Methodology Using what was learned from the per-property sampling in
the tested markets, the nationwide property list was adjusted to reflect only the core self-storage assets in each of the 50 states as well as in the top 100 MSAs. Once the supply-side property count was finalized through the generous sharing of informa- tion among the owners of thousands of self-storage properties across the country, the average and median square footage of a typical self-storage property was determined. These numbers were then equalized or normalized to compensate for the fact that participation in the square footage survey was significantly overweighed by institutional participation. The result is that the average rentable square feet at a core self-storage property rounded to 52,000.
As the self-storage industry continues its incredible operating
performance and its evolution into a core asset in investment real estate, these variations in the definition of the supply-side econo- metrics will aid in the education of the broader market, provide for an even better understanding of operational equilibrium, and equip operators and developers with better data from which to benchmark new supply.
Self Storage Association Methodology The Self Storage Association (SSA) commissioned the consulting firm, National Analysts Worldwide, to conduct the Self-Storage Demand Study - 2013 Edition. This study used an online survey of consumers and businesses. The first step was to gauge the inci- dence self-storage rentals in the general household and business population. For the 2013 study, more than 22,000 households and businesses were contacted and asked if they currently or re- cently rented a self-storage unit, or planned to in the next year. Those answering yes were then administered an in-depth survey about their self-storage rental needs, uses, and future plans. The in-depth survey was administered to 1,440 households and 459 businesses. That information was then analyzed and is presented in the most recent report.
Reis Self-Storage Methodology For decades, Reis has been providing owners, developers, lend- ers, and investors with trusted information about commercial real estate markets. Applying a “bottom-up,” facility, and property- level approach to gathering data and developing market and submarket analytics, Reis develops trends and forecasts for key metrics such as rents and vacancies. With 30 years of experience covering the multifamily, office, retail, and industrial sectors of commercial real estate, in 2012 Reis initiated coverage of the self- storage sector. Currently, Reis publishes historical trends and fore- casts on 50 Metropolitan areas and 279 underlying submarkets.
As a function of its surveillance of the self-storage market, Reis
has assembled an unprecedented database of information built upon quarterly updated observations of roughly 10,000 facilities across the U.S. Reis’s self-storage database represents all tiers of the market, with performance data on REITs, mid-sized firms, and smaller operators.
Reis gathers data via a combination of telephonic surveys,
direct data feeds from REIT systems, and data submissions from owners of 10 or more facilities. Specifically, Reis performs tele- phone surveys of storage facilities in 50 primary metropolitan areas across the U.S. The Reis survey team collects data on a variety of data points including facility size and unit mixes, total occupancy, and rents for climate-controlled and non-climate- controlled units in each facility. This is supplemented by data sent to us directly by facilities managed by members of the Large Operators Council and some of the largest self-storage REITs in the country.
The Reis survey team collects data on a variety
of data points including facility size and unit mixes, total occupancy, and rents for climate-controlled and non-climate-controlled units in each facility.
All self-storage facilities are mapped into the appropriate
metropolitan areas and submarkets by Reis based on propri- etary definitions, which take into account natural, manmade, and economic boundaries. The facility data is compiled in a database that is reviewed by their quality assurance staff daily, with comparative analyses performed versus historical surveys and market ranges, and across unit types.
During each publication run, the facility data is then ag-
gregated into national, regional, metro, and submarket-level aggregations for the purpose of historical trend generation. For our market forecasts, Reis utilizes a proprietary econo- metric forecasting model, which takes into account economic and demographic projections along with our research on the near-term pipeline of new construction projects. All data that is presented in the 2016 Almanac is based upon Q2 2015 observations.
Region Midwest Northeast
REIS Regional Breakdown States
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio
Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania
South Atlantic Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia
Southwest West Oklahoma, Texas
Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington
2016 Self-Storage Almanac 19
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 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152
