Ohualani

All available MLS property records (1 of 1) report the building as built in 1968. No remarks suggest reconstruction or a different construction year, so 1968 is accepted with high confidence.

MLS property data for this building shows a unit on the 7th floor and no evidence of higher floors. With only one listing and no explicit 'x-story' description in remarks, we infer the building has at least 7 floors and tentatively use 7 as the total.

No listing remarks reference the total number of units (e.g., 'x-unit building'), and MLS unit-count data is effectively blank (0). The actual total unit count is unknown; 0 is a placeholder rather than a reliable figure.

The phrase 'OWNER OCCUPIED' here clearly refers to this specific unit, not the entire building's mix. I found no statements like 'X% owner occupied', 'majority owner occupied', or similar building-level metrics, so the prior 30% figure is kept.

The listing remarks do not reference elevators at all. I searched for terms like 'elevator', 'elevators', and 'lift' and found no mentions, so the existing count of 1 elevator is kept by default.

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.

The single MLS listing does not show central AC as an included association fee item and the public remarks are silent about AC being covered. This indicates AC costs are likely the responsibility of individual owners or are not centrally provided. Therefore, central AC is very likely not included in the fees.

Across the available listing (1/1), cable is not marked as included in the association fee and there is no textual mention of cable service being covered. This suggests residents contract and pay for cable separately. Given the lack of any indication otherwise, cable is very likely not included in the maintenance fees.

There is no explicit MLS checkbox or remark indicating that common area electricity is a billed component of the association fee. While most condos pay common electricity from HOA funds, it's not represented as a distinct included-utility feature here. Given the data format, common area electricity is not listed as an included fee item.

The remarks clearly state 'fee simple ownership,' indicating a condo-style tenure rather than a cooperative. The MLS does not mark co-op taxes as included in fees. Together this strongly supports that there are no cooperative taxes included in the maintenance fees.

The single available listing does not show electric service as part of the association-included utilities. No phrase like 'electricity included' or 'all utilities included' appears in the remarks. This makes it very likely that unit electricity is billed separately and not included in the HOA fees.

The MLS data does not indicate gas as an included utility, and the public remarks do not reference gas service at all. Buildings that include gas typically mention it as a selling point. This strongly suggests gas is not included in the maintenance fees.

There is no checkbox or textual indication that building-supplied hot water is an included utility. The remarks only highlight appliances like the washer and dryer, with no reference to hot water service. Accordingly, it is very likely that hot water is not explicitly included in the association fees as a separate feature.

The building's single MLS listing does not list internet as part of the included HOA services. There is no mention of 'internet included' or 'Wi‑Fi included' in the remarks. This indicates residents likely pay for their own internet and it is not bundled in the maintenance fees.

The building (Ohualani in Waikiki) is not represented as having marina facilities in the MLS data, and the text focuses on location, lanai, parking, and interior features only. There are no suggestions that marina access or fees are part of the HOA. Thus, marina-related costs are almost certainly not included in the maintenance fees.

The sole MLS record for this building shows sewer charges as included in the association fee. While the remarks do not restate this, inclusion via the MLS checkbox is typical for building-wide utilities in this market. This is strong evidence that sewer service is paid through the HOA fees.

The building's single MLS listing clearly marks water as an included component of the association fee. The remarks emphasize other selling points but do not dispute this utility inclusion. This strongly indicates that domestic water service is covered by the monthly maintenance fees.

In 1 listing, there is no reference to BBQ areas or grills, and the BBQ checkbox is unchecked (0/1). This strongly suggests the building does not provide shared BBQ facilities.

In 1/1 listing reviewed, there is no indication of bike storage in the amenities and no mention of bike rooms or bicycle storage in the remarks. This consistent lack of reference implies the building does not offer a designated bike storage facility.

The sole listing has MARINA unchecked (0/1) and lacks any description of boat docking or marina facilities. This indicates the building does not provide a boat dock or marina access.

The only listing has CRWSH unchecked (0/1) and lacks any reference to a car wash area. This strongly suggests the building does not offer a car wash facility.

The sole listing has CLUHOU unchecked (0/1) and no mention of a clubhouse. This strongly suggests there is no shared clubhouse in the building.

The single listing omits any mention of concierge or front desk services, focusing instead on in-unit features and price. With the MLS concierge field unchecked, it is very likely the building does not offer concierge service.

With DGPRK unchecked (0/1 listings) and no text about pet exercise areas, the building appears not to have a dedicated dog park or dog run.

In 1/1 listings, there are no references to a doorman or lobby attendant, and the MLS checkbox for doorman is not selected. This strongly suggests the building does not provide doorman service.

Across 1 current listing, there is no mention of an exercise room, fitness center, or gym, and EXEROO is unchecked (0/1 listings). With no corroborating historical evidence, the building is unlikely to offer a shared exercise room.

Across 1 listing, LIMSER is unchecked (0/1) with no hint of building-provided car or limo service. This indicates the building does not provide limousine or house car services.

Across 1 listing, MEEROO is unchecked (0/1) and there is no textual reference to meeting or conference facilities. This indicates the building does not offer a shared meeting room.

1/1 listing for this building mentions 'Relax on the 137 sqft lanai,' clearly indicating a deck/patio-style outdoor space attached to the unit. Even though the MLS checkbox is not marked, this explicit lanai reference is strong evidence that units in the building offer patio/deck-like outdoor space.

The single listing leaves WAJOPA unchecked (0/1) and does not reference on-site jogging or walking paths. This indicates the building does not provide a dedicated jogging/walking path.

The sole listing has PLYGRND unchecked (0/1) and includes no mention of a kids' play area. This suggests the building does not include a shared playground.

The single available listing does not reference any yard, fenced area, or private ground-level outdoor space. With PRIYAR unchecked in MLS amenities and the high-rise Waikiki context, the evidence strongly suggests the building does not offer private yard areas for units.

Across 1 listing, PUTGRE is not selected (0/1) and there is no mention of a putting green. This makes it very likely the building lacks a shared putting green.

With RECARE not selected (0/1 listings) and no language about an amenity deck or recreation area, the building likely does not offer a common recreation area.

1 listing shows RECROO unchecked (0/1) and provides no description of a rec room or game room. This indicates the building probably lacks a shared recreation room.

With RESTAU unchecked (0/1 listings) and no textual evidence of in-building dining, the building appears not to contain a restaurant or similar dining amenity.

The one listing shows ROOFDCK not selected (0/1) and contains no description of rooftop amenities. It is therefore very likely there are no common rooftop features for residents.

With SAUNA not selected (0/1 listings) and no textual mention of sauna facilities, it is very likely the building does not offer a shared sauna.

Across 1/1 recent listing, there is no mention of storage units, storage lockers, or extra storage in either the remarks or the MLS amenities fields. Given the complete absence of any storage-related references or checkboxes, this building is likely not marketed as having dedicated storage units.

The remarks do not mention surfboard storage, board storage, or combined bike and surfboard storage facilities. I searched for terms like 'surfboard storage', 'board storage', and 'surf storage' and found no references. Given the absence of any mention, it's moderately likely the building does not offer dedicated surfboard storage.

The single available listing has TENCOU unchecked (0/1) and no remarks about tennis. This makes it very likely the building has no tennis court.

Across 1 listing, TRACHU is unchecked (0/1) and there is no mention of a trash chute. This suggests the building likely does not have a central trash chute system, though individual floor setups are not described.

1/1 listing simply notes that the unit includes '1 parking space' with no mention of valet or valet parking. Combined with VALET being unchecked in MLS amenities, this strongly indicates the building does not offer valet service.

Across 1/1 listings, there are no phrases like 'gated,' 'fenced,' or 'walled' describing the property, and the relevant MLS amenity is not marked. This indicates the building is not characterized as having a perimeter wall or fence as a notable feature.

The single listing shows WHIRLP unchecked (0/1) and contains no references to a hot tub or whirlpool. This suggests there is no shared whirlpool or spa amenity.

Across 1/1 listings, none check a pool amenity and no remarks reference a swimming pool. Given that agents usually market a pool as a key feature if available, this absence strongly suggests the building does not offer a pool.

Since 0/1 listings indicate any pool and none mention a heated pool, there is no evidence that a heated pool exists in the building. Without a pool at all, a heated pool can be confidently ruled out.

The public remarks describe the unit's features and location but do not reference any pool, including a salt water or saline pool. I searched for terms like 'salt water pool', 'saltwater pool', 'salt pool', and 'saline pool' and found no matches, so this feature is assumed not present based on available information.

One of one current listing explicitly notes 'the unit includes a washer and dryer' and 'washer-dryer included,' and the MLS inclusions also mark a washer/dryer. This confirms that at least some units in the building have in-unit laundry, which is a relevant searchable feature for buyers.

Across the single available listing, the MLS amenities do not include community laundry and the remarks only highlight in-unit washer/dryer as a rare feature, with no reference to shared laundry rooms or facilities. Given the complete lack of mention or checkbox data, community laundry is treated as absent for this building based on current evidence.

The listing does not reference any paid or coin/card-operated community laundry facilities. I looked for terms such as 'coin-op,' 'card-operated,' 'paid laundry,' or 'laundry fee' and found no evidence, so this feature is assumed not present based on the available remarks.

The remarks emphasize in-unit laundry (washer and dryer) and do not reference any shared or community laundry rooms on each floor. I searched for phrases like 'laundry on every floor,' 'community laundry,' or 'laundry room on each floor' and found none, so this feature is assumed not present based on current information.

The only available listing explicitly notes '1 parking space' and the MLS parking_features indicate a stall. With 1/1 listings confirming parking in both the checkbox data and narrative remarks, the building clearly offers on-site parking to at least some units.

MLS checkbox data for 1/1 listings flags ASSIGN in the parking_features field. Even though the remarks do not use the word 'assigned,' agents usually rely on this field for stall type, so it is very likely that parking is assigned/deeded.

In the single listing, the MLS parking_features do not include any covered, carport, or garage codes, and the narrative only mentions '1 parking space' without describing it as covered. Given agents typically highlight covered or garage parking, this strongly suggests the building’s stalls are uncovered/open.

The listing confirms that the unit comes with one parking space, but there is no indication that this space is deeded or owned with the unit. Searched for phrases like 'deeded parking', 'owned parking', and 'parking stall included in deed' and found none. As a result, whether parking is deeded remains unknown.

There are no references to EV charging or stations in the sole listing’s remarks, and the EVCHRG checkbox is not selected in the MLS data. Because EV charging is a notable amenity that agents almost always highlight, this is strong evidence the building does not offer EV charging at this time.

The remarks state that the unit includes one parking space but do not mention any monthly parking charge or separate parking rental arrangement. Searched for terms such as 'parking fee', 'monthly parking charge', and 'additional parking cost' and found no matches. The existence or amount of a parking fee is therefore unknown from this listing.

The single MLS record does not include the GUEST parking feature, and the public remarks are silent on guest or visitor parking. Since guest parking is typically marketed when available, this strongly indicates the building lacks dedicated guest parking.

No secured or gated parking is mentioned in the listing remarks, and the SECENT checkbox is not marked in MLS. With 0/1 listings indicating secure entry, the balance of evidence suggests there is no dedicated secured-entry parking area.

The only listing just notes '1 parking space' and omits any reference to tandem or back-to-back parking. Given the TANDEM feature is not checked in MLS and tandem stalls are usually explicitly disclosed, it is very likely that the building does not use tandem parking.

Neither the checklist data nor the narrative remarks for the single listing mention valet or attended parking. Because valet service is a high-profile amenity that agents reliably advertise, this is extremely strong evidence that the building does not offer valet parking.

The listing describes the unit as including one parking space and does not reference any system of waiting lists for parking. Searched for 'parking waitlist', 'parking waiting list', and similar wording with no results. In the absence of any mention, it is moderately likely that there is no formal parking waitlist system.

The sole listing does not mention a keyed or fob-access elevator or any restricted elevator security. With the related MLS amenity unchecked, this indicates the building likely does not have secure/keyed elevator access.

Public remarks describe location, unit features, and assessments but do not reference any card or fob access system. Searched for terms like key card, fob, electronic access, and card reader with no matches, so card access is assumed not present based on available information.

Across 1/1 current listings, no remarks mention a security guard, on-site security personnel, or 24/7 security. The MLS amenities also do not indicate security guard service, suggesting the building does not offer staffed guard security.

Remarks focus on the unit’s investment potential and basic amenities without any indication of a patrol or roving security service. Searched for references to security patrol or similar wording and found none, so a patrol service is assumed not present based on current data.

In 1/1 listings, there are no mentions of security cameras, CCTV, or video surveillance. Combined with the unchecked MLS security system field, this suggests the building does not advertise or provide video security as a feature.

Across 1 listing, no MLS checkboxes for central AC are selected and the remarks never mention 'central air', 'central AC', or 'HVAC'. Given that central AC is a major selling point that agents almost always advertise, this strongly suggests the building does not have central air conditioning. Evidence is limited to one agent but is consistent between the structured data and remarks.

In the single available listing, no split-AC-related inclusions (ACSPL) are marked and the narrative remarks contain no terms like 'split AC', 'mini-split', or 'ductless'. Agents generally highlight split systems when they exist, so the absence of both checkbox and textual mentions points to no split AC in this building. Evidence is limited but internally consistent.

The single listing has no ACWIUN flag set and contains no phrases such as 'window AC', 'window unit', or 'wall AC'. Given that other minor features are highlighted but AC is not, it is more likely that window AC is not a defined feature of the building. The conclusion is based on one consistent but limited data point.

The sole current MLS listing for this building explicitly checks CONCRE in construction_materials, indicating concrete construction. No listings or remarks suggest any alternative primary construction type.

The single current listing omits double-wall construction and instead identifies concrete as the construction type. No remarks mention double-wall construction.

No current listings (1/1) indicate hollow tile construction, and remarks are silent on it. This makes hollow tile construction very unlikely for this building.

The single MLS listing does not list masonry/stucco and provides no textual support for it. This indicates the building is not categorized as masonry/stucco construction in MLS.

1/1 listings mark concrete construction and do not check steel frame. With no remarks indicating steel-frame construction, it is very likely this is not a steel-frame building in MLS terms.

The 1/1 current listing does not identify slab construction and provides no textual support for a slab foundation. Therefore, the building is very likely not recorded in MLS as slab construction.

No analysis available

1/1 current MLS listings omit wood-frame construction and instead mark concrete as the construction type. No remarks mention wood-frame construction, so it is very likely not applicable for this building.

Above-ground construction is not checked in the only MLS record and is not mentioned in remarks. This strongly suggests the building is not flagged as above-ground construction in MLS.

Brick construction is not checked in the 1/1 MLS listing and is not mentioned in remarks. This strongly suggests the building is not classified as brick construction.

Single-wall construction is not selected in the 1/1 MLS listing and is incompatible with the recorded concrete construction. No remarks suggest single-wall construction.

Searched for terms like 'short-term rental allowed', 'vacation rental', 'NUC', 'TVU', or 'hotel operations' but none were present. The emphasis on owner occupancy suggests the building is primarily residential and not oriented to STR use, so STR is marked as not allowed based on current evidence.

Searched for 'hotel rental pool', 'hotel program', 'managed by hotel', or branded hotel pool references and found none. Given the lack of STR indications and no hotel-related language, the building is treated as not participating in any hotel rental pool.

Looked for phrases like 'mandatory hotel pool', 'required to participate', or 'must be in rental program' and found no references. With no evidence of even an optional hotel program, mandatory participation is marked as false.

The single available listing describes the unit as 'fee simple ownership.' Thus, the building clearly offers fee simple units (1 of 1 listings observed are Fee Simple), though other tenures may also exist.

The only available listing is explicitly fee simple and does not reference any lease or lease rent, and MLS tenure data shows no leasehold flag. With limited data, we treat leasehold as not evidenced in this building, but with moderate (not absolute) confidence.

The property is explicitly described as fee simple, indicating it is not leasehold. Because there is no land lease, there is no lease expiry year to report.

The remarks focus on ownership type, price, and features but do not reference VA loan eligibility. In the absence of any mention of VA approval, this is treated as likely not VA-approved.

The remarks do not discuss the building's insurance coverage level. I searched for terms such as 'fully insured', 'full insurance', 'comprehensive building insurance', and 'walls-in coverage' and found no references, so this is set to false by default.

No current listing or remarks indicate the presence of a fire sprinkler system, and the relevant MLS checkbox is unchecked. Because agents frequently omit this detail even when present, this is a low-confidence 'false' based on lack of evidence rather than proof of absence.

There is no indication in the remarks that the building has passed a fire/life safety evaluation. I looked for phrases like 'fire life safety evaluation passed', 'FLSE passed', 'fire safety certified', and 'passed fire inspection' and found none, so this is assumed 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

Across 1 listing, no remarks or MLS view fields mention ocean, water, or makai views. Evidence is limited to a single unit description focused on location and interior features, so ocean views cannot be confirmed.

In 1 listing, neither remarks nor MLS view fields reference any mountain or mauka views. With no explicit or implied mentions, mountain views cannot be verified for this building.

For the single listing reviewed, there are no mentions of Diamond Head, DH, or crater views in remarks or view fields. There is insufficient evidence that any units offer Diamond Head views.

The 1 available listing emphasizes location but does not state 'city view', 'urban view', or similar. Without explicit mention in view fields or remarks, city views cannot be confirmed at the building level.

The single listing provides no indication of coastal or shoreline vistas. Thus coastline views are not verifiable at this time.

The single listing does not reference garden, courtyard, or landscaped views in remarks or view fields. There is no clear evidence of garden views in this building.

Across 1 listing, nothing indicates a golf course outlook. The absence of golf-related view terms means golf course views are not currently verifiable.

In the only listing reviewed, there is no wording suggesting marina, harbor, or canal views. Thus marina views are not supported by current evidence.

With only 1 listing and no references to sunrise or morning light, sunrise views cannot be established for this building.

For the 1 listing, there is no explicit or implied reference to sunset or evening views. Current evidence does not support confirming sunset views for the building.

Across 1 listing, there are no mentions of a cemetery, which agents usually disclose due to sensitivity. Given this and the lack of any cemetery view codes, it is very likely the building does not have cemetery views.

The description highlights the Waikiki location and lanai size but does not mention any view of Friday night fireworks from the building or unit. Without explicit reference to fireworks visibility, this feature is assumed not present.

No analysis available

The only listing provides no information about pets and MLS does not mark a 'no pets' restriction. With no explicit language either allowing or prohibiting pets, there is insufficient evidence to confirm that pets are allowed, so this field is treated as not confirmed/false by default.

The available listing does not reference a resident/on-site manager, and the corresponding MLS amenity is not selected. Given typical underreporting of this feature, we currently assume no resident manager with low confidence.

1/1 listing frames the property as owner-occupied with no language about hotel rental pools, front desk, or condotel/condo-hotel operation. With CONDOT not selected in the MLS style data, it is very likely the building is not operated as a condotel.

The listing clearly notes 'fee simple ownership,' which aligns with condominium, not co-op, ownership. With no cooperative terminology in the remarks or MLS fee-includes data, the building is almost certainly not a co-op.