Put a 3,000-square-foot industrial bay in Katy and the median advertised base-rent check works out to about $5,278 a month. Put the same 3,000-square-foot requirement in Humble and it is about $2,280.
Same metro. Same suite-size band. Almost $3,000 a month between them.
That is not a signed-lease comparison, and it does not mean the buildings are identical. It does mean that “Houston rent” is nearly useless without knowing which Houston a tenant actually needs.
The same pattern appears across the Texas Triangle. Cedar Park, Leander, Dripping Springs, McKinney, Katy, Spring, New Braunfels and other growth-ring markets often carry higher advertised rents. Humble, Denton, Grand Prairie, Haltom City, Stafford and Forney offer a different proposition: keep more working capital inside the business, even if the address carries less cachet.
The easy story is that fast-growing suburbs cost more. The better story is that Texas is developing two complementary small-bay systems at once—premium operating locations near expanding rooftops and more affordable launchpads for businesses that need a real bay before they need a prestigious ZIP code.
First, remove the suite-size trick
Small suites normally ask more per square foot than large ones. A city with many 2,000-square-foot bays can therefore look expensive beside one advertising mostly 20,000-square-foot spaces, even if geography has little to do with it.
So I narrowed the comparison to offerings between 2,000 and 4,999 square feet. It is not a perfect quality adjustment, but it gives an HVAC company, specialty distributor, cabinet shop, fitness operator or growing online seller a more useful question:
What does a bay in roughly my size range ask in each part of the market?
Across the four major Texas metros, the reference medians for that size band were $16.50 per square foot per year in Austin, $13.02 in San Antonio, $13.00 in Dallas–Fort Worth and $12.00 in Houston.
The submarket spread around those figures is where the article begins.
The growth-ring premium survives—but not everywhere equally
Controlling for suite size does not kill the growth-ring story. It makes the story more honest.
| Growth-ring market | Median ask for 2,000–4,999 SF | Priced offerings | Approx. monthly base rent at 3,000 SF | |---|---:|---:|---:| | Katy | $21.11/SF/year | 10 | $5,278 | | Cedar Park | $19.38 | 16 | $4,845 | | Leander | $18.00 | 32 | $4,500 | | Dripping Springs | $18.00 | 21 | $4,500 | | Georgetown | $17.00 | 23 | $4,250 | | New Braunfels | $15.36 | 16 | $3,840 | | Spring | $15.00 | 24 | $3,750 | | Tomball | $14.00 | 11 | $3,500 |
Katy is the sharpest result. Its 2,000-to-4,999-square-foot median is about 76% above Houston’s metro reference for the same size band. Spring is 25% above Houston. Tomball is about 17% above.
Around Austin, the premium is broad but less uniform. Cedar Park sits about 18% above Austin’s already-high reference rate. Leander and Dripping Springs are about 9% higher. Georgetown is only about 3% higher once we hold suite size steady.
That last point is important. Georgetown’s overall advertised median is $21 per square foot, which looks dramatically expensive. Inside the controlled suite band it falls to $17. The city still asks a premium, but much of the original headline was the mix of space being marketed.
Katy moves in the opposite direction. Its overall median is $16.20, but the controlled 2,000-to-4,999-square-foot result rises above $21. For the kind of bay many small businesses actually shop for, the premium is larger than the citywide number suggests.
This is why a rent table should begin the analysis, not end it.
What are tenants buying in the growth rings?
The spreadsheet proves the price pattern. It cannot prove the cause. My read is that several things are being bundled into these higher asks.
Some growth-ring tenants are buying proximity to new rooftops and service territories. A contractor may pay more in Katy or Cedar Park because ten extra service calls and shorter drive times matter more than the rent difference. A recreation, training or customer-facing business may value newer space, parking and neighborhood visibility. A local distributor may want to sit closer to the next decade of population growth rather than the last one.
The buildings can be different, too. Outer-ring inventory often includes newer parks built at higher land and construction costs. Those properties may deliver cleaner office finish, better loading, modern power, more parking or simply fewer deferred-capital surprises. If those features are present, part of the “location premium” is really a product premium.
And sometimes the premium is scarcity. A fast-growing suburb can add homes much faster than it adds land where noisy, practical, truck-served businesses are welcome. Demand can expand while the number of functional bays does not.
I would not assign a percentage to any one explanation from this snapshot. But I would not dismiss the pattern as unit mix, either. We controlled for the largest version of that problem and much of the spread remained.
Affordable does not mean unwanted
Now look at the other map.
| More affordable market | Median ask for 2,000–4,999 SF | Priced offerings | Approx. monthly base rent at 3,000 SF | |---|---:|---:|---:| | Humble | $9.12/SF/year | 12 | $2,280 | | Denton | $10.00 | 25 | $2,500 | | Grand Prairie | $11.00 | 12 | $2,750 | | Haltom City | $11.25 | 16 | $2,813 | | Stafford | $12.00 | 12 | $3,000 |
Humble sits about 24% below Houston’s same-size reference. Denton is about 23% below DFW. Grand Prairie and Haltom City are roughly 15% and 14% lower, respectively.
That discount can matter more to a young operating business than any metro ranking ever will.
A $2,000 or $3,000 monthly difference can pay for a truck, equipment financing, insurance, payroll or the working-capital cushion that keeps a new company alive. A growing business may reasonably decide that the cheaper bay with highway access is more valuable than the premium bay closer to affluent rooftops.
These submarkets may also contain more established industrial fabric: older, utilitarian buildings in places where industrial use is already part of the landscape. That can create a broader set of functional choices at a lower basis.
There is a catch. Cheap rent and low occupancy cost are not always the same thing. Older space can hide undersized power, tired HVAC, weak parking, poor loading or capital work that turns the apparent discount into somebody else’s deferred bill. The bargain is real only if the bay works.
Three markets belong on the watchlist, not in the headline
McKinney, Schertz and Forney are all interesting, but each needs careful handling.
McKinney’s median in the controlled band is $23 per square foot—higher than every market in the table—but it rests on only five priced offerings. The broader McKinney sample also looks expensive, so the signal is credible enough to watch, not broad enough to declare a settled market rate.
Schertz posts a $15.67 overall median across 12 priced offerings, but only four fall inside the controlled size band. Forney sits at $10 overall across 10 priced offerings, yet just one comparable-sized offering publishes rent.
Those are leads, not conclusions. Another quarter of consistent collection may strengthen them or move them entirely.
The second-level read for owners, tenants and investors
For a tenant, geography is a capital-allocation decision. The premium address needs to earn its cost through customers, labor, travel time, building utility or growth. If it cannot, the affordable submarket may be the better operating asset.
For an owner, “market rent” should mean the rent of the places a tenant would realistically substitute—not a metro average and not the highest number in a nearby growth city. The relevant comp set is geographic, physical and operational.
For a broker, the spread is the conversation. What does the tenant receive for the extra $3,000 a month? What compromises come with the cheaper alternative? That is more useful than handing over a list sorted by price.
For an investor or developer, the interesting question is not simply where rents are highest. It is where the premium appears supported by durable tenant utility—and where residential and business growth may eventually close part of today’s affordability gap.
The growth rings may be where the demand is moving. The affordable markets may be where the next generation of tenants can still afford to start.
Texas needs both.
Frequently asked questions
Which Texas growth-ring markets have the highest small-bay asking rents?
In SpanVor’s August 2026 snapshot, Katy, Cedar Park, Leander and Dripping Springs were among the higher-priced markets for publicly advertised 2,000-to-4,999-square-foot industrial and flex offerings. McKinney was higher still, but its comparable priced sample contained only five offerings.
Where is small industrial space relatively affordable?
Humble, Denton, Grand Prairie and Haltom City all posted median asking rents below their respective metro references in the controlled suite-size comparison. Stafford matched Houston’s $12 reference, while Forney appeared affordable in the broader data but lacked enough comparable-sized priced offerings for a firm conclusion.
Are these signed lease rates?
No. These are publicly advertised asking rents, not executed or effective rents. They do not include concessions, tenant improvements or negotiation outcomes.
Does a lower asking rent mean a better value?
Not necessarily. Power, loading, parking, yard, office finish, building condition and lease structure can matter more than the advertised rate. A cheaper bay can require capital or operational compromises; a premium bay has to justify the difference.
How we counted
SpanVor analyzed publicly advertised industrial and flex offerings across Austin–Central Texas, Dallas–Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio as of August 25–26, 2026. The primary submarket comparison uses offerings between 2,000 and 4,999 square feet that published an asking rent. The 3,000-square-foot monthly figures are simple base-rent illustrations and exclude operating expenses, taxes, insurance, utilities, concessions and tenant improvements. This is a pricing snapshot, not vacancy, absorption or measured demand.
Key takeaways
- Katy and Humble differ by almost $3,000 per month on a 3,000-square-foot base-rent illustration using their median advertised rates.
- The growth-ring premium remains visible after controlling for suite size, but it is not uniform.
- Georgetown’s premium narrows materially after the size control; Katy’s becomes more pronounced.
- Humble, Denton, Grand Prairie and Haltom City remain relatively affordable in the like-sized comparison.
- Lower-rent markets can preserve working capital for younger businesses, but the physical bay still has to work.
- The right comparison is not “Texas rent.” It is the price and utility of the realistic alternatives available to one tenant.
Read the broader Texas Triangle leasing analysis, see the related 3,000-SF Texas bay comparison, and compare the public market pages for Austin, Dallas–Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio.
SpanVor tracks industrial properties, advertised space and development activity across the United States. You can explore your own market with 14 days of SpanVor All-Access—no card—at spanvor.com/trial.
One last thing, since you read this far: the code SpanvorBlog takes 25% off a SpanVor Pro subscription—where the property-level data behind posts like this one lives.
Written by Jason Probert, Founder of SpanVor — Industrial Property Intelligence.