Parkview

MLS property data is fully consistent, with every listing reporting 1967 as the year built. No agent remarks indicate any alternative build year or complete rebuild, so 1967 is accepted as the construction year with high confidence.

The highest observed unit floor is 12, and an agent specifically describes a unit 'on the 12th floor of Parkview,' with no evidence of higher stories. In the absence of any 'top floor' references above 12, the building is most likely 12 stories tall. Confidence is moderate because no listing states the total floor count explicitly.

Across all analyzed remarks, no agent mentions a phrase like 'X-unit building' or 'one of X units.' MLS unit-total data is effectively missing (all zeros), so the total number of units in the building cannot be reliably determined.

The remarks describe the building as a 'boutique' condominium and mention various use cases (primary home, vacation home, rentals) but do not quantify owner occupancy. With no explicit percentages or qualitative claims about high owner-occupancy, there is no basis to change the pre-existing 50% figure. The current value is kept, but it is not reaffirmed by the listings.

Listings confirm the presence of an elevator (e.g., 'secured entry and elevator') but never state how many. Existing building data indicates there is 1 elevator and nothing in the remarks contradicts this. Given the 13-story, 50-unit context, 1 elevator is plausible, so the current value is retained.

Calculated from the lowest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.

Calculated from the highest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.

Calculated from association fees observed in penthouse unit listings for this building.

No remarks mention central air conditioning being provided by the building or included in fees, and one listing specifies a split A/C system, which is typically individually owned. With 0/13 MLS entries marking ACCEN, it is very likely that central A/C is not a building-included utility.

Cable TV is mentioned in several listings as a building amenity (e.g., 'Cable TV. Car wash area.', 'including ... cable TV services'), and 13/13 MLS entries include CABTV in association_fee_includes. This consistent pattern across many agents strongly indicates cable TV is included in the maintenance fees.

Several listings (5/13) explicitly mark other common expenses/common area utilities in the HOA includes. Given the presence of a pool, elevators, and common areas, it's reasonable to conclude that common area electricity is covered by the maintenance fees, despite some agent checkbox inconsistency.

Listings repeatedly call the building a 'condominium' or 'condo' and discuss leasehold vs fee simple, never co-op ownership or co-op taxes. With no MLS entries showing COOTAX, cooperative taxes are almost certainly not part of the fees.

Across all provided remarks there is no mention of electricity being included in HOA fees. Combined with 0/13 MLS ELECTR checkboxes, this strongly indicates that maintenance fees do not cover individual unit electric service.

No listing remarks reference gas utilities or gas-inclusive fees. Together with the complete absence of the GAS flag in MLS, this supports that gas is not included in the maintenance fees.

No remarks mention hot water being included in the maintenance fees, and several listings indicate units have their own water heaters. With more listings showing WTRHTR than HOTWAT, it is very likely that hot water is not a common building utility covered by the fees.

There are no explicit references to 'internet included' or similar in the remarks, despite agents frequently highlighting included utilities. With just 2/13 MLS entries marking INTSER and the rest not, internet service is unlikely to be included in the maintenance fees.

Remarks focus on proximity to beaches, park, zoo, and Waikiki attractions, not to any marina or boating facility. Combined with no MARINA flags in MLS data, marina fees or access are clearly not included in the maintenance fees.

Although remarks do not spell out sewer, nearly all listings (12 of 13) indicate SEWER in the HOA-included fields. This consistent MLS pattern across many agents supports that sewer is included in the maintenance fees.

Even though the public remarks do not explicitly say 'water included,' every listing marks WATER in the fee-includes section. This unanimity across multiple agents is strong evidence that water service is included in the maintenance fees.

The remarks do not mention any BBQ or grill facilities, which are typically highlighted if present. MLS amenities also show no BBQ box checked, suggesting the building does not have a BBQ area.

Across all the supplied listings, agents frequently call out storage and surfboard storage but never mention any kind of bike storage. With 0/13 MLS records checking a bike storage amenity and the complete absence of references in detailed remarks, it is very likely that the building does not offer dedicated bicycle storage.

Remarks focus on proximity to Waikiki Beach and Kapiolani Park rather than any direct marina or docking facilities. The MLS data shows no marina/boat-dock amenity, so the building does not offer boat docking.

Several remarks describe a car wash amenity, using phrases like 'Car wash area' and 'car wash station' as part of the building features. The majority of MLS records also mark the car wash amenity, providing strong, multi-source confirmation.

Descriptions focus on the boutique nature of the building, pool, storage, and car wash, without any reference to a clubhouse. The MLS amenities corroborate this absence, so a clubhouse is very unlikely.

Remarks focus on features like pool, storage, resident manager, and secured entry but never refer to concierge or front-desk services. This consistent omission across many listings indicates there is no concierge service in the building.

While pets are referenced in terms of house rules, there is no advertised dedicated dog park or dog run. The MLS amenity field for dog park is consistently unchecked, indicating the building lacks this feature.

Multiple agents highlight a resident manager but no listing mentions a doorman or lobby attendant. Given how consistently such a service is marketed when available, the building is very unlikely to have a doorman.

None of the provided remarks reference an exercise room, fitness center, or gym. Combined with the absence of the EXEROO amenity in all current MLS records, this strongly indicates the building does not offer a shared exercise room.

Although the building is described as convenient and boutique, there is no mention of any courtesy car or limo service, which would typically be highlighted in a luxury context. The MLS amenities confirm the absence of limo or car service.

Despite detailed amenity lists, no listing advertises a meeting or conference room. The lack of any MLS flag for a meeting room supports that the building does not offer this facility.

Multiple independent listings describe a building-level patio/deck amenity, often paired with the pool (e.g., 'patio deck' and 'pool and deck at the lobby level'). With 10/13 MLS entries checking this amenity and consistent narrative descriptions, it is clearly a shared building feature.

While jogging and walking opportunities clearly exist in the surrounding park, there is no claim of a dedicated jogging or walking path as a building amenity. MLS data confirms no such amenity is recorded for the property.

Family-friendly nearby amenities (park, zoo, beach) are mentioned, yet no listing claims the building itself has a children's playground. The MLS data aligns with this absence, so an on-site playground is very unlikely.

All outdoor space descriptions are lanais, balconies, or the pool/deck, with no indication of any private yard or enclosed ground-level yard space. Given the urban mid-rise condo context and complete absence of yard mentions, a private yard is very unlikely.

Golf-related amenities such as a putting green are never mentioned, which would be unusual if present. The MLS amenity list also does not include a putting green, strongly indicating none exists in the building.

Remarks refer to a 'swimming pool and deck' but not a broader recreation or amenity deck beyond the pool area. Given the explicit MLS omission of a recreation area amenity, this is treated as a standard pool deck rather than a coded recreation area.

Across the listings, amenities like pool, storage, and car wash are described but no recreation or game room is ever mentioned. MLS checkbox data also omits any recreation room amenity, indicating the building likely lacks this feature.

The neighborhood is noted for its restaurant options, yet none of the listings state that the building houses its own restaurant or dining facility. MLS amenities also omit any restaurant designation, so this feature is not present.

Views and lanais are emphasized, but there is no indication of any shared rooftop deck or rooftop amenity space. MLS data also shows no rooftop amenity, so rooftop access is not considered a building feature.

Given that listings go into detail on renovated interiors and key amenities, the lack of any sauna mention is notable. The corresponding MLS amenity field is also never checked, strongly suggesting the building has no sauna.

Storage space is repeatedly highlighted: listings reference a 'dedicated storage locker', 'separate storage unit', 'additional storage', 'assigned additional storage & surf locker', and 'individual storage unit'. At least 7–8 different listings from different agents mention some form of storage, and 12/13 MLS records check storage in amenities, so building storage units/lockers clearly exist.

Public remarks repeatedly confirm that the building has surfboard storage or surf lockers available, sometimes by option, lottery, or availability. These consistent references across multiple listings indicate that dedicated surfboard storage facilities exist in the building.

One listing notes the building is in close proximity to tennis, clearly referring to nearby park facilities rather than on-site courts. The lack of MLS tennis-court amenity flags further supports that the building itself has no tennis court.

One detailed amenity list states that the building has a 'trash chute,' and nearly all MLS records mark the trash chute amenity. This consistent evidence from remarks and MLS strongly confirms a building-wide trash chute system.

Parking is consistently described as assigned or covered stalls with a car wash, but never as valet or hotel-style service. The lack of any valet references across many listings and agents strongly indicates there is no valet service.

Listings emphasize its open, park-adjacent location and never describe it as gated or enclosed by a wall or fence. The absence of any 'gated' or similar language across many agents’ remarks strongly suggests there is no perimeter wall or fence enclosing the property.

Amenity descriptions repeatedly say 'swimming pool' and 'pool and deck' only, with no indication of a separate whirlpool or hot tub. MLS records likewise do not show a whirlpool amenity, so this feature is considered absent.

The building clearly has a shared swimming pool. 6 of 12 listings explicitly mention a pool or swimming pool, and all 13 current MLS entries show a pool amenity checked, with consistent phrasing like 'swim in the pool' and 'Swimming pool and deck are at the lobby level.' This repeated confirmation across multiple agents and listings provides very strong evidence the building offers a common pool.

While many listings highlight the building’s pool, none call it a heated pool, and 0/13 MLS records select any heated-pool feature. Because agents repeatedly market the pool without ever mentioning heat and the MLS checkboxes agree, the evidence strongly indicates the building’s pool is unheated.

I searched all remarks for terms like 'salt water pool', 'saltwater pool', 'salt pool', or 'saline pool' and found no matches. The pool is repeatedly mentioned but never characterized as salt water, so this is assumed not to be a salt water pool in the absence of explicit evidence.

Multiple listings explicitly mention in-unit laundry, including phrases like 'Washer and dryer are in the unit', 'in-unit washer and dryer', and 'newer washer/dryer in the unit'. Combined with 13/13 MLS entries showing washer/dryer in inclusions, this strongly supports that the building offers units with in-unit laundry. Buyers seeking in-unit laundry would reasonably consider this building.

No listing remarks reference any shared or coin-operated laundry, even when describing building amenities at length. With 0/13 MLS listings marking COMLAU and repeated emphasis on in-unit washer/dryers instead, the evidence points to the absence of a community laundry facility.

Looked for indications such as 'coin laundry', 'coin-op', 'card-operated laundry', 'laundry fee', or 'paid laundry' and none appear in the remarks. The focus on in-unit washer/dryer implies that if any shared laundry exists, it is not prominently advertised as a paid amenity.

Searched remarks for phrases like 'laundry on each floor', 'laundry room on every floor', or similar, and found none. Listings repeatedly emphasize in-unit laundry, suggesting no separate every-floor community laundry is being marketed.

Multiple listings state the unit includes 'one parking stall' or '1 parking', confirming that units in this building have on-site parking. MLS parking_features also show that every listing has a parking type checked and none report no parking. Evidence is consistent across many agents and listings, so building parking is clearly available.

Remarks for several listings specifically note 'an assigned parking stall', a 'Large assigned Parking stall', and numbered stalls such as 'one parking stall 41', implying deeded or reserved spaces. With most MLS records also marking ASSIGN, it's clear that stalls are individually assigned rather than first-come-first-served.

At least one listing notes 'the best-fully covered parking stall in the building' and another advertises '1 assigned garage parking stall', confirming the presence of covered or garage parking. Coupled with most MLS entries indicating covered or garage spaces, the building clearly offers covered parking options, even if not every stall is covered.

Remarks consistently describe each condo as including its own assigned parking stall, often explicitly saying the unit 'comes with' a stall. There is no indication that stalls are rented separately or subject to separate agreements, which strongly suggests parking is owned/assigned with the unit (effectively deeded). Based on repeated patterns across many listings, the building is treated as having deeded/assigned parking for units that include stalls.

Across all provided remarks, there is no reference to EV charging stations or electric-vehicle amenities. The MLS data also uniformly omits any EV-related checkbox, so it's very likely that the building does not offer EV charging at this time.

I searched the remarks for terms such as 'parking fee,' 'monthly parking,' 'parking rent,' and similar phrases and found none. While many units clearly include a stall, nothing specifies whether there is or is not an additional monthly parking charge. Because the presence or absence of a separate parking fee is never addressed, the actual monthly parking fee amount is unknown.

None of the marketing remarks for these units, which frequently list amenities like storage, pool, and car wash area, mention guest or visitor parking. With just a single MLS instance of GUEST among 13 and no textual support, the evidence points to the building not offering dedicated guest parking stalls.

Agents describe a 'secured lobby entrance' and 'secured entry and elevator', which refer to building access, not the parking area. With almost all MLS records leaving SECENT unchecked and no explicit mention of gated or controlled parking entry, there's insufficient evidence that the parking itself is within a secured-entry facility.

Listings consistently describe 'one parking stall' or '1 parking' without indicating tandem arrangements. The complete absence of TANDEM in MLS data or remarks supports that tandem parking is not a building feature.

Across many listings, amenities such as pool, resident manager, cable TV, and car wash area are described, but valet service is never mentioned. Combined with the lack of VALET in MLS parking_features, this strongly indicates the building does not provide valet parking.

Listings repeatedly mention that units have their own assigned parking stall without any reference to applying or waiting for a stall. I specifically looked for 'parking waitlist,' 'waiting list for parking,' or similar language and found none. Given multiple detailed amenity descriptions that omit any such system, it is likely the building does not use a parking waitlist.

At least one agent describes the building as having 'secured entry and elevator,' indicating that elevator access is controlled, not open to the public. This phrasing goes beyond simple building entry security and implies a keyed or fob-access elevator system.

I searched the remarks for terms like key card, fob access, keycard entry, card reader, and electronic access. While the building is described as having secured entry, there is no explicit indication that access uses a card or fob system, so this feature is assumed not present based on current information.

Remarks repeatedly reference a resident manager and secured entry, but never a security guard or 24-hour security across many listings. Given the boutique, mid-sized nature of the building and consistent omission of any guard-related terms, it is very likely there is no dedicated security guard service.

I looked for references to security patrol, roving security, building patrols, or similar terms and found none. In the absence of any explicit mention, it is assumed there is no security patrol service for this building.

Listings describe the building as having secured entry but provide no reference to cameras, CCTV, or any form of video monitoring. The consistent silence about video systems across many detailed remarks suggests the building does not have a notable security video system.

No listing remarks mention central or building-wide air conditioning, and 0/13 listings flag central AC in the primary unit_features field (only 1/13 in inclusions, likely a mis-click). This strongly suggests the building does not have a central AC system and instead relies on individual unit systems.

At least one listing clearly advertises a 'split A/C system in the main living room,' and 3 out of 13 listings check the MLS split AC option. This shows that some units in the building do have split AC, so buyers seeking split systems should consider this building.

Window AC is not called out in the narrative remarks, but 8 of 13 listings mark window-unit AC in the MLS inclusions. This majority pattern indicates that numerous units in the building use window (or wall) AC, making it a reasonable building-level feature to include.

Evidence from the MLS is unanimous: 13 of 13 listings mark concrete construction. Public remarks describe a mid‑century boutique condominium high‑rise, which in this area and era is almost always reinforced concrete, and no listing contradicts this.

A minority but notable share (4 of 13) of listings identify double‑wall construction. Although remarks are silent, this repeated MLS selection indicates the building likely incorporates double‑wall construction within its concrete framework.

Hollow tile is not selected in any MLS construction_materials entries, and no agents mention it in remarks. This strongly indicates hollow tile is not a defining construction type here.

There are no MLS indications of masonry/stucco construction and no textual references to stucco or masonry walls. The building instead is consistently represented as a concrete high‑rise.

A small minority (2 of 13) of MLS entries mark steel frame, but all mark concrete and no remarks mention steel construction. This pattern indicates a concrete high‑rise where steel is not the marketed or primary construction type.

Several listings (3 of 13) explicitly mark slab in construction_materials, and the building’s type strongly aligns with slab‑on‑grade or podium‑slab construction. No remarks or MLS data suggest any alternative foundation type.

No analysis available

Zero MLS listings indicate wood‑frame construction, and the building type (mid‑century concrete high‑rise) is inconsistent with wood‑frame structure. No remarks mention any wood‑frame construction.

Some MLS entries (2 of 13) mark above‑ground construction, and remarks describe lobby‑level amenities and garage parking typical of an elevated residential tower. This supports the presence of above‑ground construction elements.

No listing indicates brick construction and the remarks never mention brick or brick‑and‑mortar. The building’s style and location make brick construction very unlikely.

No agent flags single‑wall construction and the building type (mid‑century high‑rise) is inconsistent with traditional single‑wall structures. Remarks do not mention single‑wall or similar terms.

Public remarks consistently describe a minimum rental term of 90 days / three months, which indicates that short-term, hotel-style rentals are not permitted. No listing mentions nightly or weekly rentals, NUC/TVU, or similar transient use permissions. Based on this, short-term rentals are considered not allowed in this building.

Because the building imposes a 3‑month minimum rental term and does not function as a transient lodging property, participation in a hotel rental pool is not supported. Listings do not reference any hotel program, hotel operator, or rental pool structure. Accordingly, a hotel rental pool is considered not present for this building.

No remarks indicate that owners must participate in a hotel or centralized rental program, nor is any such program described. Given the longer minimum rental terms and lack of hotel operations, there is no basis for a mandatory hotel pool in this building.

At least 3 of the 12 analyzed listings are clearly fee simple, using phrases such as 'FS,' 'fee simple condo,' and 'This Fee Simple two bedroom.' Other listings do not contradict this, and some leasehold units even describe the option to purchase the fee. Overall, the building clearly offers fee simple units alongside leasehold ones (at least 3 FS vs. at least 6 LH listings in these remarks).

At least 6 of the 12 analyzed listings explicitly state they are leasehold, with details like 'lease expiring in 2045,' 'fixed lease payments at $293/mo for next 20yrs,' 'lease rent is a fixed amount for the next 20+ years,' and 'Lease rent set for another 22 years without stepups at $308/mo.' Several listings also mention the option to convert from leasehold to fee simple, confirming both LH and FS exist in the building (at least 6 LH vs. at least 3 FS in these remarks).

Multiple listings identify the building/units as leasehold and discuss lease rent terms, but only one provides a specific expiry year, 2045. In the absence of any conflicting or extended lease dates, 2045 is taken as the leasehold expiration year.

The remarks highlight views, location, leasehold terms, renovations, and amenities but never reference VA approval or VA loan eligibility. Given this absence across multiple listings, the building is likely not marketed as VA-approved.

Across all provided remarks, there is no reference to HOA-provided full or walls-in building insurance coverage. Insurance is usually highlighted when it is a strong selling point, and no prior data exists for this field. Therefore, it is assumed not fully insured by the HOA by default due to lack of evidence.

Agents frequently describe amenities such as pool, resident manager, cable TV, car wash area, storage, and secured entry/elevator, but never mention fire sprinklers or a sprinkler system. MLS amenity checkboxes are uniformly negative for sprinklers, so it is very likely the building does not have a fire sprinkler system.

The remarks focus on location, views, amenities, lease terms, and renovations, but do not reference any fire/life safety evaluation or passing a fire inspection. As this is typically advertised when present and no current data exists, it is treated as not confirmed/passed. In the absence of explicit evidence, 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

Multiple listings explicitly reference ocean or peek-a-boo ocean views (e.g., 'peak-a-boo ocean and iconic Diamond Head views,' 'Peek a boo ocean view'). MLS view_descriptions also show OCEAN in 2 of 13 listings with NONE never selected, confirming that some units offer ocean views. Buyers seeking ocean-view units would reasonably consider this building.

At least four listings mention mountains directly in the view description (e.g., 'mountain and city views,' 'city and mountains'). With MOUNTA selected in 7 of 13 MLS view_descriptions and no units marked NONE, mountain views are clearly available from some units. This makes the building attractive to buyers wanting mountain vistas.

Eight or more listings repeatedly highlight Diamond Head views with strong language like 'direct views,' 'panoramic,' and 'unobstructed Diamond Head views.' MLS view_descriptions back this up with DIAHEA checked in 5 of 13 listings. Diamond Head outlooks are a signature feature of this building.

Several units are advertised with city or city-and-mountain views, including 'mountain and city views' and 'city and mountains.' With CITY selected in 7 of 13 MLS records, city views are clearly available from some stacks. This is a meaningful building-level view attribute for urban-view buyers.

At least one agent markets views of the 'Gold Coast,' a known coastal shoreline area, alongside Diamond Head and mountain vistas, indicating a recognizable coastline outlook. COASTL is also checked in one MLS record. This combination suggests that certain units enjoy coastline views.

Multiple units are marketed with treetop and park views, including 'lush greenery' and 'lovely treetop views' over Kapiolani Park. GARDEN is also checked in 3 out of 13 MLS records. Buyers looking for green, landscaped or park views would find this building relevant.

Listings highlight Kapiolani Park, Diamond Head, ocean, city, and mountain views, but never describe golf course or Ala Wai Golf Course vistas. The lone GOLCOU checkbox in the MLS is best interpreted as a data error rather than a real view type. Golf course views are therefore not considered a building feature.

Across a large set of remarks, views are consistently described as Diamond Head, ocean, park, city, and mountains, with no references to marina, harbor, or canal outlooks. Only a single MLS entry shows MARCAN, likely due to mis-clicked data. Given the lack of corroborating narrative evidence, marina/canal views are not treated as a building feature.

At least two listings directly promote sunrise views, including a 'sunrise balcony' and 'sunrises' alongside Diamond Head vistas. Together with SUNRIS selected in MLS data, this shows that some units offer desirable morning/sunrise exposures. This is a legitimate building-level view feature.

One listing specifically advertises a 'sunset balcony' for evening enjoyment, implying a west-facing or sunset-exposed orientation. SUNSET appears in the MLS view_descriptions for at least one listing. This indicates that certain units in the building do offer sunset views.

All marketing focuses on views of Diamond Head, Kapiolani Park, ocean, city, and mountains, with no hints of cemetery proximity or outlooks. MLS data likewise never flags cemetery views. It is highly unlikely that any units in this building have cemetery views.

Listings emphasize Diamond Head, park, city, mountain, and peek-a-boo ocean views, but do not mention Friday night or any fireworks views. This consistent omission suggests the building is not promoted for fireworks viewing from units.

No analysis available

Remarks specify that service and emotional support pets are allowed if registered with the AOAO, showing the building permits pets under defined rules. There are no contrary 'no pets' statements, so the building should be treated as pets-allowed (with restrictions).

Several agents independently highlight an on-site manager, using phrases like 'dedicated resident manager,' 'Well managed by resident manager,' and 'The building has a resident manager.' Combined with the MLS amenity data (resident manager checked in most listings), this provides very strong evidence the building has a resident manager on-site.

The building is consistently marketed as a residential/boutique condo with minimum 3‑month rentals, which is inconsistent with hotel-style nightly rental operations. With no references to hotel management, front desk, or rental pool, it is not operating as a condotel.

Ownership is repeatedly described in standard condo terms (fee simple and leasehold) rather than shares or cooperative ownership. The consistent condominium terminology and absence of any co-op language confirm it is not a cooperative building.