Interconnection density compounds in value over time: every additional carrier and cloud on-ramp in a facility makes it more attractive to the next tenant, which is precisely why the strongest hubs keep getting stronger.
The economics of data center capacity have changed faster in the last two years than in the previous decade. Anyone evaluating their options today is working in a genuinely different market.
A practical way to evaluate
Start with requirements, not providers. Pin down your power per rack, total committed capacity, connectivity needs, and the compliance regimes you answer to. That single page of clarity will shape every conversation that follows.
Then shortlist on objective data and validate with your own eyes. Marketplace intelligence is excellent for narrowing the field quickly, but a site visit and a couple of reference calls will tell you things no datasheet can.
Planning for what comes next
Whatever you commit to today, leave yourself room to grow. The right partner offers a clear path from a single rack to a private suite, and from standard density to liquid-cooled high-density halls, without forcing a migration.
Term length is a lever worth pulling thoughtfully. Longer commitments unlock materially better rates and, increasingly, priority access to scarce capacity — but only commit ahead if you are confident in the trajectory.
Why it matters now
What used to be a commodity is now a strategic asset class. When supply is tight, the question stops being simply how much it costs and becomes whether you can secure it at all, on terms that let you grow.
The market has split in two. Standard enterprise workloads still run comfortably at three to five kilowatts a rack, while accelerated-compute deployments are pushing twenty, fifty, even a hundred kilowatts. Those two worlds are priced and provisioned very differently, and conflating them is a common and expensive mistake.
Where buyers get it wrong
The most expensive mistake is optimising for the number everyone sees — the monthly rack rate — while ignoring the numbers nobody asks about until the invoice arrives: cross-connects, remote hands, power overage, and renewal escalators.
Treating tier level as a proxy for reliability is a common shortcut that backfires. Design tier describes redundancy on paper; actual uptime depends on maintenance discipline, staffing, and how the facility has behaved under real incidents.
A short checklist before you sign
- Write down your power, space, and connectivity needs before you talk to anyone
- Request recent incident reports, not just a summary uptime percentage
- Clarify remote-hands response times and what is included versus billed separately
- Ask what happens operationally when a single system fails, not just what the tier rating implies
- Leave headroom for growth, including higher-density racks down the line
The bottom line
None of this is complicated, but it does reward diligence. The organisations that treat infrastructure procurement as a discipline rather than a purchase consistently end up with better facilities, better terms, and fewer surprises.