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 describe the unit, amenities, and location, but provide no ownership-occupancy information, so the percentage is unknown.
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, and a rooftop deck, but nothing about elevators, so the number 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
There is no public-remark evidence that cable is included in maintenance fees. The MLS checkbox appears on only 1 of 5 listings, which looks more like a one-off or copy/paste issue than a building-wide benefit.
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.'
The listings confirm some storage is available, but not surfboard storage. I searched for surfboard storage, board storage, surf storage, and bike-and-surfboard storage terms and found no evidence.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
I looked for any pool reference, especially saltwater or saline pool wording, and found none. With no pool mentioned in the remarks and the building context indicating no pool, this is very likely false.
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.
The remarks confirm laundry facilities exist, but they do not say whether they require payment. I searched for terms like coin laundry, paid laundry, coin-op, quarters, or card-operated and found no evidence.
I found multiple mentions of community laundry, which confirms shared laundry is available in the building. I looked specifically for language like "on every floor," "each floor," or "floor-by-floor laundry," and found none.
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 directly state that the unit does not come with deeded parking, which is strong evidence that parking is not owned with the unit. Multiple listings also describe parking as rental/available by waitlist, reinforcing that it is not deeded.
No analysis available
I found several consistent references to parking costing $120 per month. Because the fee is repeated across listings, this is a strong public-remarks match 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
The listings explicitly mention a parking waitlist, including wording like "parking may be available via a waitlist" and "Reserved parking avail. on a short waitlist." That is strong evidence the building uses a waitlist system for parking.
No analysis available
The building appears to have some form of secured entry, but the public remarks do not specify card- or fob-based access. I searched for explicit access language and found no direct confirmation.
No analysis available
I looked for references to a security patrol or roving patrol service, but none were found. The remarks only mention secured entry, which does not confirm patrol coverage.
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 the remarks for STR indicators such as short-term rental allowed, NUC, TVU, legal vacation rental, or minimum-stay exceptions and found none. Since there is no explicit allowance language, STR is not supported from the public remarks.
I looked for hotel rental pool references like hotel-managed operations, brand pool participation, or rental-program language and found none. Because there is no evidence that STR is allowed, this must also be false.
I searched for wording such as mandatory hotel pool, required participation, or cannot opt out and found nothing. There is no public-remarks evidence of a compulsory rental-pool arrangement, so this is false.
No analysis available
No analysis available
I looked for leasehold wording such as "lease expires," "ground lease ends," "leasehold expiring," or renewal dates and found nothing. There is no public-remarks evidence to extract a lease 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, VA approval is unsupported from the available listing text.
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 and utilities included, but not HOA insurance coverage, so this feature is not confirmed.
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. Since there is no explicit mention in the public remarks, I cannot confirm this feature and treat it as not evidenced.
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 strong direct evidence that residents can view Friday night fireworks from the building. The wording clearly describes viewing fireworks from the rooftop deck, which satisfies the requirement for a view from the building.
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.