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.

I looked for explicit statements such as "80% owner occupied," "majority owner occupied," or similar wording, but found none. Since the current value already exists and there is no remark-based evidence to change it, it is retained at 50%. The listings do not allow a more precise update.

The public remarks confirm an elevator exists in the building. Because no listing explicitly states a higher count such as "multiple elevators" or a specific number, the current value of 1 is retained. For a 12-story, 50-unit building, one elevator is plausible and consistent with the remarks.

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.

Multiple public remarks across listings explicitly list 'Cable TV' or 'cable tv services' (at least 4 separate remarks). CURRENT MLS data also shows 14/16 listings checked CABTV. Evidence is consistent across agents and listings, supporting inclusion of cable in the maintenance fees.

MLS checkbox OTCOEX appears in 8 of 16 current listings suggesting common area/other common expenses may be included. However, public remarks contain no explicit mentions of 'common area electricity' or 'building power included', so the signal is primarily from MLS entries and may reflect agent copy/paste; confidence is moderate (implied).

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 public remarks claim 'hot water included' and CURRENT MLS shows HOTWAT in only 2 of 16 listings while WTRHTR appears in 5 listings, indicating many units have their own water heaters. Historical confidence was high that hot water is not included in maintenance, so hot water is omitted from fees with high confidence.

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.

CURRENT MLS data lists SEWER as included in 15 of 16 listings and historical evaluations rated this feature with high confidence. Although public remarks don't frequently state 'sewer included', the consistent MLS checkbox across almost all listings provides strong evidence that sewer is included in the fees.

All current MLS listings (16/16) list WATER as included in association/maintenance fees, and historical data also supported this. No public remarks dispute this; the consistency across all listings yields very high confidence that water is included.

No listings' public remarks mention BBQ, barbecue, grill, or grilling area. MLS data shows only 1/14 listings with BBQ checked (likely an agent error), and repeated agent remarks emphasize pool/deck and other amenities but never grills; therefore there is strong evidence the building does not offer BBQ facilities.

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.

Historical MLS records marked car wash in 10 of 16 listings and several current remarks explicitly state 'Car wash area' or 'car wash station' (appearing in multiple listing remarks). Mentions are consistent across different listings/agents, providing strong evidence the building offers a car wash facility.

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.

Strong evidence across listings: at least 10+ separate public remarks reference outdoor spaces (repeatedly quoting 'two lanais', 'private lanai', 'Relax on the patio deck or swim in the pool', and 'Swimming pool and deck are adjacent to the lobby'). Multiple agents independently mention lanais and a building pool/deck, consistent with prior high-confidence MLS checkbox data, indicating the building offers patio/deck amenities.

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.

Several listings explicitly mention a shared pool and deck/amenity deck (quotes include 'Swimming pool and deck are at the lobby level' and 'refreshing swimming pool'), appearing in multiple agent remarks across the dataset (approximately 4 listings reference pool/deck). This consistent, explicit language indicates a building-level recreation/amenity area despite inconsistent MLS checkbox usage.

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.

Strong, consistent evidence across current remarks: approximately 10 listings explicitly mention building storage (phrases include 'extra storage locker', 'dedicated storage locker', 'separate storage unit', 'individual storage unit', and 'assigned additional storage & surf locker'). This corroborates prior high-confidence MLS checkbox data (13/15 listings with storage amenity) and indicates the building does offer storage units/lockers.

This feature is clearly supported by the remarks. Multiple listings explicitly mention surfboard storage or surf lockers, including references to availability by lottery/application.

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.

Historical records show 13 of 16 listings marked a trash chute and current public remarks explicitly list 'trash chute' (e.g., 'The building has ... trash chute'), confirming the building has a trash/garbage chute. The evidence is consistent across MLS records and agent remarks, indicating 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.

High-confidence evidence that the building has a pool: all current MLS entries (16/16) include the pool amenity and numerous public remarks explicitly reference a pool ('community pool', 'swimming pool and deck', 'refreshing swimming pool'). The mentions appear across multiple agent listings and consistently describe a shared building pool, so the feature is well-supported.

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 for any indication that the pool is salt water. The remarks only confirm a pool or swimming pool and do not specify the water type.

High confidence that some units have in-unit laundry: multiple current listings (at least 7 separate remarks) explicitly mention in-unit washer/dryer—phrases include 'in-unit washer and dryer', 'your own washer and dryer right in the unit', and 'Washer and dryer are in the unit'. This confirms historical MLS inclusions (16/16) and appears consistent across different agents rather than a single copy/paste error.

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.

I looked for explicit references to paid laundry such as coin laundry, coin-op, card-operated machines, or laundry fees. The remarks only mention in-unit washer/dryer and do not indicate any paid community laundry facility.

I searched the remarks for phrases like 'laundry on each floor,' 'laundry room on every floor,' and similar wording. The listings instead mention in-unit washer/dryer, but nothing about community laundry on each floor.

Strong evidence that the building has on-site parking: MLS checkbox data indicates parking present in all 14 listings, and numerous remarks explicitly mention parking stalls such as 'one parking stall', 'assigned parking stall', and '1 assigned garage parking stall'. The consistency across many agent remarks and the uniform MLS parking checkbox support a high-confidence true value.

Strong evidence that the building offers assigned parking: at least 8–10 separate listing remarks explicitly reference assigned or reserved stalls (phrases include 'assigned parking stall', 'Large assigned Parking stall', 'assigned additional storage'). Historical MLS data also showed high confidence (12/16 listings with ASSIGN), and the current remarks consistently confirm the feature rather than appearing to be a single agent copy/paste.

Clear evidence the building has covered parking: multiple listing remarks (at least 4–6) explicitly describe covered or garage parking stalls (quotes include '1 covered parking stall', 'assigned covered parking stall', 'best-fully covered parking stall', 'assigned garage parking stall'). This aligns with historical MLS checkbox prevalence (12/16) and appears across different agent remarks.

I looked for 'deeded parking', 'owned stall', 'parking included in deed', and similar phrasing. The listings only describe assigned or covered stalls, which supports parking being assigned but does not prove it is deeded.

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 for parking fee, monthly parking charge, parking rent, and similar terms. No public remarks mention a parking cost, so the fee cannot be confirmed from this data.

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.

I searched for 'parking waitlist', 'waiting list', and related phrases and found none. The only lottery reference is for surfboard storage, which is separate from parking.

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 looked for wording like key card access, fob access, card reader, or keycard entry. The listings reference secured entry and a secured lobby entrance, but that is not enough to confirm a card-based system.

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 searched for any reference to a patrol or roving security presence. The building is described as well-maintained and secured, with a resident manager, but no patrol service is mentioned.

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.

Multiple recent public remarks explicitly reference split A/C or a split A/C system (quotes include "Stay cool year-round with split A/C" and "split A/C system in the main living room"), and the MLS ACSPL checkbox appears in 5 of 16 current listings. Evidence is consistent across several agent listings and aligns with prior-high confidence, indicating some units in the building have split/ductless AC.

9 of 14 current MLS listings include ACWIUN (window units) in inclusions, giving a majority pattern. None of the combined public remarks explicitly state 'window AC', 'window unit', or 'window air conditioner' (one remark notes a 'split A/C' in the main living room), so the evidence is implied by MLS checkbox usage across multiple listings rather than explicit narrative confirmation; this suggests some units likely have window AC but agent copy/paste or omission may explain lack of remarks.

Strong evidence from MLS checkboxes: 15 of 16 current listings indicate 'CONCRE' as the construction material and prior analysis recorded High confidence. Public remarks do not explicitly mention 'concrete' or 'reinforced concrete', but the near-unanimous MLS entries across many agents suggest the building is concrete-constructed rather than an isolated agent checkbox error.

Moderate, indirect evidence: 5 of 15 current MLS listings identify double‑wall construction but public remarks are silent. Prior analysis rated this as Medium confidence; the repeated checkbox selection across multiple listings suggests some units or portions of the building may have double‑wall construction, but absence of explicit remarks keeps confidence moderate.

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.

Very little evidence for masonry/stucco: only 1 of 15 current listings lists MASSTU and none of the public remarks mention stucco or masonry. Historical review concluded the building is consistently described without masonry/stucco; the single MLS check box likely reflects agent error/copy‑paste rather than true construction.

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

Historical data gave High confidence that the building is not wood-frame (mid-century concrete high-rise). None of the provided public remarks (multiple listings) mention 'wood frame' or 'wood frame construction', while only 1 of 14 MLS records shows WOOFRA in construction_materials — suggesting a likely checkbox error rather than a real change. Given strong historical and remark-based evidence, wood-frame construction is not supported.

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.

The public remarks repeatedly specify a 3-month or 90-day minimum rental term. That is direct evidence that short-term rentals are not allowed in the sense defined here.

I searched for hotel rental pool, hotel-managed program, Hilton/Trump/Ritz pool language, and found nothing. Since the building is described as having a 3-month minimum rental term, hotel-style short-term rental pooling is not supported.

I looked for 'mandatory pool', 'required to participate', 'cannot opt out', and similar phrases and found none. The remarks instead indicate long minimum rental terms, which is inconsistent with a mandatory hotel rental pool.

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).

The remarks clearly identify the property as leasehold and give a specific expiration year of 2045. Other leasehold comments about fixed lease rent for the next 20+ years are consistent with that date.

I searched the public remarks for 'VA approved', 'VA financing', and 'VA loans accepted' and found no references. With no explicit VA-related language, there is no basis to mark the building as VA approved.

I searched the remarks for language indicating full HOA insurance or walls-in coverage, but there were no matches. The listings do not provide evidence that the building is fully insured. This feature remains unverified based on the remarks.

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.

I searched the remarks for phrases like "fire life safety evaluation passed," "FLSE passed," "fire safety certified," and "passed fire inspection," but found nothing. With no public mention, there is no evidence to mark this as passed. This remains unconfirmed from the listings.

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 five separate listing remarks mention ocean or peek-a-boo ocean views (phrases include 'ocean views', 'Peek a boo ocean view', and 'ocean breezes'), consistent with prior MLS data that showed OCEAN in 5/16 view_descriptions. Evidence is strong and appears across multiple agents/listings, so the building should be listed as offering ocean views.

Multiple listing remarks reference mountains or mauka/Koolau views (documented in roughly a dozen listings), matching the CURRENT MLS pattern (12/16 view_descriptions include MOUNTA). The repeated, explicit mentions across listings support a high-confidence inclusion of mountain views for the building.

Diamond Head is explicitly mentioned in about nine listing remarks with strong language such as 'stunning city, Diamond Head, ocean and mountain views', 'Direct views of Diamond Head', 'panoramic Diamond Head', and 'unobstructed Diamond Head views'. The consistency and specificity across multiple agents/listings provide very strong evidence that the building offers Diamond Head views.

At least 7 of 15 current listings and public remarks reference city views (phrases include 'city views' and 'city and mountain views'), with multiple listings advertising city/cityscape as part of combined view descriptions. Evidence is consistent across several agents and supports keeping view_city = true with high confidence.

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.

Evidence that the building offers sunset views includes an explicit phrase in one listing: 'wine (in the PM) on the sunset balcony.' SUNSET appears in 1 of 14 current listings/view_descriptions; other listings reference ocean breezes, Diamond Head, and lanais but not sunset explicitly. Historical confidence was high and at least one unit/remark clearly advertises a sunset exposure, so the building should be listed as offering 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.

I searched for remarks saying residents can see Friday night fireworks from the unit, lanai, or building. The listings discuss Diamond Head, ocean, city, and mountain views, but nothing tying those views to fireworks.

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).

High-confidence evidence that the building has an on-site/resident manager: MLS checkbox historically present in 13 of 16 listings and at least three separate public remarks explicitly state a resident or resident manager (quotes: "dedicated resident manager", "Well managed by resident manager", "The building has a resident manager"). The consistency across multiple agents and listings supports retaining this feature as true.

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.