Methodology
companies who compile the macro data, the comparison of nationwide property totals vs. 2016 and 2017 property totals overstates the implied supply growth by approximately 1,500 properties across the U.S. The number of new properties that were not included in the 2017 Almanac count is forecast to be just under 800. There- fore, of the 2,270 properties on this year’s list that weren’t on the 2017 Almanac’s count, 770 are forecast to represent the new supply, while the remaining 1,500 are forecast to be older than 2015 construction. For the 2018 Almanac, based upon our research of more than 19,000 actual
self-storage facilities, the normalized average rentable square feet at a typical self- storage facility is 52,352, as can be seen in Sections One and Three. As the self-storage industry continues its incredible operating performance,
and its evolution to a core asset in the context of investment real estate, these varia- tions in the definition of the supply-side econometrics 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 off of which to benchmark new supply.
Union Realtime Methodology Union Realtime (URT) has leveraged both public and private data sources to deter- mine the entire universe of self-storage facilities in the U.S. and Canada. Using that universe, URT has applied a tremendous amount of detail in determining the actual location, use, and net square footage of each facility. The dataset includes both pure self-storage facilities as well as facilities that contain self-storage plus another storage type (such as RV and/or boat storage). Excluded from the facility count and square footage calculations are facilities that are exclusively RV and boat storage. Union Realtime: Net Rentable Square Feet (NRSF) Methodology: Each facility
has been individually evaluated to determine the number of buildings, dimen- sions, stories, and NRSF (net rentable square feet). NRSF is estimated building by building based on the type of structure. For example, for a modern indoor climate- controlled building, URT typically applies a 72 percent NRSF ratio to the gross square footage (which is calculated via the dimensions and number of stories). For an older drive-up building, URT typically applies a 91 percent NRSF ratio. For facilities where the actual NRSF is in between 72 percent and 91 percent, URT has applied certain techniques to estimate the most accurate total NRSF ratio. Based on URT’S findings, NRSF has been estimated to within 95 percent of the actual NRSF. Union Realtime: Rental Rate and Promotion Data Methodology: Union Real-
time utilizes in-house technology to monitor rental rate and promotion activity on a daily basis from facilities that publish their pricing and promotion details online. The methodology monitors daily rate and promotion activity, which includes both in-store and online variations, while categorizing every detail provided about the unit, including but not limited to floor level, unit size, climate status, humidity and heating, unit access, unit location, and door type and size. We believe the universe of self-storage facilities that currently produce their rates online is roughly 20,000, which should continue to grow as the market continues to consolidate and as com- petition increases. At the end of 2017, Union Realtime was collecting nearly all of the roughly 20,000 facilities that are publishing their rates on the internet. Union Realtime: Occupancy Data Methodology: Union Realtime (URT)
currently monitors occupancy and rental rates through both publicly available in- formation from the national self-storage REITs and through individual facility level information provided to Union Realtime by individual owners and operators. Union Realtime does not utilize any surveys to collect information. Union Realtime: Dataset Limitations: While the URT dataset captures 100 per-
cent of the country, there are certain limitations. As URT looked for storage in the more rural areas of the country, it was determined that certain facilities are unable to be located at scale. These areas are typically very rural, and the facility size is
typically small. URT estimates that the numbers for these facilities that have been excluded from its dataset are de minimis of the total number of facilities in our database.
Self Storage Association Methodology The Self Storage Association commissioned the consulting firm NAXION (formerly National Analysts Worldwide) to conduct the first-ever de- mand study of the self-storage market in 2004, which was published as the Self Storage Demand Study – 2005 Edition. The study was repeated in 2007 and 2013, with minor changes each time. This report presents the results of the Self Storage Demand Study – 2017 Edition. Objective: The purpose of the study is to paint a portrait of who
uses self-storage, how and why, and—most importantly—to project future demand.
Methodology • Online survey of consumers and businesses conducted November to December of 2016.
• More than 13,000 households and businesses contacted and asked if they currently or recently rented a self-storage unit or planned to in the next year.
• Of those who answered yes, an in-depth survey was administered to 1,502 households and 501 businesses.
• Renters defined as current, recent, and new users. • A note on statistical significance: Self-storage penetration estimates are based on the larger number of households and businesses screened, whereas survey results are based on the number completing the in-depth survey.
Margins of error at 95 percent confidence level are as follows:
»» Consumer self-storage penetration: ±1 percent »» Consumer self-storage survey data: ±2 percent »» Business self-storage penetration: ±3 percent »» Business self-storage survey data: ±4 percent
These margins are somewhat larger for sub-analyses of segments, regions, etc., depending on sample size.
Bringing It All Together The Self-Storage Almanac has always strived to be at the leading edge of informing the industry with the most relevant and complete picture market level data available. Historically, for supply, the methods utilized had always included a form of educated estimation based on input from various sources. Going forward in 2018 and beyond, the supply data presented in conjunction with Union Realtime, are actual address by ad- dress facilities that have each been evaluated to determine the location, existence, and net rentable square footage. While it has never been an easy task, the Self-Storage Almanac has,
and will continue to be, at the forefront of seeking the best informa- tion to help inform its readers. The superior performance of the industry over the last several years now means that more focus is being spent on increasing the data quality, and we will continue to bring you the best of what is out there with both of our partners: NKF and URT.
2018 Self-Storage Almanac 25
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 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180
