| Summary | National Percentile | Rank vs Metro |
|---|---|---|
| Housing | 45th | Best |
| Demographics | 46th | Good |
| Amenities | 15th | Best |
Multifamily Valuation
| Property Details | |
|---|---|
| Address | 2 Elizabeth Ave, Massena, NY, 13662, US |
| Region / Metro | Massena |
| Year of Construction | 2006 |
| Units | 23 |
| Transaction Date | --- |
| Transaction Price | --- |
| Buyer | --- |
| Seller | --- |
2 Elizabeth Ave Massena 23-Unit Multifamily Opportunity
Neighborhood occupancy metrics indicate tight conditions and steady renter demand, according to WDSuite’s CRE market data. These signals reflect neighborhood-level performance rather than the property itself and point to defensive cash-flow potential supported by modest rent burdens.
Massena’s rural setting delivers everyday conveniences with a low-intensity pace. Neighborhood ratings place this area competitive among Ogdensburg-Massena neighborhoods (11th of 76), with restaurants and grocery access sufficient for local needs but fewer cafes, parks, and childcare options than urban submarkets. For investors, this translates to stable, utility-driven renter demand rather than amenity-led premium positioning.
School quality trends are a local positive: the average school rating is above the national median and competitive among Ogdensburg-Massena neighborhoods (ranked 5th of 76). This can support family-oriented tenancy and longer stays, reinforcing retention even without extensive lifestyle amenities.
Rents in the immediate neighborhood sit below national norms and have been relatively flat, while the neighborhood occupancy rate ranks first out of 76 locally and is in the top quartile nationally. These are neighborhood indicators, not property performance, but they suggest a backdrop where units tend to lease and stay leased, with pricing power more likely to come from quality and operational execution than from amenity premiums.
Within a 3-mile radius, demographic statistics show a smaller average household size and a slight dip in population recently, but households have inched higher and are projected to expand further. This implies a gradual renter pool expansion as more, smaller households enter the market—supportive of occupancy stability and day-to-day leasing velocity. The renter-occupied share is modest at the neighborhood level but higher within the 3-mile radius, indicating workable depth for workforce housing strategies.
Home values remain below national averages, creating a relatively accessible ownership market. For multifamily investors, this typically means two countervailing forces: accessible ownership can compete with rentals at the margin, yet low rent-to-income ratios support retention and consistent collections. With a 2006 construction year, the property is newer than the neighborhood’s average vintage (1970s), offering competitive positioning versus older stock while leaving room for targeted modernization of systems or unit finishes as part of a value-focused plan.
Comparable neighborhood crime data are not available in WDSuite for this location. Investors commonly benchmark safety using town, county, and state trendlines and evaluate on-site measures, lighting, and property management practices during due diligence. Absent direct comparables, prudent underwriting should incorporate conservative assumptions and third-party verification.
The investment case centers on durable occupancy and operational upside. Neighborhood-level indicators point to very tight occupancy and moderate rents, suggesting steady lease-up dynamics where thoughtful renovations, professional management, and expense control can drive returns over time. Demographic statistics within a 3-mile radius indicate smaller household sizes and an increasing household count ahead, which supports a larger tenant base and leasing stability. According to CRE market data from WDSuite, the area’s school positioning is competitive locally, adding a family-friendly dimension that can aid retention.
Built in 2006, the property is newer than much of the surrounding stock, positioning it well versus older assets while still allowing for targeted value-add. Counterweights include a relatively accessible ownership market that can compete with rentals and a rural amenity set that limits premium pricing. On balance, the forward outlook favors consistent occupancy and income durability, with upside tied to unit modernization and operational execution.
- Tight neighborhood occupancy backdrop supports leasing stability and retention potential.
- 2006 vintage offers competitive positioning versus older local stock with value-add avenues.
- 3-mile demographics point to more, smaller households ahead, expanding the renter pool.
- School performance is competitive locally, aiding family-oriented tenancy and longer stays.
- Risks: accessible homeownership can compete with rentals; rural amenities may cap premium rent growth.