QLD Similar properties, different location

Currently looking at two properties, both freestanding houses, similar ages, floorplans and aspects.
I've currently leaning towards property 1 with an estimated land to asset ratio of 80.3 vs property 2 with a land to asset ratio of 60.3.

Comparing the two demographics of the suburbs, would the following downsides have you lean away from property 1: higher vacancy rate 5%, lower walkscore and lower 10 year annual capital growth by >1%. ??

 

What's your overall investment strategy? Are you planning to buy and hold, develop, build up asset base etc?

Eg mine is buy and hold long term using positive cash flow properties. I would not consider many of the above factors to decide between the two.

 

Buy & Hold, each are solely for investment i.e. neither for PPOR in future
& yes continuing to build my asset base

 

With the limited information, I would buy the one that would give me the higher cash flow. Walk scores and vacancy rates I personally would not consider as the rent you get would have this factored in already. Properties with smaller land component is probably more attractive for tenants as they have less to maintain. But obviously depending on which state you're in, a large land size may allow you to build a granny flat or subdivide in future.