| Summary | National Percentile | Rank vs Metro |
|---|---|---|
| Housing | 20th | Best |
| Demographics | 53rd | Best |
| Amenities | 0th | Poor |
Multifamily Valuation
| Property Details | |
|---|---|
| Address | 1 S Brooklyn Ave, Wellsville, NY, 14895, US |
| Region / Metro | Wellsville |
| Year of Construction | 1973 |
| Units | 45 |
| Transaction Date | 2023-11-15 |
| Transaction Price | $55,000 |
| Buyer | GREENE CARL |
| Seller | PRESTON DAVID M |
1 S Brooklyn Ave, Wellsville NY 45-Unit Multifamily Investment
Neighborhood occupancy has trended stable with a modest renter base, and affordability metrics suggest solid retention potential, according to WDSuite’s CRE market data.
Situated in a rural pocket of Allegany County, the neighborhood carries an A- rating and ranks 12 out of 44 county neighborhoods — competitive among Allegany County neighborhoods. Local amenities are sparse, reflecting the rural setting, which can favor residents seeking quieter living while concentrating demand around established properties.
Vintage positioning matters: the property’s 1973 construction is newer than the neighborhood’s older housing stock (average vintage skews to the early 1900s). For investors, that typically means a relatively competitive baseline versus very old comparables, while still planning for system upgrades and targeted renovations to support leasing and retention.
Demographic statistics referenced here are aggregated within a 3-mile radius. Household sizes are on the smaller side locally and have edged down in recent years, which can sustain demand for smaller units. Neighborhood renter concentration is moderate (renter-occupied share above the national midpoint), supporting a viable tenant base, while overall occupancy at the neighborhood level sits above the metro median, aiding cash flow stability.
Schools average around the mid-3s on a 5-point scale and rank 6 out of 44 in the county — competitive among Allegany County neighborhoods and modestly above national medians, a supportive signal for family-oriented renter demand. Home values in the area are comparatively low on a national basis, which can introduce some competition with ownership options; for multifamily, that usually shifts the focus to value, management quality, and resident experience to maintain pricing power.
Comparable, metro-ranked crime data for this neighborhood are not available in WDSuite’s dataset. Investors typically contextualize safety by reviewing multi-year trends from local law enforcement and state resources, and by comparing the neighborhood with nearby Allegany County areas to gauge relative conditions and any directional changes.
WDSuite does not surface specific nearby anchor employers with measured distances for this location. Investors often evaluate commute patterns to regional healthcare, education, and public-sector hubs to understand workforce housing demand and resident retention.
The 1973, 45-unit asset benefits from a neighborhood that shows steady occupancy and a moderate renter-occupied share, supporting day-to-day leasing stability. According to CRE market data from WDSuite, local rent levels and a low rent-to-income profile point to manageable affordability pressure — a backdrop that can aid retention, even if rent growth tends to be measured in this rural context. The property’s vintage is meaningfully newer than much of the area’s older stock, suggesting scope for targeted value-add to sharpen competitive position without the heavier lift associated with prewar assets.
Key considerations include a smaller local amenity base and relatively accessible ownership costs, which may cap pricing power and require tighter asset management and resident experience to sustain occupancy. Demographic trends within a 3-mile radius indicate smaller households over time, supporting demand for efficient floor plans and reinforcing the case for practical renovations versus luxury repositioning.
- Neighborhood occupancy above metro median supports cash flow stability.
- 1973 vintage offers value-add potential versus older local stock.
- Low rent-to-income profile indicates manageable affordability pressure and retention support.
- Rural amenity depth and accessible ownership alternatives may temper rent growth — active management is key.