| Summary | National Percentile | Rank vs Metro |
|---|---|---|
| Housing | 44th | Good |
| Demographics | 31st | Fair |
| Amenities | 33rd | Good |
Multifamily Valuation
| Property Details | |
|---|---|
| Address | 39 Circle Dr, Whitney, TX, 76692, US |
| Region / Metro | Whitney |
| Year of Construction | 1999 |
| Units | 98 |
| Transaction Date | 2006-08-18 |
| Transaction Price | $1,240,200 |
| Buyer | WHITNEY RETIREMENT VILLAGE LTD |
| Seller | VALCREST INVESTMENTS INC |
39 Circle Dr Whitney TX Multifamily Investment
Stabilization and value-add potential hinge on tapping a modest renter base and improving competitiveness in a rural submarket, according to WDSuite’s CRE market data. With 1999 construction, the asset can position ahead of older local stock while monitoring pricing power in a high-ownership landscape.
Whitney sits within a rural pocket of Hill County where day-to-day conveniences are present but limited in density. Neighborhood amenities score competitive among 19 Hill County neighborhoods (rank 7 of 19), yet access trends below national medians for cafes, grocery, and services; park access is a relative bright spot, landing above the national median. These dynamics suggest residents rely on a smaller set of nodes for shopping and dining, which can shape tenant expectations and leasing strategies.
Local housing performance reflects a renter-light market: the share of renter-occupied units is around the national middle (national percentile ~50s) but is modest in absolute terms, implying a shallower tenant pool than urban Texas submarkets. Neighborhood occupancy trends rank near the bottom locally (18 of 19), pointing to leasing friction that owners should underwrite through conservative lease-up and renewal assumptions. Median contract rents benchmark in the lower national percentiles, supporting demand from cost-conscious renters but limiting immediate pricing power.
The average construction year in the neighborhood is mid‑1990s (rank 11 of 19; top quartile nationally for relative recency), and a 1999 vintage positions this property slightly newer than local averages. That can aid competitiveness versus older stock, though targeted system upgrades and common-area refreshes may still be needed to meet tenant expectations and support occupancy stability.
Home values and incomes indicate a more accessible ownership market compared with many metros (value-to-income sits around the national middle, and rent-to-income is near national mid-range). For investors, this means rental demand is supported by attainable rents but must contend with ownership alternatives, reinforcing the need for strong management, unit finishes, and service levels to drive retention. All demographic statistics referenced are aggregated within a 3-mile radius and should be paired with on-the-ground leasing intel for underwriting.
Comparable neighborhood safety data are limited in the available feed for this location, and WDSuite does not surface a ranked crime position versus the 19 neighborhoods in Hill County for the current period. Investors typically benchmark trends against county and nearby rural submarkets, focusing on multi‑year directionality and site‑specific factors (lighting, visibility, access control). A prudent approach is to pair WDSuite’s aggregates with local law-enforcement trend reports and property-level incident logs to inform underwriting and operational planning.
The resident base in this rural area is generally tied to local services, small businesses, and regional employers reachable by car, which can support workforce housing demand; however, verifiable distance data for specific anchor employers are not available in the current feed.
This 98‑unit, 1999‑built asset offers operational upside in a renter-light rural submarket where occupancy trends run below the county median, according to CRE market data from WDSuite. The vintage skews newer than the neighborhood average, creating a platform for targeted upgrades to differentiate versus older stock and support leasing. Lower relative rents can sustain demand among value‑oriented renters, but ownership alternatives remain competitive, placing emphasis on cost control and resident retention.
Forward performance will depend on disciplined revenue management, selective capital improvements, and marketing to expand the tenant draw beyond immediate neighborhood confines. Positioning around reliability, responsive maintenance, and practical amenities should help mitigate a smaller renter base and stabilize occupancy.
- 1999 vintage slightly newer than local average supports competitive positioning with targeted upgrades
- Lower relative rents attract value-seeking tenants and can aid retention
- Rural setting with manageable amenities favors workforce housing strategies and operational efficiency
- Risk: below-median neighborhood occupancy and modest renter concentration require conservative underwriting
- Risk: accessible ownership options may limit pricing power without clear property-level differentiation