking is assigned/covered, so no fee can be confirmed from the text.

Neither MLS data nor remarks mention guest or visitor parking. This consistent absence across all listings suggests the building does not provide dedicated guest parking stalls.

Secured parking/entry is supported by explicit wording in the remarks, including "secured entry" and "2 secured parking." The MLS checkbox history is not unanimous but does show repeated secured-parking signals, so this appears to be a genuine feature offered by the building.

Tandem parking is clearly present in the building. Multiple remarks explicitly use the term "tandem," and the historical MLS data shows tandem parking in 5 of 8 listings, indicating this is a recurring building-level parking configuration.

No listing references valet service or attended parking, and the VALET option is never selected in MLS data. This strongly suggests the building does not offer valet parking.

I searched for parking waitlist or waiting-list language and found none. The remarks describe assigned parking directly, which suggests no evidence of a waitlist system in the public remarks.

Elevator security is never mentioned in remarks and is not reflected in the amenity checkboxes in any listing. This consistent absence indicates the building does not use keyed or fob-access elevators as a notable feature.

I looked for explicit card/fob access language such as keycard entry or card reader access. The public remarks only say secured entry, which suggests some security but does not confirm a card-based system.

Across 4 listings, there are no references to a security guard or on-site security staff. Given the repeated omission in both amenities and remarks, it's highly likely the building does not offer a staffed security guard service.

I searched for any reference to patrol service or roving security. The remarks mention secured entry only, with no evidence of security patrol service.

The listings describe multiple building amenities but never mention video surveillance or security cameras, and agents are not checking any related amenity fields. This strongly suggests the building does not have a formal video security system advertised to buyers.

Across 4 listings, no remarks mention central air or HVAC, and 0/4 MLS entries check any central AC fields. One agent says 'AC is allowed in this unit,' suggesting cooling is not centrally provided. Together this strongly indicates the building does not have central AC.

None of the 4 listings check the split AC field or describe mini-split/ductless systems in the remarks. Agents instead talk about trade winds and AC being merely 'allowed,' not an installed split system. This pattern suggests the building is not characterized by split AC in its units.

Evidence supports window/wall AC availability in some units. At least 2 listings reference it directly: one says "wall ac unit in living room" and another says "AC is allowed in this unit." The repeated mention across separate remarks, along with the current MLS checkbox activity, suggests this is not just a copy-paste error.

The evidence strongly supports concrete construction for this building. Current MLS records show 9 of 10 listings marked CONCRE, and the prior summary already indicated all current listings supported concrete construction. None of the public remarks mention a different construction type, so this appears to be a stable building characteristic rather than a copy-paste anomaly.

No current listing remarks explicitly describe double-wall construction, and the building was previously documented with high confidence as concrete rather than double-wall. While 2 of 9 current MLS records have the DOUWAL flag, the absence of corroborating remarks suggests the checkbox is likely erroneous rather than an actual building feature.

Across all available listings, hollow tile construction is never mentioned or selected in MLS. This consistent omission strongly indicates the building is not identified as hollow-tile construction.

Masonry/stucco is supported in a minority of current MLS records, with 2 of 8 listings checked MASSTU. The public remarks do not mention construction materials, so this is driven mainly by MLS data rather than narrative confirmation; it looks like an occasional agent-entered building material entry rather than strong copy-paste consensus.

MLS data never identifies the building as steel frame, while consistently identifying concrete construction. In the absence of any remark-based evidence of steel framing, it is very likely not classified as a steel-frame building in MLS terms.

Only one listing out of seven has 'SLAB' checked in MLS, but prior data showed no slab foundation identification and none of the public remarks mention 'concrete slab' or 'solid concrete foundation.' The weight of evidence indicates no slab designation for the building and the lone checked box is likely an error.

No analysis available

Across all listings, agents consistently select concrete construction and never select wood frame. For a Waikiki condo tower of this type, that strongly indicates the building is not wood-frame construction. No remarks reference any wood-frame elements.

At least one agent explicitly notes above-ground construction in MLS, and none contradict it. Given the building’s multi-story condo form, it is reasonable to treat above-ground construction as present despite inconsistent checkbox use.

No listing suggests any brick construction, and the MLS checkbox for brick is never used for this building. Given the building type and location, brick construction would be unusual and likely highlighted, so it is very likely not a brick building.

No MLS entry or remark references single-wall construction, and the building type is inconsistent with that method. This strongly indicates the building is not single-wall construction.

I searched for STR-specific terms such as short-term rental allowed, STR permitted, NUC, TVU, or legal vacation rental language and found none. The remarks mention investment and vacation use, but that is not enough to confirm short-term rentals are allowed.

I looked for hotel pool references such as hotel rental pool, hotel program, Hilton/Trump/Ritz pool, or similar branded operations, and found none. Because there is no evidence STR is allowed either, this must remain false.

I searched for mandatory pool language such as required participation, cannot opt out, or must be in a rental program and found nothing. With no evidence of a hotel pool at all, mandatory participation is not supported by the remarks.

No listing remarks refer to fee simple ownership or land being included, and the MLS tenure flags show 0 of 4 as Fee Simple. Because the same MLS summary also shows 0 of 4 as Leasehold, the tenure situation cannot be determined confidently from available data.

None of the public remarks mention leasehold status, lease rent, or expiration dates, and the summarized MLS data shows 0 of 4 listings as Leasehold. With land tenure fields not clearly indicating either FS or LH, the presence of leasehold units remains uncertain.

I looked for leasehold language, ground lease end dates, renewal terms, or an explicit lease expiration year, but found nothing. Since no 4-digit expiry year appears in the public remarks, this remains unknown.

I searched the public remarks for VA-specific language such as 'VA approved,' 'VA financing,' or 'VA loans accepted' and found none. The available remarks mention lender approval in a general sense, but that does not establish VA eligibility.

The listing remarks directly state the building has '100% Hurricane insurance,' which is strong explicit evidence of full building insurance coverage. This is a clear positive mention, so the feature is marked true with very high confidence.

No listing remarks reference fire sprinklers or a sprinkler system, and none of the four MLS records have the fire-sprinkler amenity flagged. Given the lack of direct evidence either way, the presence or absence of a building-wide sprinkler system is unknown.

I looked for language such as "fire life safety evaluation passed," "FLSE passed," "life safety compliant," or "passed fire inspection," but the remarks do not mention any of these. With no current positive value provided, the feature is left as false with low confidence based on absence of evidence in the 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

At least one unit remark says 'Ocean views from all over the apartment,' and rooftop pool comments describe wide Waikiki/South Shore vistas. This confirms the building offers ocean-view units and common-area ocean views.

Mountain views are strongly supported across the building. At least several listings explicitly describe 'sweeping mountain and city vistas,' 'beautiful mountain views,' and 'mountain views on the lanai,' which looks like consistent agent copy rather than a one-off mention. Current MLS data shows 7/9 listings with MOUNTA in the view description, reinforcing that this building offers mountain-view units.

Across four listings, agents highlight ocean, mountain, and broad Waikiki/South Shore views but never mention Diamond Head. Given the specificity of other view descriptions, Diamond Head views are unlikely to be a notable feature.

Several listings support city views with phrases such as "sweeping mountain and city vistas" and "soaking in the skyline." Historical remarks also referenced skyline/fireworks views, so this appears to be a real and repeatable building feature.

Listings speak of 'huge views of the whole S Shore and all of Waikiki' plus extensive ocean views. These descriptions strongly suggest visible stretches of shoreline/coastline from the building’s higher levels.

Garden-view evidence is limited but present in the MLS data: 2 of 9 listings are tagged with GARDEN in the view description. None of the provided public remarks explicitly call out garden, courtyard, or landscaped views, so this looks like a small subset of units rather than a commonly marketed feature.

Listings discuss ocean, mountain, skyline, canal, and broad Waikiki views but never reference a golf course. Given agents' tendency to highlight golf views when present, golf-course views are unlikely to be a notable feature.

Marina/canal-view evidence is present across multiple listings, with 4 of 10 current MLS records tagged MARCAN. One remark explicitly says the building is "on the Ala Wai Canal," which is strong supporting evidence for canal/marina-type views, while other remarks emphasize broad Waikiki, ocean, mountain, and rooftop views. The pattern looks consistent rather than a one-off copy-paste artifact.

Across four listings, there are no mentions of sunrise or east-facing views, while other view types are described in detail. This indicates sunrise views are not a notable selling point for the building.

At least two listings point to sunset-oriented views, including "watch Friday night fireworks" and "heading out for a sunset walk along the beach." The rooftop pool and Waikiki exposure reinforce the sunset/evening-view interpretation.

All remarks highlight proximity to beaches, canal, shopping, and Waikiki amenities with no reference to a cemetery. Given the location and silence on this point, cemetery views can be safely ruled out.

This is explicit evidence that fireworks are visible from the building. The wording ties the view directly to the rooftop pool and confirms a true fireworks view from the property.

No analysis available

No analysis available

None of the remarks discuss whether pets are allowed or restricted. With no explicit 'pets allowed' or 'no pets' language and no MLS NOPET flags, the building’s pet policy cannot be confirmed and is treated as not verified/likely restricted for now.

Resident manager appears to be an existing building feature based on MLS amenities, with 6 of 9 listings showing RESMAN checked. None of the public remarks explicitly say “resident manager” or “on-site manager,” so this is supported more by repeated MLS data than marketing copy. Because the historical signal is already high and the amenity appears repeatedly across listings, the feature should be retained.

The units are marketed simply as condos suitable as a primary residence, vacation home, or investment, without any mention of hotel management or programs. The absence of condotel-specific language across all listings and MLS supports that this is not a condotel building.

Remarks describe the property as 'a 699 sqft condo at Oahu Surf II' with no reference to co-op structures. Combined with the lack of any COOTAX or co-op indicators in MLS, this strongly indicates the building is not a cooperative.