Royal Queen Emma
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.
Royal Queen Emma
Building Overview
Royal Queen Emma in Downtown-Chinatown (built 1981) with mountain views, covered assigned parking, no short-term rentals.
About Royal Queen Emma
Based on MLS data, Royal Queen Emma is located in the Downtown-Chinatown neighborhood and was built in 1981. Specific unit sizes and construction details are not provided in the available MLS records.
Key features noted in the MLS include mountain views. The building does not allow pets and short-term rentals are not permitted, according to the listing information. The management company is listed as unknown in the available data.
Additional recorded details include covered, assigned parking. Buyers should verify all information, including unit sizes, construction type, management, fees, and any community rules, as this summary is based solely on MLS data and may be incomplete.
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
One remark notes that a specific unit is 'currently being leased', but there is no statement about the overall share of owner-occupied versus rented units. I looked for explicit percentages (e.g., '80% owner occupied') and phrases like 'majority owner occupied' or 'high owner occupancy' and found none. The building-wide owner-occupancy rate is therefore unknown.
The remarks describe zoning, configuration, parking, and that this is a 'simple, no amenities project' but never reference elevators. I searched for terms like 'elevator', 'lift', or specific counts (e.g., '2 elevators') and found none. The number of elevators is therefore 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
No analysis available
Across all 6 current MLS listings for this building, the association_fee_includes field consistently lists OTCOEX, indicating that common area expenses (including common area electricity) are covered by the maintenance fees. None of the public remarks explicitly discuss what utilities are included, and nothing contradicts the MLS data, so the building is treated as including common area electricity in its fees. This appears to be a standard, consistently applied building-level feature rather than a one-off agent error.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
In the MLS data, 6/6 listings for this building include SEWER in association_fee_includes, suggesting sewer charges are covered by the HOA/maintenance fees. None of the public remarks mention sewer or utility billing separately, so the consistent MLS pattern is taken as accurate rather than copy-paste error. This supports treating sewer as included in the building’s maintenance fees.
All 6 current MLS listings for this building list WATER under association_fee_includes, implying that water service is paid through the HOA/maintenance fees. The public remarks focus on configuration, finishes, and location and never state that water is separately metered or billed, so the repeated MLS indication is accepted as accurate. This is treated as a building-wide feature rather than an isolated unit-specific arrangement.
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 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 analysis available
No analysis available
Several listings describe 'Each unit has 2 parking, total contiguous 4 stalls,' indicating specific, reserved stalls for each unit. Combined with 6/6 MLS records showing assigned parking, there is strong, consistent evidence across agents that parking is assigned in this building.
At least two listings explicitly say 'Each unit has 2 covered parking stalls for a total of 4 contiguous stalls,' clearly indicating covered parking. With all 6 current MLS entries also coded for covered/garage parking, the evidence is strong and consistent that the building provides covered parking stalls.
The consistent phrasing that each unit 'has' specific covered parking stalls suggests the stalls are tied to the unit, aligning with deeded or owned/assigned parking. Additional parking is described as rented off-site from a church/school, reinforcing that the on-site stalls come with the units. Based on this, parking is treated as deeded/owned with moderate confidence.
No analysis available
Parking stalls that come with the units are described as part of the unit, with no extra fee mentioned. I searched for terms like 'parking fee', 'monthly parking', or '$... for parking' and found none. The only rental parking noted is off-site with no stated cost, so no parking fee can be determined.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
The remarks clearly state that each unit has 2 parking stalls and that extra parking was rented off-site, without indicating any waitlist process. I looked for 'parking waitlist', 'waiting list for parking', or similar phrases and found nothing. In the absence of such references, a waitlist is assumed not to exist.
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
Double-wall construction (DOUWAL) appears on every current MLS listing for this building, indicating consistent agent input across units. The remarks do not discuss wall construction at all, and nothing contradicts the uniform MLS data, supporting a high-confidence inclusion.
No analysis available
Four of six current MLS listings mark masonry/stucco (MASSTU) for this building, with no remarks referencing an alternate construction type. The remarks focus on zoning, layout, and upgrades but do not contradict masonry/stucco construction, so the MLS pattern is followed.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
The building is presented as dual-zoned for living and/or working, with no references to nightly rentals, vacation use, or Non-Conforming Use Certificates. I searched for 'short-term rental', 'vacation rental', 'NUC', 'TVU', or '30-day minimum' and found none. Given the complete lack of STR-related language, short-term rentals are treated as not allowed.
Listings do not reference any association with a hotel or a hotel-operated rental program. With STRs not indicated and no hotel language, participation in a hotel rental pool is considered not present.
Because there is no sign of a hotel rental pool, it cannot be mandatory. The absence of any requirement or program language supports a definitive 'false' for mandatory pool participation.
No analysis available
No analysis available
The text discusses that a unit is 'currently being leased', which refers to a rental arrangement, not land tenure. I looked for phrases like 'leasehold', 'land lease', 'lease expires', or 'ground lease ends' with a year, and none appear. Without an explicit leasehold expiry year, this field remains unknown.
The listings emphasize mixed residential/office use and location but never reference VA loan approval. I searched for terms like 'VA approved', 'VA financing', and 'VA loans accepted' and found none. In the absence of any such mention, VA approval is treated as not present.
The remarks focus on use (residential/office), interior upgrades, parking, and recent plumbing work but do not discuss HOA or building insurance coverage. I specifically searched for terms like 'fully insured', 'full insurance', 'walls-in', or 'comprehensive building insurance' and found none. Without explicit mention, full building insurance cannot be confirmed.
No analysis available
I looked for phrases such as 'fire life safety evaluation passed', 'FLSE passed', 'fire safety certified', 'life safety compliant', or 'passed fire inspection' and none were present. While one listing notes 'fire sprinklers', that does not confirm a completed fire/life safety evaluation. In the absence of explicit confirmation, this is marked as not having a documented FLSE pass.
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
Across recent MLS data for this building, 2 of 6 listings include 'Mountain' in the view_descriptions field and none report 'None', indicating that some units enjoy mountain views. While the public remarks here focus on mixed residential/office use and location rather than views, the repeated mountain view checkbox usage across multiple listings supports that buyers can find mountain-view units in this 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
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.