Feasibility Desk · Public sample · Self-storage

The answer was no. Here is the entire reason why.

A demonstration 2.50-acre suburban storage pad, run end to end through Lyra's feasibility engine: buildable envelope, merchandised unit mix, concept pro forma, the stabilized lender screen, and a 5,000-trial seeded risk band. It does not pencil at the modeled land basis — and the study names the exact two numbers that would change that.

Open the study (PDF, 7 pages) How the Feasibility Desk works

What this is — and what it is not

This is a concept-grade decision aid built on a demonstration site and stated representative assumptions. There is no parcel record, survey, or municipal determination behind it, and every economic input is published in the appendix with the range it sits inside.

It is not a survey, appraisal, market study, architectural or engineering service, legal or tax advice, lending commitment, or a guarantee of performance. It carries no third-party reviewer signature and is not prepared for submission to a lender or a credit committee as supporting documentation. Its job is to decide whether a site is worth the cost of real diligence.

Headline results

Every figure below comes straight from the engine run reproduced in the PDF — the presentation layer adds no numbers of its own.

Rentable area 32,234 sf 43,560 gross · 323 units · 74% rentable
Total dev cost $3,855,060 $120 / rentable sf
Untrended yield on cost 7.03% 7.50% target · misses
Levered IRR (5-yr) 11.0% Equity multiple 1.65x · seeded p50 10.0%
Lender screen (stabilized) 1.46x DSCR Debt yield 11.7% · LTV 53% at 60% LTC
Prob. of clearing target 16% 5,000 seeded trials · YoC band 6.19–7.68%
Executive answer

Do not pursue at the modeled land basis.

At $9.00/land sf the concept returns 7.03% untrended yield-on-cost against a 7.50% target, and the seeded band spans 6.19% to 7.68% — it clears the target in only 16% of 5,000 trials. The stabilized asset screens well for a lender at 1.46x DSCR and an 11.7% debt yield; the problem is the basis, not the operation.

  • Land at $738,412 ($7/sf — 25% below the modeled basis), or
  • a blended achievable rent of $15.69/rentable sf/yr versus the $14.70 modeled.

What is inside

Seven pages. Nothing is asserted without the assumption and the range it came from.

  • 01Executive answer The verdict, the four headline metrics, and the stabilized lender screen.
  • 02Site and buildable envelope Lot, FAR, coverage and height, which control binds, and what must be verified locally.
  • 03Rentable program and unit mix Six unit types with counts, share, and rent per sf; the assumption register.
  • 04Concept-grade pro forma Sources and uses, construction interest, DSCR / debt yield / LTV, levered cash flow.
  • 05Risk band and decision conditions Seeded Monte-Carlo over rent and hard cost, scenarios, and explicit proceed / pause tests.
  • 06Assumptions appendix Every input against a published range, plus the four engine adaptations made for storage.
  • 07Limitations and next diligence What the study cannot answer, and the four parties to verify with before it means anything.

Can't see the viewer? Open the sample study PDF.

Send us a site and get the same thing back.

The Feasibility Desk runs your address and brief through this pipeline and hands back a feasibility memo in 48 hours — massing, zoning, full pro forma, levered IRR.

See Feasibility Desk pricing See the multifamily sample memo

Concept-grade feasibility — not investment advice. Verify zoning and costs locally. Demonstration site: not a real parcel, and not prepared for a client or a transaction. Questions? Email the desk.