Two types I have seen
A the risk of simplifying things too much I have noticed two distinct types of suburbs. Suburbs where houses are mainly owned by those living in them and other suburbs where investors own most of the homes. Generally the investor areas carry a varied social economic population. And house prices seem more reasonable due to the fact that most investors will pay an amount relative to rents. The more desirable for home owners seem to be able to achieve more emotional buying.
Cashflow
Cashflow decides how comfortable the investment is for the first ten years. Especially when taking debt due to servicing costs. You would expect rents to increase after the first decade to make things a lot more comfortable. Hence for me, the blue collar investor type suburbs make sense. If cashflow is less important(perhaps you have too much from other sources) then a more desirable suburb could be on the cards.
Future Development
How much of your money is going towards the land vs the structure is a question I often ask first time investors to consider. As the structure will often do very little in terms of price gains compared to the land. More and more with central bank controls, future development potential becomes a feature. As LVR restrictions and Debt to Income Ratios have an exemption for new constructions.
