Op-Ed: The U.S. could soon be overrun with data centers

• Data centers have already infiltrated the suburbs in a number of larger U.S. metros
• Massive expansion plans could mean more conflict ahead as residents fight back against loud, ugly neighbors
• It doesn't have to be this way - secondary markets offer a great compromise between data center needs and resident desires

Listen, I have nothing against data centers. I understand that to a large extent the modern economy, and, in fact, my own job covering AI and the cloud, depends on them. What I do have a problem with is data centers gobbling up precious land in densely populated areas, displacing residents and cropping up in people’s backyards.

When I moved to northern Virginia nearly six years ago, data centers already had a well-established presence here. Indeed, this area has long been the data center capital of the world. But back then, they were notably smaller facilities located on compact plots along the interstate.

Fast forward to today and data centers builders are buying up tens and hundreds of acres at a time. The problem? This land is often smack in the middle of densely-populated areas that are facing a housing shortage.

Some of the many new data center complexes I’ve seen pop up in the past year alone (looking at you, Haymarket/Gainesville) have been next to townhouse developments, schools and even right up on the edge of an old cemetery. While the former present their own problems, that last one gives me a special sort of ick.

And data center builders are not just buying unoccupied land. A friend and several dozen other residents were forced to relocate just before the holidays last year when the campground that housed their RV homes was sold to a data center developer. That’s a big deal in an area where rent averages well over $2,000. The campground had a monthly rent cost of around $950.

It’s not just happening in Northern Virginia, either. Atlanta – which is home to data centers from Google, Meta, Microsoft and X, and which is also experiencing a housing shortage – has seen a similar influx of these facilities, prompting pushback from residents and local officials alike. (For the record, there’s also been plenty of pushback in Loudoun, Fairfax and Prince William counties in Virginia, to little effect.)

As the Wall Street Journal reported in December, Atlanta took steps to halt development within city limits. But the suburbs could still be fair game.

Tidal wave

The situation is likely to get worse.

According to DataCenterMap, there are already more than 3,000 facilities in the U.S. And we’ve written plenty about the wave of data center construction headed down the pipe to meet demand for both cloud and artificial intelligence computing.

In August, Synergy Research Group noted that its “known pipeline of future hyperscale data centers currently stands at 510 facilities, which are at various stages of being planned, developed or fitted out.” Granted all of those may not be in the U.S., but a significant portion will be.

Some recent announcements help further quantify the tidal wave that’s coming domestically.

Microsoft last week announced plans to invest $80 billion in AI-enabled data centers in its fiscal 2025, with more than half of that being spent in the U.S.

And this week, President-elect Donald Trump announced a $20 million data center investment from United Arab Emirates billionaire Hussain Sajwani, who is head of Damac Group. Damac Group already operates data centers in 10 countries around the world, primarily in Asia and the Middle East, and this investment will see the company enter the U.S. market. Trump said Damac is planning projects in Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Louisiana, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan and Indiana.

Not whether but where

For me, the question is not one of “do we really need more data centers?” It’s more about “where should we be putting these vital resources?”

I feel for data center developers, and I’m willing to acknowledge that they’re trying to meet a tall order: find sufficient space, power, connectivity and water in areas that meet certain latency criteria for their clients while somehow also not angering residents. But instead of fighting an uphill battle, I’d argue that maybe their clients should make that last point a priority to avoid pissing off large swaths of the population. After all, the last thing they need on their plate is another PR battle.

And really, it can be done. In fact, it already has been. How? By building in and around less-populated secondary markets rather than trying to squeeze more into already overbuilt hubs (coughNortherVirginiacough). See also: New Albany, Ohio, just northeast of the state capital, Columbus.

New Albany Mayor Sloan Spalding told Fierce last year that because the town is much more rural than, say, Atlanta or Northern Virginia, it’s easier to put data centers in locations where residents don’t even notice them.

“Part of it is really just our really good planning that has led to the reality that a lot of folks don't see this every day, they don't live in it every day,” he said.

There’s no question that the U.S. needs more data centers both to fuel the economy and win the AI race. But we also need plenty more of that “really good planning” that Spalding mentioned, or else hyperscalers and the cloud industry at large risk alienating the very people they’re (supposedly) trying to serve.