PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[Hrytsyu]

Originally Posted by summersm343

I would say we're pretty middle of the pack for Top 25 metros. We rank higher than quite a few including Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Miami, etc.

The ones that rank higher make sense mostly. Seattle = large tech industry. San Francisco = Silicon Valley. Washington DC = Government capital. Boston = large tech industry. NYC = Finance Capital.

We rank on par with Chicago and Los Angeles.

The only ones ahead of us that really sting are Minneapolis, Baltimore, Denver, Portland and San Diego.

If you think of it though, Minneapolis is really the only city in Minnesota. Baltimore is overflow from DC. Portland is the only city in Oregon. Denver the only city in Colorado.

Philly has to split Harrisburg's attention with Pittsburgh. We're also in Pennsylvania, which is an 🞵🞵🞵-backwards state in general towards business growth. Another portion of our metro is in South Jersey, which is the portion of the state that NJ Government care LEAST about. Delaware does a pretty good job of pulling it's own, but is basically entirely the Philadelphia metro area, and doesn't really have an identity of it's own.

I think Philadelphia is doing fine. PA needs to do a better job of attracting job growth, which will increase incomes across the board, but it's still a pretty wealthy region. Definitely more-so than you guys are making it out to be.

TOP 25 US Metro Areas in Population - Ranked by Median Household Income

San Francisco - $98,710
Washington DC - $97,836
Boston - $84,170
Seattle - $80,257
Baltimore - $78,132
Minneapolis - $74,700
New York - $73,108
Denver - $73,107
San Diego - $71,804
Portland - $70,103
Chicago - $67,143
Philadelphia - $67,107
Los Angeles - $67,014
Dallas - $65,000
Atlanta - $63,831
Houston - $62,552
St. Louis - $60,759
Charlotte - $60,708
Riverside - $59,538
Phoenix - $59,199
San Antonio - $57,191
Detroit - $57,180
Orlando - $53,565
Miami - $52,054
Tampa - $51,907

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/acs/acsbr17-01.pdf

My comment is not intended to motivate you to do more research especially as I am unable to pursue it myself. It can be accepted as a rhetorical question.

However, a strict measure of median household income doesn't at all relate to quality of life. What does 99K per annum enable in San Francisco, for example? Or 52K per annum in Tampa?

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Capsule F

Phoenix, Houston, LA, Detroit, Miami, San Antonio, Tied with San Diego.

You are wrong. You can try to spin it but its not accurate saying its the "poorest" of the 10 largest cities, metro especially not.

Watchu talkin about, Willis? Philadelphia is THE poorest big city. Yes, when you factor in wealthy areas in our metro, we are middle of the pack. Comparisons of metros has little relevance in my opinion. The metro does not reflect and rather conflates job and economic conditions in the city proper

[Urbanthusiat]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Watchu talkin about, Willis? Philadelphia is THE poorest big city. Yes, when you factor in wealthy areas in our metro, we are middle of the pack. Comparisons of metros has little relevance in my opinion. The metro does not reflect and rather conflates job and economic conditions in the city proper

I think the opposite actually. I think MSA comparisons are a far better measure because it at least standardizes area definitions somewhat, allowing more meaningful comparisons. City boundaries are fairly arbitrary and don't reflect the reality of how city-regions function. What functional difference is there between, say, Cambridge and the City of Boston? I'd argue there are very few. It's clear the urban fabric continues across the Charles river and into Cambridge and that the two function as one. Looking at one without the other doesn't make sense. The same could be said for the suburbs of any city. Why should San Diego get to count Rancho Penasquitos (~17 miles from the city center) while Philly doesn't get to count Berwyn (also ~17 miles from the city center)? I think an all-encompassing area definition is better for making comparisons because you remove the arbitrariness of city borders and apply the same standards to each city. That's why you'll never see any legitimate paper (e.g. the kind published by academic researchers at Penn, Harvard, etc. - not some magazine) use city boundaries to make comparisons across cities. They all use the MSA definition.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Watchu talkin about, Willis? Philadelphia is THE poorest big city. Yes, when you factor in wealthy areas in our metro, we are middle of the pack. Comparisons of metros has little relevance in my opinion. The metro does not reflect and rather conflates job and economic conditions in the city proper

The suburbs' and city's economy are highly interdependent. That's just simple fact. It's why hundreds of thousands commute into Philly each day from its vast suburbs, and why at least a similar proportion of Philadelphians make their living in the suburbs.

Originally Posted by Urbanthusiat

I think the opposite actually. I think MSA comparisons are a far better measure because it at least standardizes area definitions somewhat, allowing more meaningful comparisons. City boundaries are fairly arbitrary and don't reflect the reality of how city-regions function. What functional difference is there between, say, Cambridge and the City of Boston? I'd argue there are very few. It's clear the urban fabric continues across the Charles river and into Cambridge and that the two function as one. Looking at one without the other doesn't make sense. The same could be said for the suburbs of any city. Why should San Diego get to count Rancho Penasquitos (~17 miles from the city center) while Philly doesn't get to count Berwyn (also ~17 miles from the city center)? I think an all-encompassing area definition is better for making comparisons because you remove the arbitrariness of city borders and apply the same standards to each city. That's why you'll never see any legitimate paper (e.g. the kind published by academic researchers at Penn, Harvard, etc. - not some magazine) use city boundaries to make comparisons across cities. They all use the MSA definition.

Very articulately stated, and my point exactly!

The thing is, the rest of the urban universe has enthusiastically accepted and adopted their broader metro areas to bolster their standings and reputations (think the "Bay Area" or "the DFW Metroplex" or "Chicagoland").

It's extremely myopic, and downright detrimental, for Philly to simply stand on its extremely compact city limits. GREATER PHILADELPHIA is an economic beast that deserves far more credit than it receives. And it's well past time that both city-dwellers and suburbanites embrace this fact, because it's critical to the area's long-term competitiveness and sustainability.

[iamrobk]

Originally Posted by UrbanRevival

The suburbs' and city's economy are highly interdependent. That's just simple fact. It's why hundreds of thousands commute into Philly each day from its vast suburbs, and why at least a similar proportion of Philadelphians make their living in the suburbs.

On a mostly unrelated topic, the amount of reverse commuting these days (particularly among Millennials) is amazing. I mean, as a Millennial myself maybe I just notice it more, but of my close friends who live in the city, only like 2 of them actually work in the city (and neither are in Center City; one commutes to University City, and the other the lower northeast). That said, while it's good that people want to live in the city, it also makes it even easier for people to leave when they decide they don't want to deal with the wage tax, or want better schools, etc. So long-term we still need to focus on getting more jobs to locate in the city itself (particularly greater Center City), but it's a very interesting phenomenon.

[Milksteak]

Originally Posted by iamrobk

On a mostly unrelated topic, the amount of reverse commuting these days (particularly among Millennials) is amazing. I mean, as a Millennial myself maybe I just notice it more, but of my close friends who live in the city, only like 2 of them actually work in the city (and neither are in Center City; one commutes to University City, and the other the lower northeast). That said, while it's good that people want to live in the city, it also makes it even easier for people to leave when they decide they don't want to deal with the wage tax, or want better schools, etc. So long-term we still need to focus on getting more jobs to locate in the city itself (particularly greater Center City), but it's a very interesting phenomenon.

I did the reverse commute for years. I know people hate garages, but it was entirely necessary for me and without affordable parking I would have never been able to move to the city. I also no longer live in the city for the exact reasons you cited...I suppose I'm the epitome of a millennial.

[Gonzo the Great]

And now for something a little different . Using my seventh grade slide rule , I calculated the 2020 U.S.
census to predict the cities possible population @ , 1,594,000 ..... give or take , you and me .
That is taking into account , there is approximately 16 months till that event .


Year Population Growth Annual Growth Rate
2017 1,580,863 6,098 0.39%
2016 1,574,765 4,258 0.27%
2015 1,570,507 6,465 0.41%
2014 1,564,042 5,933 0.38%
2013 1,558,109 6,165 0.40%
2012 1,551,944 12,295 0.80%
2011 1,539,649 11,378 0.74%
2010 1,528,271 10,721 0.07%

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Urbanthusiat

I think the opposite actually. I think MSA comparisons are a far better measure because it at least standardizes area definitions somewhat, allowing more meaningful comparisons. City boundaries are fairly arbitrary and don't reflect the reality of how city-regions function. What functional difference is there between, say, Cambridge and the City of Boston? I'd argue there are very few. It's clear the urban fabric continues across the Charles river and into Cambridge and that the two function as one. Looking at one without the other doesn't make sense. The same could be said for the suburbs of any city. Why should San Diego get to count Rancho Penasquitos (~17 miles from the city center) while Philly doesn't get to count Berwyn (also ~17 miles from the city center)? I think an all-encompassing area definition is better for making comparisons because you remove the arbitrariness of city borders and apply the same standards to each city. That's why you'll never see any legitimate paper (e.g. the kind published by academic researchers at Penn, Harvard, etc. - not some magazine) use city boundaries to make comparisons across cities. They all use the MSA definition.

Our metro region, with significant jobs and affluence outside the city, does not reflect the conditions and daily life inside the city. And isn't that what we're talking about? I suppose it depends what purposes you are comparing metros and city propers for.

[mattejb]

Originally Posted by Hrytsyu

However, a strict measure of median household income doesn't at all relate to quality of life. What does 99K per annum enable in San Francisco, for example? Or 52K per annum in Tampa?

Agreed, as an example:

Philadelphia:
Median Household Income $67,107
City Tax 3.8809%
State Tax 3.07%
Property Tax 1.3998%
Sales Tax 8%

Seattle:
Median Household Income $80,257
City Tax 0%
State Tax 0%
Property Tax 0.99%
Sales Tax 10.1%

[FourS]

Originally Posted by mattejb

Agreed, as an example:

Philadelphia:
Median Household Income $67,107
City Tax 3.8809%
State Tax 3.07%
Property Tax 1.3998%
Sales Tax 8%

Seattle:
Median Household Income $80,257
City Tax 0%
State Tax 0%
Property Tax 0.99%
Sales Tax 10.1%

The median family home price in Seattle is $777,000, and $154,400 in Philadelphia. The extra $3000 a month you have in your pocket from that more than offsets the 7% city and state taxes for most people (which are deducted from federal income tax also lessening their sting a bit). The extra 2.1% sales tax in Seattle is not deductible afaik.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by FourS

The median family home price in Seattle is $777,000, and $154,400 in Philadelphia. The extra $3000 a month you have in your pocket from that more than offsets the 7% city and state taxes for most people (which are deducted from federal income tax also lessening their sting a bit). The extra 2.1% sales tax in Seattle is not deductible afaik.

Not to mention property tax rates are meaningless without understanding the basis against which they are applied.

Sometimes the tax is applied as a percentage of an assessment. Sometimes it's applied as a percentage of the actual value. Sometimes, jurisdictions make updates to estimated values every year. Other just at every sale. And others still in periodic overall adjustments.

In many Pennsylvania suburbs, assessments are almost never updated. Thus, it might appear the % of the tax is higher compared to another jurisdiction, but it could just be that it is applied to an arbitrary value that has not been updated in years.

[mattejb]

Originally Posted by FourS

The median family home price in Seattle is $777,000, and $154,400 in Philadelphia. The extra $3000 a month you have in your pocket from that more than offsets the 7% city and state taxes for most people (which are deducted from federal income tax also lessening their sting a bit). The extra 2.1% sales tax in Seattle is not deductible afaik.

Both the Philadelphia family and Seattle family would get the $24,000 federal tax deductible. Paying more in property tax has no benefit. Sales tax is deductible if itemized, but they wouldn’t because neither would have more than $24000 in deductions.

Show me a house in Philadelphia for $154k that is equivalent to a $777k house in Seattle. Quality of life remember.

Edit: The higher income, higher growth rate, and lower taxes of Seattle, and Philadelphia’s 60% increase of land, and 85% decrease of water, might have something to do with home prices. Then we could start talking school systems, public safety, energy prices (Seattle:7.75¢/kWh Philadelphia: 12.9¢/kWh). I think we at about $1550+ a month of take home for the hypothetical Seattle person over the Philadelphia person.

[Capsule F]

Originally Posted by mattejb

Both the Philadelphia family and Seattle family would get the $24,000 federal tax deductible. Paying more in property tax has no benefit. Sales tax is deductible if itemized, but they wouldn’t because neither would have more than $24000 in deductions.

Show me a house in Philadelphia for $154k that is equivalent to a $777k house in Seattle. Quality of life remember.

Edit: The higher income, higher growth rate, and lower taxes of Seattle, and Philadelphia’s 60% increase of land, and 85% decrease of water, might have something to do with home prices. Then we could start talking school systems, public safety, energy prices (Seattle:7.75¢/kWh Philadelphia: 12.9¢/kWh). I think we at about $1550+ a month of take home for the hypothetical Seattle person over the Philadelphia person.

I could show you many many houses in Philadelphia at least 400k less than their exact equivalent in Seattle. Income in Seattle isn't nearly higher enough to account for these differences. We understand the unspoken reason that white people enjoy living in these bubbles, lets not kid each other.

Frankly, its tacky to compare utility rates between cities where one has massive subsidies being accounted for by those who can pay.

[Capsule F]

Originally Posted by mattejb

Both the Philadelphia family and Seattle family would get the $24,000 federal tax deductible. Paying more in property tax has no benefit. Sales tax is deductible if itemized, but they wouldn’t because neither would have more than $24000 in deductions.

Show me a house in Philadelphia for $154k that is equivalent to a $777k house in Seattle. Quality of life remember.

Edit: The higher income, higher growth rate, and lower taxes of Seattle, and Philadelphia’s 60% increase of land, and 85% decrease of water, might have something to do with home prices. Then we could start talking school systems, public safety, energy prices (Seattle:7.75¢/kWh Philadelphia: 12.9¢/kWh). I think we at about $1550+ a month of take home for the hypothetical Seattle person over the Philadelphia person.

"Seattle ranks eighth on the list of most unaffordable U.S.-only cities." https://www.point2homes.com/news/canada-real-estate/housing-affordability-north-america.html

This is from one year ago, I can imagine its only gotten worse for Seattle when it comes to affordability.

[mattejb]

[QUOTE=Capsule F;8405061We understand the reason that people enjoy living in these bubbles...[/QUOTE]

An ugly side of Philadelphia being a poor city is the crime rate.

Homicide Per 100,000 (2016)
Philadelphia 17.4
Seattle 2.7

[McBane]

Seattle is definitely an expensive city as far as real estate goes. But one thing to keep in mind is that Seattle's and Philadelphia's housing stock are so different. Philadelphia's housing stock was mostly built for the typical middle class worker 100+ years ago: compact rowhomes, many without central air, off-street parking, or first floor bathrooms. Today, these homes only appeal to working class families and are thus priced accordingly.

In short, if the city had more of this, this, or this and less of this, this or this, the average price would be higher. Not Seattle high, but higher than what it is now. Outside of a few select neighborhoods, there is a limit to what someone will pay for the types of homes that dominate the city.

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by mattejb

An ugly side of Philadelphia being a poor city is the crime rate.

Homicide Per 100,000 (2016)
Philadelphia 17.4
Seattle 2.7

It's getting worse, too.

This year we're up 10% from last year in homicides.

[mcgrath618]

Originally Posted by Redddog

It's getting worse, too.

This year we're up 10% from last year in homicides.

Unfortunate side effect of an underfunded police department.
In fact, at the roots, I bet a lot of these problems could be traced back to Harrisburg's neglect of Philadelphia. We give them a huge portion of their taxbase and get nothing back for it. I don't think that that's the WHOLE reason Philadelphia tends to struggle, but I know it's definitely a big contributor.

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

Unfortunate side effect of an underfunded police department.
In fact, at the roots, I bet a lot of these problems could be traced back to Harrisburg's neglect of Philadelphia. We give them a huge portion of their taxbase and get nothing back for it. I don't think that that's the WHOLE reason Philadelphia tends to struggle, but I know it's definitely a big contributor.

That and an out-of-control drug epidemic....

[Capsule F]

Originally Posted by Redddog

That and an out-of-control drug epidemic....

That and it not being a White bubble like Seattle which is sadly why people like mattejb like it. 80.1% white.