Section 3 • Economics & Demographics


with public parks for community gathering. Cities such as Miami, Memphis, San Antonio, Portland, and Jersey City have adopted New Urbanist principles, making their suburbs more attractive to millennials.


Extra Space Storage, a Utah-based REIT, reports millennials make


up about 17 percent of the company’s tenant base. Other storage op- erators report that younger customers represent a growing percent- age of their tenant base. If millennials are going to maintain lifestyles of adventure and travel, they will need offsite storage for sports equipment such as surfboards, water skies, snow skis, and camping gear. And unlike baby boomers who had to learn about the benefits of self-storage over time, millennials have seen their parents use stor- age and they occasionally used the service as students and soldiers.


Table 3.5 – U-Haul Top 10 Destination Cities (January - December 2014)


Rank State


1 Houston, TX 2 Chicago, IL 3


Las Vegas, NV


4 San Antonio, TX 5 Orlando, FL 6 Brooklyn, NY 7 Austin, TX 8 Philadelphia, PA 9


It was revealed in 2015 that


millennials had surpassed Gen- eration X to become the largest share of the American workforce, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bu- reau data. At 53.5 million-strong, more than one-in-three Ameri- can workers today are in the 18- to-34 age group. The millennial labor force last year surpassed that of the Baby Boomers, which has declined as boomers retire.


Kansas City, MO 10 Sacramento, CA Source: U-Haul International


Table 3.6 – U-Haul Top Destination Cities 11 - 25 (January - December 2014)


Rank State 11


Columbus, OH


12 Charlotte, NC 13 Phoenix, AZ 14 Jacksonville, FL 15 Tampa, FL 16 17


18 Dallas, TX 19 Bronx, NY 20


St. Louis, MO


21 Indianapolis, IN 22 Tucson, AZ 23 Fort Worth, TX 24 Columbia, SC 25 NashVille, TX


Source: U-Haul International 44 Self-Storage Almanac 2016


New York City, NY San Diego, CA


Houston Tops U.S. Destination Cities Mobility is among the key factors in a consum- er’s decision to use stor- age. Relocating because of a job opportunity, di- vorce, or other personal reasons contributes to the need for storage.


U-Haul International,


Inc., the industry’s third largest operator, has compiled a list of the Top


As the job market strength-


ens and millennials mature in their careers, more members of that age group are expected to move out of their parents’ homes and take up home ownership. This generation of Americans will make up a larger percentage of storage users as they age and accumulate possessions.


Since the end of


World War II 70 years ago, western and other warm weather states have attracted retirees, relocating employees, and millions


ing for a fresh start. Younger Americans appear to be continu- ing this trend, which will undoubtedly pres- ent opportunities and challenges for self- storage businesses in the years ahead. Ca- tering to this growing segment of the popu- lation may eventually require making sig- nificant changes to the storage model to meet this demand.


10 U.S. Destination Cities of 2014 from more than 1.7 million one-way U-Haul truck transactions occurring during the year. Destination statistics are a strong indicator as to how well cities are attracting new residents.


In the moving data based on yearly nationwide statistics,


Houston earned the Number 1 spot for a sixth consecutive year. Chicago was Number 2, which was up from fourth the previous year, and Las Vegas was third for the second year in a row. San Antonio and Orlando ranked fourth and fifth, respectively. Brooklyn, Austin, Philadelphia, Kansas City, and Sac- ramento rounded out the top 10.


Table 3.7 – 20 Hottest U.S. Real Estate Markets


(Based on number of listing views and median days on the market in August 2015)


Rank State 1


look- San Francisco, CA


2 Dallas, TX 3 Denver, CO 4 Vallejo, CA 5 6 7


Santa Rosa, CA San Jose, CA San Diego, CA


8 Midland, TX 9 Sacramento, CA 10 Columbus, OH 11 12


Ann Arbor, MI Santa Cruz, CA


13 Detroit, MI 14 Los Angeles, CA 15 Oxnard, CA 16 Stockton, CA 17


Yuba City, CA


18 Austin, TX 19 San Antonio, TX 20 Nashville, TN


Source: Realtor.com


Table 3.8 – Top Markets By Concentration Millennials Vs. Baby Boomers (By Percentage of Concentration)


Millennials Baby Boomers 1 Austin (16%)


2 Salt Lake City (15%) 3 San Diego (15%) 4 Los Angeles (14%) 5 Denver (14%)


6 Washington, D.C. (14%) 7 Houston (14%) 8 Las Vegas (14%)


9 San Francisco (14%) 10 Dallas-Ft. Worth (14%)


1 Portland-Auburn, ME (31%) 2 Burlington, VT (30%) 3 Albany, NY (29%)


4 Hartford & New Haven, CN (29%) 5 Pittsburgh, PA (29%) 6 Tri-Cities, TN-VA (29%) 7 Wilkes Barre, PA (29%) 8 Charleston, WV (28%) 9 Boston (28%)


10 Green Bay-Appleton, WI (28%) Source: The Nielsen Company


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