Rate is the smallest part of the answer
A rate-only comparison treats every square foot as fungible. It isn't. Industrial real estate decisions compound across truck routing, customer geography, labour catchment, operating costs, and inertia from one submarket to the next.
The five-input model
- Customer geography — measure trips per week against driving time delta
- Labour catchment — model how many current employees can realistically follow
- Truck routing — designated routes, time-of-day restrictions, bridge dependencies
- Operating costs — net rent + op costs + property tax + utilities, not just net
- Brand and identity — does your address signal something your customers value
Quick read across the corridor
Vancouver → Burnaby: smallest relocation in operational terms. Most users retain their labour and customers. Building stock is broader and more functional. Pricing has caught up.
Vancouver → Richmond: the logistics answer. Highway and airport access become primary. Modern stock with real loading. Tunnel bottleneck affects routing.
Vancouver → Delta: throughput, trailer court, and port adjacency. Larger relocation for the operator, but the right answer when the business is about volume.
Vancouver → Surrey/Langley: real new product at scale. Furthest from Vancouver customers. Most disruption to existing labour. Compelling economics on PSF for the right operation.
"A shorter customer drive can be worth more than a lower lease rate. Quantify it."
How to actually decide
Run a 10-year occupancy total for each plausible option. Add the relocation cost (TI + downtime + lost productivity). Subtract retained labour and customer-driving savings. Adjust for the cost of growing into your space versus outgrowing it.
Most relocation decisions look one-sided on PSF and balanced on the 10-year total. The right answer falls out of the model.