Demand for Gym and Fitness Facility Space by U.S. Region (2024 Analysis)

Former Planet Fitness

Executive Summary

• Regional Demand Variations: The demand for gym and fitness facility space varies widely across U.S. regions, when measured by square feet per 1,000 people. The Northeast leads in concentration of facilities (about 15.1 gyms per 100,000 residents, translating roughly to 1.3–1.5 thousand square feet of gym space per 1,000 people), whereas the Midwest has the lowest (around 11.3 gyms per 100,000, roughly 0.9–1.1 thousand sq. ft. per 1,000 people). The West (14.0 gyms/100k) and South (13.0 gyms/100k) fall in between. These figures reflect long-standing cultural and urbanization differences, with more urbanized and affluent regions generally offering more fitness space per capita. Nationally, the average availability is on the order of ~13 gyms per 100,000 people (about 1,000–1,200 sq. ft. per 1,000 people), indicating significant room for growth in under-served areas.

• Five-Year Trends (2019–2024): Demand for fitness space has rebounded strongly from the pandemic-induced downturn of 2020. In 2019 the U.S. hit a peak of roughly 41,370 fitness facilities, before COVID-19 triggered a 17% drop in club counts in 2020 and further closures in 2021. All regions saw disruptions, but by 2023 the industry recovered to 72.9 million gym members – an all-time high, up from about 64 million pre-pandemic. This 13% surge in membership over five years highlights robust pent-up demand. Facility numbers have stabilized and even modestly grown (about +0.5% CAGR in club counts from 2019 to 2024), though growth varied by region. Fast-growing Sunbelt states in the South and West have added many new gyms to serve influxes of residents, while the Northeast and Midwest have largely returned to pre-2020 capacity with fewer net new openings. Overall industry revenue has expanded at about 1.3% annually over 2019–2024, masking the dip-and-recovery pattern but indicating a full rebound in consumer spending on fitness.

• Demographic & Health Drivers: Key demographic and public health factors underlie regional demand differences. Younger populations and higher-income groups drive greater gym usage – about 73% of Gen Z and 72% of Millennials use fitness facilities, far higher than older demographics, and roughly 60% of gym members earn $50k–$100k annually, reflecting the role of disposable income in affording memberships. Regions with more urban density and educated, wellness-conscious residents (e.g. Northeast, West Coast) see higher per-capita gym space, whereas more rural or economically disadvantaged areas (parts of the South and Midwest) lag. Public health trends reinforce this pattern: the Midwest and South have adult obesity rates around 35% – highest in the nation – and also the lowest access to fitness centers. By contrast, the health-fitness virtuous cycle is evident in places with abundant facilities: for example, Colorado’s Front Range boasts some of the highest physical activity rates (85%+ active adults) and lowest obesity (~20%) alongside a high concentration of gyms. Growing awareness of wellness nationwide (nearly 100 million U.S. adults plan to prioritize fitness in 2025) and the booming $1.8 trillion U.S. wellness economy are lifting demand for fitness spaces across all regions, albeit starting from different base levels.

• Outlook by Region: All regions are expected to see continued demand growth for fitness space, but the trajectory will differ. The Northeast appears near saturation in many metro areas – high per-capita gym space and slower population growth point to modest, incremental expansion focused on premium services and renovating older clubs. The Midwest, with the lowest current supply per capita, represents an opportunity for growth if operators can tap into its underserved markets; however, slower population gains and entrenched health challenges may limit rapid expansion. The South is the clear growth leader – now home to 39% of Americans and experiencing a fitness boom as migrants (often younger professionals) bring health-oriented lifestyles. Southern states are likely to see a proliferation of new gyms, from big-box franchises to boutique studios, to meet rising demand (the South’s gym density, while improving, still trails the national average). The West will continue its strong fitness culture: established markets like California and Colorado remain robust, while emerging high-growth areas (e.g. Arizona, Nevada, Utah) are driving new development. Across all regions, consumer expectations are evolving – there is increasing interest in specialized fitness experiences (boutique classes, recovery centers, climbing gyms, etc.) and hybrid physical-digital fitness options – which will shape the type of facilities added. For developers and investors, aligning projects with these regional nuances and trends will be crucial for success.

Methodology and Data Sources

This analysis uses square feet of fitness facility space per 1,000 people as the key metric to compare demand across regions. Since comprehensive data on total gym square footage by region are not published directly, we approximate this using the number of fitness facilities per capita combined with typical facility sizes. Industry data from IBISWorld and BLS/Census reports were used to estimate facility counts and distribution, while demographic and health indicators from the U.S. Census Bureau and CDC inform the contextual drivers. In particular, we drew on the following sources and approaches:

• Industry and Facility Data: We referenced IBISWorld’s Gym, Health & Fitness Clubs in the US report for industry-wide figures such as market size and number of businesses. According to IBISWorld, there were about 114,370 fitness clubs/gyms in the U.S. as of 2024 (a broad definition including boutique studios and traditional health clubs). To gauge regional distribution, we utilized a Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) analysis (via Cinch) that counted gyms with paid employees per 100,000 residents in each Census region. This provides a proxy for how facility density – and by extension, floor space – varies by region. We assume an average facility size when translating facility counts to square footage per capita, noting that actual gym sizes range from small studios (~3–5k sq. ft.) to large athletic clubs (>20k sq. ft.).

• Population and Regional Definitions: Regional populations and growth rates were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. We use the standard four Census regions – Northeast, Midwest, South, and West – as the basis for comparison. As of 2024, the South is the most populous region (133 million people, ~39% of the U.S.), followed by the West (80 million, ~23.5%), Midwest (69.6 million, ~20.5%), and Northeast (57.8 million, ~17%). These population baselines help normalize the amount of gym space relative to people. We also examined five-year population changes (2019–2024) by region to understand demand pressures from migration and growth. Notably, the South and West saw above-average population gains (fueled by domestic migration and immigration) in this period, whereas the Northeast and Midwest grew more slowly. This demographic context is integral to interpreting regional demand trends.

• Public Health and Demographics: To identify drivers of gym demand, we incorporated public health data (e.g., obesity and physical activity rates by region) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other research. The CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System provides adult obesity prevalence by region, which we used to correlate health trends with fitness facility demand. We also considered age and income demographics from industry surveys (e.g., the Health & Fitness Association and other compiled statistics) to see how the makeup of the population influences gym usage. These data include membership rates by age group and income distribution of gym members. Higher median incomes and a larger young-adult cohort in a region are hypothesized to boost demand for gym space, and we cite data to support those relationships.

• Commercial Real Estate Insights: We leveraged CoStar news and analyses for insight into the real estate side of fitness demand – such as availability of retail space, rents, and the expansion strategies of gym operators. CoStar’s reporting on fitness industry recovery post-2020 (e.g., boutique studio growth, competition for leases, and new location strategies) provides qualitative context to the quantitative data. Additionally, commentary from real estate investment trusts (REITs) specializing in experiential properties (via Nareit) was used to understand investor perspectives on the growing fitness and wellness market. These sources inform our sections on regional differentiators and investment implications.

All data have been cross-verified where possible, and only authoritative sources are cited. By combining industry metrics (facilities, memberships, revenue) with demographic and health data, we derived a comprehensive view of gym space demand. It should be noted that “demand” in this context is reflected by utilized supply (i.e. the amount of fitness floor space currently in operation per capita) under the assumption that most markets are near equilibrium between supply and demand. Unmet demand is discussed qualitatively, for instance in regions where high obesity and low gym access may signal potential for growth. No charts or graphs are included; instead, we present summarized statistics and citations in text form. This methodological approach ensures a fact-based, region-by-region analysis of current conditions (2024–2025) and recent trends.

Current Demand Landscape (By Region)

As of 2024, the demand for gym and fitness facility space – measured in square feet per 1,000 people – differs markedly across the United States. These differences align with each region’s level of urbanization, cultural attitude toward fitness, and economic profile. Below is an overview of the current landscape by region:

• Northeast: The Northeast has the highest concentration of gyms and fitness facilities relative to its population. On average, Northeastern states have about 15.1 gyms per 100,000 residents – the greatest density of any region. This implies roughly 1.5–1.6 thousand square feet of gym space per 1,000 people (assuming a typical facility size), significantly above the national average. Several Northeastern states rank among the top in the country for fitness access; for example, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire each report over 18 gyms per 100,000 residents. This abundance of facilities reflects the region’s characteristics: it is highly urbanized with many densely populated metro areas (from Boston to New York to Philadelphia) where commercial gym chains and boutique studios flourish to serve concentrated populations. The Northeast also boasts a relatively affluent population with an ingrained culture of health and wellness, which translates to strong market demand for fitness services. Indeed, better health outcomes correlate with this high access – the Northeast’s adult obesity rate (28.6%) is the lowest of any region, and its residents tend to be quite physically active. In summary, the Northeast’s current demand landscape is one of saturation but continuing strength: plenty of gym space per capita, a competitive market in urban centers, and clientele willing to pay for fitness. The region’s challenge is that in some locales demand is approaching saturation; successful facilities often differentiate through premium offerings or specialized classes to attract consumers in this fitness-rich environment.

• Midwest: The Midwest has the lowest per-capita supply of gym and fitness space among U.S. regions. It averages only about 11.3 gyms per 100,000 people, which equates to roughly 0.9–1.1 thousand square feet per 1,000 people. In practical terms, Midwesterners have fewer fitness facilities available in their communities compared to other Americans. This lower density is partly due to the Midwest’s geography and demographics. The region includes large rural areas and smaller towns where commercial gyms are sparser, as well as a generally older population profile in some states. Cultural factors play a role too – historically, the Midwest has not emphasized gym-based fitness to the same extent as the coasts. Public health data underscores the gap: the Midwest ties with the South for the highest adult obesity prevalence (about 36% in 2023) and reports some of the lowest physical activity rates. Many Midwestern areas, especially in the Great Lakes and Plains states, face a combination of factors that dampen demand: lower population density, lower median incomes in some communities, and perhaps greater reliance on home-based or outdoor physical activity (when climate permits). Nevertheless, the Midwest’s current demand landscape is not uniformly low – major metropolitan hubs like Chicago, Minneapolis–St. Paul, Detroit, and Columbus do support a vibrant fitness industry. It is common in these cities to find large full-service gyms and a growing number of boutique studios. However, outside the big metros, vast swaths of the Midwest remain under-served. In summary, current demand in the Midwest is characterized by under-penetration in many areas – an average Midwestern resident has access to significantly less gym space than peers in other regions. This presents both a public health concern (reflected in higher obesity and lower fitness engagement) and an opportunity for fitness providers to expand into markets that have been traditionally overlooked.

• South: The South’s current fitness facility demand can be described as growing but under-served in parts. The region averages about 13.0 gyms per 100,000 people, translating to roughly 1.1–1.3 thousand sq. ft. per 1,000 people, slightly below the national mean. The South is a study in contrasts: it contains some of the fastest-growing, most fitness-forward cities in the country, as well as rural and low-income areas with very limited fitness infrastructure. On one hand, states like Florida, Georgia, Texas, and North Carolina have seen an explosion of new gyms, health clubs, and boutique studios especially in their metropolitan and suburban areas. Rapid population growth in the South (the region gained millions of residents over the past five years, far outpacing other regions has brought a wave of young professionals and families who demand modern fitness amenities. Developers have responded by opening everything from big-box gyms to yoga studios in high-growth corridors (e.g. the suburban sprawls of Texas and the Carolinas). On the other hand, the South as a whole still contends with legacy deficits in public health and fitness access. Many Southern states historically rank low in exercise frequency and high in obesity – the region’s obesity rate is about 34.7% as of 2023, among the nation’s highest. In smaller towns and economically disadvantaged areas of the South (such as parts of the Deep South and Appalachia), there may be few convenient gym options, and local demand for commercial fitness is only slowly catching up. Cultural diet and lifestyle factors have also played a role in suppressing gym engagement historically. Yet, there are clear signs of change: public awareness of wellness is rising and more Southern consumers are seeking out gyms as part of healthier lifestyles. The result is that current demand in the South is uneven – robust in urban/suburban hotspots, but modest in rural or low-income communities – with an overall per-capita supply slightly lagging other regions. This gap suggests significant latent demand that could materialize as wellness awareness continues to grow in the South.

• West: The Western region has a high demand for gym and fitness space, second only to the Northeast in per-capita terms. The West averages about 14.0 gyms per 100,000 residents, roughly 1.3–1.4 thousand sq. ft. per 1,000 people. However, the West is quite diverse, encompassing both fitness meccas and sparsely populated areas. The region includes health-conscious coastal states like California and Oregon, mountain states like Colorado and Utah known for outdoor recreation (and complementary gym use), as well as less populous areas like Wyoming or Idaho. By and large, Western states embrace fitness culture – for instance, Colorado has one of the nation’s highest rates of physical activity and the lowest obesity rate (~24% in recent analyses), which correlates with strong demand for gyms and recreational facilities. Similarly, California (particularly its urban centers in the Bay Area, Los Angeles, and San Diego) has a well-developed fitness industry spanning luxury health clubs, budget 24-hour gyms, and every variety of boutique studio. The West’s overall gym density reflects these trends: it’s not uncommon to find multiple gym locations per neighborhood in dense cities or a proliferation of yoga, CrossFit, and cycling studios in wellness-oriented communities. Even some Western states with more rural character show surprising fitness infrastructure – for example, Montana leads the nation with about 19.7 gyms per 100,000 people, indicating a strong relative fitness culture despite its rural nature. (Montana’s high ranking underscores that even in less populated states, a commitment to active lifestyles can drive demand for gyms). That said, the West’s average is pulled down somewhat by a few states or areas where access is limited – parts of the rural West see fewer facilities simply due to distance and low population density. In summary, the West’s current demand landscape is one of above-average fitness penetration. Consumers in many Western locales have ample gym space available and often integrate gym workouts with an active outdoor lifestyle. The Western fitness market tends to be innovative as well, pioneering new wellness trends (from high-intensity interval training studios to recovery spas), reflecting a populace that values health. Overall, the supply of fitness space per capita is strong, yet ongoing population growth in certain Western states keeps the demand for new space high in absolute terms.

Across all regions, it’s notable that public interest in gyms has been on the upswing in recent years. Nationwide Google search trends for terms like “gym membership” have climbed steadily and hit an all-time peak in early 2025. This suggests that regardless of region, Americans are increasingly seeking out fitness facilities. However, as detailed above, the starting point varies: a resident of a Northeastern city likely has a gym within a short walk and multiple options, whereas a resident of a rural Midwestern county might have to drive many miles to the nearest facility (if one exists). In purely quantitative terms, an American in the Northeast currently “commands” roughly 30–35% more gym square footage on average than one in the Midwest or certain Southern states. These disparities frame the discussion in the following sections on how things have been changing (trends) and what factors drive the demand.

Historical Trends Over the Past Five Years (2019–2024)

The period from 2019 to 2024 was tumultuous yet ultimately transformative for the U.S. fitness industry. Each region experienced a rollercoaster of demand – from peak pre-pandemic levels through the COVID-19 shock in 2020, and into a strong recovery by 2023–2024. Below, we examine the five-year trends in demand for gym and fitness facility space, highlighting both common national patterns and regional divergences.

2019 – A Peak and a Baseline: The year 2019 marked a high-water point for the gym industry. Consumer demand for fitness was at an all-time high after a decade of growth. Nationwide, gym memberships reached about 64.2 million people in 2019, and there were roughly 41,370 fitness facilities operating across the country – the most of any country in the world by a large margin. All regions shared in this prosperity to varying extents. For example, the Northeast’s dense metro areas were saturated with established gym chains, the South and West were experiencing a boom of new franchise openings in fast-growing suburbs, and even historically less-active regions like parts of the Midwest had seen steady expansion of budget gyms and YMCAs through the 2010s. By late 2019, industry revenue was about $35–$37 billion annually and growing. Importantly, each region’s per-capita gym space was on a gentle uptrend in the late 2010s – incremental new facilities were being added each year to meet rising population and interest. The South and West were leading in absolute growth of new gym square footage (consistent with their population gains and migration patterns), while the Northeast and Midwest saw slower, steady growth mainly through replacement or upgrading of facilities. In summary, 2019 set a benchmark: high demand across the board, with the Northeast and West enjoying the highest per-capita facility provision, the South catching up quickly, and the Midwest improving but still behind.

This is the baseline against which the next years’ changes can be measured.

2020 – Pandemic Decline and Disruption: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 delivered an unprecedented shock to gym and fitness facility demand. Virtually overnight, gyms across the country were ordered closed or faced severe restrictions as part of lockdowns and social distancing measures. The impact on demand was immediate and sharp. Memberships were frozen or canceled en masse, and facility usage dropped to near-zero for months in many areas. By one estimate, the number of gym clubs in the U.S. plunged by ~17% in 2020 – from the 41,000+ in 2019 down to roughly 34,000–35,000 – as many gyms (especially smaller studios and independent clubs) could not survive the prolonged closures and revenue loss. This decline hit all regions, though not uniformly. Regions that imposed longer lockdowns on gyms (notably parts of the Northeast and West Coast) saw more prolonged facility closures and some permanent business failures. For instance, large urban markets like New York City, Boston, and California had gyms shut for extended periods in 2020, and some well-known operators in those areas declared bankruptcy or closed locations. Meanwhile, some Southern and Mountain states were quicker to allow gyms to reopen with precautions; nonetheless, even in those regions, many consumers stayed away for fear of the virus, and operators struggled with capacity limits. The net effect by late 2020 was a dramatic drop in utilized gym space per capita in every region. Where facilities did reopen, they often operated at limited capacity (e.g. equipment spaced out, headcounts capped), meaning the effective available square footage per user was constrained. In terms of regional differences: the Northeast and parts of the West likely saw the largest relative contraction in 2020 demand (due to strict public health measures and urban populations wary of indoor crowds). The South and Midwest also saw demand drop but perhaps had a slightly higher floor – some gyms in those regions reopened sooner or were able to offer modified services (e.g. outdoor classes) to recoup some usage. Overall, 2020 was a nadir for gym demand. Square feet per 1,000 people effectively in use hit an all-time low as vast amounts of fitness space sat idle. However, this period also sowed the seeds for new trends (like virtual fitness and home workouts) which gyms had to adapt to in subsequent years.

2021 – Early Recovery and Regional Variations: By 2021, the fitness industry began a halting recovery. Vaccinations and easing restrictions allowed many gyms to reopen more fully, though not without challenges. Nationally, the number of facilities in operation was still down (another ~6% drop in 2021 on top of 2020’s decline), indicating that some closures were permanent. However, surviving gyms saw members trickling back. Demand for physical gym space started to rebound, albeit unevenly across regions and facility types. Regional dynamics were quite pronounced in 2021: In the South and parts of the West, where state/local policies were more permissive, gyms often came back online faster. For example, Texas and Georgia allowed gyms to reopen relatively early (with precautions) and consequently saw many members returning by mid-2021; some operators in these states even capitalized on lower competition after weaker gyms shuttered. Moreover, the South and West benefited from migration during this period – people relocating from elsewhere (sometimes fleeing high-cost cities during the pandemic) potentially brought new demand for suburban fitness options. Conversely, the Northeast, especially major cities like New York and Boston, faced a slower rebound. Many office workers remained remote in 2021, affecting downtown gym usage, and stringent health protocols meant some city gyms were operating below full capacity for the entire year. The Midwest fell somewhere in between: its rebound was moderate – cities like Chicago and Minneapolis reopened gyms with capacity limits for much of 2021, and smaller communities saw gradual resumption of activities. Importantly, consumer confidence was a factor: surveys indicated that some demographics (e.g. older adults or high-income professionals) were hesitant to return to shared gym spaces early on, instead sticking with at-home workouts a bit longer. Younger people and those missing the social aspect of gyms tended to return sooner. By the end of 2021, the industry had stabilized enough that total membership began growing again (albeit from a lower base). The square footage of open, usable gym space per capita was climbing back up, but in most regions it was still below 2019 levels. The Northeast likely remained farthest below its 2019 benchmark due to the depth of its closures, whereas the South may have nearly closed the gap to pre-pandemic demand by late 2021.

2022 – Resurgence and Rebuilding: The year 2022 saw a robust resurgence in demand for gyms across all regions. With widespread vaccine availability and accumulated consumer fatigue with social isolation, Americans flocked back to gyms in large numbers. Industry data show that while the total number of facilities in the U.S. was still slightly declining in 2022 (about –3.8%, indicating some continued shakeout), membership and usage surged. By the end of 2022, gym member counts were approaching pre-pandemic levels nationally, and many clubs reported their check-in volumes were on a strong upswing (even if still below 2019). Regionally, the tide lifted all boats: the Northeast saw a significant comeback as city dwellers and suburbanites alike reactivated their memberships. Even New York City’s gyms, which had been hard-hit, reported much higher attendance in 2022 than the previous two years. The Midwest benefited from the general return-to-normal as well – for instance, gyms in the Midwest’s college towns and smaller cities regained members who had lapsed. The South and West, which had smaller dips to recover from, actually pushed into net-new growth in many areas. Sunbelt metro areas (like Dallas, Phoenix, Miami) not only recaptured their 2019 client base but expanded it, thanks to population inflows and heightened interest in fitness. An interesting trend in 2022 was the diversification of demand: Many consumers had experimented with digital fitness or outdoor exercise during the pandemic; by 2022, a hybrid behavior emerged where people maintained some home workout routines and returned to gyms for the equipment, community, and classes they couldn’t replicate at home. This meant that while overall demand for gym space was high, the patterns of usage were evolving (e.g. perhaps slightly fewer visits per member on average than in 2019, as some workouts happened at home – an idea supported by data that average visits/year were still below 2019 levels). For facility square footage, 2022 was a rebuilding year: many operators who survived began to reinvest in their physical spaces, expanding or reconfiguring to accommodate new preferences (like more open space for functional training or better ventilation). Some enterprising investors took over vacated gym sites and opened new brands, seeing opportunity. By the end of 2022, it’s reasonable to infer that all regions had largely recovered a significant portion of their lost per-capita gym space. The Northeast and West likely were very close to their 2019 space-per-person ratios again, given strong member rebounds. The South and Midwest, on aggregate, might have even reached or slightly exceeded their 2019 per-capita levels in certain subregions, especially where new facilities had opened to meet growing populations.

2023 – Full Recovery and New Records: In 2023, U.S. fitness facility demand not only recovered but achieved new highs. According to the Health & Fitness Association, 72.9 million Americans were members of a fitness facility in 2023 – the largest number ever recorded, representing 23.7% of the population ages 6+. This milestone illustrates that demand didn’t just return; it expanded beyond the 2019 peak. Every region contributed to this growth, although not uniformly. The South and West likely saw the most substantial increases in raw membership numbers, in line with their population growth. For instance, Texas and Florida gyms added many new members as people continued moving into those states; numerous new club locations opened in these areas in 2023 to capture demand (Planet Fitness alone opened 77 new gyms system-wide in 2023, many in the southern and western states). The West coast and Mountain states, with their strong fitness cultures, also hit high marks – California’s major gym chains reported member counts at or above pre-pandemic levels, and states like Colorado saw record participation in both gyms and outdoor recreation. The Northeast achieved a full comeback too: its membership totals in 2023 were robust, though growth in that region was more about returning customers than new market expansion (since population is relatively static). Notably, suburban areas around Northeastern cities showed high demand as remote/hybrid workers utilized local fitness centers when not commuting to city offices. The Midwest saw a solid recovery, with many of its gyms regaining footing; however, the Midwest remains the region with the lowest absolute participation, so even at new highs it may not have grown as dramatically as others. A key development by 2023 was the rise of boutique fitness and specialty studios as a significant component of demand. Boutique studios (offering focused activities like spin, high-intensity interval training, boxing, Pilates, etc.) were expanding quickly again, sometimes even faster than big gyms. Many boutique brands that survived the pandemic (or emerged after it) tapped into consumers’ desire for community and guided workouts, leading to an “explosion of boutique fitness” and intense competition for retail space around the 4,000–5,000 sq. ft. size range. This trend was visible in all regions, but especially in fitness-savvy urban markets and affluent suburbs (e.g. you might see a new yoga studio and CrossFit box open in a Midwestern college town, or multiple boutique franchises launching in a Southern city’s shopping centers). From a square footage perspective, the proliferation of many small studios added appreciable aggregate space. Although each boutique is smaller than a big-box gym, collectively they contributed to more square footage dedicated to fitness per capita. By late 2023, the square feet of fitness space per 1,000 people in regions like the Northeast and West likely exceeded 2019 levels due to these additions, while the South was catching up quickly. The industry’s five-year growth rate, measured by revenue, was modest (approx. 1.3% CAGR from 2019 to 2024), but that belies the deeper story: a sharp dip and an emphatic rebound. The number of facilities in operation in 2023 was still slightly below the 2019 peak in some datasets (indicating some consolidation), but the gap was closing. By the end of 2024, IBISWorld projected around 93,000–95,000 businesses (enterprises) in the fitness industry – which suggests that including franchises and studios, the count of distinct gym locations was on a growth path again. All told, by 2024 each region’s demand indicators (memberships, visits, sq ft per capita) were at or above their pre-pandemic baselines, with the South and West making notable gains relative to the Northeast and Midwest, thanks to demographic tailwinds.

Regional Trend Comparisons: When comparing the 2019–2024 trends by region, a few patterns stand out:

• The Northeast, after a severe initial shock, returned to its high baseline. Its per-capita demand for gym space in 2024 is roughly comparable to 2019 (perhaps even slightly higher in pockets like New England, which saw an immigration boost in 2024 helping population stability. The region’s mature markets rebounded largely by winning back former members – for example, the social and mental health benefits of gym participation drew people in the Northeast back as the pandemic waned, despite the availability of home fitness alternatives. Growth beyond the prior peak has been moderate; the Northeast’s overall market is more saturated, so 5-year growth in facility count or space per person was likely the lowest of the four regions.

• The Midwest also rebounded, but its recovery may have been more muted in terms of exceeding pre-pandemic demand. By 2024 the Midwest’s gym space per 1,000 people is roughly back to 2019 levels, but not dramatically above. The region didn’t experience the same population influx as the Sunbelt, nor was there an outsized cultural shift. Thus, while Midwestern gyms in 2024 are busy again and membership is high (indeed, some states like Illinois and Ohio recorded their best population growth in years in 2024 which could marginally help fitness enrollment), the region remains the most under-supplied in fitness space per capita. The five-year trend here was essentially a big dip and recovery to status quo ante, with perhaps a slight upward trend due to the broader national fitness awareness increase.

• The South shows the most substantial five-year growth in demand for gym space. Even though the South started below other regions in per-capita terms, the period from 2019 to 2024 saw an acceleration of fitness facility development in many Southern markets. Sunbelt migration trends, which intensified during the pandemic, brought millions of newcomers into Southern states – many of them in demographics inclined to join gyms (young adults, professionals, families). This led to high demand growth that outpaced supply in some cases, creating opportunities for rapid expansion of gym chains. By 2024, southern states like Florida, Texas, and the Carolinas have more gyms (and gym square footage) than ever before. For instance, a major franchise operator in the South noted significant expansion: one Planet Fitness franchise group in the Southeast grew its footprint by nearly 30% in 2022 alone. The five-year trend in the South can be summarized as: a shorter pandemic contraction (many areas reopened early) followed by vigorous growth, yielding a net increase in per-capita fitness space. However, it’s worth noting that internally the South remains varied – some rural counties still have far fewer facilities per 1,000 people than the booming suburbs do. Overall, the South in 2024 has narrowed the gap in fitness space per capita relative to the national average, thanks to these trends.

• The West had strong underlying demand pre-2020 and has fully reclaimed that momentum. The pandemic dip was real (especially in West Coast states with strict measures), but by 2024 the West’s demand for gym space per capita is on par with or slightly above 2019. The region’s five-year trajectory was bolstered by both cultural factors (a sustained emphasis on fitness and outdoor recreation which drove people back to gyms as soon as possible) and demographic shifts. Some Western states that used to lead in growth (like California) slowed during 2020–2022 due to out-migration, but others like Arizona, Utah, and Nevada picked up steam, fueling local gym industry growth. Notably, the concept of holistic wellness took particularly strong hold in the West – the integration of gyms with wellness services (meditation rooms, recovery lounges, etc.) became more common, reflecting high consumer expectations. By 2024, Western cities such as Denver, Phoenix, and Seattle have seen net new fitness concepts open compared to 2019, adding to the total square footage available. The West’s five-year trend is essentially a return to high demand plus an innovation-driven expansion (e.g., more boutique studios, climbing gyms, luxury health clubs emerging).

In aggregate, U.S. demand for gym and fitness space in 2024 is at an all-time high, but the path here involved a dramatic dip and rebound. The industry’s resilience is evident in that memberships surpassed prior records even though the mix of offerings has evolved. One lasting impact of 2020–2021 is that gyms have incorporated more safety and hygiene features and often more space per user (many clubs reconfigured to avoid crowding). This means that although membership counts are higher, some facilities effectively provide more square feet per member than before, which can slightly reduce how many people a given space can serve at once. This “de-densification” could keep the demand for total square footage elevated (i.e., to serve X million members with more comfort, you need a bit more room). The five-year trends also cemented certain consumer behaviors: a portion of workouts permanently moved to home or outdoors. But far from rendering gyms obsolete, this seems to have refocused gyms on their unique strengths – community, variety of equipment, group classes, personal training – which are driving people back in. All regions now face a landscape where hybrid fitness is common (people splitting routines between gym and home) and where the bar for gym experience is raised.

To summarize the five-year regional trends: the Northeast and Midwest basically fought their way back to prior demand levels, whereas the South and West have surged ahead to new heights, thanks largely to demographic growth and faster rebounds. The stage is set for further growth, but also intense competition, as detailed in the next sections on what drives demand and how regions differ moving forward.

Demographic and Health Drivers of Demand

Underlying the regional patterns in gym space demand are fundamental drivers related to demographics and public health trends. These factors determine both the capacity for demand (e.g. how many people in a region can afford or are inclined to use a gym) and the need for it (e.g. health imperatives pushing people toward fitness). We explore the key drivers below, including age distribution, income levels, urbanization, obesity rates, fitness spending, and general wellness awareness. Understanding these drivers is crucial for interpreting why certain regions exhibit higher or lower demand for fitness facilities per capita.

• Age Distribution: A region’s age makeup plays a major role in gym demand. Young adults and middle-aged individuals are the most likely to utilize gyms, whereas seniors and children use them less. Nationally, about 60% of gym members are aged 20–64, which is the prime working-age population. Regions with a higher share of young adults (20s and 30s) typically see greater demand for fitness facilities. For example, many Western and Southern areas that have attracted Millennials and Gen Z (often for tech jobs or affordable living) report strong gym membership growth. In contrast, regions with older populations (some parts of the Northeast and Midwest, where median ages are higher) may see comparatively lower gym participation rates. That said, even seniors’ engagement in fitness is rising modestly through programs like SilverSneakers, but their impact is smaller than that of younger demographics. Survey data underline the age effect: 73% of Gen Z and 72% of Millennials report actively using fitness facilities, much higher than the rates for Baby Boomers or older cohorts. This youth-driven utilization helps explain why booming cities with an influx of young professionals (think Denver, Austin, Raleigh) have outpaced national averages in demand, while regions with population stagnation or aging (think rural Midwest or parts of New England) have lagged. As the population ages overall, growth in gym demand will rely on engaging new young adults and also on innovative offerings to attract older adults (for example, low-impact fitness classes or physical therapy integration) – a trend to watch in all regions.

• Income and Socioeconomic Factors: Disposable income is a critical driver of gym demand, as gym memberships and associated expenses are discretionary. Areas with higher median income and education levels generally support more and higher-end fitness facilities. National statistics show roughly 60% of gym members have annual incomes between $50,000 and $100,000, i.e. solidly middle to upper-middle class. Higher income brackets are also well represented (premium clubs often target households earning $100k+). This indicates that gyms attract individuals with the financial means to afford monthly dues or class packages. Consequently, affluent suburbs and metro areas – for instance, the suburbs of Washington D.C. (in the South region) or the Bay Area in California (West region) – tend to have a high density of fitness centers, including boutique studios that charge premium rates. By contrast, lower-income regions face economic barriers to gym demand. Many parts of the Deep South and rural Midwest have household incomes below the national median; in these communities, paying $30–$100 per month for a gym might be a low priority, especially when budgets are tight. This contributes to the lower per-capita facility presence observed in those areas. Additionally, income intersects with education and health literacy – more educated populations often value exercise more and are aware of available fitness options, boosting demand. The income effect can even be seen within cities: affluent neighborhoods boast luxury health clubs and specialized studios, while low-income neighborhoods may have few, if any, commercial gyms (residents there might rely on public parks or not engage in formal exercise as much). However, the rise of budget gyms (like $10/month memberships) has somewhat democratized access in recent years, tapping into demand in price-sensitive markets. Still, the overall trend is clear: regions and communities with greater disposable income exhibit higher gym utilization and more square footage of fitness space per capita. Economic growth (or decline) in a region can therefore directly influence fitness demand – for instance, the energy boom that raised incomes in parts of Texas and North Dakota last decade coincided with a surge in new gyms there, whereas areas hit by industrial decline often see gym closures or stagnation.

• Urban Density and Lifestyle: Urbanization is another key driver of gym demand. Cities and densely populated areas facilitate the proliferation of fitness facilities and also foster a culture of gym-going. Urban residents often live in smaller homes/apartments (with less room for home gyms), commute on foot or public transit (making convenient gym locations important), and are exposed to more marketing for fitness studios. Therefore, urbanized regions – like the Northeast corridor or coastal California – have high per-capita gym counts. The Northeast’s leading position in gyms per 100k people is largely due to its dense cities and suburbs where a gym might be on every other block. In contrast, rural lifestyle regions naturally have fewer facilities; people might be physically active in different ways (e.g., farm work, outdoor sports) but not through formal gyms. Urban lifestyles also emphasize time efficiency and year-round exercise, which gyms provide, especially in climates with harsh winters (note how the Northeast’s cold winters encourage indoor gym use, whereas in parts of the South with milder weather, people might walk or jog outside more – though the South’s summer heat can conversely drive people into air-conditioned gyms!). Another aspect is that cities tend to incubate fitness trends – the latest boutique concept often starts in New York or LA and then spreads, so urban regions see demand for cutting-edge fitness experiences earlier. However, it’s worth noting that high urban density can cut both ways: it guarantees a market, but space is expensive. In the Northeast, for example, gym operators contend with high rents, leading to smaller gym footprints in some cities (boutiques thrive in 3,000–5,000 sq. ft studios). Meanwhile, in sprawling Sunbelt metros, big-box gyms with 20,000+ sq. ft can be built on cheaper land. So, urbanization affects not just how much demand, but the format of that demand – dense regions have more but smaller facilities per capita, whereas spread-out regions have fewer but sometimes larger facilities. Nonetheless, the data clearly shows that areas with greater urban population shares have more fitness space per capita. A stark example: the state of New York (with NYC and other cities) far exceeds a similarly populous but more rural state like Tennessee in gyms per resident. Lifestyle differences also manifest in cultural attitudes: in some regions, going to the gym is a social norm (part of daily routine, work culture, etc.), which feeds demand. Coastal metropolitan culture, influenced by trends and image-consciousness, often promotes regular gym attendance, whereas in some rural cultures gyms historically weren’t part of daily life (though this is gradually changing).

• Obesity Rates and Public Health Needs: There is an inverse relationship between a region’s obesity rates and its fitness facility density – though the causation can run both ways (low gym access can contribute to higher obesity, and populations with higher obesity historically have shown less demand for gyms). CDC data show the Midwest and South with obesity prevalence around 35%+ (highest), and the West and Northeast lower, around 29%. These patterns mirror gym distribution. For instance, many states with the highest obesity (MS, WV, AR – all Southern) also rank among the lowest in gyms per capita. Conversely, states with abundant fitness centers like Colorado or Massachusetts have much lower obesity rates. This suggests that demand for gym space is partly driven by health consciousness: where populations prioritize health and have lower obesity, they likely create a supportive market for fitness clubs. On the flip side, regions facing obesity epidemics have a latent need for more fitness opportunities. In recent years, public health initiatives have tried to spur demand by raising awareness of exercise’s benefits, sometimes subsidizing community fitness programs. We see some positive correlation changes: as certain Southern communities invest in wellness education, local gyms have reported upticks in membership by people trying to improve their health. Still, the gap remains significant – for example, a city like Boulder, CO (in the West) which has one of the nation’s lowest obesity rates (≈18%) also boasts among the highest gym densities (around 22 gyms/100k), whereas Corpus Christi, TX (South) has far fewer gyms (<10/100k) and an obesity rate over 43%. These extremes highlight how public health trends and gym demand reinforce each other. Rising obesity rates in parts of the country could actually spur future demand (as healthcare providers and individuals respond by seeking fitness solutions), but historically it has been a barrier. Another related health trend is the prevalence of chronic diseases (like diabetes) which are high in low-activity regions; this too can eventually drive people into gyms as they seek to manage health. In summary, regions with better health metrics (lower obesity, higher physical activity rates) tend to have higher ongoing demand for fitness space – an indication that a culture of health drives people to maintain ample gym memberships. At the same time, regions with poor health metrics represent opportunities (and imperatives) for growth in fitness participation if those communities can be engaged.

• Fitness Spending and Wellness Awareness: A broader driver cutting across demographics is the general rise in fitness and wellness awareness in society. Over the past five years, there has been a strong uptick in consumer spending on health and wellness, and this is reflected in all regions to varying degrees. The Global Wellness Institute estimates the U.S. wellness economy (including fitness, nutrition, mindfulness, etc.) at $1.8 trillion, the largest in the world. This means consumers are dedicating more money and attention to being healthy. In practice, that has translated into higher demand for fitness services everywhere. Americans now spend an estimated $155 per month on fitness on average (including gym memberships, workout gear, classes, apps), though this figure skews higher in wealthy coastal cities and lower in rural areas. The key point is that fitness is a growing budget item. Regions with high wellness awareness (West Coast, Northeast) have seen boutique studios and wellness centers flourish because people are willing to pay for multiple fitness experiences (gym plus yoga membership plus organic food, for example). But even in regions once less tuned into “wellness,” like parts of the South, we see a cultural shift: large employers and communities are promoting wellness programs, and social media spreads fitness trends nationally without regional borders. The result is a convergence in aspiration – most Americans now agree exercise is important, even if actual participation rates differ. This awareness underpins the rising baseline demand for gym space. For instance, Google search data shows that interest in gym memberships has trended up in every region and hit record levels in 2025. The New Year’s resolution effect (January gym spikes) is now visible coast to coast. Additionally, the pandemic ironically heightened wellness awareness – people saw the importance of health and many took up new fitness routines, which post-pandemic have translated into gym visits. The sustained high growth expectations among fitness club operators (nearly 87% of clubs anticipating membership growth in 2024 according to an industry global report) reflect this broad-based consumer demand. We should also consider wellness segmentation: some regions emphasize holistic wellness (mind-body programs, etc.) more, which affects what types of fitness spaces are in demand (e.g. meditation studios in California or Massachusetts). Meanwhile, regions focused on traditional sports may favor large gyms with basketball courts, etc. But overall, the tide of wellness awareness is lifting demand for all kinds of fitness facilities.

• Population Growth and Migration: While not a “behavioral” driver, pure population growth is a fundamental factor in demand. Regions growing quickly will see increased aggregate demand for gym space – even if per capita rates stay constant, more people means more square footage needed. The South and West gained millions of residents from 2019 to 2024, so naturally total demand for fitness facilities rose there. Migration also often means people moving from one region to another carry their fitness habits. A noteworthy migration trend was people moving from expensive coastal cities to Sunbelt areas during the pandemic; many of these movers were young professionals who took their gym-going lifestyle with them, effectively transplanting demand. This is one reason why places like Austin, TX or Tampa, FL saw a surge in new boutique fitness studios – the clientele was arriving. Conversely, regions with stagnant or declining population (some Midwest and Northeast areas) face the challenge of trying to increase per-capita participation just to maintain overall demand. For example, if a rural Midwestern county loses population, even if a higher percentage of remaining folks join a gym, the total demand might not justify a new facility unless per-capita rates improve dramatically.

In summary, the demand for gym and fitness space in any given region is multifactorial – driven by who lives there (age, income, education), how they live (urban vs. rural, lifestyle norms), and their health needs and priorities. Regions where the stars align – a young, affluent, health-conscious urban population – unsurprisingly have the highest fitness space per capita. Regions missing one or more of those elements have historically lagged, but they also stand to gain the most if those underlying factors shift. Encouragingly, many of these drivers are trending positively nationwide: younger generations are very engaged in fitness, incomes have been rising in recent years (with some wage growth especially at lower end, potentially enabling more people to afford gyms), and wellness awareness is arguably at an all-time high in the U.S. The challenge remains to translate awareness into action in regions where inertia or lack of infrastructure persists. For gym operators and public health officials alike, understanding these drivers can help target interventions – whether it’s opening low-cost gyms in underserved rural areas or tailoring marketing to older demographics in the Northeast, for instance. Ultimately, the interplay of these demographic and health factors will shape the future landscape of regional fitness demand.

Regional Differentiators and Outlook

While all U.S. regions are experiencing a renewed enthusiasm for fitness, each region’s outlook is shaped by distinct differentiators – from demographic trends to cultural preferences and economic conditions. In this section, we examine what sets each region apart and how those factors influence the future demand for gym and fitness facility space. We also provide an outlook, projecting how demand might evolve in the coming years (beyond 2024) for each region, given current trajectories.

Northeast – Saturation Point vs. Premium Growth: The Northeast’s key differentiator is its high urban density coupled with an already saturated fitness market. In much of the Northeast, especially along the Boston-New York-Philadelphia corridor, consumers are spoiled for choice in fitness options. This mature market status means that future growth will be slower and driven more by innovation and replacement than by raw new demand. Population in the Northeast is relatively stagnant (even with a recent uptick from immigration) and some states consistently see young people moving out to other regions. Thus, the Northeast isn’t getting a surge of new people to fuel gym construction. Instead, the outlook is that Northeastern demand will grow in quality and diversity. Expect to see more premium, full-service clubs and niche studios catering to the affluent and discerning clientele in this region. For example, luxury health club chains and boutique brands (like Equinox, SoulCycle, Barry’s, etc.) are likely to further deepen their presence in upscale urban and suburban pockets. These facilities put a premium on experience and amenities – and consumers are willing to pay. As evidence of this trend, Barry’s (a high-end boutique studio brand) has emphasized its focus on premium real estate and affluent demographics, especially as it expands in core Northeast markets like Boston and NYC suburbs. This indicates that the battle in the Northeast will be for differentiation, not basic supply. We may also see consolidation: weaker independent gyms could be bought out or go out of business as the big players tighten their grip. A positive outlook element is that corporate wellness programs are strong in the Northeast due to many large employers, potentially sustaining memberships (some companies subsidize memberships, keeping demand high). Also, the aging population in the Northeast could spawn more demand for senior-friendly fitness offerings (low-impact classes, aquatic exercise facilities, etc.), possibly repurposing existing space or adding new specialized studios. Overall, the Northeast’s outlook is for stable, incremental growth in demand for fitness space – likely keeping pace with or slightly above population changes – but no explosive expansion. The region’s focus will be on optimizing and modernizing its already ample gym space. One can foresee more mixed-use developments incorporating fitness centers (e.g., residential high-rises including high-end gyms as an amenity) and a trend toward smaller footprint gyms in dense cities (because large spaces are hard to find). Given the Northeast’s current high per-capita provision, new openings will likely target micro-markets that are under-served (perhaps certain city neighborhoods lacking a gym) or introduce novel concepts to refresh consumer interest. In summary, the Northeast will continue to be a lucrative market for fitness but one that demands savvy positioning – the square footage per 1,000 people may not rise dramatically from current levels, but the utilization and revenue per square foot could increase as clubs maximize their value proposition.

Midwest – Steady Recovery and Potential for Upside: The Midwest’s differentiators include its slower growth population and historically lower fitness penetration – but also a strong community ethos and cost advantages for expansion. Many Midwestern cities have ample real estate space at lower cost, which is an advantage for fitness developers (it’s cheaper to open a large facility in Cleveland than in San Francisco, for example). The Midwest also has many tight-knit communities where a new gym or YMCA can quickly become a community hub, driving word-of-mouth demand. The outlook for the Midwest is a bit cautious yet hopeful. On one hand, without significant population growth (the Midwest’s population is nearly flat, with some states even losing residents over the past decade), demand increases will have to come from raising the fitness participation rate. That requires cultural shifts and overcoming barriers like out-migration of young people and economic stagnation in some areas. On the other hand, there are encouraging signs: midwestern states like Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio saw an unexpected bump in growth rates in 2024, possibly indicating they are stabilizing and might retain more young adults. Additionally, the post-pandemic era has seen some people moving into smaller Midwestern cities seeking lower cost of living; these new residents often bring more cosmopolitan habits (including gym-going). The Midwest also has room for market development – many smaller cities and suburbs that could support a new fitness facility have yet to get one. For instance, while Chicago and its suburbs are well-served, a mid-size city like Fort Wayne, IN or Wichita, KS might still have fewer options per capita than comparably sized cities elsewhere. Investors looking at the Midwest might find untapped demand in such locales, especially for budget-friendly gyms that appeal to a broad audience. One likely trend is the expansion of 24-hour low-cost gym franchises (Planet Fitness, Anytime Fitness, etc.) in smaller Midwestern towns – these models have done well in the region historically and should continue, providing basic square footage of workout space at minimal cost. Another growth area is family-oriented fitness: Midwest communities value family activities, so multi-use recreational facilities (with gyms, pools, courts) or large community centers might see investment, which would add a lot of square footage accessible to the public. The role of public or non-profit sector is a differentiator too – the Midwest has a strong tradition of YMCAs and civic recreation centers. These complement private gyms and in some towns are the primary fitness provider. If municipal budgets allow, building new community fitness centers in health-challenged Midwestern counties could significantly boost per-capita space and satisfy latent demand. As for health drivers, the Midwest’s high obesity rates have prompted some state-level initiatives that could indirectly increase gym usage (e.g., doctor-prescribed exercise programs, employer wellness incentives in the Rust Belt). If even a portion of the currently inactive population is activated to use gyms, it could mean a noticeable uptick in demand. So the outlook: the Midwest is unlikely to surge in the way the Sunbelt might, but it has potential for steady, modest growth in fitness demand. Square feet per 1,000 people could inch upward as a few more people out of that 36% obesity statistic decide to hit the gym. Realistically, the Midwest might remain the lowest in per-capita gym space for some time, but the gap could narrow if economic revitalization in certain cities (e.g., tech jobs coming to Columbus or Indianapolis) and health campaigns bear fruit. In sum, expect the Midwest to continue recovering what was lost in 2020 and then gradually expand demand in under-served pockets – a slow and steady trajectory that mirrors the region’s overall economic and population trends.

South – High Growth Trajectory, Targeting Wellness Gaps: The South is poised to be the engine of growth for the U.S. fitness industry in the coming years. Its differentiators – rapid population growth, a younger demographic in many areas, and historically lower baseline of facilities – combine to create a scenario of significant unmet demand that is quickly being addressed. The South has been the fastest-growing region since 2021 and continues to attract businesses and workers; as a result, its cities and suburbs are booming with development, including new gyms. The outlook for the South is robust expansion and market maturation. We can expect to see a proliferation of fitness facilities of all types: large athletic clubs in growing suburbs, boutique studios in trendy urban districts, and low-cost franchises expanding into smaller towns. In effect, the South is in a phase of playing “catch-up” to match the per-capita facility levels seen in the North and West – and it’s making headway. The competitive landscape is heating up: for instance, many national gym brands are actively targeting southern markets for new locations. An example is the franchising arms of companies like Crunch or Orangetheory focusing on states like Florida, Texas, and Georgia for multi-unit developments, given the favorable economics and rising demand there (Florida and Texas each have numerous metro areas in the top ranks for new gym openings in recent years). Moreover, real estate availability in the South (which often has more open land and retail space in new shopping centers) means developers can construct spacious facilities relatively easily compared to space-constrained regions. This suggests the South will add a lot of square footage quickly. However, the region’s outlook also involves addressing its wellness gaps. The South still contends with some cultural and socioeconomic barriers to gym participation – for example, rural areas with lingering skepticism about “gym culture” or lower-income communities where cost is an issue. The improvement in demand will partly hinge on making fitness more accessible and culturally accepted across the diverse Southern populace. We are already seeing movements in that direction: many southern cities have launched public health drives promoting exercise, and some schools and churches (important community pillars in the South) are incorporating more fitness programming. There’s also a trend of medical fitness centers emerging (gyms affiliated with hospitals) in Southern states, aiming to attract individuals with specific health needs – another path to grow demand by reaching those who wouldn’t join a standard gym. One notable sub-regional outlook: the Sunbelt coastal areas and Appalachia. The South is not monolithic; for instance, the Carolinas, Florida, and parts of Tennessee are becoming meccas for active retirees and remote workers, which will boost demand for gyms and wellness centers in those areas. Meanwhile, some Deep South states like Mississippi or Alabama, which currently have among the fewest facilities per capita, might slowly climb if economic conditions improve and chains identify untapped markets there. The South’s overall per-capita gym space is likely to increase significantly, potentially overtaking the West in the next decade if trends continue. One can envision the South in a few years having a regional average closer to 15+ gyms per 100k people (up from 13.0 now) as the new supply comes online and more residents integrate gym workouts into their lifestyle. The main question is how evenly this growth will be distributed; it may remain clustered in metropolitan areas, so one outlook consideration is that rural Southern markets could remain under-served relative to the booming cities. Nonetheless, the trajectory is clear: the South will continue to be the hotspot for gym development, with investors drawn by the region’s demographics and pro-business climate. If the South can also successfully chip away at its public health challenges (high obesity, etc.) through these expanding fitness opportunities, it could see a virtuous cycle of increasing demand and improving health outcomes.

West – Innovation and Steady Influx: The West’s differentiators include its historically high fitness orientation and a culture of innovation, combined with shifts in migration patterns within the region. The Western U.S. (especially the Pacific coast) has long been a trendsetter in fitness – it’s the birthplace of many workout trends and healthy lifestyle movements. That innovative spirit will define its outlook. The West is likely to see qualitative growth: new concepts, integration of tech, and hybrid models, perhaps more than sheer quantitative expansion (since many areas are already well-served). For example, we anticipate Western markets to lead in integrating wearable technology and app-based training with physical gym memberships – gyms here might allocate space to high-tech studios or recovery labs, broadening what “fitness space” means. On the supply side, the West’s population growth has been moderate recently; some states like California have lost population to domestic out-migration, though others like Arizona, Utah, and Idaho are gaining. The net effect is a more balanced growth outlook – not as explosive as the South, but not stagnant either. California’s fitness demand will remain enormous (as the most populous state with strong fitness culture), but the action is shifting – coastal cities will grow more through boutique and premium diversification, while states like Arizona and Nevada will see more foundational growth (i.e., new gyms to serve expanding suburbs). Another factor is the West’s emphasis on outdoor recreation. How does that interplay with gym demand? In many Western states, outdoor activities (hiking, skiing, cycling) are popular and can be substitutes or complements to gym workouts. The outlook is that gyms in the West will increasingly position themselves as complements to outdoor lifestyles, offering training that enhances outdoor performance or providing year-round options (for when weather or wildfire smoke or other issues keep people indoors). This complementarity can sustain gym demand even among populations that might otherwise just exercise outside. The West also continues to attract health-conscious individuals – for instance, tech hubs like Seattle, Denver, and San Diego draw young workers who often prioritize fitness. As long as those migration pipelines (even if slower than before) continue, they will refresh the demand pool. Regional challenges in the West could include higher business costs (rents, wages, etc.), which might push some gym operators out or limit new openings in pricier cities. We might see more creative use of space – e.g., outdoor gyms or mixed indoor-outdoor facilities capitalizing on climate – to manage costs and space constraints. The Western region has also seen growth in alternative fitness venues like climbing gyms and wellness resorts. REITs like EPR Properties are investing in Western hot springs resorts and climbing facilities, expecting fitness/wellness experiences to be a durable trend. This signals that the West’s fitness demand is diversifying into experiential niches. The outlook is that per-capita gym space in the West will remain high (possibly inching up further in line with national trends), and the region will continue to be a bellwether for new types of fitness offerings that could then spread nationwide. In sum, expect steady demand growth in absolute terms, with the West maintaining its status as one of the top regions for fitness space per person – and arguably the leader in evolving what that space encompasses (from traditional gyms to holistic wellness centers).

National and Cross-Regional Outlook: When comparing across regions, one overarching trend is the convergence of consumer expectations. Someone in a smaller Midwestern city now has awareness of boutique fitness concepts popular in big coastal cities (thanks to social media and franchises expanding), and someone in the historically under-served South is increasingly exposed to wellness culture. This means that the gap in demand between regions could narrow over time: the Midwest and South have more room to rise, and they likely will, while the Northeast and West are closer to saturation and will grow more gradually. By perhaps 2030, we might see all four regions having a more similar range of gyms per capita than today (barring major population shifts). However, regional differentiators like those discussed will still result in some pecking order (e.g., Northeast and West probably still slightly ahead in per-capita terms, with South closing in, Midwest still trailing but improved).

Another important factor for all regions is the integration of digital fitness. If home workouts and virtual classes maintain popularity, how will that affect physical space demand? The current evidence suggests a complementary effect rather than a replacement: many consumers use apps at home and attend gyms. However, if technology (like VR fitness or advanced home equipment) radically improves, it could temper growth in demand for physical gym square footage, especially in tech-savvy regions (West, Northeast). Gym operators in all regions are responding by creating hybrid offerings (online class platforms for members, etc.) – this might slightly reduce the need for building new physical locations because one gym can extend its reach virtually. Still, human nature and the desire for in-person experiences mean physical gyms will remain central.

Finally, a cross-regional outlook point: economic conditions will always influence discretionary spending like gym memberships. We are assuming a stable economic scenario in our outlook. If a recession hits, some regions could see a pullback in demand (memberships often dip in downturns as people cut expenses). Typically, lower-income regions (some Southern and Midwestern states) would be more vulnerable to membership cancellations, whereas wealthier areas might ride it out. Thus, short-term economic swings could cause regional divergences in demand. Over the long run, though, the structural drivers – demographics, health needs, culture – are the dominant forces as we’ve outlined.

In conclusion, each region has a unique combination of factors shaping its fitness space demand. The Northeast will refine a saturated market with premium and innovative offerings but slow growth; the Midwest has potential for incremental gains by reaching untapped communities; the South is on a strong growth curve, expanding both the breadth and depth of its fitness market; and the West remains a high-demand area that will likely push the envelope in new fitness experiences. These differentiated outlooks mean that stakeholders (investors, operators, public health officials) should tailor their strategies to each region’s context rather than adopt a one-size-fits-all approach.

Implications for Developers and Investors

The analysis of demand for gym and fitness facility space across regions carries several important implications for real estate developers, gym operators, and investors. In a market that is both rebounding and evolving, strategic decisions about where and how to develop new fitness spaces can spell the difference between success and struggle. Below, we outline key takeaways and recommendations for stakeholders, grounded in the trends discussed:

• Focus on High-Growth Regions (South & Select West Markets): Developers and investors should capitalize on the surging demand in the South and fast-growing Western states. These regions, with their population influx and rising fitness participation, offer fertile ground for new facilities. For instance, the South now comprises nearly 40% of the U.S. population but historically had fewer gyms per capita than the national average. This imbalance signals opportunity. Markets such as Texas, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, and North Carolina are prime targets for new gym development, as they are absorbing young, fitness-inclined demographics. Investors could consider developing large multi-purpose fitness centers in growing suburbs of these states, or cluster several boutique studios in urban hotspots. The data suggests that demand in these areas is far from saturated – new facilities can quickly attract members due to both population growth and the cultural shift towards wellness. However, it’s important to conduct local market research; while regional trends are favorable, success still depends on micro-location (proximity to where target demographics live/work). Competitive analysis is also key: some popular Sunbelt cities already have multiple entrants (for example, many national franchises rushing into the same metropolitan areas). Nonetheless, overall growth prospects remain strong. In short, reallocate capital to high-growth regions where per-capita supply is catching up to demand – these markets are likely to yield higher occupancy and membership ramp-up rates.

• Identify Under-Served Niches in Mature Markets (Northeast & Coastal Cities): In saturated regions like the Northeast or West Coast cities, straightforward expansion of generic gym space may not yield high returns, but there are still opportunities through differentiation. Developers should look for under-served niches or neighborhoods that lack certain types of facilities. For example, even in New York City – which has a high gym density – some residential neighborhoods have few quality fitness options; a well-positioned boutique studio or a small-format gym could fill a local void. Moreover, as the Northeast has a more aging population than other regions, consider concepts catering to older adults (wellness centers with physical therapy, low-impact exercise classes, etc.). Another niche is the ultra-premium segment: affluent communities in the Northeast (or any region’s wealthy enclaves) might support high-end clubs with spa-like amenities beyond what’s currently available. Investors might take cues from success stories like Life Time and Equinox, which thrive in upscale markets by offering a luxury experience – there may be room for more such facilities or expansions of existing ones in high-income suburbs or city districts. The key implication is to avoid commoditized offerings in saturated markets; instead, innovate with club concept and quality. Even relatively small additions of square footage (if it’s the right square footage for the right audience) can capture unmet demand. Additionally, developers in mature markets should consider repositioning or upgrading older fitness properties. Many gyms in the Northeast and West were built decades ago; modernizing these spaces or redeveloping them into multi-use wellness hubs can rejuvenate demand.

• Leverage Mixed-Use Development and Anchor Benefits: The trend of including fitness facilities as part of mixed-use developments is likely to grow, and investors should harness this. Fitness centers make excellent anchors in retail complexes or residential projects because they drive regular foot traffic. Landlords have noticed that a popular gym can increase visitation to adjacent shops and services – Barry’s, for example, explicitly pitches to landlords that its studios bring high-value customers to the area. For developers, this implies that partnering with strong fitness operators can enhance overall property value. Incorporating a gym or wellness center into a new mixed retail or residential development can be a selling point (apartment tenants increasingly expect on-site or nearby fitness options). We’re seeing many malls and shopping centers allocate space to gyms as traditional retail tenants shrink. Investors should consider converting vacant or under-performing retail big-box spaces into fitness centers. The data suggests retail real estate availability is tight in prime areas, but there is still significant lower-quality space that could be repurposed – turning an old department store into a large sports complex or trampoline park/gym hybrid, for instance. The implication is a win-win: fitness tenants fill space and attract people, while gaining a built-in market from the development’s other uses. From an investment perspective, having a stable gym tenant (especially one with a strong brand and membership base) can provide steady long-term lease income; many gyms sign multi-year leases and invest heavily in build-out (making them less likely to relocate). Therefore, embedding fitness in real estate projects both meets community demand and strengthens the development’s performance.

• Anticipate Fierce Competition for Prime Spaces: A notable insight from the post-pandemic recovery is that quality retail/commercial space is at a premium, and many fitness operators (especially boutiques) are vying for similar sized units (often ~4,000–6,000 sq. ft.). For investors and developers, this means two things: firstly, desirable locations (high-visibility, high-traffic areas in good neighborhoods) will command higher rents and see bidding wars among gyms, health clinics, yoga studios, etc. Secondly, there’s an opportunity to develop new retail or commercial nodes specifically with fitness in mind, rather than waiting for vacancies. If a developer can create a new strip center or small mall in a growing suburb, populating it with a cluster of fitness/wellness tenants could be a sound strategy (e.g., a gym as an anchor, surrounded by a healthy cafe, a physical therapy clinic, a yoga studio – creating a wellness destination). However, developers should also be cautious about over-expansion; chasing the fitness boom blindly can lead to oversupply in certain micro-markets. Performing due diligence on local demographics and existing competition is critical – for instance, opening a boutique studio right next to several others might split the market. A savvy approach is to secure spaces near complementary businesses (e.g., near residential developments, near offices for lunchtime corporate fitness, or near other lifestyle retailers). Also, because competition for brick-and-mortar space is high, be prepared for longer lease negotiations and the need for incentives to attract top fitness tenants. Some boutique studios might require tenant improvement allowances or favorable terms given their high build-out costs (for soundproofing, showers, etc.). The overall implication is that while demand for space is high, investors must navigate a more competitive leasing environment – expect to pay more and plan for longer lead times to secure ideal sites for fitness-related projects.

• Diversify Offerings and Embrace Wellness Trends: Investors in the fitness real estate sector should broaden their perspective beyond traditional gyms. As highlighted, segments like climbing gyms, recovery-focused studios, and wellness centers (spas, hot springs resorts) are gaining popularity. REITs like EPR Properties have pivoted to invest in these “experiential” fitness assets because they see strong consumer demand and loyalty in them. Developers should similarly consider diversification: a portfolio that includes not just standard health clubs but also niche facilities can be more resilient. For example, in a college town, a climbing gym or CrossFit box might thrive and face little direct competition. In a retirement-heavy region, a wellness center with physical therapy, swimming pools, and low-impact exercise areas could tap into an underserved market. Additionally, holistic wellness is a trend that can be capitalized on: think of integrating gyms with juice bars, meditation rooms, or co-working spaces. Some forward-thinking gyms already incorporate lounge areas and healthy eateries to become a social hub, extending member dwell time (Barry’s Fuel Bar concept, for instance, turns the gym into a post-workout hangout). Investors can spur such multi-functional use by designing spaces that accommodate it. Embracing wellness trends also means paying attention to design elements like air quality, natural light, and open layout – features increasingly valued after COVID-19. Buildings that can advertise better ventilation or outdoor workout areas may attract tenants and members alike. In summary, the future of fitness is broadening – developers and investors who adapt properties to suit emerging concepts (from high-tech boutique studios to community wellness centers) will likely capture the next wave of demand. A one-dimensional approach (just building basic gym shells) might miss the mark as consumer preferences evolve.

• Consider Partnerships and Alliances: An implication for gym operators (and by extension their investors) is to leverage partnerships that can boost demand. For instance, tying up with healthcare providers or insurers to locate fitness facilities near clinics or to offer subsidized memberships can drive volume (especially in regions battling chronic disease, such as parts of the South and Midwest). Investors might encourage their fitness tenants to seek these partnerships or even facilitate a mixed-use project that houses both a medical clinic and a gym – creating synergies. Corporate partnerships are also key: many large employers now include gym memberships in benefits. A developer could coordinate with a major employer (e.g., to open a fitness center on or near their campus, which could double as a public gym after hours). These approaches can secure a built-in user base, mitigating risk. Furthermore, working with municipalities on public recreation projects (public-private partnerships) can be beneficial – a city might provide land or tax incentives for building a community recreation center operated by a private company, addressing community health goals while giving the operator a stable contract. The broader implication is to integrate the fitness facility into the community’s fabric via alliances, rather than viewing it as a standalone business. This can lead to higher utilization rates and goodwill, which ultimately supports consistent demand.

• Mind the Hybrid Reality (Digital Integration): From an investment standpoint, physical space remains crucial, but the rise of digital fitness means brick-and-mortar providers must differentiate on experience. Investors should favor fitness businesses that have a clear value proposition for their physical space (group classes, social community, equipment that can’t be replicated at home) and perhaps a complementary digital strategy. A gym that offers an in-person experience plus an app for off-day workouts is likely to retain members better. This affects lease stability – operators with robust hybrid models might be more stable tenants. As a developer leasing space, vet the business model of potential fitness tenants in light of this hybrid trend. Those solely offering basic gym access might be more vulnerable if a future disruption pushes people to home workouts again. In contrast, a tenant offering a unique experience or integrated platform could weather storms better. While this is more about operator strategy, it’s an implication that prudent real estate investors consider tenant quality deeply in this sector. The gist: back fitness concepts that use their space to full advantage (e.g., high-energy classes, community events, personal training, etc. – things not easily done via a screen alone).

• Plan for Flexibility and Resilience: Lastly, developers and investors should design fitness spaces with flexibility and resilience in mind. The pandemic taught that having outdoor workout areas, movable equipment, and adaptable floor plans (to allow spacing) can be critical. As such, new gym constructions should ideally include some outdoor or semi-outdoor training areas (where climate permits) and infrastructure to support virtual streaming (studios equipped to broadcast classes). Additionally, consider the resilience of location: gyms in purely office-centric areas struggled when remote work emptied offices. Barry’s, for example, shifted strategy to focus more on suburban locations rather than downtown office districts in the wake of those changes. This suggests investors might prioritize mixed residential neighborhoods over central business districts for new fitness projects, or at least ensure downtown gyms have a strong neighborhood resident component. Also, monitor zoning and health regulations changes – ensuring facilities can accommodate any future public health requirements (space per person, air filtration) will protect the investment. Being proactive by building beyond minimum code – say, installing high-grade HVAC for air circulation – could make a facility more appealing and future-proof.

In conclusion, the booming and shifting demand for gym and fitness space presents significant opportunities for developers and investors, but capturing them requires strategic alignment with regional trends and consumer expectations. The themes are clear: go where the growth is, differentiate where the market is mature, integrate into communities, and innovate in concept and design. By applying these principles, investors can not only meet the current demand but also create fitness spaces that remain relevant and profitable in the long term.

Conclusion

The demand for gym and fitness facility space in the United States is at an all-time high, but it manifests unevenly across regions, shaped by unique demographic, economic, and cultural forces. Our examination shows that using a per-capita metric (square feet of fitness space per 1,000 people) illuminates these regional disparities and trends clearly. The Northeast and West enjoy the highest concentration of fitness facilities, reflecting their urban makeup and ingrained wellness cultures, while the Midwest and much of the South lag behind in per-capita terms – a gap that is slowly closing as the fitness movement spreads. Over the past five years, the industry weathered a severe downturn and roared back to growth, reaching new heights in membership by 2023. The pandemic’s disruptions, though temporary, catalyzed changes in how and where people exercise, leading to a hybrid fitness era and a heightened emphasis on health that cuts across all regions.

Key drivers like age, income, urbanization, and public health status explain why demand is stronger in some regions than others. Younger, wealthier, and more urban populations (concentrated in the Northeast and West) support a dense network of gyms and studios, and benefit from better health outcomes as a result. Regions with older or lower-income populations and more rural geographies face more challenges in building the same level of demand, yet they arguably have the most to gain – improved access to fitness facilities in those areas could help address high rates of lifestyle-related diseases. Encouragingly, the post-2020 period has seen a convergence in awareness: Americans nationwide recognize the value of fitness, and many regions with historically low facility access (from the Deep South to small-town Midwest) are seeing new gyms open and participation rise. This suggests a future in which the regional gaps in fitness space provision continue to narrow.

For stakeholders – whether community planners, investors, or public health officials – these findings carry practical implications. There is clear evidence that supply creates its own demand up to a point: regions that invested in more fitness infrastructure often cultivated higher usage rates and healthier populations. Conversely, where fitness options were lacking, sedentary lifestyles and obesity took firmer hold. Thus, investing in fitness facilities is not only a business opportunity but also a component of community well-being. Public sector involvement (such as incentivizing gyms in underserved areas or including fitness amenities in urban development plans) could accelerate positive outcomes, especially in the South and Midwest. Meanwhile, private sector developers are wise to follow the demographic currents – expanding in growth regions and innovating in saturated ones, as detailed in our analysis of investment implications.

In presenting this research, we aimed for a structured and fact-driven approach suitable for a professional audience. Each section – from the data-rich current landscape to the forward-looking outlook – reinforces the central theme: demand for fitness space is robust and rising, but it is not monolithic across the U.S. landscape. Regional context matters immensely. A fitness company or investor plotting expansion must tailor their strategy regionally – the playbook for the West Coast (with its premium, experience-oriented clientele) may not succeed in the Midwest (which may need affordability and community focus), and the untapped potential in parts of the South might require outreach and education alongside bricks-and-mortar investment.

Ultimately, the trajectory of gym and fitness space demand points upward, underpinned by strong societal trends towards health, experience, and community. Even as digital fitness options grow, humans’ fundamental desire for social interaction and access to equipment and expertise ensures that physical gyms will remain a key fixture of American life. The regions that currently lag in provision offer some of the most compelling growth stories of the coming years, as they combine improving health consciousness with influxes of new residents. Those regions at the forefront will continue to push the envelope, redefining what a fitness space can be.

In conclusion, stakeholders should view the U.S. fitness landscape as both a unified market moving in a healthy direction and a mosaic of local stories. From the busy studios of Boston to the emerging gyms of Birmingham, demand for fitness space is woven into the fabric of each region’s identity and future. By understanding and respecting these regional nuances, we can better plan, invest, and innovate – ensuring that supply meets demand, and that more Americans have the opportunity to lead active, healthier lives.

August 26, 2025, by a collective authors of MMCG Invest, LLC, (retail/hospitality/multi family/sba) feasibility study consultants.

Sources:

1. Cinch (2023) – Analysis of BLS and CDC data on gym concentrations and health indicators, showing Northeast leads with 15.1 gyms per 100k vs. Midwest 11.3, and noting correlations with obesity and activity.

2. CDC (2024) – Adult Obesity Prevalence Maps, reporting Midwest (36.0%) and South (34.7%) have highest obesity, West (29.1%) and Northeast (28.6%) lowest

3. Health & Fitness Assoc. (Oct 2024) – Press release: U.S. Fitness Facility Membership Reaches Historic High, documenting 72.9 million members in 2023 (23.7% of population) and 5.8% YoY growth, exceeding pre-pandemic membership.

4. PTPioneer (2024) – Fitness Industry Statistics, noting 2019 peak of 41,370 U.S. clubs and a 16.99% drop in 2020, with continued declines into 2021, followed by stabilization; also citing IBISWorld count of 114,370 total U.S. fitness businesses in 2024.

5. IBISWorld (2024) – Gym, Health & Fitness Clubs in the US, indicating industry revenue growth ~1.3% CAGR (2019–24) and number of businesses growing ~0.5% annually (2019–24), reflecting net recovery after pandemic losses.

6. WodGuru (2024) – Gym Membership Statistics, highlighting demographic drivers: ~60% of gym members earn $50k–$100k, and high usage by younger generations (72%+ of Gen Z/Millennials) versus lower among older groups; also listing 2019 U.S. gym count (41,370) and membership (64.2M).

7. CoStar News (May 2025) – “Barry’s Bootcamp Sprints to Expansion…”, providing context on industry recovery and real estate trends: boutique fitness competition for 4,500–5,000 sq. ft. spaces is intense, retail vacancy is at historic lows for quality space, and Barry’s is shifting to suburban sites as downtown traffic lags; also notes how Barry’s pitches landlords on the value of a fitness tenant attracting high-spending customers.

8. Nareit (Feb 2025) – “REITs in Step with Fitness and Wellness Demand Surge”, citing that nearly 100 million U.S. adults plan to prioritize fitness in 2025 and valuing the U.S. wellness economy at $1.8 trillion. It also describes how REITs like EPR expanded fitness/wellness from 0.9% to 8% of portfolio post-2020 and see potential up to 15%, investing in niche assets like climbing gyms and hot springs (emphasizing experiential demand).