Economics & Demographics • Section 4 Texas was ranked No. 2, followed by North Carolina, South Carolina,
and Washington. Alabama was the biggest year-over-year climber in the rankings, surging 36 spots to No. 6.
Growth states are calculated by the net gain of one-way trucks en-
tering a state versus those leaving that state during a calendar year. California ranked 49th and Illinois was 50th for the fourth time in five
years, pacing the out-migration states with the largest net losses of U- Haul trucks crossing their borders.
With more workers sheltering in place, the trend has been accelerated by technology and shifting attitudes that make it easier to work remotely.
The Raleigh-Durham, N.C., corridor registered as the top growth city in America in 2019, recording the largest net gain of one-way U-Haul truck customers, according to U-Haul migration data.
Kissimmee, Fla.; Ocala, Fla.; the Round Rock-Pflugerville, Texas, mar-
ket; and West Palm Beach, Fla., round out the top five growth cities for 2019. Florida boasts five of the top seven growth cities and seven of the top 25. Texas claims four cities in the top 25, while California has three.
Houston was cited as U-Haul’s No. 1 U.S. Destination City, staking its
claim to the top spot for the 11th consecutive year. Rounding out the top 10 U-Haul Destination Cities are Las Vegas,
San Antonio, Chicago, Orlando, Austin, Charlotte, Philadelphia, Brook- lyn, and Phoenix.
Metro Exodus It was widely reported during the summer that the pandemic, along with economic and social issues, had caused a mass exodus from large metro areas to suburbs and even rural areas of the U.S., apparently re- versing the trend of the past 50 years that saw huge migrations into large cities.
Millennials especially have been drawn to metro areas by job oppor- tunities and the gentrification of older neighborhoods into shiny new condos, apartments, and other upscale residences.
But the pandemic’s deadly effect on people living in close proximity, along with the subsequent economic downturn, drove numerous city dwellers to seek wide open spaces.
Preliminary figures show New York City is losing citizens to upstate
New York, suburban Connecticut, rural New England, and Florida in sig- nificant numbers. While real estate sales were down in San Francisco and prices fell precipitously, demand in its suburbs has been soaring.
Redfin, a Seattle-based real estate brokerage, reports that more than a quarter of searches on its website were by urbanites in Seattle, San
Francisco, and the District of Columbia searching for homes across less populated places.
With more workers sheltering in place, the trend
has been accelerated by technology and shifting atti- tudes that make it easier to work remotely. The option to work from home or remotely is likely to become a bigger part of the workforce culture.
Much of the evidence of this mass exodus to less
dense communities is anecdotal, and it will take much more study to determine if pandemic-related trends continue into 2021 and beyond. Self-storage opera- tors, investors, and developers will undoubtedly keep a careful eye on migration to determine how their exist- ing and planned facilities could be impacted in future years.
1 Raleigh-Durham, N.C. 2
Kissimmee, Fla. (10)
3 Ocala, Fla. 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Round Rock-Pflugerville, Texas West Palm Beach, Fla. Port Saint Lucie, Fla. (21) Bradenton-Sarasota, Fla. (17) Coeur D’Alene, Idaho Manhattan, N.Y. (3) Harrisburg, Pa. (4)
New Braunfels, Texas Auburn-Opelika, Ala. Huntsville, Ala.
Spring-The Woodlands, Texas (2) Boca Raton, Fla. Henderson, Nev.
McKinney, Texas (11) Temecula, Calif. (19)
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (8) St. George, Utah (15) Murfreesboro, Tenn. National City, Calif.
23 Chandler, Ariz. 24 25
Source: U-Haul International 2021 Self-Storage Almanac 45 Wilmington, N.C. Santa Barbara, Calif.
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
