Industry Numbers • Section 1
improved and in the 2nd Annual Almanac, state facility counts and saturation levels were reported for the first time. By 1995, the data collection came from multiple industry surveys com- piled throughout the year. And every year after that, the Alma- nac continued to expand the scope of the data and knowledge it presented to include every facility within the industry in the U.S.
W As the industry has evolved, facilities have changed. In the
early days, a facility could be just a few dozen units with roll-up doors on a dirt lot, or perhaps rows of garages on an unused parcel of land in an industrial area. Today, they are often large, state-of-the-art structures with advanced technology and pro- fessional management. Once thought of as an interim use for vacant land, self-storage is now an asset class of its own.
With 24 years of significant growth and changes behind us,
the question becomes: What is the real criteria for a self-storage facility in terms of data collection?
The Progression Of Self-Storage Data The sharing of information within the self-storage industry has evolved significantly with the maturation of the industry—espe- cially over the past 10 years. Data-scraping and data-collection also has improved significantly, making it easier to benchmark segments of the industry such as rental rates, costs for ancillary services, etc. Moreover, as with any product or service, tightly defined supply/demand variables become more and more criti- cal as the product or service transitions, on both sides, from ex- ponential growth to incremental growth.
Reference the per-capita use of cell phones from the early
1980s to today or the total number of households in the U.S. with high-speed Internet from 1999 to today. As the growth rate on both sides of the supply/demand curve pla- teau, the definition of the “market” and the “demand” becomes significantly more criti- cal to accurate planning and pricing—espe- cially in the context of when and where new supply is warranted based upon existing demand, a growing demand-base, and the rate of use across the demand-base.
National Data Total Number of Facilities
Average Number of Units per Facility Average Facility Net Square Footage Total Number of Units
Total Rentable Square Footage As the self-storage industry progresses
closer toward the shift from exponential demand growth to more incremental de- mand growth, for 2015, MiniCo and its partner NGKF Capital Markets studied the underlying supply base across the U.S. As was done with all previous years, the supply base was looked at as both a to- tal across all 50 states and also across the nation’s top 100 MSAs.
Average Rentable Square Footage per Person
State Information State with Most Facilities State with Fewest Facilities
State with Most Rentable Square Footage per Person State with Least Rentable Square Footage per Person
MSA Information Metro Area with Most Facilities
Metro Area with Most Rentable Square Footage Metro Area with Most Square Feet Per Capita
hen the First Annual Self-Storage Almanac was published in 1992, it was the first attempt to collect data that would be relevant for the self-storage industry. Data collecting
For the 2016 Almanac, the roughly 51,000 facilities previously
reported were divided into categories that would provide for micro-defining the supply side of the market. The results sug- gest that roughly 20 percent of the supply across the country is operated from locations with a primary business that is some- thing other than self-storage. Additionally, it suggests that these non-core storage business operations are highly fragmented rel- ative to proximity to the core of the markets in which they were located. Most importantly, the non-core storage operations are being out-positioned by purpose-built storage facilities, mak- ing the non-core storage businesses less and less relevant as the rental rates and other operating metrics are less representative of the self-storage market.
The sharing of information within the
self-storage industry has evolved significantly with the maturation of the industry— especially over the past 10 years.
Once the supply-side property count was finalized, with the
generous sharing of information among the owners of thou- sands 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 nor- malized to compensate for the fact that participation in the square footage survey was significantly overweighed by insti- tutional participation. The result is that the average rentable square feet at a core self-storage property rounded to 52,000. Also calculated is the new national average square feet of stor- age per person (6.77).
Using what was learned, the nationwide property list was
adjusted to reflect only the core self-storage assets in each of the 50 states. Therefore, the 2016 Almanac is reporting a facil- ity count that reflects only those properties identified as having
Table 1.1 – Industry Profile 2015
41,443 482
52,000 20 million
2,155,036,000 6.77
Texas - 4,136
Rhode Island - 74 Montana New York
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR
Source: MiniCo Publishing 2016 Self-Storage Almanac 23
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
