9655 WHARF RD, DALLAS, TX, 75019
$65,500,000
2025 Appraised Value
↑ 10.1% from prior year
🏘️ Community includes 2 DCAD parcels (539 total units)
The property exhibits a dangerous disconnect between its valuation fundamentals and operational reality. Appraised at $65.5M (10.1% YoY appreciation, $220.5K/unit), the asset appears well-positioned on paper—reasonable 70.3% LTV, no supply competition, and strong local incomes ($113.7K median within 1-mile). However, Google reviews collapsed from 3.5 to 2.3 in six months, with systematic failures (45-day elevator outages, endemic maintenance delays, aggressive fee collection) indicating severe management underinvestment and material deferred capex liability. The submarket's deteriorating vacancy trend coupled with the property's acute car-dependency (Walk Score 22, zero transit) and narrow renter demographic (54% earning $100K+) signal demand vulnerability if affluent tenant concentration weakens or economic conditions soften.
Pass. While the 2017 vintage and zero pipeline competition offer surface appeal, current ownership has demonstrably degraded asset quality during what should have been value-accretive years. Any acquisition would require immediate capital injection to remediate maintenance backlogs and restore tenant satisfaction before realizing the embedded $3.6M spread between appraisal and estimated sale price—a red flag suggesting market skepticism of current positioning. Recommend returning to watch-list only if management turnover and capex remediation commence with tenant satisfaction measurable improvement.
No notes yet
Limited Data Set Constrains Assessment: Only 2 exterior photos were analyzed with zero interior unit imagery, preventing evaluation of kitchen/bath finishes, appliance quality, or unit-level renovation consistency—critical inputs for value-add positioning. The 2017 construction date and estimated 2018–2020 renovation window suggest Class A positioning, but photographic evidence of interior condition is absent.
Exterior Positioning Indicates Strong Curb Appeal: Contemporary mixed-use architecture with mixed cladding (white/charcoal), modern metal railings, and large glazing reflects current market standards. Fresh paint condition and 5–6 story mid-rise with surface parking support Class A/B+ positioning typical of 2017-era coastal multifamily.
Recommend interior unit photography to assess finish spec, appliance grade, flooring type (carpet vs. luxury vinyl), and renovation depth across unit mix before finalizing asset class and value-add thesis.
/ ·
This photo was not identified as property-related.
No AI analysis available for this photo.
No notes yet
WHARF AT THE SOUND faces acute location constraints that will pressure leasing and pricing. The property's walk score of 22 and zero transit access classify it as car-dependent with no public transportation options—a severe liability in today's multifamily market, particularly for younger renters and cost-conscious tenants who avoid vehicle ownership. The bike score of 28 indicates minimal cycling infrastructure, further limiting non-automotive mobility. Without average rent data we cannot assess whether pricing reflects this accessibility deficit, but a 297-unit asset in Dallas with no transit connectivity will struggle to justify rates competitive with walkable urban or near-downtown alternatives and will skew toward car-owning households only.
No notes yet
Supply Pipeline: Minimal Competitive Threat, But Occupancy Headwinds Elsewhere
Zero units in the submarket pipeline (0.0% of the 297-unit property) eliminates new supply pressure on this asset. However, the deteriorating vacancy trend across the submarket signals demand weakness that isn't driven by incoming competition—suggesting macro softness, tenant migration, or existing oversupply issues that supply filters won't resolve. Absent near-term deliveries, rent growth will depend entirely on the property's ability to outperform during a weakening market cycle.
No multifamily construction permits found within 3 miles
No notes yet
The property carries $42.9M in senior debt against a $61.0M estimated sale price, yielding a 70.3% LTV—reasonable leverage but tight for refinancing risk given the October 2020 origination date and unknown maturity. With two loans totaling $42.9M originated within months of each other, the structure suggests a bridge-and-permanent setup typical of development or value-add plays, though missing maturity dates and DSCR data prevent assessment of near-term refinancing pressure. The absentee individual owner's 5.5-year hold with only two transactions indicates a medium-term hold strategy rather than a flip, reducing distress signals; however, the $144.2K gap between appraised and estimated sale value and the lack of rate/term specificity warrants verification of loan performance and maturity timing. No foreclosure or deed-in-lieu signals appear in the chain.
No notes yet
Estimated from loan records, rental listings, and appraisal data using industry-standard assumptions.
Based on most recent loan: $42,670,000 (Oct 2020, attom)
Computed from nearby properties within 3 miles of similar vintage
No notes yet
WHARF AT THE SOUND is a 297-unit, five-story mid-rise apartment built in 2017 with wood-frame construction and brick exterior. The property totals 359.2K SF gross building area with 258.6K SF net leasable area, reflecting a 72.0% efficiency ratio typical for mid-rise urban products. Rated in good condition across structure and finishes, the asset is situated in a car-dependent location (Walk Score 22) with parking configuration unspecified. Google rating of 2.5 suggests operational or resident satisfaction headwinds warranting due diligence on management and competitive positioning.
No notes yet
No notes yet
The 1-mile submarket is an affluent renter island with exceptional density but narrow demand sustainability. The immediate radius shows 93.9% renter occupancy and median household income of $113.7K, yet the affordability ratio of 18.3% signals tight affordability—renters are dedicating nearly one-fifth of income to housing. The income distribution is heavily skewed toward $100K+ earners (54% of households), indicating this is not workforce housing but rather a choice rental market dependent on high earner concentration. The 3-mile radius reveals the critical tension: broader market income ($129.4K median) and lower renter occupancy (54.8%) suggest strong homeownership capacity in the surrounding area, meaning the property lacks a deep workforce renter buffer and depends on affluent renters willing to forgo ownership. Without rent data, the affordability ratio implies monthly rents likely exceed $1.7K—sustainable only if high-income renter demand remains durable.
Source: US Census ACS 5-Year Estimates (2023) · 1 tracts (1mi)
No notes yet
No notes yet
No notes yet
Appraisal History – WHARF AT THE SOUND
The property appreciated 10.1% YoY to $65.5M, translating to $220.5K per unit—a healthy valuation for a 2017-vintage asset in the current rate environment. With improvements representing 98.2% of total value versus land at just 1.8% ($1.2M), this is a fully-built, operationally-driven asset with minimal redevelopment optionality; any value creation must come through NOI expansion rather than repositioning. The single appraisal snapshot limits trend analysis, but the double-digit appreciation suggests either strong operational performance, market cap rate compression, or both.
| Year | Total Value | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | $65,500,000 | +10.1% |
No notes yet
Deteriorating Property Condition and Management Failure
The rating collapse from 3.5 to 2.3 over six months signals acute operational breakdown rather than cyclical dissatisfaction. Negative reviews cluster around four distinct failure modes—elevator outages (45-day incident), endemic package theft/misdelivery, deferred maintenance (week-long response times), and aggressive fee collection ($75 violation charges)—suggesting systemic neglect compounded by adversarial tenant relations. The 45.5% one-star concentration and specific operational complaints (broken gates, pest issues, hallway cleanliness) indicate capital and management underinvestment, not lease-up challenges. This review trajectory directly undermines value-add repositioning; current ownership has degraded the asset rather than improved it, creating significant deferred capex liability and lease-renewal risk for any acquirer.
21 reviews total
DO NOT MOVE HERE WHATEVER YOU DO! The problems with the elevators are constant and ongoing and the office is extremely slow to respond. We had an elevators outage for 45 days and the residents were not compensated for the inconvenience in any way shape or form. This is an over priced “luxury” apartment that has constant issues with the garages, packages being stolen, air conditioners breaking constantly. With so many options to live I would never choose this place. I’ve been a 5 year resident and paid almost $200,000
to this apartment in rent. The day I am moving out of my 5th floor apartment the elevator is conveniently closed down by the fire marshal as the call button to call the fire department wasn’t working. Nothing was actually wrong with the elevator but it made my move cost three times as much as the elevator was broken. If you want to pay way too much money to a very incompetent office staff move here. Otherwise RUN VERY FAR AWAY.
Extremely Disappointed – Ongoing Theft Issues and Poor Management Response
Really disappointed with the experience at this apartment complex. My Stanley tumbler was stolen from the gym, and I’ve also had packages disappear within an hour of delivery notifications. It’s extremely frustrating that there are no cameras or proper security measures in the gym or mailroom to prevent thefts.
What makes it worse is the slow and unresponsive management — it takes ages to get any reply or action on reported issues. The apartment might have a nice view, but be prepared for your belongings or deliveries to go missing with little help from the staff. Very poor management for the rent we pay.
Package deliveries are consistently misdirected at this property. Assistance from leasing office staff, specifically Jenice, was unhelpful and dismissive. Future residents should be aware of potential challenges with service and communication. I hope management will address these concerns to improve future residents’ experiences.
No notes yet
No notes yet