Gridlocked

Markets

U.S. market evidence comparison.

Compare available evidence across power, fiber, land, water, policy, demand, and saturation. Kansas City uses factor-level evidence states with no composite score or ordinal investment ranking; other market cards retain their existing directional framework inputs.

Market

Northern Virginia

94Score

The global demand anchor is increasingly limited by substation queues, land scarcity, and political fatigue.

Power availabilitySaturation: High

Market

Dallas-Fort Worth

88Score

A deep hyperscale pipeline with better land economics, though ERCOT volatility keeps power strategy central.

Grid interconnectionSaturation: Medium

Market

Phoenix

86Score

Scale, land, and western demand are compelling, but water optics and generation needs will shape how demand converts into buildable capacity.

Water and powerSaturation: High

Market

Atlanta

83Score

A pragmatic southeast hub with growing hyperscale relevance and manageable site constraints.

Transmission capacitySaturation: Medium

Market

Chicago

80Score

Enterprise demand and fiber density remain strong, but large campus expansion is more selective.

Urban infill costsSaturation: Medium

Market

Columbus

79Score

A rising Midwest market with credible land and power story if delivery timelines hold.

Utility delivery timingSaturation: Medium

Market

Salt Lake City

77Score

Western latency and business climate are attractive, but cooling strategy matters.

Water riskSaturation: Medium

Market

Reno

74Score

Land-rich western relief valve with meaningful infrastructure diligence requirements.

Water and transmissionSaturation: Medium

Market

Las Vegas

73Score

Strong regional connectivity but increasingly sensitive water and cooling narrative.

Water opticsSaturation: Medium

Market

Austin/San Antonio

72Score

Demand is real, but competing load growth and power volatility complicate underwriting.

ERCOT congestionSaturation: Medium

Market evidence profile

Kansas City

Controlled evidence documents infrastructure, policy, and development activity while leaving market-wide capacity, readiness, demand depth, and saturation unresolved.

Evidence statesNo composite score

Power access

Not established
Direction
Not measurable
Confidence
High
Verified
2026-07-27

Controlled transmission, generation, substation, and planned-project observations are available for the 14-county study area.

Limitation: Infrastructure presence and proximity do not establish capacity, connectivity, deliverability, headroom, interconnection rights, retail service, or completion of planned projects.

Fiber connectivity

Unknown
Direction
Not measurable
Confidence
Low
Verified
Not verified

No controlled Kansas City fiber evidence is currently published.

Limitation: Carrier presence, route diversity, latency, and site-level connectivity cannot be assessed from the current repository.

No controlled source

Land readiness

Not established
Direction
Not measurable
Confidence
High
Verified
2026-07-28

The reviewed development registry contains sites, parcels, approvals, applications, and lifecycle evidence.

Limitation: A development or parcel record does not establish market-wide land availability, site control, entitlement, parcel readiness, infrastructure service, or construction feasibility.

Water and cooling

Unknown
Direction
Not measurable
Confidence
Low
Verified
Not verified

No controlled Kansas City water-supply, cooling-strategy, or site-demand evidence is currently published.

Limitation: Water availability, allocation, cooling feasibility, cost, and community impact cannot be assessed from the current repository.

No controlled source

Policy and permitting

Mixed
Direction
Worsening
Confidence
Medium
Verified
2026-07-16

Eight of 14 controlled counties have reviewed profiles; seven of those eight were tightening while local postures ranged from managed growth to restrictive.

Limitation: Six counties remain unreviewed, county context is not parcel-level entitlement, and municipal pathways can differ within a county.

Development activity (demand proxy)

Observed
Direction
Not measurable
Confidence
High
Verified
2026-07-28

The controlled registry contains 20 developments and six deduplicated active construction units with verified construction evidence.

Limitation: The registry is not market-complete; project activity does not establish leasing demand, absorption, market depth, causation, or future investment performance.

Market saturation

Not established
Direction
Not measurable
Confidence
High
Verified
2026-07-28

Reviewed lifecycle and construction observations provide a controlled activity inventory, not a complete market denominator.

Limitation: Incomplete registry coverage cannot establish low, medium, or high saturation, competitive intensity, available capacity, or unmet demand.

Evidence states describe what the controlled record can support today. They are not ordinal rankings, capacity determinations, or investment recommendations.

Open KC evidence map

Market

Charlotte

70Score

Financial-services demand and southeast growth help, though campus-scale options are more limited.

Site assemblySaturation: Low

Market

Nashville

68Score

Fast-growth market with optionality, but less proven for dense hyperscale clustering.

Fiber depthSaturation: Low

Market

Denver

67Score

Connectivity and regional demand are useful, while resource constraints limit broad campus growth.

Water and powerSaturation: Medium

Market

Portland/Hillsboro

66Score

Excellent connectivity and legacy presence, with local politics and land availability affecting expansion.

Policy frictionSaturation: Medium