Waikiki Cove

The MLS property data uniformly reports the building as built in 1963 across all available listings. With no conflicting information in remarks, 1963 is accepted as the construction year.

The highest FloorNumber observed across the available MLS listings is 4. No remarks or listing details mention a higher floor or describe the building as taller, so the building is treated as a 4-story structure based on current data.

No listing remarks state how many units the building contains (e.g., 'xx-unit building'), and MLS summary fields appear unset. The total unit count is therefore currently unknown.

The owner-occupancy rate is directly provided in the public remarks as 52%, which aligns with the existing building context. This explicit statement provides strong confirmation of the current owner-occupancy percentage.

No references to elevators, lifts, or stair-only access appear in any of the public remarks. Given the prior data and the small, 7-story boutique building profile, the existing value of 1 elevator is retained but not recently verified.

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.

None of the three listings indicate central AC is included in the fees, and one listing specifically notes a wall unit A/C in the bedroom. This strongly suggests there is no building central AC system and thus no central AC coverage in the maintenance fees.

Three out of three recent listings show cable TV (CABTV) included in the association fees. While the public remarks do not highlight cable specifically, the consistent MLS checkbox use across multiple agents indicates cable service is part of the maintenance fee.

Each of the three current listings has OTCOEX checked, indicating common area electricity is part of the HOA dues. This aligns with standard condo practice and appears consistent across agents for this building.

Zero of three listings show co-op taxes included in the fees, and the remarks call it a 'condo' and 'VA Approved building', which is inconsistent with a co-op structure. This provides strong evidence that cooperative taxes are not part of the maintenance fees.

All three listings omit electricity from the association_fee_includes section and the public remarks do not claim that power is covered. This pattern suggests unit electricity is billed separately and not included in the HOA dues.

No current listings show gas in the list of included association fee items, and the remarks are silent about gas service being included. This supports the conclusion that gas is not part of the maintenance fee for this building.

Each listing indicates water heaters as inclusions but does not mark building hot water (HOTWAT) in the association fees. This is strong evidence that hot water is generated at the unit level and not provided or paid for via the HOA, so hot water is not included in the maintenance fee.

Across three listings, internet service is not listed among the association fee inclusions and is not highlighted in the marketing remarks. This suggests residents obtain and pay for their own internet service separately from HOA dues.

None of the current listings indicate marina-related fees are included, and the remarks focus on Waikiki beach, shopping, and dining with no mention of a marina. This strongly indicates the building does not have marina access or marina fees included in the HOA.

Three out of three listings show sewer listed as an association fee inclusion, which is typical for condo buildings. The consistent MLS data across multiple agents supports that sewer charges are covered by the HOA dues.

All current listings indicate that water is included in the association fees. The uniform MLS data, combined with the absence of any contrary remarks, strongly supports that water service is covered by the maintenance fee.

Across 3 listings, there is no mention of BBQ or grill facilities and the amenity is unchecked in the MLS. Given the emphasis on the building being a simple, boutique property with low fees, it is very likely there is no shared BBQ area.

Bike storage is not mentioned in any of the 3 listings and the corresponding MLS amenity is consistently left unchecked. This consistent absence across multiple agents strongly indicates the building does not have dedicated bicycle storage facilities.

All remarks focus on being a short walk to Waikiki Beach, shopping, and dining, with no mention of boating or dock facilities. This location and the MLS data strongly confirm there is no boat dock or marina access.

Parking is referenced only in terms of availability and a waitlist, with no car-wash facility described. The consistent MLS and remarks silence strongly suggests there is no car wash amenity.

The building is consistently described as a small, boutique property without reference to any common clubhouse or community center. Combined with 0/3 MLS checks, this strongly supports that there is no clubhouse.

No listing remarks reference concierge or any equivalent service, and CONCIE is 0/3 in the current MLS data. For a small, value-focused 'boutique' building, the absence of marketing around concierge services strongly indicates that no concierge is provided.

Listings specify pet policy but say nothing about on-site dog runs or pet areas. With 0/3 MLS records indicating a dog park, it is very likely the building has no dedicated dog park.

The building is repeatedly described as a 'charming boutique bldg.' with low HOA fees, but there are zero mentions of a doorman or staffed lobby across all listings. DOORMA is unchecked in every MLS entry, indicating the building does not offer a doorman service.

The building is described as a small, boutique, secured condo with low maintenance fees and no mention of any fitness center or gym in 3/3 listings. MLS amenity data also shows the exercise room box unchecked in all cases, indicating the building lacks this feature.

The building is positioned as an affordable, boutique option with low maintenance fees, not a full-service luxury high-rise. The total lack of references makes it virtually certain there is no limousine or house-car service.

Agents highlight location, in-unit features, and building security but do not mention any meeting or conference spaces. With no MLS or remarks support, the building almost certainly lacks a shared meeting room.

The first listing describes the unit as having a "spacious lanai," indicating usable outdoor deck/patio space. While the other two listings do not restate this, they appear to be similar units in the same small Waikiki condo, so it is reasonable to treat lanai space as a building feature buyers can expect.

While agents highlight walkability to Waikiki Beach and bus connections, they do not describe any dedicated jogging or walking paths on the property. This, plus unchecked MLS data, indicates no on-site jogging path.

The building is marketed mainly to investors and adult buyers (1-bedroom units in central Waikiki) with no mention of children's play areas. The lack of any playground mention plus unchecked MLS flags indicates there is no playground.

Across all three listings, outdoor space is only described as a lanai, with no reference to a yard, fenced area, or private ground-level outdoor space. Given the building's urban Waikiki condo setting, it is highly unlikely that any units offer a true private yard.

No remarks across the three listings reference a putting green or golf practice area. Given its absence from both marketing and MLS data, the building almost certainly has no putting green.

Listings focus on proximity to Waikiki Beach and nearby entertainment rather than on-site recreation spaces. The absence of any mention plus unchecked MLS flags indicates there is no shared recreation area.

The building is presented as a straightforward condo with in-unit features and nearby Waikiki attractions, not on-site rec rooms. With 0/3 MLS listings marking a recreation room, it is very likely this amenity does not exist.

All remarks frame dining as an off-site neighborhood benefit rather than an on-site service. With restaurant unchecked in 0/3 MLS listings, the building clearly does not have its own restaurant.

The remarks focus on lanai space and nearby Waikiki attractions, not rooftop terraces or decks. The consistent omission in both MLS checkboxes and remarks suggests there is no shared rooftop amenity.

A sauna would be a notable amenity yet is never referenced in the marketing materials. With no MLS support either, it is very likely that there is no sauna in the building.

No listings (0/3) check any storage-related amenities or describe storage units, lockers, or extra storage in the remarks. Given the complete absence of both MLS and narrative references, this building is very likely not offering dedicated resident storage units.

The provided public remarks describe location, interior finishes, parking waitlist, and building characteristics but do not mention any surfboard-specific storage facilities. Searched for terms like 'surfboard storage', 'board storage', 'surf storage', and similar phrases with no results. Based on this absence, surfboard storage is assumed not to be offered, but with only medium confidence since listings can be incomplete.

No listing remarks mention tennis courts or similar facilities, and the MLS data shows 0/3 with tennis selected. For a small Waikiki boutique building, it is almost certain that there is no tennis court.

The building is portrayed as a small boutique condo with basic features, and trash handling is not highlighted as a chute system. The absence of any mention plus unchecked MLS flags suggests the building likely does not have a trash chute system.

Parking is described as assigned and on a waitlist, with no suggestion of staff-operated or valet services. In a small, "boutique" Waikiki condo, valet would be a notable amenity and its complete absence from all remarks strongly indicates it is not offered.

In the MLS amenities, 2 of 3 listings mark the building as gated/walled/fenced, suggesting a secured perimeter or gated entry. While the remarks do not use the word 'gated', they do refer to a 'secured building', supporting the existence of some form of wall or fence-based access control.

For Waikiki condos, pools and spas are usually highlighted, but none of the 3 listings mention such amenities. This, plus unchecked MLS data, indicates the building does not have a shared whirlpool or hot tub.

No listings (0/3) check any pool amenities or mention a pool in the remarks, even though agents emphasize other features and the Waikiki lifestyle. The building is described as a small boutique property with low maintenance fees and no references to resort-style amenities, which supports the conclusion that there is no shared pool.

Because there is no indication of a pool in any of the 3 listings and no remarks reference a heated or warm pool, the building is very unlikely to have a heated pool. Agents consistently omit any pool-related amenities while promoting other features, reinforcing this conclusion.

The remarks discuss location, finishes, pricing, rental flexibility, and amenities like washer/dryer and parking, but do not reference any pool, let alone a saltwater pool. Searched explicitly for terms such as 'salt water pool', 'saltwater', 'salt pool', and 'saline pool' and found none. Based on this absence, it is likely there is no saltwater pool feature advertised for this building.

All 3 of 3 listings mention in-unit laundry with phrases like “washer and dryer for added convenience” and “Washer/Dryer in unit.” Combined with 3/3 MLS inclusions for washer/dryer, there is strong evidence that units in this building commonly have in-unit laundry.

None of the 3 listings mention any shared or community laundry facilities, and 0/3 have community laundry checked in MLS amenities. Given that every listing instead highlights in-unit washer/dryers, it is likely the building does not offer a separate community laundry room.

Nothing in the remarks indicates paid community laundry such as coin-op or card-operated machines. I checked for terms like 'coin laundry', 'card-operated laundry', or 'laundry fee' and found no mentions, so this feature is presumed not present.

The remarks repeatedly state that the unit has its own washer/dryer but do not mention any common or shared laundry rooms on each floor. I specifically looked for phrases like 'laundry on every floor' or 'community laundry room on each floor' and found none, so it is likely this feature does not exist.

2 of 3 listings explicitly mention building parking, noting that stalls are obtained via a waitlist (e.g., 'parking available by waitlist'). This repeated remark across different listings is strong evidence that the building offers parking to some units despite MLS fields showing NONE.

1 of 3 listings explicitly refers to 'Assigned parking' on a waitlist, which implies the building provides deeded/assigned stalls rather than unassigned open parking. Even though MLS does not mark ASSIGN, the narrative detail is strong direct evidence.

Across 3 listings there are no references to a garage, carport, or 'covered parking,' only generic mentions of parking via waitlist. Combined with MLS showing no covered/garage options, this strongly suggests the building does not offer covered parking.

No phrases like 'deeded parking', 'owned stall', or 'parking included in the deed' appear in any of the listings. Instead, multiple listings describe parking as assigned via a waitlist, which strongly suggests stalls are not deeded to individual units.

0 of 3 listings reference any kind of EV or charging stations, despite detailed amenity descriptions. Given the lack of mention and absence of MLS EVCHRG, it is very likely the building does not offer EV charging.

The listings mention that parking is available by waitlist but do not state whether there is a monthly cost or fee associated with it. Without explicit language about a charge or rent for parking, the presence or absence of a parking fee remains unknown.

3 of 3 listings omit any mention of guest or visitor parking while highlighting other conveniences. This consistent omission, along with no MLS guest parking flag, indicates the building likely lacks dedicated guest parking.

1 listing notes a 'secured building' but none refer to gated or card-access parking specifically. With no remarks or MLS data pointing to secured parking entry, it is likely the parking area does not have its own secured entry feature.

All 3 listings are silent on tandem parking, only referencing parking generally and via waitlist. The lack of any 'tandem' language and no MLS TANDEM flag strongly supports that tandem parking is not a feature here.

0 of 3 listings reference valet or attended parking, and the building is described as a 'charming boutique' rather than a full-service property. The complete absence of any valet references and supporting MLS data makes it almost certain that valet parking is not offered.

Multiple separate remarks explicitly reference that parking is obtained through a waitlist system. This is strong, direct evidence that the building uses a parking waitlist for assigning stalls.

Across all 3 listings, there is no reference to an elevator or secure/keyed elevator access, and ELEVAT is 0/3 in the amenities data. Given the 'boutique' nature of the building and the lack of any mention, a keyed elevator system is very unlikely.

The listing calls it a 'secured building' but provides no details about the type of access system. I searched for terms like key card, fob, card reader, and electronic access and found none, so card/fob access is likely not present or at least not documented.

Across 3 listings, there are no references to a security guard or 24/7 security, and SECGUA is unchecked in all MLS entries. The building is described only as a 'boutique, secured building', which suggests controlled access rather than staffed security. Given the building type and marketing focus, it is very likely there is no security guard service.

The remarks highlight the building as secured but do not indicate any active or roving security patrol service. I looked for references to patrols or roving security and found none, so a security patrol is likely not provided.

None of the 3 listings mention security cameras, CCTV, or video monitoring, and SECSYS is not checked in any MLS data. While the building is called 'secured', there is no direct or indirect evidence of a video surveillance system, so it is likely not a marketed or notable feature here.

Across 3 listings, no remarks mention central air, forced air, or HVAC, and 0/3 MLS records have any central AC checkbox selected. Instead, units are described with individual wall/window-style AC, indicating the building relies on unit-level cooling rather than central air.

None of the 3 listings reference mini-split, ductless, or split AC, and the split-AC MLS checkbox is never used. Cooling is described only as wall/window-type AC, so there is strong evidence that split systems are not present as a building feature.

2 of 3 listings mark the window-AC inclusion, and one description calls out a 'wall unit A/C.' This consistent pattern across multiple listings strongly supports that units in the building have window/wall AC and buyers can expect this type of cooling to be available.

Across all three listings for this building, the MLS construction_materials field includes concrete (CONCRE) and no listing suggests another main structure type. Although the remarks do not explicitly say 'concrete,' the consistent checkbox use across multiple agents strongly indicates reinforced concrete construction.

One MLS listing reports double-wall construction (DOUWAL), while the others are silent on this specific checkbox but agree on concrete/hollow-tile. This isolated but plausible indication suggests some double-wall elements may exist, though evidence is weaker and could reflect agent-level inconsistency.

Two of the three listings explicitly mark hollow tile (HOLTIL) as a construction material, and no listing marks an incompatible alternative. Even without remarks support, this majority MLS pattern strongly suggests hollow tile is part of the building’s structure.

All three MLS entries leave masonry/stucco (MASSTU) unchecked while specifying other materials instead. The consistent omission, plus lack of any stucco-related language in remarks, indicates the building is not classified as masonry-stucco construction.

No listing marks steel frame (STEFRA) in construction_materials, and all instead emphasize concrete construction. The consistent omission of steel frame across agents makes a steel-frame structure unlikely here.

A single listing marks a slab foundation (SLAB), and this is consistent with how similar concrete condo buildings are typically built. While the MLS evidence is limited to one agent, there is no contrary data, so a slab foundation is reasonably inferred.

No analysis available

None of the three MLS entries mark wood frame construction, while all agree on concrete. Given the building type (Waikiki condo) and the consistent absence of WOOFRA, it is very unlikely this is a wood-frame building.

One MLS entry explicitly marks above-ground construction (ABOGRO), and the property is clearly a multi-story condo structure rather than a below-grade or raised-slab anomaly. This, combined with typical local construction patterns, supports treating it as an above-ground building.

None of the three MLS records report brick construction, and the remarks never mention brick or brick-and-mortar details. Given this pattern and local building norms, brick construction can be ruled out with high confidence.

No listing labels the building as single wall (SINWAL), and all indicate concrete construction instead. Given the building type and local construction norms, single-wall construction can be confidently excluded.

The listing specifies a 30-day minimum rental period, which means short-term rentals under 30 days are not permitted. No remarks mention legal STR status, NUC, TVU, or vacation rental operation that would contradict this.

Because STR is not allowed in this building, participation in a hotel rental pool is not applicable. The remarks contain no references to hotel operations, rental pool programs, or branded hotel management.

There is no indication of any mandatory or optional hotel rental program in the remarks. Given the 30-day minimum rental requirement, a mandatory hotel pool program is effectively ruled out.

No listing explicitly describes its tenure as Fee Simple in either the structured MLS data or the remarks. The presence of Fee Simple units in this building remains unknown based on current information.

Neither the remarks nor the structured MLS fields identify any unit as Leasehold or provide lease terms. As with Fee Simple, the existence of Leasehold units in this building is currently unknown.

The remarks do not indicate whether the property is fee simple or leasehold, nor do they provide any lease expiration year. Without explicit lease-related information, the lease expiry year is unknown.

The building is clearly identified as VA approved in the public remarks. This directly indicates that VA financing is accepted for units in this building.

The remarks focus on location, interior finishes, HOA fees, and use options but do not discuss the scope of HOA insurance. With no explicit evidence or prior data, full building insurance (walls-in) cannot be confirmed and is assumed not documented (set to false by default).

Across all available listings there is no checkbox selection for fire sprinklers and no textual reference to sprinklers or fire suppression upgrades. Given the 1963 construction date, the evidence points strongly to the absence of a building-wide fire sprinkler system.

Searched the remarks for terms like 'fire life safety evaluation', 'FLSE', 'fire inspection', 'life safety compliant', and similar phrases but found none. In the absence of any mention or prior data, this is treated as not confirmed/present and 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

No listing remarks mention ocean, water, or makai views, and 2 of 3 MLS entries mark the view as NONE. Given multiple recent listings with no ocean-view language, it is very likely this building does not offer meaningful ocean-view units.

None of the 3 listings describe any mountain or mauka outlooks, and the MLS view field is mostly NONE. This strongly suggests the building does not provide notable mountain views from its units.

Across all available listings, agents do not reference Diamond Head or DH views, and the structured view field does not include it. For a feature that is normally heavily marketed, its complete absence indicates Diamond Head views are not a building attribute.

Remarks emphasize location and walkability but never describe city or skyline views in-unit, and the MLS view field is largely NONE. This pattern suggests that city views are not a distinct selling point of this building’s units.

Although the building is near Waikiki Beach, none of the units are advertised as having direct coastline or shoreline vistas. The lack of any coastline-view references indicates this is not a feature of the building's units.

At least one unit is described as having a view of 'many pretty trees with beautiful flowers,' indicating a garden/landscaped type view is available in the building. Even if not all units share it, this confirms that some units offer a garden-style outlook.

Across all available listings there is no indication of any golf course outlook. This consistent absence, together with multiple NONE view entries, makes it very likely there are no golf course views from this building.

None of the listings mention yacht harbor, canal, or marina vistas, and 2 out of 3 have the view marked as NONE. Given how marketable marina views are, the total lack of such references indicates they are not present here.

None of the 3 listings promote sunrise or east-facing views from the units themselves. Given the absence of any sunrise-view language and predominantly NONE view fields, sunrise views are unlikely to be a notable building feature.

Agents do not market any in-unit sunset or fireworks views across the available listings. The context and the NONE view designations strongly suggest the building does not offer notable sunset views as a selling point.

All 3 listings are silent on any cemetery outlook, focusing instead on trees and urban conveniences. Given disclosure norms and the repeated NONE view entries, it is almost certain there are no cemetery views from this building.

The remarks describe location, lifestyle, and nearby attractions but do not mention any ability to see fireworks from the building or units. In the absence of explicit references, this feature is assumed not present.

No analysis available

One listing clearly notes that pets are allowed subject to board approval. The other listings do not mention pet prohibitions, so the building should be treated as pet-friendly with some governance oversight.

The MLS amenity data and remarks provide no indication of an on-site or resident manager. In a small, boutique Waikiki building this would usually be advertised if available, so it is very likely there is no resident manager on the property.

Listings consistently refer to the property as a condo, emphasize VA approval, and note a 30-day minimum rental period rather than hotel-like nightly rentals or a hotel program. There is no mention of a hotel front desk, rental pool, or the term "condotel," so it does not operate as a condotel.

The building is repeatedly described as a Waikiki condo, not a co-op, and it touts VA approval, which aligns with condominium rather than cooperative ownership. With no mention of shares or co-op terminology, it is best categorized as a condominium, not a cooperative.