Every time we mention the ACC:
https://pics.me.me/thumb_you-could-n...e-55752106.png

Let it die.

I wonder if a therapist might offer a group rate to everyone on this forum who is still experiencing trauma from the ACC not being built.

For real. It's been well over a decade.

I cling to ACC hope the same way I wake up everyday hoping I'm wrong and Joe Carter just hit a long, loud foul ball. Sign me up for therapy.

-deleted-

If the ACC had been a similar design but only 800'+- I wonder if anyone would have liked it 12 years ago, never mind still pining over it after all these years. Of all the buildings that weren't built during that cycle the ACC while maybe not the worst, was certainly the most likely not to be built.

Of the "never built" designs proposed in the last cycle, Mandeville was by far the best.

Not sure what all of this talk of ACC is.

+1

True and Bridgeman View would have been a game changer as well.

Bridge man view was one of my first memories of this site when I first discovered it. Back in 2007, I was 14 years old. It was exciting seeing all of those proposals.

Welcome back! We thought you might be dead. Oh, and the ACC was an ugly, terrible design.

It was tall. That was the beginning and end of its appeal.

Article behind paywall. Does anyone know which "new tower" they would occupy if they are successful in getting the tax credit. They also threaten to move out of the city if they don't get it too.

Dechert, eying move to Schuylkill Yards, in legal staredown with state over tax credits

https://www.bizjournals.com/philadel..._news_headline

I got through, here are the pertinent parts:
So it seems they're talking about the red building? It's interesting though because they're not biotech which is who I thought they were targeting, but I imagine they'd be cool with mixed traditional office space and labs?

Oral arguments were held Wednesday. They're arguing there is nothing in the KOZ act specifically disallowing a business to only be in a KOZ one time ever. They're expecting an expedited ruling soon because an outcome is needed soon in order to commit or not.

^
Ok, thanks. Article does put the issue into context. And yes the reference to the JFK towers is one or both of the bldgs being firetruck/station red. And I don't recall SY specifically being just tech, but I'm sure Brandywine doesn't care as long as they can land anchor tenants to get their projects built.

https://www.archdaily.com/923700/pau...huylkill-yards

Dechert will never leave the city. Big law firms wouldn't do that. It's disgusting that they were ever allowed to use the tax credits and would be doubly so if they could use them again.

Hmmm, maybe.

Definitely.

Why? As long as they are available, why is it disgusting to use them?
If anything, it points to the fact that if companies need this kind of incentive to locate in the city that there is something wrong with the city's tax structure to begin with, and that the whole tax code needs to be overhauled to be more business friendly.

Dechert was a law firm already in center city when they moved to the Cira Center. Big law firms like Dechert are never going to move out of the general downtown areas of the city they are located in. They didn't need an incentive to stay. I am anti-corporate tax welfare in general (not all incentives - some are appropriate, like TIFs on brownfield sites), but they in no way should be used for existing businesses that are never going to leave.

but never say never. If you keep disincentivizing them to stay, they could leave.
I don't like corporate welfare either, except as an acknowledgement that the system doesn't work, as I said in my previous post.

Are any of the buildings specifically dependent on Dechert as an anchor tenant? Which buildings again has Brandywine announced an intention to break ground on soon?

It certainly was not disgusting for them to use them initially and the served their purpose as far as getting the Schuylkill area going. Using them a second time to stay in the same area is much more suspect.

Agreed. I mean sure, they weren't leaving anyway, but they qualified for the tax credits and took a bit of a chance by leaving the central business district to a very unproven area when they did. If you don't want a company like Dechert to use the tax credits, word the law so they can't use them.

But totally agree that if they receive credits again 20 years later to move a block, that would be a major issue and if actually legal should be a loophole that is immediately closed.

That would be true if all things were equal. Unfortunately other cesspool states use them all the time to great effect, so we now have to use them. Its half the reason firms move to Texas, or NJ locally.

After Dechert and other CC outfits used the tax credits almost 20 years ago I believe the City and the State passed or tried to pass laws to prevent that from happening in the future. The present tax credits might be based on a different set of underlaying laws, or maybe the City and State weren't successful in making a change.

Its clear that getting well established firms to move across the river wasn't the intent of law/tax credits, but I've learned its not to be expected that our lawyer/law makers will do a very good job of protecting the publics interest. I think that far and away most people, including most landlords, think using tax credits in this way is mistaken.

^
Did FMC take the credit?

I think they actually might have left in 2001/2003. It was a different time and a different city. At this time, I think there's no chance they'll move the lawyers out to the suburbs. Good luck hiring talented junior and mid-level associates if they do. It doesn't even seem like this is a deal breaker to go to that building. It looks like this is about moving 150-200 admin over. That's what the article actually says. There are 400 employees. The article is poorly written, but it seems to me like all the lawyers and some admin will be moving to the new buildings and this is just about whether the rest of the admin will go. Morgan Lewis has had admin in different buildings. Some firms have had a lot of admin functions offsite centrally located in some cheap state. Should probably just call their bluff and see what they do.

This. You can agree or disagree with the incentives, the principle of them and the loopholes, but there are 10+ other cities and states lined up to try a poach these types of companies.

^^^
Right, on principle it shouldn't be allowed, but in reality and practice, it probably will...

Yea I get it. It's like unilaterally disarming. You're not doing any good if you're the only city taking a stand and in the end you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

It really highlights the need for some federal laws to start to reign this in and standardize this in some way. Otherwise, this is just gonna get worse as states and municipalities compete against each other in a race to the bottom.

I agree it's a difficult problem to address. One of the downsides of our federal system. The same problems arise with right to work laws and other laws weakening union rights.

The Cira Center opened in roughly 2006. It wasn't that long ago. I know it might have contributed to the rise of buildings on the other side of the river, but maybe if we hadn't gotten the Cira Center then, we'd have gotten another building on the center city side of the river. Or maybe if we used the tax cut money to lower the wage tax across the board we'd have more jobs in the city now than we do. In any case, I'm extremely suspect of these "existing companies making empty threats they are going to leave for a tax break" situations. While they might not be illegal (although in NJ some of the Norcross related relocations seemed to cross the line), they are repugnant on a moral level (to me, I know most of you disagree).

Before we get too mired in a "Philadelphia tax burden" discussion, let's all remember that for the past decade or so Philadelphia has been adding jobs just as fast or faster than it's been adding population:
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/SMU4...de_graphs=true

Even if you narrow in on the "Professional and Business Services" sector we've been adding jobs very steadily for at least a decade now. I hope they call Dechert's bluff. Recent history has shown the city will be just fine even if they do shoot themselves in the foot and decide to leave.

From Saturday (the sun wasn't hitting the building so it's hard to see how bold that red is):

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...50b6e098_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...cea4dac8_b.jpg

Any news on brandywines 2 towers for... JFK was it? Anyways any news, was their groundbreaking?

They have their own thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=230614

No groundbreaking yet, but one or both is expected to start in 2020. Both have permits and are ready to go. Unclear when exactly they'll start though.

^
If Dechart law firm can take the KOZ credit and leasing negotiations get finalized, it will materialize.

Note that Dechert wouldn't see their overall expenses on space go down---they'd just be paying more for the rent, which means the tax benefits flow to the developer who can now build and what the public gets for the tax expenditure is another modern office building, and the city's modern office supply increases.

https://instagram.fewr1-1.fna.fbcdn....dd&oe=5E98CC1E
https://www.instagram.com/p/B9PGRYyD2Bu/

Looks like rich mahogany.

The possible tax breaks go to the company moving in, not directly to the buildings owner.* Unless Dechert's space needs have greatly changed, these tax benefits are probably the only reason they'd be moving, IMO. I like many people doubt the wisdom of tax breaks in general but I imagine only a few are in favor of using them to just move the same players around on a slightly larger board. If anything they should be used to bribe out of area companies into moving into the City. But that's not the way corporate socialism works.

*unless the owner is taking advantage of the newer capital gains deferment set up.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...08989392_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...db24898d_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...877869ce_b.jpg

As the saying goes, one can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but this is rather handsome, all things considered.

Amazing what windows and clean, minimal design can do.

In terms of looks, I think the like this a little better than the Aramark re-design.

https://twitter.com/jonjohnsonwip/st...588718592?s=21

Found this on twitter..

Spark Therapeutics said to be expanding University City footprint with new lease

https://www.inquirer.com/news/spark-...-20200423.html

wow, good news

Basically means SY won't be built as envisioned though. That building was supposed to be demo'ed eventually and if Brandywine and Sparks are going to invest in the building then it means that it's probably not going anywhere for 20+ years. It's a fine building though. There's still plenty of room to grow over there.

Edit: Sorry, I see what you mean now.

I am ok with it. Reading back in the thread it looks like 3000 Market was low on the development priority order. They list the building with just under 50k of leaseable space. Given the climate we are now in, I'll take Spark placing additional stakes in the ground with the hope that they further cement the movement of gene/cell therapy development in Philly