Waikiki Imperial Apartments

All available MLS property records (5/5) report 1961 as the construction year. Since no remarks dispute this or mention a later reconstruction, 1961 is taken as the building’s year built.

One listing clearly states the building is a '10 story building.' No remarks contradict this, and the highest observed unit floor (7) is consistent with a taller structure, so we adopt 10 floors as the building total.

One listing states there are 'only 4 units per floor' in this '10 story building,' implying about 40 units total. No other remarks contradict this layout, so 40 units is a reasonable building-wide estimate.

Remarks highlight use as a vacation home or investment and mention rental rules (e.g., 30-day minimum) but do not provide any numeric owner-occupancy rate. Phrases like 'majority owner occupied' or specific percentages are absent. The previously recorded 43% owner-occupancy is therefore kept, but is not reconfirmed by the current remarks.

Listings confirm that the building has at least one elevator but never specify how many. In the absence of an explicit count, the previously known value of 1 elevator is retained. No remarks contradict this number.

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 listing marks central AC as an included HOA utility, and remarks do not reference AC being included in the fees. The building appears to have individually metered/handled AC rather than central AC covered by maintenance.

Across 5 listings for this building, cable TV is never marked as included in the HOA fees and no public remarks say cable is covered. This strongly suggests residents pay for their own cable service separately from maintenance fees.

A majority (3/5) of listings show common area electricity as included in association fees. Given this consistency and the lack of contrary remarks, it is likely the HOA covers common area power costs.

Remarks describe the property as a fee simple condo, not a co-op, and no listing indicates co-op taxes are included in fees. This effectively rules out cooperative taxes being part of the maintenance charges.

None of the listings indicate that unit electricity is included in the HOA fees and no remarks advertise power being covered. This strongly suggests that residents pay their own electric bills separately.

Across all current listings, gas is never shown as an included association utility and is not mentioned in the marketing text. This indicates gas, if present at all, is not paid by the HOA fees.

Multiple listings indicate individual water heaters in units (including a 'new water heater'), and none show hot water as an HOA-included utility. This is strong evidence that hot water is not centrally supplied as part of the maintenance fee.

Internet service is never checked as included on any listing and is not mentioned in the marketing descriptions. This strongly suggests internet is contracted and paid individually by residents, not through HOA dues.

There are no mentions of marina facilities or boat-related amenities in any of the 5 listings, and no MLS checkboxes for marina fees are used. This is clear evidence that marina access or fees are not included in the maintenance charges.

Most listings for this building show sewer as covered by the HOA fees, a common practice for Waikiki condos. With no contrary evidence in remarks, it is reasonable to treat sewer as included in the association dues.

A majority of the listings indicate water is paid through the HOA, and there are no remarks saying water is separately metered to owners. This pattern supports that water service is included in the maintenance fees.

The remarks emphasize the lack of amenities beyond security and storage, with no reference to BBQ areas, grills, or outdoor cooking facilities. MLS data for all recent listings also leaves the BBQ amenity unchecked, suggesting the building does not offer this feature.

One listing describes the Waikiki Imperial as having 'surfboard & bike lockers,' clearly indicating dedicated bike storage in the building. No MLS checkbox marks bike storage, but the precise phrasing about lockers is strong textual evidence of this amenity. This appears to be a fixed building feature available to residents, not a unit-specific perk.

Remarks highlight being one block from the beach and near surf spots, but do not reference any private dock or marina access. All MLS records omit marina-related amenities, so a boat dock is very unlikely to be part of this building.

One listing explains parking can be rented for $70/month and notes guest stalls, yet does not mention any vehicle wash facility. Given the detailed parking description and lack of MLS indication, a car wash amenity is very unlikely.

Agents describe the Waikiki Imperial as a 'clean, 10 story building' with security and storage, explicitly contrasting it with buildings that have fancier common areas. The absence of any clubhouse references in remarks and MLS supports that there is no clubhouse.

None of the remarks mention concierge, front desk, or similar services, and the concierge amenity box is never checked. Combined with comments about the lack of a fancy lobby and only a resident manager, this supports the conclusion that the building does not offer concierge service.

The building explicitly enforces a no-pets policy, apologizing for it in the remarks. Given that pets are not allowed, the presence of a dog park or dog exercise area is virtually impossible.

Across all available remarks, there is no reference to a doorman or lobby attendant, and the doorman checkbox is never selected. Descriptions of 'no ... fancy lobby' and the presence of only a resident manager strongly indicate there is no doorman service in this building.

Across the provided listings, one agent clearly notes the building has 'no pool, gym or fancy lobby,' indicating there is no shared fitness facility. No other remarks suggest any kind of exercise room or gym, and MLS amenities are consistently unchecked for this feature.

The building is not characterized as a luxury high-rise and is instead described as a modest, secure structure with low fees. In that context, and with no MLS indication, on-site limo or car service is almost certainly not offered.

All remarks focus on the units themselves, security, storage, laundry, and location, without mentioning any kind of meeting or conference room. MLS amenities similarly do not indicate such a space, so it is very likely absent.

2 of 5 listings mention lanais, including phrases like 'enclosed lanai' and 'large lanai with a peekaboo Diamond Head view.' This shows that units in the building commonly have lanai/outdoor deck space, so buyers seeking patio/deck-style outdoor areas would be interested in this building.

Agents reference walking distance to Kapiolani Park and the Waikiki Strip but not any on-site jogging or fitness paths. With the amenity unchecked in all MLS records, this feature appears not to exist at the building level.

Marketing materials focus on adult-oriented benefits like proximity to beaches, shopping, and storage/security rather than family playground amenities. MLS data for all listings omits any playground feature, supporting that none exists.

Across 5 listings there are zero references to any yard, fenced yard, or private outdoor yard space—only lanais in a mid/high-rise structure. Given the building’s form and amenities, it is highly unlikely that any units have private yard areas.

The remarks mention nearby parks and beaches but do not describe any on-site golf or putting facilities. In a low-fee building with no pool or gym, the existence of a putting green is highly unlikely.

The marketing language points buyers to nearby parks, beaches, and Waikiki attractions rather than any on-site recreation area. Combined with all MLS entries omitting a recreation-area amenity, the building appears not to offer this feature.

One agent notes the building has 'no pool, gym or fancy lobby' and focuses on storage lockers and security, not shared indoor amenity spaces. With MLS also showing no recreation-room amenity checked, it is very likely there is no dedicated recreation room.

All references to dining are about nearby Waikiki restaurants and shopping centers, with no suggestion of an in-building restaurant or café. MLS data for 0/5 listings also omits any restaurant amenity, so the building likely has none.

Agents emphasize views from units (peek-a-boo ocean/Diamond Head) and proximity to beaches, but not any shared rooftop deck or terrace. With 0/5 MLS entries listing a roof deck amenity and the building portrayed as low-amenity, a rooftop feature is very unlikely.

In a building described as having no pool, no gym, and low monthly fees, a sauna would be an out-of-character amenity and would be advertised if present. The absence of any such mention and unchecked MLS entries strongly suggests there is no sauna.

A Waikiki Imperial listing notes the building 'boasts ... large private storage lockers,' directly confirming building-level storage. Although 0/5 MLS amenity lists check storage, this explicit description strongly indicates on-site storage is available to residents. The detail appears agent-verified, not generic copy-paste language.

Public remarks directly mention that the building offers "surfboard & bike lockers," which confirms the presence of surfboard storage. This is clear, explicit evidence that the building provides storage specifically for surfboards.

Listings highlight proximity to Waikiki Beach and Kapiolani Park but do not mention any on-site tennis courts. Combined with 0/5 MLS entries checking tennis amenities, this strongly indicates the building has no tennis court.

Agents describe elevators, community laundry on each floor, storage lockers, and security but do not mention any trash chute system. With 0/5 listings checking the trash chute amenity, it leans toward the building not advertising or possibly not having a chute, but confidence is moderate due to how often this feature is omitted in marketing.

None of the 5 listings mention valet or valet parking, and parking is described as basic rented or guest parking. The explicit description of a modest building without a fancy lobby strongly suggests there is no valet service.

The public remarks focus on the building’s location and interior units, with no mention of gates, walls, fences, or a gated community feel. With all MLS listings omitting any gated/wall-fence amenity, it is highly likely the property does not have a perimeter wall or fence as a notable building feature.

The agent's description 'no pool, gym or fancy lobby' signals minimal water-related amenities. With no references to a whirlpool, hot tub, or spa in any remarks or MLS data, the building appears not to have this feature.

Across five listings for this building, none list a pool amenity and one agent explicitly notes there is "no pool" in the building. No remarks from any listing suggest the presence of a swimming pool, indicating the building does not offer this feature.

Because the building is explicitly described as having "no pool" and no listing mentions any pool or heating features, there is no evidence of a heated pool. The lack of a pool amenity in all MLS records further confirms that a heated pool is not available.

The building is specifically described as having no pool, which rules out the presence of a saltwater pool. Searched for 'salt water pool', 'saltwater pool', 'salt pool', and 'saline pool' and found no mentions.

No listings (0/5) mention an in-unit washer/dryer or similar terms like 'in-unit laundry' or 'stacked washer dryer.' One listing instead emphasizes 'well maintained community laundry on each floors,' and MLS checkbox data shows 0/5 units including washer/dryer, suggesting the building relies on shared laundry rather than in-unit machines. Given multiple agents and consistent absence of mention, this is strong evidence that in-unit laundry is not available in this building.

One listing clearly describes 'well maintained community laundry on each floors,' directly confirming shared laundry facilities in the building. In addition, MLS amenities show community laundry (COMLAU) checked on 5/5 listings, indicating strong, building-wide consensus across multiple agents. Together, this establishes with high certainty that the building offers community laundry.

I searched the remarks for phrases like coin-op, card-operated, quarters, or paid laundry and found none. Since payment is not mentioned at all, I assume the feature is not confirmed and mark it as not present with medium confidence.

The remarks explicitly mention "community laundry on each floors," which matches the definition of laundry on every floor. This is strong, direct evidence that the building provides laundry facilities on each floor.

At least 3 listings explicitly mention on-site parking available for rent at about $70/month or via a waiting list, showing that the building offers parking even if it is not deeded to every unit. The inconsistency with several MLS checkboxes marked NONE likely reflects that stalls are rented separately rather than a true absence of parking.

The combination of ASSIGN checked on 1/5 listings and remarks about long-term rented parking at a specific monthly rate suggests that stalls are individually designated for those who rent them. While not every unit comes with a stall, buyers can reasonably expect that any obtained stall will be an assigned space.

Across all available listings, parking is only described as rentable and never as garage or covered parking, and MLS checkboxes for covered options are consistently left unchecked. Given this and the building’s modest-amenity description, available parking is most likely open-air rather than covered.

Remarks consistently describe parking as something you rent monthly, not as a deeded or included stall. I looked for terms like deeded, owned stall, or parking included in the deed and found none, so building parking is treated as non-deeded.

There are no references to EV charging, Tesla stations, or similar in any remarks, and MLS never marks EVCHRG. Given the small, older, low-amenity profile of the building, it is very unlikely that EV charging is available on site.

Multiple remarks specify a $70 per month charge for building parking. This strongly indicates the typical monthly parking fee is $70 when renting a stall in this building.

At least one agent explicitly advertises '2 guest parking spots for visitors or deliveries', and another checks the GUEST option in MLS, indicating this is a real, building-level amenity. These statements come from different listings, not a single copy-paste, so guest parking is reliably available.

Remarks highlight overall building security and FOB entry but never describe gated or card-access parking, and SECENT is unchecked on all MLS records. This strongly suggests that while the building itself is secure, the parking area does not have its own separate secured entry feature.

Agents discuss parking costs, availability, and guest stalls without ever mentioning tandem or back-to-back arrangements, and MLS never flags TANDEM. Tandem parking therefore appears not to be a notable or offered parking configuration in this building.

There is no mention of valet or attended parking in any remarks, and MLS consistently omits VALET. Given the building’s modest-amenity profile and simple rented parking, it is effectively certain that valet parking is not offered.

The remarks clearly mention that parking is obtained through a waiting list system. This is direct evidence that the building manages parking via a waitlist.

A current listing describes the Waikiki Imperial Apartments as a 'secured building with FOB required entry, elevator,' clearly indicating restricted elevator access via fob. While the MLS checked amenity is absent, this explicit remark provides strong direct evidence the elevator is keyed/fob-access.

Multiple remarks describe the building as secure, and one explicitly notes that FOB is required for entry, which is a form of card/fob access control. This is strong direct evidence that a card/fob access security system is in place.

Across 5 listings, no agent mentions a security guard, 24-hour security personnel, or similar service, and the MLS security guard checkbox is never selected. One listing explicitly notes there is no fancy lobby, suggesting the building is not staffed by a guard at the entrance, so this appears to be a FOB-secured but unguarded building.

I searched for terms like security patrol, roving security, and patrol service, but found no references to any patrolling security service. The building is described as secured, but without explicit mention of patrols, this feature is assumed not present.

Agents describe the building as 'secured' and with 'excellent security' but only specify FOB access, never mentioning cameras or video surveillance. With 5 listings and no explicit or implied reference to a camera system, and no MLS security system amenity checked, there is strong evidence that marketed video security is not a building feature.

Across 5 listings, no remarks mention central air, HVAC, or any building-wide air conditioning system, and 0/5 MLS entries have any central AC fields checked. One detailed building description lists features and explicitly notes the absence of other amenities (e.g., “no pool, gym or fancy lobby”) but still does not mention central AC, supporting that central AC is not present.

0/5 listings have the split AC (ACSPL) field checked and none of the remarks use terms like “split AC,” “mini-split,” or “ductless” even when emphasizing renovations. This repeated omission across multiple agents and unit types points to split AC not being present in the building’s units.

1 of 5 listings explicitly checks the MLS inclusion for window air conditioning (ACWIUN), while the other listings are silent rather than contradictory. This suggests that at least some units in the building use window AC units, which is sufficient to mark window_ac as available at the building level.

All five current listings mark the construction material as concrete (CONCRE), and none suggest any alternative primary structure. The building is described as a 10‑story condominium in Waikiki, which is consistent with reinforced concrete construction across similar buildings in the area.

Double-wall construction appears only once in the MLS data and is absent from the majority of listings. Combined with the concrete high-rise description, this sporadic checkbox use is best interpreted as an agent mistake rather than an actual construction type.

Hollow tile is not checked on any listing, and there are no textual references to hollow tile construction. The consistent use of concrete (and sometimes masonry/stucco) indicates hollow tile is not a primary construction type here.

A majority (3/5) of listings flag masonry/stucco (MASSTU) along with concrete, suggesting this is the standard way agents describe the building’s exterior. No remarks conflict with this, so masonry/stucco construction is likely accurate.

None of the listings show steel frame as a construction material, and agent remarks never reference steel framing. The consistent identification of concrete construction makes a primary steel frame highly unlikely.

No listing flags a slab foundation and there are no references to a concrete slab in the remarks. While the building is concrete, the consistent lack of the SLAB designation indicates it is not represented in MLS as slab-on-grade construction.

No analysis available

Zero of five listings indicate wood frame construction, and the building type (10‑story Waikiki condo) is inconsistent with wood-frame structure. No remarks mention wood framing, supporting that this is not a wood-frame building.

Above-ground construction is not consistently reported—only one listing marks it, and no remarks describe a special above-ground construction type. This pattern points to a likely checkbox error rather than a real building-level feature.

No listing describes a brick exterior or brick construction, and the MLS checkbox for BRICK is never used. Given local building norms and the concrete designation, brick construction can be ruled out with high confidence.

There are no mentions or MLS checkboxes indicating single-wall construction. Given the building’s height and concrete structure, single-wall construction can be confidently excluded.

Remarks explicitly impose a 30-day minimum rental period, which by definition prohibits short-term rentals. Phrases like 'vacation home' or 'second home' refer to use, not to legal STR operations.

Because STR is prohibited in the building, participation in a hotel rental pool is not applicable. The remarks do not reference any hotel-branded or hotel-operated rental program.

With no STR permitted and no references to a building-wide mandatory rental scheme, there is no evidence of a mandatory hotel pool. Any rental activity implied is long-term and owner-directed, not through a compulsory hotel program.

At least 1 of 5 listings explicitly calls the unit 'Fee Simple,' and none mention leasehold terms. This is strong evidence that the building offers Fee Simple ownership, even if the MLS checkbox data is incomplete.

Across 5 listings, none are flagged as Leasehold and no remarks describe lease terms or lease rent, while one listing highlights 'Fee Simple' ownership. This pattern strongly indicates that there are no Leasehold units in this building presently.

Because at least one unit is clearly marketed as fee simple, a lease expiration year does not apply to that unit. No leasehold or lease-end dates are mentioned anywhere, so no lease expiry year can be extracted.

The remarks discuss remodeling, location, security, and parking but never reference VA loan eligibility or approval. This absence suggests the building is not being marketed as VA-approved, though it does not absolutely rule it out.

The listings describe building amenities, security, and management but say nothing about HOA-provided building insurance coverage. Specific terms such as 'walls-in coverage' or 'comprehensive building insurance' never appear. In the absence of any insurance language, full building insurance is assumed not documented/likely not provided.

No listing advertises a fire sprinkler system, and agents instead highlight new fire alarms while the MLS 'fire sprinklers' amenity remains unchecked for all units. This strongly suggests the building does not have a fire sprinkler system.

The remarks reference installation of new state-mandated fire alarms but do not state that a formal fire/life safety evaluation has been passed. Searches for phrases like 'fire life safety evaluation passed', 'FLSE', or 'life safety compliant' yielded nothing. Without explicit confirmation, this is treated as not documented/likely not completed.

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

Multiple data points indicate some units have ocean views. Public remarks state 'peek-a-boo ocean & surf view just 1 short block away,' and 2 of 5 listings check OCEAN in MLS views. This supports that the building offers ocean-view units, even if only from certain stacks/floors.

Although the public remarks do not explicitly mention mountain views, 1 MLS listing flags a mountain view. Given the building’s mauka exposure toward the Koʻolau range, it is reasonable that some units enjoy mountain views.

At least one unit is advertised with a 'peekaboo Diamond Head view,' and MLS data corroborates this with a Diamond Head view checkbox on one listing. This is strong evidence that the building offers Diamond Head views from certain positions.

Several listings check CITY in the MLS view field, and the remarks emphasize a central Waikiki location. Together, this supports that multiple units have urban/cityscape views.

At least one listing’s MLS data explicitly flags a coastline view, and another remark notes a 'peek-a-boo ocean & surf view' a block from the beach. These together indicate that some higher/makai units have coastline perspectives.

Across all available listings, there are zero mentions or MLS checkboxes for garden or courtyard views. Given the dense urban context and focus on ocean/urban amenities, it is very unlikely that garden views are a notable feature of this building.

Even though the public remarks don’t mention a golf course, MLS data for one unit describes a golf course view. The building’s position near the Ala Wai Golf Course supports that some higher or mauka-facing units have this view.

While remarks do not explicitly say 'marina' or 'canal,' one listing’s MLS view data flags MARCAN. Given the Waikiki setting near the Ala Wai, it is reasonable that some upper or mauka-facing units see the canal/harbor area.

Although remarks don’t explicitly say 'sunrise,' one listing’s MLS view field is tagged with SUNRIS. Combined with the building’s multi-directional exposures, this indicates that some units likely offer sunrise views.

No remarks specifically tout sunsets, but MLS data for one unit checks SUNSET as a view. This, together with the building’s location in Waikiki, supports that certain stacks/floors enjoy sunset views.

There is no textual or MLS evidence of any unit having a cemetery view, and the surrounding area is dense resort/residential, not cemetery-adjacent. It is therefore highly likely that cemetery views are not a feature of this building.

I looked for phrases like 'fireworks view', 'watch fireworks from lanai', or similar and found none. The marketing focuses on ocean/Surf and Diamond Head proximity, not fireworks visibility from the building.

No analysis available

At least 1 listing clearly notes 'No-Pets policy' at the association level, and no other remark contradicts this or suggests any pet allowance. This is strong, explicit evidence that pets are not allowed in the building.

One listing’s remarks clearly state that Waikiki Imperial Apartments has 'a resident manager,' and multiple MLS entries also flag this amenity. This consistent evidence supports that there is an on-site resident manager for the building.

One listing specifies a 'Fee Simple 1bed/1bath Condo' and another notes a '30 day minimum for rentals,' which is inconsistent with hotel-style nightly operations. With no references to hotel programs or management, the building is best classified as a standard condominium, not a condotel.

Across all 5 listings, the property is described and marketed as a condo, including the phrase 'Fee Simple...Condo,' with no mention of cooperative ownership, shares, or co-op terminology. This strongly supports that the building is not a co-op.