Section 1 • Industry Profile
Alabama 4,951,876 Alaska 744,733 Arizona 7,031,568 Arkansas 3,041,640 California
674,875
146 861 628
39,611,295
Colorado 5,594,670 Connecticut 3,648,725 Delaware 971,403 District of Columbia
Florida 20,619,313 Georgia Hawaii
Idaho 1,714,694 Illinois
Kentucky 13,027,812
Indiana 6,746,689 Iowa 3,199,548 Kansas
6,104,335
2,970,523 4,514,130
Louisiana 4,786,046 Maine 1,367,209 Maryland
Massachusetts 6,884,028 Michigan 10,024,786 Minnesota 5,604,047 Mississippi 3,044,258 Missouri
6,191,231
Montana 1,059,459 Nebraska 1,938,966 Nevada 2,994,047 New Hampshire New jersey New Mexico New York
1,364,251 9,100,237 2,119,862
North Carolina North Dakota Ohio
Oklahoma
20,096,494 10,304,250 793,399
11,755,535 4,027,541
Oregon 4,122,334 Pennsylvania 12,976,662 Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota
1,064,615 5,037,131 880,051
Tennessee 6,766,460 Texas 28,296,099 Utah 3,113,215 Vermont 642,128 Virginia 8,513,496 Washington 7,311,450 West Virginia
1,892,804
Wisconsin 5,824,481 Wyoming 598,332
Source: MiniCo Publishing and NKF 30 Self-Storage Almanac 2018
10,390,390 1,461,211
4,057 977 325 110 20
2,758 1,520 90
380
1,460 974 513 545 648 862 224 556 548
1,363 705 549
1,120 373 318 427 212 671 448
1,328 1,696 131
1,609 842 733
1,415 78
786 185
1,162 4,475 484 133
1,021 1,232 278 999 171
52,509,056 7,643,392 45,075,072 32,877,056 212,392,064 51,147,904 17,014,400 5,758,720 1,047,040
144,386,816 79,575,040 4,711,680 19,893,760 76,433,920 50,990,848 26,856,576 28,531,840 33,924,096 45,127,424 11,726,848 29,107,712 28,688,896 71,355,776 36,908,160 28,741,248 58,634,240 19,527,296 16,647,936 22,354,304 11,098,624 35,128,192
1,003
10.60 10.26 6.41
10.81 5.36 9.14 4.66 5.93 1.55 7.00 7.66 3.22
11.60 5.87 7.56 8.39 9.60 7.52 9.43 8.58 4.77 4.17 7.12 6.59 9.44 9.47
18.43 8.59 7.47 8.14 3.86
23,453,696 11.06 69,523,456 88,788,992 6,858,112
84,234,368 44,080,384 38,374,016 74,078,080 4,083,456 41,148,672 9,685,120 60,833,024 234,275,200 25,338,368 6,962,816 53,451,392 64,497,664 14,553,856 52,299,648 8,952,192
3.46 8.62 8.64 7.17
10.94 9.31 5.71 3.84 8.17
11.01 8.99 8.28 8.14
10.84 6.28 8.82 7.69 8.98
14.96
In addition, as a comparison, we have added the new data from Union Realtime, which will continue to be updated on a quarterly basis throughout the coming year.
For the numbers this year,
our goal with NKF was to focus only on facilities where the
major source of revenue from the address was the rental of self-storage units.
It is important to understand the details in
each dataset provided. For the data in Table 1.2, the annual distillation of property counts has led to an adjustment over last year. Based upon the detailed analysis of the business codes used to identify legitimate self-storage facilities, and the shuffling of subcategories by the 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 fore- cast to be just under 800. Therefore, of the 2,270 properties on this year’s list that weren’t in the 2017 Almanac’s count, 770 are forecast to repre- sent the new supply, while the remaining 1,500 are forecast to be older than 2015 construction.
As explained in the Methodology section,
Union Realtime has leveraged both public and private data sources to determine the entire universe of self-storage facilities in the U.S. and Canada. Using that universe, it has applied a tre- mendous 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 fa- cility count and square footage calculations are facilities that are exclusively RV and boat storage.
In addition, while the Union Realtime dataset
captures 100 percent of the country, there are certain limitations. As the company looked for storage in the more rural areas of the country, it was determined that certain facilities are unable to be located at scale. That, combined with other
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
