DataBank SEA2: sell connectivity and usable density
FJI qualification held or pending: the full four-document gate, including project-specific government evidence, has not yet been accepted. Qualification evidence and decisions →
Project status: Existing marketed facility; historical expansion described separately. Capacity scope: 3 MW listed critical IT capacity; expansion snippet not added again. How we verify evidence.
← Back to project index- Location
- Tukwila, Washington
- Readiness
- Existing facility / readiness unverified
- Status
- Existing marketed facility; historical expansion described separately
- Confirmed companies
- DataBank
- Next milestone
- Current billable utilization and customer-specific liquid-cooling deployment
- Reviewed
- October 6, 2026
Expanded analysis · Original disclosures linked below · CAD and USD preserved as labeled · Company statements attributed; interpretations labeled.
The one-minute investment takeaway
Our analysis: SEA2 is a smaller colocation and connectivity asset with advertised density options. Its investment value should be tested through lease mix, cross-connect economics and the cost of supporting denser customers. Technical capability creates an opportunity; it does not prove AI equipment is installed or producing revenue.
Readiness basis: Classification of evidence in the reviewed profile; strongest documented phase, not full-campus completion. Existing marketed facility; historical expansion described separately Readiness source →
What the sources establish
- Operator / company disclosure Current listed specifications. DataBank lists SEA2 at 3311 South 120th Place, with 28,240 IT square feet, 3 MW of critical IT capacity and 17 onsite carriers. These are operator-listed specifications, not measured utilization. Primary source →
- Operator / company disclosure Density offering. The page advertises 10 kW-plus air-cooled and 25 kW-plus liquid-cooled cabinet density, HPC capability, 2N power and N+1 cooling. Customer-specific acceptance still requires evidence. Primary source →
- Operator / company disclosure Avoid double counting. A separate expansion section on the same page describes adding 15,000 square feet and 2 MW. It does not establish that this should be added again to the listed 3 MW total. Primary source →
Who receives the money?
Our analysis of disclosed roles. Revenue routes are business-model interpretations, not estimates of booked project revenue.
| Company / exposure | Economic role | What investors need to establish |
|---|---|---|
| DataBank | Cabinet and cage rent, interconnection and service margin | Billable power, connection volumes and customer-specific support costs. |
| Onsite carriers | Potential network-service receipts | Customer contracts and traffic; carrier count is not a revenue measure. |
| Cooling and electrical providers | Potential density-upgrade procurement | Named awards and capital responsibility, rather than presumed AI purchases. |
How financially meaningful is it? Analyst interpretation
Our analysis: a dense customer can increase rent per cabinet while consuming a disproportionate share of electrical and cooling capacity. Compare contribution per constrained kW rather than simply cabinet occupancy. Interconnection can support retention and service margin, but network presence must turn into paid connections. Expansion snippets and current specification tables need reconciliation before deriving any capacity growth rate.
Contribution per constrained kW = net facility rent plus associated service margin minus customer-specific operating and capital burden, divided by allocated power capacity.
Hypothetical illustration: 20 cabinets using 25 kW each consume 500 kW. At USD 200 per kW-month, gross annual rent would be USD 1.2 million before costs. This illustrates capacity consumption and pricing assumptions, not SEA2 deployments or rates.
Milestones that would change the assessment
| Milestone | Evidence to watch |
|---|---|
| Capacity reconciliation | Clarify how the historical addition relates to the current listed total. |
| Liquid-cooling acceptance | Customer deployment, heat rejection, connection design and owner-versus-tenant costs. |
| Service monetization | Paid connections, retention and support margin rather than carrier count alone. |
What could break the investment case?
Our analysis: Advertised density may depend on the specific room, equipment and cooling arrangement. A high-power tenant can exhaust available capacity while many cabinets remain empty. Undated expansion language can also create an inflated total if added to current specifications.
What would change our view?
Our analysis: Documented dense deployments with appropriate pricing and limited unrecovered capital would strengthen the case. Rising support costs, power exhaustion or expensive retrofits without compensated contracts would weaken it. An actual named AI workload would improve attribution beyond general HPC capability.
What remains unknown Not established in this review
Current billable capacity, workload mix, density approvals, liquid-cooling installation scope, expansion commissioning dates, price, maintenance capital, measured efficiency and tenant identities remain undisclosed in the listing.
Project research for information, not a buy recommendation. Financial illustrations use assumptions, not disclosed site results or management guidance.
Company investor information & quarterly statements
Corporate-disclosure certification held: Research packet retains a corporate disclosure hold.; Private participant disclosure/ownership exception remains unresolved.
DataBank: held-public-quarterly-disclosure-not-established
Corporate disclosures provide company-wide context. They do not establish this project’s revenue, spending, profit, ownership share or operating capacity. Disclosure verification records →