Occupancy • Section 4
or zero percent growth in average occupancy levels. Since the fourth quarter of 2011, overall occupancy levels in the West have posted an impressive gain of 6.4 percentage points.
Occupancy By Facility Size Some self-storage customers have strong preferences about the size of the facility from which they prefer to lease a storage unit. While one tenant may choose to rent a unit from a large facility with multiple size options and often a greater variety of services and amenities, other customers may go on to lease a space at a smaller, more intimate and easy-to-navigate storage store.
During the first and second quarters
of the year, Baltimore, Md., topped the nation in occupancy growth.
Although occupancy rates were very comparable between
facility sizes this year, looking at the data from a national levels shows that stores with 201 to 400 units enjoyed the highest oc- cupancy rates in the nation. Bringing up the rear, self-storage properties with 601 to 800 storage spaces had the lowest aver- age occupancy rates of the category. In both the Midwest and Southwest regions, the smallest self-storage stores—facilities with 200 or fewer units under one roof—boasted occupancy rates of 90 percent or higher for 2014. In the case of Southwest- ern self-storage facilities, those with less than 201 units led the category with an average occupancy rate of 91.3 percent for the year. On the low end of the occupancy spectrum, the largest self-
storage properties with more than 600 units generally posted the lowest average occupancy rates in each of their respective regional areas. However, it should be noted that large facilities have much more space to fill than do average or small sized self- storage businesses. Many more tenants are needed to reach ca- pacity at very large stores and with customers moving in and
Table 4.9 – Physical Occupancy Trends West Region
Region Year West 2011
West 2012 West 2012 West 2012 West 2012 West 2013 West 2013 West 2013 West 2013 West 2014 West 2014
Quarter 4
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2
Based on Second Quarter Survey Results * Data not available
Occupancy 82.3%
82.5% 84.5% 85.6% 84.9% 85.1% 87.2% 86.7% 86.1% 86.1% 88.7%
Change in Occupancy
*
0.2% 2.0% 1.1% -0.7% 0.2% 2.1% -0.5% -0.6% 0.0% 2.6%
Source: © 2014 REIS, INC.
Region Midwest
Midwest Midwest Midwest
Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast
South Atlantic South Atlantic South Atlantic South Atlantic South Atlantic South Atlantic
Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest
West West West West
National National National National
Table 4.10 – National and Regional Occupancy by Facility Size Facility Size
(in Units) (1) 1 to 200
(2) 201 to 400 (3) 401 to 600 (4) 601 to 800
Midwest (5) 801+ Midwest Total
(1) 1 to 200
(2) 201 to 400 (3) 401 to 600 (4) 601 to 800
Northeast (5) 801+ Northeast Total
(1) 1 to 200
(2) 201 to 400 (3) 401 to 600 (4) 601 to 800 (5) 801+ Total
(1) 1 to 200
(2) 201 to 400 (3) 401 to 600 (4) 601 to 800
Southwest (5) 801+ Southwest Total
(1) 1 to 200
(2) 201 to 400 (3) 401 to 600 (4) 601 to 800
West (5) 801+ West Total
(1) 1 to 200
(2) 201 to 400 (3) 401 to 600 (4) 601 to 800
National (5) 801+ National Total
Based on Second Quarter Survey Results
Occupancy Rate
90.0% 89.6% 90.9% 89.5% 88.3% 89.8%
87.3% 88.8% 89.7% 90.7% 89.6% 89.8%
87.5% 88.2% 88.5% 87.8% 88.6% 88.3%
91.3% 90.7% 90.0% 89.3% 90.4% 90.1%
88.9% 89.5% 88.5% 88.4% 88.9% 88.7%
89.1% 89.4% 89.3% 88.8% 89.1% 89.1%
Source: © 2014 REIS, INC. 2015 Self-Storage Almanac 63
out on an ongoing basis, it can be difficult for the largest self- storage facilities to top smaller sites in occupancy percentages in spite of the fact that they serve more customers, in general.
Top Metropolitan Areas Looking at the occupancy data by metropolitan area, it is in- teresting to note which cities successfully realized the biggest increases in occupancy rates for 2014. During the first and sec- ond quarters of the year, Baltimore, Md., topped the nation in occupancy growth as seen in Table 4.12 on page 64. The met- ropolitan area reported a quarter-over-quarter occupancy rate gain of 4.2 percent—a solid lead over the second place city of
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132
