PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Insoluble

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the city of Philadelphia added about 11 thousand jobs between 2014 and 2015. Compare that the the just shy of 6 thousand people added and it paints a slightly different picture than the dire one we often are presented with. This is the second year in a row that job growth in Philly outpaced population growth. Let that sink in a bit.

Many of those added jobs are high paying ones. The Professional and business services sector added 2k. Health and Education added close to 5k. I know there are some not so high paying jobs in both those sectors, but there are whole lot of high paying ones as well.
http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.pa_philadelphia_co.htm

Well, some of those 6 thousand are working outside the city and the overall job growth of the immediate region is higher than 11 thousand. Since 2013, more people have commuted TO Montgomery County from Philly for work than the other way around. A 2012 study by the CPDC found that nearly HALF of Philadelphia commuted to the suburbs for work. More than any other large city. That will probably continue as long as the city remains such a great place to live and continues to improve but we don't fix tax issues and other structural problems impeding growth within the city. However, we are lucky we have close, easily accessible suburbs and a decent transit system to allow those who prefer to live here to do so without being too inconvenienced. Not unrelatedly, the tax structure made more sense when we had a much more industrial economy and people and firms were tied to the fixed assets of railroads, factories, and ports. With some exceptions, the type of economy we have today is highly mobile. And has largely moved. Sixty-six percent of local tax revenue comes from taxing highly mobile wages and profits. By contrast, comparable taxes in New York City comprise only 34% of the mix, while in Washington, D.C., it is 35%. Correspondingly, while Philadelphia derives only 17% of municipal tax revenues from real estate, New York Citygets 41% and Washington, 36%. I will now get off my soapbox, but this constitutional amendment and corresponding tax reform on BIRT and wage tax and other reforms MUST happen.

[1487]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

What do you mean by "largely" don't count? Of course, U of P and other large universities here are private, so I don't see why they wouldn't be included.

Meds and eds are carefully tracked even if not maybe in the data sets you are thinking of: http://billypenn.com/2016/01/26/why-eds-...-in-philly-and-what-could-end-the-trend/

The BSL tracks non-profits carefully in every geography and considers it in overall growth as far as I know.

I am saying many of the jobs reports published by CCD only focus on private sector jobs and that excludes many jobs. Some Eds and Meds jobs could be counted, many would not be counted. The point is much of the job growth in Philadelphia has not been with for profit, private employers in the traditional sense.

[1487]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Well, some of those 6 thousand are working outside the city and the overall job growth of the immediate region is higher than 11 thousand. Since 2013, more people have commuted TO Montgomery County from Philly for work than the other way around. A 2012 study by the CPDC found that nearly HALF of Philadelphia commuted to the suburbs for work. More than any other large city. That will probably continue as long as the city remains such a great place to live and continues to improve but we don't fix tax issues and other structural problems impeding growth within the city. However, we are lucky we have close, easily accessible suburbs and a decent transit system to allow those who prefer to live here to do so without being too inconvenienced. Not unrelatedly, the tax structure made more sense when we had a much more industrial economy and people and firms were tied to the fixed assets of railroads, factories, and ports. With some exceptions, the type of economy we have today is highly mobile. And has largely moved. Sixty-six percent of local tax revenue comes from taxing highly mobile wages and profits. By contrast, comparable taxes in New York City comprise only 34% of the mix, while in Washington, D.C., it is 35%. Correspondingly, while Philadelphia derives only 17% of municipal tax revenues from real estate, New York Citygets 41% and Washington, 36%. I will now get off my soapbox, but this constitutional amendment and corresponding tax reform on BIRT and wage tax and other reforms MUST happen.

While its true that many Philadelphians commute outside of the city, the overall number of jobs in Philadelphia is far higher than any of the other counties and some of the counties (Delco, Bucks, South Jersey counties) aren't even close in terms of # of jobs. The reality is that there are 5 or 6 counties that border the city and a total of 7-8 suburban counties in our region and OVERALL they have siphoned off a lot of jobs, but individually none are close to offering jobs parity with philadelphia.

[Urbanthusiat]

well just to put out the most recent numbers for the city, the BLS says the city had a net gain of 14.1k jobs between May 2015 and May 2016. Education and health services added 5.6k jobs, business and professional services added 4.3k, trade transportation and utilities added 2.1k, leisure and hospitality added 1.6k, and financial activities added 1.4k. So there are good jobs to be had in the city, and I suspect job creation in the city will accelerate after CTIC is completed. Looks solid.

[1487]

here is one CCD report.

http://centercityphila.org/docs/PaulRLevyTestimonyHB1871.pdf

private sector jobs figures are highest since 1991-1992 and it seems Philly will have 600k private sector jobs this year or next for first time since 1990.

[br323206]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

$8,000.00/mo?

I would rather have a Mansion instead that I own. SMH.

...and that is great. The beautiful thing is that the market provides options for both types of living. Obviously, lots of people would rather have the place in Manhattan. Otherwise the rents wouldn't be so outrageous.

[TempleGuy1000]

Originally Posted by Urbanthusiat

well just to put out the most recent numbers for the city, the BLS says the city had a net gain of 14.1k jobs between May 2015 and May 2016. Education and health services added 5.6k jobs, business and professional services added 4.3k, trade transportation and utilities added 2.1k, leisure and hospitality added 1.6k, and financial activities added 1.4k. So there are good jobs to be had in the city, and I suspect job creation in the city will accelerate after CTIC is completed. Looks solid.

Agreed.

On a somewhat related note, I don't know if anyone else has been following the news about ImpactPHL.

http://generocity.org/philly/2016/06/15/impactphl-revolutionize-capitalism/
http://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/impact-investment-revolution/
http://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/impactphl-the-catalyst/

seems promising considering how many players are involved.

To try to explain it to someone who doesn't want to read about it, basically the Wharton School and others have done studies about "Impact Investing" and it's financial returns. Essentially convincing foundations/Venture Capitalists/University's to reinvest a portion of their money back into the community instead of back into the market (where you just seek the market rate return). While both will come with a financial return, impact investing also comes with social benefits.

Today’s interest in impact investing is also a search for a more sustainable and just form of capitalism at a time when old orthodoxies are being rendered ineffective.

On the one hand, we have the collapse of orthodox socialism, with its full public ownership and control of the economy, due to its inability to provide sustained models of growth and innovation. Even America’s democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders, could only point to examples in northern Europe to emulate, where there are strong social welfare states but equally strong market economies, often less regulated than the United States.

At the same time we also have the collapse of the free market consensus during a period when crony capitalism seems ascendant, significant social problems appear immune from easy market solutions, and the nation is still recovering from the exploitative uses of consumer debt that characterized the twenty year run-up to the Great Recession.

Our current populist anger is equally trained on government—the political class—and big business as colluding enterprises that stack the deck against the poor and middle classes. Most people are wary of forms of capitalism that are exploitative just as they do not assume that answers lie in public control or a massive regulatory state.

Americans favor an entrepreneurial economy and civil society, cushioned by public sector goods and safeguards (healthcare, civil rights, retirement, education, infrastructure, defense, safety standards) that are reliable, fair, and efficient.

But neither political party has been able to articulate these ideas without resorting to the politics of grievance, both right and left. Or without being trapped in old ideologies and models.

If impact investing has a vibrant future it’s because it claims the grey area between private enterprise and public purpose, without appearing too captive to either a statist or market ideology. Moreover it is defined by practices focused on solutions that are measurable and tangible.

One thing that will help ImpactPHL is a large institutional prime mover: A check writer, not a check receiver. In Chicago, MacArthur with its multi-billion dollar balance sheet plays that role, using its capacity recently to launch an effort to draw in donor advised funds into Chicago neighborhood investing. The foundation, working with the Chicago Community Trust and the Calvert Foundation, provided liquidity and some risk protection for those investors on the sideline, who were motivated to join the effort. The credibility of MacArthur and its balance sheet was the difference maker.
So who will play that role in Philadelphia? That will be one of the issues that ImpactPHL will have to grapple with if it wants to have some breakthrough success. Can Vanguard—the largest family of mutual funds in the world—located in this region, help them create a mutual fund option for their local advised donors? Can Comcast become a prime mover in this work? Or is there a major private foundation in town that could play the MacArthur role in Philadelphia?

I don't know if it will change capitalism, but I do think it could help the city in a variety of ways.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by 1487

While its true that many Philadelphians commute outside of the city, the overall number of jobs in Philadelphia is far higher than any of the other counties and some of the counties (Delco, Bucks, South Jersey counties) aren't even close in terms of # of jobs. The reality is that there are 5 or 6 counties that border the city and a total of 7-8 suburban counties in our region and OVERALL they have siphoned off a lot of jobs, but individually none are close to offering jobs parity with philadelphia.

I didn't say and didn't mean to imply otherwise. But it's not saying much that a major city holds more jobs than 7 of 8 of its individual surrounding suburbs.

[1487]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

I didn't say and didn't mean to imply otherwise. But it's not saying much that a major city holds more jobs than 7 of 8 of its individual surrounding suburbs.

when you consider the geographic areas in question I would say it is significant. Philly is a fraction of the total area of the region and still holds the biggest share of jobs. And while Philly takes much flak for decentralization of jobs, the same thing has happened in the DC area where many companies and government agencies have set up shop outside of the city.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by 1487

While its true that many Philadelphians commute outside of the city, the overall number of jobs in Philadelphia is far higher than any of the other counties and some of the counties (Delco, Bucks, South Jersey counties) aren't even close in terms of # of jobs. The reality is that there are 5 or 6 counties that border the city and a total of 7-8 suburban counties in our region and OVERALL they have siphoned off a lot of jobs, but individually none are close to offering jobs parity with philadelphia.

Who cares. The city still accounts for a lower percentage of jobs relative to the metro than any other metro in the Northeast. It's laughable the defenses people come up with for our current predicament.

As good as our situation is compared to past years/eras, it should only highlight how much better things COULD be.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by 1487

when you consider the geographic areas in question I would say it is significant. Philly is a fraction of the total area of the region and still holds the biggest share of jobs. And while Philly takes much flak for decentralization of jobs, the same thing has happened in the DC area where many companies and government agencies have set up shop outside of the city.

Was just in the DC area this weekend. It is uncomfortably sprawling. It seems to have many "satellite" centers (Reston, Arlington, etc., etc.), with the one at the center diminished as a result. Around here, maybe King of Prussia and the 3M area in NJ could be thought of as significant centers of their own (and that's a stretch).

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

Was just in the DC area this weekend. It is uncomfortably sprawling. It seems to have many "satellite" centers (Reston, Arlington, etc., etc.), with the one at the center diminished as a result. Around here, maybe King of Prussia and the 3M area in NJ could be thought of as significant centers of their own (and that's a stretch).

if it weren't for DCs height restrictions this wouldn't be the case (to the extent that it is). in addition, many of dc's "satellite" centers are still very close to the core of dc (i.e. pentagon city, arlington, bethesda, etc). while outside of the city, they function in many ways as contiguous portions of the city. finally, my guess is dc still houses a much higher % of jobs relative to it's metro than do we.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

if it weren't for DCs height restrictions this wouldn't be the case (to the extent that it is). in addition, many of dc's "satellite" centers are still very close to the core of dc (i.e. pentagon city, arlington, bethesda, etc). while outside of the city, they function in many ways as contiguous portions of the city. finally, my guess is dc still houses a much higher % of jobs relative to it's metro than do we.

You are saying that this would never have happened but for height restrictions. That is simply not believable. As with our suburbs, they are different jurisdictions. I'm sure there are governmental, economic, and other factors that have far more to do with it (as you correctly observe are the issues here).

[DudeGuy]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

You are saying that this would never have happened but for height restrictions. That is simply not believable. As with our suburbs, they are different jurisdictions. I'm sure there are governmental, economic, and other factors that have far more to do with it (as you correctly observe are the issues here).

I lived in DC for a while. My take on the development pattern:

The urban "core" of DC is filling out and continues to get built up every day. The "satellite" urban centers that you guys are talking about is the function of the DC metro operating as a hybrid subway/regional rail. Outside of the immediate urban core, the DC metro is very spaced out.

When you combine this with the fact that DC's most recent economic "boom" has occurred in the years since metro was built and expanded (1980s - today), you see heavy urbanization along previously suburban metro corridors. This is true of Bethesda, Silver Spring, Arlington, Pentagon/Crystal City. Now that the Silver Line has been built, you see the same thing happening on that corridor (Tyson's in particular).

I don't think the height limit is a huge factor, personally - I think it has far more to do with metro.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by DudeGuy

I lived in DC for a while. My take on the development pattern:

The urban "core" of DC is filling out and continues to get built up every day. The "satellite" urban centers that you guys are talking about is the function of the DC metro operating as a hybrid subway/regional rail. Outside of the immediate urban core, the DC metro is very spaced out.

When you combine this with the fact that DC's most recent economic "boom" has occurred in the years since metro was built and expanded (1980s - today), you see heavy urbanization along previously suburban metro corridors. This is true of Bethesda, Silver Spring, Arlington, Pentagon/Crystal City. Now that the Silver Line has been built, you see the same thing happening on that corridor (Tyson's in particular).

I don't think the height limit is a huge factor, personally - I think it has far more to do with metro.

Yes, the satellite centers are all served by the Metro. Lots of construction along the corridor to Dulles.

[summersm343]

One Franklin Tower - conversion to office/residential/retail



Website:
http://onefranklintower.com/

[summersm343]

Took a ton of photo updates today... enjoy!

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Took a ton of photo updates today... enjoy!

Two dozen thread updates as I was about to go to bed. Thanks.

[Sunaj]

Awesome update Summers! Thank you for your work.

[1487]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

Who cares. The city still accounts for a lower percentage of jobs relative to the metro than any other metro in the Northeast. It's laughable the defenses people come up with for our current predicament.

As good as our situation is compared to past years/eras, it should only highlight how much better things COULD be.

There is nothing specific about NYC and Boston that suggests that they are the only cities that should be compared to Philadelphia. These comparisons are typically only made when those cities are presented as down certain things better. The NE is indeed a region, but I'm not clear on why we only want to pick 2 or 3 cities to benchmark when declaring that Philadelphia is woefully behind its peers nationally. Sprawl was easy to do here, there are few geographic barriers to prevent people and jobs from spreading outwards during the second half of the 20th century. Whether you like it or not, agree or not, it's a fact. In that regard Philadelphia has more in common with a cities like Dallas or Houston or charlotte than NYC, Boston, LA or Seattle. There was little to impede outward expansion (just like DC) as companies sought free parking and campus environments.