Punahou Hale and Oahuan Tower Ltd
Preliminary Information – Full Audit Pending
This buildings features were determined from publicly available data, including MLS listings. While we cross-referenced additional data sources, it still likely contains incomplete or inaccurate information, as it has not yet been personally verified.
Once a building has been fully audited, this page will be replaced with an in-depth analysis featuring verified details and photos of every key feature.
Until then, we provide a data‑driven overview that blends statistical analysis of the checkbox selections agents make in MLS with an AI‑powered read of their public remarks—yielding a clearer picture of the building than raw listings alone.
If this building is important to your search, you can help prioritize it for a full audit by requesting one below. To see what a complete report looks like, check out the example full report.
Punahou Hale and Oahuan Tower Ltd
Building Overview
Building Features & Data Confidence
All features from MLS data with AI-assisted confidence analysis. Click each category to expand and see details.
No analysis available
I looked for owner-occupancy indicators like a percentage, "majority owner occupied," or "highly owner occupied," and found none. The remarks focus on unit features, parking, and location, so there is no basis to estimate the owner-occupied percentage.
I searched the remarks for explicit elevator references such as "elevators," "multiple elevators," or a count like "4 elevators," and found none. The listings mention secured entry, community laundry, storage, and a rooftop deck, but nothing about elevator service, so the number of elevators remains unknown.
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 analysis available
Cable TV inclusion appears in the MLS fee breakdown for 2 of 6 listings, but there is no matching language in the public remarks. The remarks consistently mention other fee inclusions like electricity, water, and sewer, which suggests cable is not being actively described by agents and the MLS checkbox may be inconsistent.
6/6 listings show OTCOEX in association_fee_includes, so common-area electricity appears to be included in the maintenance fee. The remarks do not explicitly say “common area electricity,” but the MLS consistency across multiple listings is strong and appears to reflect the same building-level feature.
No analysis available
This is strongly confirmed. Multiple listings explicitly mention electricity included in the maintenance fees, and 6/6 MLS records have ELECTR checked, showing consistent agreement between remarks and MLS data.
No analysis available
6/6 MLS listings have HOTWAT checked, so hot water is treated as included. The public remarks do not explicitly mention hot water, but there is no evidence like WTRHTR to suggest the opposite, and the MLS pattern is uniform across listings.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Sewer inclusion is directly confirmed in the remarks and reinforced by 6/6 MLS records. The wording is repeated enough across listings to treat this as a clear building feature rather than a one-off entry.
Water inclusion is explicitly mentioned in several public remarks and matched by all 6 MLS records. This is strong, consistent evidence that water is included in the maintenance fee for the building.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No public remark mentions a recreation room across the listings reviewed. The only evidence is an inconsistent MLS amenity flag (RECROO in 2 of 6 listings), which looks more like copy-paste MLS noise than a verified building amenity. Based on the absence of remark support and weak, inconsistent MLS data, this feature is best treated as not confirmed for the building.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
There is solid evidence that Punahou Hale offers storage/lockers or extra storage. Current MLS data shows the storage amenity in 3 of 6 listings, and at least one remark directly mentions 'additional storage on the same floor.'
I searched for surfboard storage, board storage, surf storage, and bike-and-surfboard storage. The listings confirm some general storage exists, but not surfboard-specific storage.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
I searched for salt water pool, saltwater pool, salt pool, and saline pool. Nothing in the remarks indicates the building has a pool at all, let alone a saltwater one.
No analysis available
Strong, consistent evidence across the listings confirms shared laundry in the building. Multiple remarks explicitly say "community laundry," "community laundry for residents," and "community laundry is conveniently located on site," matching the existing MLS COMLAU history. This appears to be a stable building amenity rather than a one-off agent entry.
I looked for terms such as coin laundry, quarters, card-operated, paid laundry, or laundry fee. The remarks confirm laundry exists, but they do not state that residents must pay to use it.
I searched for language like laundry on each floor, floor-by-floor laundry, or laundry room on every floor. The listings only confirm shared laundry exists somewhere in the building, not that it is available on every floor.
Parking is clearly available at Punahou Hale. Across the provided remarks, 5 listings explicitly mention parking in some form, including 'no assigned parking; however, parking may be available via a waitlist for $120 per month,' 'Rental parking avail $120 mo, waitlist,' and 'stalls are available on a first-come, first-served basis for $120/month.' The evidence is consistent across multiple remarks and appears to be building-level information rather than a one-off agent claim.
None of the three recent public remarks indicate assigned or deeded parking; two listings explicitly state 'does not come with deeded parking' and 'stalls are available on a first-come, first-served basis for $120/month' (another notes 'parking immediately available for rent ($120/month)'). This consistent agent language across listings strongly indicates parking is rented rather than assigned/deeded.
No analysis available
The remarks explicitly say the unit does not come with deeded parking, which is direct evidence that parking is not owned with the unit. Multiple listings repeat that parking is available only by waitlist or rental, reinforcing the conclusion.
No analysis available
The public remarks consistently state a parking cost of $120 per month. This fee appears in multiple listings, so it is strong evidence for the monthly parking charge.
No analysis available
No listing remarks explicitly mention secured parking, gated parking, or card-access parking. The only security-related note is "secured building entry," which refers to the building entrance, not parking. The presence of multiple parking remarks without any secured-parking wording suggests the SECENT checkbox is likely unrelated or copy/pasted.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Several listings explicitly mention a parking waitlist, including phrases like "parking may be available via a waitlist" and "Reserved parking avail. on a short waitlist." This is direct, repeated evidence that parking access is waitlist-based.
No analysis available
I looked for explicit card- or fob-based access language such as key card access, card reader, or keycard entry. The listings only indicate secured building entry, so card access is not confirmed.
No analysis available
I searched for references to security patrol service, roving security, or a patrolled building. The remarks only mention secured entry, which is not the same as an active patrol service.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Concrete construction is strongly supported at the building level. All 6 current listings identify the property as concrete, and the remarks across multiple agents focus on unit condition and amenities rather than contradicting the building type. This appears consistent and not just a copy-paste artifact.
No analysis available
Hollow tile appears in only 1 of 5 current MLS records, and none of the remarks mention hollow tile or similar construction details. Because the evidence is sparse and not supported by remarks, this should be treated as tentative rather than confirmed.
There is no remark-based support for masonry/stucco construction, and the MLS signal is very weak at 1 of 6 listings. Because this feature is not corroborated by multiple agents or any site-specific description, it should be treated as not established for the building.
No analysis available
A slab foundation appears in 2 of 5 current MLS records, and historical confidence was medium. The remarks do not explicitly confirm a concrete slab, so this is supported mainly by the MLS pattern rather than by descriptive listing text.
There is only weak evidence for stone construction: 1 of 5 current listings flags STONE in the MLS materials field, while the remarks are silent on any stone building/exterior details. This looks more like an unconfirmed MLS checkbox than corroborated building evidence, so confidence remains tentative.
No analysis available
Above-ground construction is present in 2 of 5 MLS listings, but the public remarks are silent on this point. With no corroborating language from agents, the feature is only moderately supported and may be an inconsistent MLS entry.
No analysis available
No analysis available
I searched for short-term rental indicators such as STR allowed, NUC, TVU, vacation rental language, or minimum-stay exceptions and found none. With no public-remarks evidence supporting STR eligibility, this is treated as not allowed/unsupported.
I looked for hotel rental pool wording such as hotel-managed operations, brand pool participation, or rental-program references and found none. Because there is no evidence that STR is allowed, a hotel pool arrangement is not supported here.
I searched for phrases like mandatory hotel pool, required participation, or cannot opt out and found nothing. The remarks also do not mention any hotel rental program, so there is no evidence of a mandatory pool.
No analysis available
No analysis available
I looked for leasehold language such as "lease expires," "ground lease ends," "leasehold expiring," or any renewal/extension year and found nothing. There is no public-remarks evidence indicating a land lease or an expiry year.
I searched the public remarks for phrases like "VA approved," "VA financing," and "VA loans accepted" and found none. With no explicit mention, there is no public-remarks evidence that the building is VA loan approved.
I searched for insurance-related wording such as fully insured, full insurance, fully covered insurance, or walls-in coverage, and found no references. The remarks discuss maintenance fees including electricity, water, and sewer, but do not mention HOA insurance coverage.
Across the provided remarks, there are 0 mentions of fire sprinklers or any related fire-suppression system. The listings repeatedly describe other amenities like rooftop access and community laundry, but nothing suggests a sprinkler system, so there is no public-remarks support for this feature.
I looked for language indicating the building passed a fire/life safety evaluation, such as FLSE passed, fire safety certified, life safety compliant, or passed fire inspection, and found nothing. Because there is no explicit confirmation in the public remarks, this feature is treated as not evidenced here.
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
No analysis available
Mountain views are supported by both MLS data and remarks across multiple listings. At least 4 of 6 current listings show MOUNTA, and one remark directly references 'scenic views of Tantalus' while another says 'sweeping views of the city, mountains, and Diamond Head.' This appears consistent across listings rather than a one-off agent copy-paste issue.
Diamond Head views are clearly documented in several listings and reinforced by MLS data. Two of six current listings include DIAHEA, and multiple public remarks explicitly mention Diamond Head views from the unit or rooftop area. The repeated language across listings suggests this is a real building feature offered by some units.
City views are supported by explicit remarks and current MLS data. Two of six listings show CITY in the view descriptions, and multiple remarks mention 'sweeping views of the city' or describe the building as offering central urban living with city-facing exposure. This indicates the feature is present in at least some units.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Sunrise views are not substantiated by the public remarks. The only current view references are Tantalus, Diamond Head/coastline, and rooftop fireworks, which do not establish sunrise or eastern exposure.
0 of 2 current listings mention SUNSET in view_descriptions. Remarks highlight 'Diamond Head views' and ability to 'catch Friday night fireworks' from the rooftop, but do not explicitly say 'sunset', 'western exposure', or 'evening sun.' With MLS checkboxes unchecked and no direct mentions across listings, there is strong evidence the building should not be listed as having sunset views.
No analysis available
This is explicit evidence that residents can view Friday night fireworks from the building. The remarks clearly describe fireworks as visible from the rooftop deck, which qualifies as a building view.
No analysis available
There are 4 of 6 listings with RESMAN marked in MLS amenities, but the public remarks do not describe a resident manager, on-site manager, or live-in manager. This looks more like moderate MLS checkbox evidence than confirmation from listing text, so confidence is only moderate and may reflect copy/paste data.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Confidence levels are based on MLS checkbox data and AI analysis of listing remarks. High = strong evidence, Medium = some evidence, Low = limited or conflicting evidence. Buyers should always verify critical details independently.