See the next wave of supply.
See what will create demand for it.

The reviewed count is overlap-tested. The modern Duval EPICS permit system is access-gated, so this is the identified official-source pipeline rather than a completeness claim.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Correction: Lee County Accela added 638 reviewed project identities; 36 exact-address overlaps were counted once, producing 602 net additions.

The reviewed pipeline now includes Lee County permitting and entitlement records. Building area adds only nonoverlap description-supported area and positive overlap upgrades; assessor parcel area is excluded.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Correction: Polk County Accela added 424 reviewed project identities; 16 exact-address overlaps were counted once, producing 408 net additions.

The reviewed pipeline now includes Polk County permitting and entitlement records. Building area and value are overlap-controlled; assessor parcel area is retained privately as context and excluded from the public new-supply total.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Correction: Eleven manufactured-home zoning matches were removed by the corrected label-first zoning gate.

This is projects formed from the reviewed Mecklenburg records. It is not presented as an increase over an unreconciled prior Charlotte baseline.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

The source is a rolling three-year window and publishes no completion date. Building area is description-derived for 101 of 282 projects and is labeled separately from source fields.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

The metro's industrial permit record is not publicly reachable. Counts remain suppressed so a partial city-only pull cannot be mistaken for the metro pipeline.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Assessor, zoning, parcel, address, and footprint coverage exists, but no public building-permit feed was found anywhere in the metro. Zero is not inferred.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

No admitted Savannah source publishes building floor area. The missing field is shown as unavailable and is never treated as zero square feet.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Northwest Arkansas has no published metro project count because the acquisition is partial. Fayetteville is shown as a separate completed-authority result; Springdale, Rogers, Bentonville, Bella Vista, Siloam Springs, Centerton, Washington County, and Benton County's full archive remain outside the retrieved cohort.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

All eight metro authorities are represented, with five remaining floors from the regional BPDS series. The 1,879 reviewed project identities now have a hash-bound lifecycle partition: 116 live, seven completed within 24 months, 964 older completions, 489 lifecycle-unavailable, and 303 terminal/inactive. Zoning corroborates other evidence and never admits a project by itself.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Oklahoma City's 2,129 address-grouped records remain candidate evidence because the source publishes no work description and industrial zoning alone does not prove industrial use. Lifecycle rebucketing identifies 400 current, 224 planned, 209 completed within 24 months, 1,057 older completions, and 239 terminal/inactive candidate groups. These candidate statuses are useful triage evidence but are not project counts and do not enter metro or national totals.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Chicago has no published metro project count because only seven of 348 incorporated authorities produced a permit corpus. Four completed authority results are shown separately and must not be summed or presented as metro coverage. Joliet and the I-55/I-80 corridor remain the highest-value gap; Will County publishes industrial zoning but no permit feed. The separately supported project leads already shown on the metro page remain intact and are not replaced or inflated by this authority review.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Detroit has no published metro project count because only two of 248 permitting authorities produced a usable permit corpus. City of Detroit and Oakland County results are shown separately and must not be summed or presented as metro coverage. Oakland County evidence comes from site-development and soil-erosion records rather than a complete building-permit feed. BS&A access blocks most of the suburban tier. The separately supported project leads already shown on the metro page remain intact and are not replaced or inflated by this authority review.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Madison has no published metro project count because only one of 201 permitting authorities produced a usable permit corpus. City of Madison is shown as a separate authority result and must not be presented as metro coverage. Madison's generic commercial record type is not treated as proof of new supply; the reviewed gate uses affirmative scope descriptions, with fit-outs vetoed before new-building language. The source publishes neither floor area nor valuation, so both remain unavailable rather than zero.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Milwaukee has no published metro project count because only one of 113 permitting authorities produced a usable permit corpus. City of Milwaukee is shown as a separate authority result and must not be presented as metro coverage. The reviewed source joins the city's Accela permit grid to its open-data extract by exact record identifier so project name and use can provide affirmative industrial evidence. The source publishes no valuation. Its square-foot total is mainly assessor-derived existing-building context, so new-supply building area remains unavailable rather than being presented as permit-stated supply.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Indianapolis has no published metro project count because only two of 179 authorities produced a usable permit corpus; Plainfield and Whitestown, two major logistics submarkets, remain unrepresented. Indianapolis / Marion County and City of Noblesville are shown as separate authority results and must not be summed into metro coverage. Counted projects require authority-stated supply scope. The separate 561-group candidate set has industrial land evidence and non-residential construction records but no published field proving new supply, so it is not counted. Parcel square footage is lot area, not building area, and neither counted source publishes valuation.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Inland Empire has no published metro project count because only eight of 54 authorities produced a usable industrial corpus. Riverside County unincorporated, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Moreno Valley, San Bernardino city, Rialto, Jurupa Valley, Chino, Redlands, Riverside city, Colton, Eastvale, and Beaumont remain unrepresented or access-blocked. Each authority is shown separately and must not be summed into metro coverage. Industrial land never admits a record by itself. SCAG BF_SQFT is existing-building footprint and is not new-supply area. Only Corona publishes project valuation; that authority-level value is not a metro total.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Boston has no published metro project count because only Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville produced in-window permit corpora among 242 authorities; Framingham's feed stops in 2020. The displayed authority rows include only new construction, additions, site work, certificates, and entitlement lanes with affirmative industrial evidence. Fifty-four change-of-occupancy conversions inside existing buildings and 384 industrial-land-only or scope-unstated candidates remain excluded. Route 128, I-495, and New Hampshire permit lanes remain unrepresented behind unavailable or access-walled sources.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Las Vegas has no published metro project count because the acquired sources do not cover the full metro and Clark County's grid does not publish the address or parcel needed to turn records into project identities. Census geocoding now maps 188 counted authority projects across Henderson, Las Vegas, and North Las Vegas. Clark County's 1,112-record candidate set remains nonadditive and unmapped. No acquired source publishes building SF.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Denver has no published metro project count because only two of 63 authorities produced a usable permit corpus. City and County of Denver and Adams County are shown as separate authority results and must not be summed into metro coverage. Denver industrial use is supported by supply-class permits on the city's own industrial zoning, but its source publishes no scope description or building SF, so Denver small-bay classification is unavailable rather than zero. Adams County publishes authority-stated industrial use and permit-stated SF. Aurora, Commerce City, Arapahoe County, and Jefferson County remain unrepresented.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

St. Louis has no published metro or authority project count because no authority supplied a record-level permit corpus covering 2021-present. The City's rolling slice contains 10 reviewed identities and Census geocoding now maps nine, but three are occupancy records in existing buildings and seven remain land-only candidates. None is admitted as new industrial supply. Existing project-level Supply leads remain separate and nonadditive.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Salt Lake City has no published metro project count because only the City of Salt Lake City produced a usable permit corpus among 38 authorities. Census geocoding now maps 19 of 26 reviewed City identities. West Valley City, the Inland Port corridor, unincorporated Salt Lake County, and Tooele County remain unmeasured rather than zero. Building SF and valuation are not published by the source.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Columbus has no published metro project count because only the City of Columbus and City of Dublin produced usable permit corpora among 255 authorities. Their authority rows contain 314 reviewed and 97 live projects and must not be generalized to the rest of the metro. Census geocoding now maps 233 counted projects; another 497 mapped land-only candidates remain excluded. The two-authority subset publishes 12.45M SF and $1.449B in stated value, but neither is a metro total. Existing Supply and Demand artifacts remain separate and nonadditive.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Knoxville has no published metro project count because only the City of Knoxville produced a bulk-enumerable permit corpus among 55 named authorities. Census geocoding now maps 31 of 35 reviewed City identities. Knox County unincorporated, Oak Ridge, Maryville, Alcoa, and the rest of the metro remain unmeasured. Building SF and valuation are not published by the source.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Chattanooga has no published metro project count because CHCRPA covers Hamilton County only, not the Georgia counties or Marion and Sequatchie Counties in Tennessee. City of Chattanooga and Hamilton County balance are shown as separate authority slices. Together they contain 122 reviewed identities, 21 live City projects, 122 mapped identities, and $413.44M source-stated value, but none is added to measured metro or national totals. The county-balance source ends in 2023, so its zero-live row is explicitly a recency artifact rather than evidence of no current activity. CHCRPA publishes no building SF. The separately hash-bound Supply artifact retains 10 project-level leads and Demand retains 13 signals; those records remain separate and are not added to the reviewed authority identities.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Huntsville has no published metro project count because only the City of Huntsville supplied a bulk-enumerable anonymous permit corpus. The City authority result contains 184 reviewed identities, 49 live projects, 26 recent completions, all 184 mapped, and $901.51M source-stated value, but none is added to measured metro or national totals. OccupancySubtype Industrial is authoritative industrial evidence. Small-bay morphology remains unavailable for 181 projects because the source publishes no description and usable BuildingSize on only three projects; the three source-stated sizes total 27,680 SF and are explicitly sparse, not a City total. The separately hash-bound Supply artifact retains 72 project-level leads and Demand retains 23 signals; those layers remain separate and are not added to the reviewed authority identities.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Richmond has no published metro project count because only Chesterfield County and Hanover County supplied complete, gateable industrial corpora. Census geocoding now maps 87 of 219 counted authority projects; another 62 mapped scope-unstated or partial-acquisition candidates remain excluded. Goochland's incomplete acquisition and all other missing authorities remain unmeasured. Building SF and value are unavailable rather than zero. Existing Supply and Demand artifacts remain separate and nonadditive.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Birmingham–Hoover has no published metro project count. The City of Birmingham is the only one of 192 enumerated authorities with a complete, bulk-enumerable corpus. Census geocoding now maps 10 of its 14 reviewed/live identities. Jefferson County, Bessemer, Hoover, Shelby County Alabama, and other suburban authorities remain unmeasured. Building SF and value are unavailable rather than zero.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Washington's completed source audit adds no new industrial or small-bay project to the public pipeline. The acquired archive spans 679,174 rows across three of 288 enumerated authorities and rolls to 319 screened groups. Its 181 authority- or description-stated industrial-use groups are not a new-supply count: 119 are alterations, 18 are site-clearing records, four are changes of occupancy, and one has unstated construction scope. Thirty new-construction and nine addition groups remain future reconciliation candidates rather than admissions. The stale 271-group first pass is superseded; 138 additional land-only or undecoded-type candidates remain withheld. Existing Supply retains 25 project-level leads and Demand retains 693 signals, byte-for-byte. Northern Virginia is unmeasured. No figure in this source audit is added to a Washington metro count or the national measured totals.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

The Metropolitan Council annual census supplies an authority-stated industrial classification across every city and township in the seven-county core. It resolves 349 new/addition permit rows to 327 projects and avoids double-counting the separate Minneapolis and St. Paul feeds. The six outer Minnesota and two Wisconsin CBSA counties are outside this count, and 2026 is not yet published. Existing detailed Supply retains 39 leads and Demand retains 83 signals as separate, nonadditive views.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Kansas City has no published metro project count because only the City of Kansas City, Missouri and City of Overland Park, Kansas supplied complete, gateable open permit corpora. They are shown separately with 93 reviewed / 11 live exact project identities, all mapped, including 57 confirmed-or-probable small-bay projects. Their 7.11M source-stated SF and $272.3M source-stated value are authority-subset evidence, not metro totals. MARC publishes no regional permit census, and the Kansas logistics core—Edgerton, Lenexa, Gardner, De Soto, Olathe, and Wyandotte/KCK—plus major Missouri suburbs remains unmeasured. Kansas City, Missouri's industrial flags are strongest in 2020–2022, so 2023–2025 is a scope-text floor. Existing Supply retains 63 records and Demand retains 38 signals as separate, nonadditive layers.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Correction: Corrects the authority review from 285 to 274 counted projects after shell-building and PEMB construction-stage text was prevented from establishing industrial use by itself.

Raleigh–Cary has no published metro project count because Wake County, City of Raleigh, and Town of Cary are three of 32 permitting authorities. They are shown separately with 274 counted / 67 live exact project identities: 40 under development, 27 planned, and 41 completed in the last 24 months. The counted set includes 182 confirmed-or-probable small-bay projects, 272 mapped identities, 13.31M permit-stated SF, and $482.05M source-stated value. Twenty-three scope-unstated candidates remain excluded. Johnston County, Franklin County, and 27 smaller municipal authorities remain unmeasured. Existing Supply retains 21 records and Demand retains 66 signals as separate, nonadditive layers.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Cincinnati has no published metro project count because the clean occupancy-coded CAGIS new-construction feed covers City of Cincinnati only, while the metro's industrial center of gravity is suburban and tri-state. The City is shown separately with 21 reviewed / five live exact-address identities, four recent completions, three probable small-bay projects, all 21 mapped, 98,652 permit-stated SF, and $58.7M source-stated value. Boone County/Hebron/CVG, Butler/West Chester, Warren, Kenton/Campbell, Dearborn, and other suburban authorities remain unmeasured. Existing Supply retains 18 records and Demand retains 29 signals as separate, nonadditive layers.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Correction: The first Cleveland acquisition retrieved 354 of 199,359 source rows (0.18%). This corrected rerun reads the complete id-list-verified feed and replaces the prior 41-project authority result with 140 reviewed identities.

Cleveland has no published metro project count because only the City of Cleveland produced a machine-readable permit corpus among 202 named authorities across six counties. The corrected City result contains 140 reviewed project identities: 58 current-development projects, 59 stale-issued records retained for review, eight recent completions, and 15 older completions. All 140 are mapped; 100 are confirmed or probable small-bay, including 43 in the current-development group. Permit records support 4,937,769.16 SF across 120 projects and $190.22M of positive source-stated value across 125 projects. Only 39 projects represent new floorspace; the remaining 101 describe changes of occupancy, alterations, or site clearing on existing stock. Existing Supply retains 27 leads and Demand retains 40 signals as separate, nonadditive layers. The other 201 authorities remain unmeasured rather than zero.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Boise City has no published metro project count because only Boise and Meridian supplied gateable corpora. Census geocoding now maps 94 of the 123 counted identities, all in Boise. The subset includes 4.14M permit-stated SF across eight projects and $395.71M source-stated value; both are nonadditive authority context. Canyon County, Nampa, Caldwell, and most of the Treasure Valley remain unmeasured.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Correction: The 42-project result is unchanged, but its label and coverage denominator are corrected. It covers one commercial new/addition permit lane—not the City's renovation, change-of-use, demolition, land-use, or Planning lanes—and the corrected metro authority denominator is 157 rather than the contaminated prior enumeration.

Grand Rapids–Wyoming–Kentwood still has no published metro project count. The existing 42 reviewed identities come from one City of Grand Rapids Accela record type—Commercial or 3+ Family New or Addition—and therefore represent only the new-construction/addition lane, not a complete City industrial activity count. The portal exposes 83 record types; four other supply-relevant commercial types plus the Planning entitlement lane were not acquired. The 42 includes nine current-development identities and five recent completions; all are mapped. It must not be compared directly with Cleveland's five-kind 140-project activity universe. The corrected authority enumeration is 157 after removing 67 boundary-touch false positives. Ottawa County's furniture belt and the Kentwood, Wyoming, Walker, Grandville, township, Montcalm, Barry, and Ionia lanes remain unmeasured rather than zero. Existing Supply retains two records and Demand retains four signals as separate, nonadditive layers.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

San Diego–Chula Vista–Carlsbad has no published metro project count because only three of 21 permitting authorities produced a gateable corpus. Authority rows show 546 reviewed / 200 live project identities: City of San Diego 520 / 190, San Diego County 14 / 7, and Carlsbad 12 / 3. The live subset is 195 current-development plus five planned projects; 49 additional projects completed in the last 24 months. The City contributes 2,585,703 permit-stated SF across 14 projects and $1.863B of stated value across 393 projects, but both measures remain authority-subset evidence and are excluded from metro and national totals. Chula Vista is an unreadable-grid retrieval failure, not zero activity, and the remaining authorities are unmeasured. Existing Supply retains 43 leads and Demand retains 303 signals as separate, nonadditive layers.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

San Francisco–Oakland–Berkeley has no published metro project count because only two of 70 permitting authorities produced a gateable corpus and the East Bay industrial heart remains unmeasured. Authority rows show 22 reviewed / three live project identities: City & County of San Francisco 15 / 3 and City of Oakland 7 / 0. Twelve additional San Francisco projects completed before the recent-completion window, while seven Oakland projects remain in lifecycle review. San Francisco contributes $303.14M of source-stated value across 15 projects, but the value remains authority-subset evidence and is excluded from metro and national totals; neither reviewed source publishes building SF. Existing Supply retains 39 leads and Demand retains 686 signals as separate, nonadditive layers. Hayward, Fremont, San Leandro, Richmond, Union City, Newark, and the remaining authorities are unmeasured rather than zero.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Seattle–Tacoma–Bellevue has no published metro project count because only two of 81 permitting authorities produced an authoritatively classified corpus and the Kent Valley industrial heart remains unmeasured. Authority rows show 107 reviewed / 35 live project identities: City of Seattle 30 / 14 and Pierce County 77 / 21. The reviewed subset also contains 22 completions in the last 24 months and 50 older completions. All 107 identities are geocoded. Pierce County publishes 9.80M SF and the two authorities publish $1.123B of source-stated value, but both remain authority-subset evidence excluded from metro and national totals. Existing Supply retains 41 leads and Demand retains 142 leads as separate, nonadditive layers. Kent, Auburn, Renton, Tukwila, Federal Way, King County unincorporated, Snohomish/Everett, Tacoma city, and remaining authorities are unmeasured rather than zero.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Sacramento–Roseville–Folsom has no published metro project count because only five of 23 permitting authorities produced a gateable corpus. Authority rows show 544 reviewed identities and 98 live (78 under development and 20 planned), with 86 completions in the last 24 months. The scope mix is materially alteration-heavy: 49 new construction, 24 additions, 328 alterations, five fit-outs, 16 site clearings, and 122 with scope not published. El Dorado County, Elk Grove, Roseville, Folsom, Rocklin, Rancho Cordova, Davis, Woodland, and remaining authorities are unmeasured rather than zero. Existing Supply retains 51 leads and Demand retains 339 signals as separate, nonadditive layers.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Portland–Vancouver–Hillsboro has no published metro project count because only Clackamas County and the City of Tigard produced a gateable corpus. Census geocoding now maps 24 of the 26 reviewed authority identities. Portland Harbor, the Columbia Corridor, Hillsboro, and Washington County's Silicon Forest remain unmeasured rather than zero. Building SF and valuation are not published by the reviewed sources.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Colorado Springs has no published metro project count because this reviewed package is an entitlement-stage partial, not an issued-building-permit census. The hash-bound project ledger shows 60 reviewed planning identities across two authorities: City of Colorado Springs 40 reviewed / 38 live and El Paso County 20 reviewed / 14 live. The 52 live entitlement projects split into 37 current-development records and 15 planned records. Eight other rows are closed or completed entitlement records from the last 24 months; they are not completed industrial buildings. All 60 identities are mapped, but the sources publish no aggregate project SF or valuation and no confirmed/probable small-bay classification. Pikes Peak Regional Building Department issued-permit bulk archives remain subscription-walled; Fountain, Monument, Manitou Springs, Teller County, and other missing source lanes are unmeasured rather than zero. Existing Supply retains 38 project-level leads and Demand retains 23 signals as separate, nonadditive layers.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara has no published metro project count because only two of 19 permitting authorities produced a gateable corpus. Authority rows show 186 reviewed industrial-activity identities and 98 live (96 under development and two planned), with five completions in the last 24 months. This is a fit-out-dominated set: only 13 identities are new construction and 141 are tenant fit-outs. Zero projects are confirmed small-bay; 50 are probable and 114 lack enough published morphology evidence, so zero confirmed is a source-detail limitation rather than a market fact. Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Mountain View, Milpitas, Palo Alto, San Benito County, and remaining authorities are unmeasured rather than zero. Existing Supply retains eight leads and Demand retains 302 signals as separate, nonadditive layers.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Reno–Sparks has no published metro project count because the current gateable corpus covers the City of Reno authority rather than the full regional industrial market. The City row shows 98 reviewed new-construction identities, 32 live projects, and 78 mapped identities after Census geocoding. Tahoe–Reno Industrial Center, Sparks, and broader Washoe County remain unmeasured rather than zero. Building SF and valuation are not published by the source.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Myrtle Beach–Conway–North Myrtle Beach has no published metro project count because the gateable permit corpus is a Horry County snapshot covering 2021 through March 2023 rather than a current complete regional pipeline. The Horry County row shows 10 reviewed projects, all completed older and all mapped, with 251,284 permit-stated SF and $20,752,489.90 in source-stated value. Six descriptions flag storage uses. A current Tyler EnerGov lane was not available; generic commercial shells and two unlabeled 76,707 SF buildings remain excluded because their industrial use could not be confirmed; and Myrtle Beach, Conway, and North Myrtle Beach municipal permits may be separate. Those gaps are unmeasured rather than zero, and a zero live count is an outcome of the bounded historical snapshot—not evidence that the current market has no active construction. Existing Supply retains 8 tracked leads and Demand retains 28 signals, including 2,505 explicitly stated future housing units, as separate nonadditive layers.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Sarasota–Bradenton–North Port has no published metro project count because only Manatee County produced a gateable industrial permit corpus and Sarasota County—the larger half of the two-county MSA—has no retrieved permit feed. The Manatee County row shows 69 reviewed industrial permit identities and 47 current projects, plus eight completions in the last 24 months and 14 older completions; all 69 are mapped. Industrial classification comes from Manatee County's own LM/PD-I zoning and IL/IH/IU future-land-use polygons, plus named industrial or business parks. The active-permit feed does not publish work descriptions, construction scope, building SF, valuation, or enough morphology for a small-bay classification; it may also omit permits closed before the snapshot. Sarasota County, Bradenton, North Port, Sarasota city, Venice, Palmetto, and other municipal lanes are unmeasured rather than zero. Existing Supply retains 31 tracked leads and Demand retains 38 signals, including 47,681 explicitly stated future housing units, as separate nonadditive layers.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Philadelphia–Camden–Wilmington has no published metro project count. The five separately labelled authority rows cover the City of Philadelphia and Burlington, Gloucester, Camden, and Salem Counties in New Jersey: 180 reviewed industrial identities, 31 in the current-development cohort, 33 completed within 24 months, and 116 older completions; 179 are mapped. New Jersey's DCA High Value source publishes $1.20B of stated value for its 75 identities, while Philadelphia publishes no valuation; none of these reviewed sources publishes building SF. The 99 IBC storage-use identities are use context, not a small-bay classification, so small-bay remains unavailable for all 180. Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery Counties in Pennsylvania, New Castle County in Delaware, Cecil County in Maryland, and other municipal lanes are unmeasured rather than zero. Existing Supply retains 67 tracked leads and Demand retains 40 signals, including 3,346 explicitly stated future housing units, as separate nonadditive layers.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Memphis has no published metro project count. The two separately labelled authority rows cover City of Memphis & Shelby County DPD and the Town of Collierville: 165 counted description-stated identities, 82 live (81 current-development and one planned), and 83 stale-issued review; 163 are mapped. Seventy-four projects add floorspace, while 89 are alterations and two are entitlements. The reviewed source publishes no square-footage field, so building SF remains unavailable even where descriptions mention dimensions; $930.92M of source-stated value belongs only to the Memphis/Shelby authority subset. Small-bay classification is weakly measurable: 15 confirmed and 55 probable, while 74 lack enough morphology. Two additional Collierville industrial subdivision rows remain visible industrial-land-only candidates and are not counted. The DPD extract represents three of five supply kinds and omits demolition and certificate-of-occupancy lanes. DeSoto County reports no count because its description field is blank for 2022–2026; Crittenden County and most of the 84 enumerated authorities are unmeasured rather than zero. Existing Supply retains 22 tracked leads and Demand retains 548 signals, including 842 explicitly stated future housing units, as separate nonadditive layers.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

Providence–Warwick has no published metro project count. The separately labelled Quonset Development Corporation result contains 14 official industrial project identities: nine under development, one planned, two completed in the last 24 months, and two older completions. Four projects publish 635,000 combined building SF; project value and small-bay morphology are unavailable. Seven non-industrial, paused, military, utility, bare-yard, pier, or road projects were screened out. Rhode Island's statewide OpenGov/ViewPoint portal covers all 39 municipalities, and Massachusetts Bristol County cities use the same walled platform; missing authorities are unavailable rather than zero. One records request to the Rhode Island Building Code Commission is the highest-leverage next step. Existing Supply retains 11 tracked leads and Demand retains 23 signals, including 687 explicitly stated future housing units, as separate nonadditive layers.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

New York–Newark–Jersey City has no published metro project count. The separately labelled authority subset contains 3,973 counted identities: 2,353 current, 149 planned, 77 completed within 24 months, 1,189 older completions, and 205 terminal/inactive. The counted live pipeline is 2,502, including 1,695 confirmed/probable small-bay identities. Another 3,533 work-unreadable candidates remain excluded; 1,581 carry a current status but are not counted projects. Existing Supply and Demand artifacts remain separate and nonadditive.

Accounting: Project counts are reviewed project identities, not raw permit rows or necessarily the live pipeline. Building area and value are shown only when the source or reviewed description supports them.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and current-plus-planned pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and current-plus-planned pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and current-plus-planned pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and current-plus-planned pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and current-plus-planned pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and current-plus-planned pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and current-plus-planned pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and identified under-development pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

Coverage note: headline counts use verified Northwest Arkansas records and preserve source-level measurement boundaries.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and identified under-development pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

Coverage note: the snapshot uses verified residential permit records and keeps commercial-lane multifamily separate until its unit basis is confirmed.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and current-plus-planned pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

Coverage note: the snapshot combines Chicago, Naperville, and verified collar-county records while bounding Cook County overlap to prevent double counting.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and identified under-development pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

Coverage note: the snapshot combines Detroit records with verified suburban planning sources.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and current-plus-planned pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

Coverage note: eSLA dwelling counts are reported at municipality and county level and remain separate from parcel-level records.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and current-plus-planned pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

Coverage note: eSLA dwelling counts are reported at municipality and county level and remain separate from parcel-level records.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and identified under-development pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

Coverage note: headline counts use verified lifecycle records and keep forward-capture authorities separate from the historical measure.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and current-plus-planned pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

Coverage note: headline counts use verified reporting jurisdictions and preserve jurisdiction-level measurement boundaries.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and current-plus-planned pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

Coverage note: the snapshot uses verified municipal records and keeps permit and planning measures separate to prevent double counting.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and identified under-development pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

Coverage note: headline counts use verified jurisdiction records and keep identified current and planning measures separate.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and identified under-development pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

Coverage note: counts use verified permit records, with the Census benchmark shown alongside reviewed totals for market context.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and current-plus-planned pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

Coverage note: headline counts use records with reliable lifecycle dates so current, planned, and completed units remain directly comparable.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and current-plus-planned pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

Coverage note: the rolling 24-month completion measure uses records aligned to the current measurement window; older completion history remains separate.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and identified under-development pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

Coverage note: headline counts use verified official-source records and preserve jurisdiction-level measurement boundaries.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and current-plus-planned pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

Coverage note: headline pipeline combines verified permit activity with identified unit-bearing planning records.

The Census authorization benchmark, recently completed units, and current-plus-planned pipeline are separate measures and are never added together. No coverage percentage is inferred from them.

Residential accounting: Under-development and planned units are displayed separately. Their explicitly labeled total pipeline is 72,290 units; recently completed units are historical context and are not added to it.

Industrial accounting: DFW publishes the prior 738-project active minimum. The later 136-project net increment is retained but nonadditive until its lifecycle, work-scope, and physical-project identity contradictions are resolved.

Measurement note: Census authorizations, residential pipeline units, industrial projects, and other-demand leads are separate views. “None identified” applies only to the current reviewed industrial or demand layer and does not mean no market activity.

Residential accounting: Under-development and planned units are displayed separately. Their explicitly labeled total pipeline is 34,892 units; recently completed units are historical context and are not added to it.

Industrial accounting: Houston now publishes the 382-project City ILMS current cohort as a measured minimum. Two older cohorts totaling 1,329 records are nonadditive and remain withheld until work scope, duplicates, and completion evidence are reconciled. The August 27 ILMS source has an exact lifecycle split: 382 current projects enter current supply and 238 recent completions enter completed history; older and terminal/inactive records remain outside active supply. The Project Building Category filter values 1, 3, and B were supplied without a code definition, so this remains a measured source floor.

Measurement note: Census authorizations, residential pipeline units, industrial projects, and other-demand leads are separate views. “None identified” applies only to the current reviewed industrial or demand layer and does not mean no market activity.

Residential accounting: Under-development and planned units are displayed separately. Their explicitly labeled total pipeline is 46,062 units; recently completed units are historical context and are not added to it.

Industrial accounting: The Austin / Central Texas I-35 estimate removes only exact contradiction rows proven to be net-new versus the preserved R1 identity set. Other useful permit and project evidence remains in the estimate.

Measurement note: Census authorizations, residential pipeline units, industrial projects, and other-demand leads are separate views. “None identified” applies only to the current reviewed industrial or demand layer and does not mean no market activity.

Residential accounting: Under-development and planned units are displayed separately. Their explicitly labeled total pipeline is 25,745 units; recently completed units are historical context and are not added to it.

Industrial accounting: San Antonio publishes a reviewed recent permit/planning universe, not an active-pipeline estimate. Issued permits stay nonadditive until inspection, occupancy, completion, or equivalent source evidence can separate work underway from work already delivered.

Measurement note: Census authorizations, residential pipeline units, industrial projects, and other-demand leads are separate views. “None identified” applies only to the current reviewed industrial or demand layer and does not mean no market activity.

Residential accounting: Under-development and planned units are displayed separately. Their explicitly labeled total pipeline is 104,268 units; recently completed units are historical context and are not added to it.

Industrial accounting: The Phoenix estimate removes only exact contradiction rows proven to be net-new versus the preserved R1 identity set. Other useful permit and project evidence remains in the estimate.

Measurement note: Census authorizations, residential pipeline units, industrial projects, and other-demand leads are separate views. “None identified” applies only to the current reviewed industrial or demand layer and does not mean no market activity.

Residential accounting: Under-development and planned units are displayed separately. Their explicitly labeled total pipeline is 78,936 units; recently completed units are historical context and are not added to it.

Industrial accounting: The Atlanta estimate removes only exact contradiction rows proven to be net-new versus the preserved R1 identity set. Other useful permit and project evidence remains in the estimate.

Measurement note: Census authorizations, residential pipeline units, industrial projects, and other-demand leads are separate views. “None identified” applies only to the current reviewed industrial or demand layer and does not mean no market activity.

Residential accounting: Under-development and planned units are displayed separately. Their explicitly labeled total pipeline is 65,657 units; recently completed units are historical context and are not added to it.

Industrial accounting: The Orlando estimate removes only exact contradiction rows proven to be net-new versus the preserved R1 identity set. Other useful permit and project evidence remains in the estimate.

Measurement note: Census authorizations, residential pipeline units, industrial projects, and other-demand leads are separate views. “None identified” applies only to the current reviewed industrial or demand layer and does not mean no market activity.

Residential accounting: Under-development and planned units are displayed separately. Their explicitly labeled total pipeline is 32,596 units; recently completed units are historical context and are not added to it.

Industrial accounting: The Los Angeles page publishes only its previously reviewed current/planned minimum. The later recovery cohort is preserved but stays outside active supply until lifecycle, project identity, and spatial checks pass.

Measurement note: Census authorizations, residential pipeline units, industrial projects, and other-demand leads are separate views. “None identified” applies only to the current reviewed industrial or demand layer and does not mean no market activity.

Residential accounting: Under-development and planned units are displayed separately. Their explicitly labeled total pipeline is 31,324 units; recently completed units are historical context and are not added to it.

Industrial accounting: The Tampa Bay page publishes only its previously reviewed current/planned minimum. The later recovery cohort is preserved but stays outside active supply until lifecycle, project identity, and spatial checks pass.

Measurement note: Census authorizations, residential pipeline units, industrial projects, and other-demand leads are separate views. “None identified” applies only to the current reviewed industrial or demand layer and does not mean no market activity.

Residential accounting: Under-development and planned units are displayed separately. Their explicitly labeled total pipeline is 16,708 units; recently completed units are historical context and are not added to it.

Industrial accounting: The South Florida / Miami page publishes only its previously reviewed current/planned minimum. The later recovery cohort is preserved but stays outside active supply until lifecycle, project identity, and spatial checks pass.

Measurement note: Census authorizations, residential pipeline units, industrial projects, and other-demand leads are separate views. “None identified” applies only to the current reviewed industrial or demand layer and does not mean no market activity.