Unit mix on a stabilized self storage facility: drive-up or climate control
Take a stabilized 140-unit facility in a secondary market where nothing new has broken ground in years. A typical mix might run 110 drive-up non-climate units and 30 climate-controlled units in a converted section of the front building. Climate units often rent at a meaningful premium per square foot, commonly in the neighborhood of 30 percent, but they cost real money to run. It's not unusual to see an expense line near 40 cents a foot for climate space against single digits for the metal rows. The case for pushing more climate: tenure data across the industry consistently shows people staying longer in climate units than in drive-up, sometimes close to double. Longer stays mean fewer turns, fewer auctions, and less advertising spend to fill the same door. In a warm market the premium tends to hold through summer, and tenants generally accept rate increases on climate more readily, since moving belongings from air conditioning into a hot metal box is a real downgrade. The case for drive-up: it's cheap to build and cheap to hold, and the customer who wants to back a truck up to the door doesn't care about anything else. Conversion costs on climate space have been running high lately, and steel and HVAC equipment pricing has not been friendly to those quotes. If demand softens because fewer people are moving, drive-up rows tend to survive on price while climate rows lose their premium first. There is no single right answer here. It depends on how much weight an operator puts on longer average tenure and lower turnover against the capital cost and ongoing expense of running climate space.
On a stabilized secondary-market facility today, which unit mix would you rather own?
31 votes