PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[Milksteak]

Originally Posted by wcphil

Hey, I wouldn't call West Chester a suburban purgatory. It's just a small slice of a big city with a small town charm sitting next to a beautiful rural area. It has a bit of something for everyone even if it isn't everything to everyone.

I can think of a dozen more off the top of my head. The area's walkable towns have taken note of the city's success with Millennials and are replicating it on a smaller scale.

[mcgrath618]

Originally Posted by PhilliesPhan

As a 23 year old city resident who graduated from Temple last year (Fox '18), I have no plans on leaving the city. I also don't believe that a suburban environment is better for raising kids in, so that won't deter me from city life when that day finally arrives. With all I've said, however, the aforementioned article points out several structural items that need to be fixed to ensure the long-term viability of living in Philadelphia.

At the moment, Philly has a budget surplus of over $340M. We should use that surplus money to fund certain services at the expense of cutting certain taxes. If we could slash the BIRT, net income tax, or even the wage tax for city residents (it should be higher for suburban residents, imo), I could see a higher level of job growth occurring. The revenue from the new business that the city could gain would EASILY offset any losses from the currently onerous tax environment.

I grew up in this city and watched it transform into the gem that it is today; the West Philly of 2019 looks nothing like the West Philly of the early/mid 2000s. I want to watch as the wave of revitalization crosses 52nd Street (it already has in many ways), goes further north of Market, reaches Lehigh Ave in North Philly, and touches neighborhoods that people would have previously thought of as immune to revitalization. All of this can happen, but the system of taxation within the city must be fixed. The Philly wage tax is the second highest line item on my paycheck. As much as I don't mind paying it (I consider it a premium to live in the best spot in the entire metro), several people do, and it eventually drives them out to the suburbs.

If I was mayor, all 340 million of those dollars would be going into transit infrastructure. The better SEPTA is doing, the better the city will do. Such money could go to a subway expansion, more frequent service, etc.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Londonee

Philly is retaining the highest amount of 20 and thirty somethings in the Post War era. It's just a fact. And you're always going to have a lot of people who leave the city to raise a family - regardless of job situation. Wall Streeters get married and move to Greenwich, Bostonians get married and move to Brookline. This is not a Philly-phenomenon.

In fact, none of my friends left the city b/c they got some tony job in the suburbs...not a single one. Most (maybe all) left begrudgingly simply b/c they couldn't afford a big enough house in a good enough neighborhood - in other words they were priced out (that's another discussion). And I know a ton of people who make a lot of money in the city but have zero desire to live here. In other words, it's not one size fits all and your case, in my experience, is super rare. Also, you're a pretty young man, if you love the city so much, continue to look for opportunities downtown. Not sure why you've resigned yourself to the suburban purgatory for the rest of your life already?

Could taxes be better? Sure. But i think the larger related issue is the city's onerous pension and healthcare burden for an increasingly aging population. Having 30 years of service, retiring at 50 is not the same thing it was 30 years ago when life expectancy was 62 years... (again, another discussioN).

The stats say you are wrong. Yes, there are people that just prefer the suburbs. For living or working or both. But Philly has the largest percentage of reverse commuters of any large city, and there many who live in the city who would prefer to work here too and can't find an adequate job. A lot of this DOES have to do with the tax and regulatory climate. It is improving, hopefully will continue to, and we'll continue to get more and better employers paying high salaries in the city.

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

If I was mayor, all 340 million of those dollars would be going into transit infrastructure. The better SEPTA is doing, the better the city will do. Such money could go to a subway expansion, more frequent service, etc.

But what about the children?

Seriously, the schools are the second reason why young adults leave town. Fix the structural issues in the school system, address the stifling tax situation and SEPTA and NOW you're talkin'.

[Urbanthusiat]

I feel like we have this same conversation once a month

[ScreamShatter]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

If I was mayor, all 340 million of those dollars would be going into transit infrastructure. The better SEPTA is doing, the better the city will do. Such money could go to a subway expansion, more frequent service, etc.

If I were mayor, I'd use the money to fund a new 10 year tax abatement for non-franchise/non-chain small business startups for Philly residents, where the abatements had to be 100% to lower prices and services to compete against big corporations. And then I'd use the rest to develop new schools / new school curriculum suitable for an evolving economy. In short, if Philly could fix its schools and encourage small businesses throughout the city, this city would boom even more.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

The stats say you are wrong. Yes, there are people that just prefer the suburbs. For living or working or both. But Philly has the largest percentage of reverse commuters of any large city, and there many who live in the city who would prefer to work here too and can't find an adequate job. A lot of this DOES have to do with the tax and regulatory climate. It is improving, hopefully will continue to, and we'll continue to get more and better employers paying high salaries in the city.

I see both sides.

I had to move to NY because I couldn't find a job in my field anywhere in the Philly metro region. Granted, this was at the height of the financial crisis, but I can't ever see moving back just to reverse commute to the suburbs.

Granted, what summers is talking about actually could be a symptom of what employers are dealing with. He may have been able to get that salary simply because no one in his demographic wants to work in the suburbs. And that my friends, is a hidden tax on employers. Eventually, if they can get more talent at a lower price in the city, I assure you they will realize the differential taxes they are paying are more than worth it if they can get more qualified applicants at a lower price.

The problem in the Philadelphia area moreso than other areas is that the executives making those decisions still have an anti-Philadelphia bias. These are the aging baby boomers who won't relinquish power (just like in every other arena in public life) who continue to assume everyone wants to work in Malvern and live on an acre and half of land.

They simply don't get it.

[Urbanthusiat]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

The problem in the Philadelphia area moreso than other areas is that the executives making those decisions still have an anti-Philadelphia bias. These are the aging baby boomers who won't relinquish power (just like in every other arena in public life) who continue to assume everyone wants to work in Malvern and live on an acre and half of land.

They simply don't get it.

That's certainly true at my company. Senior management still thinks of Philly as it was in the 80's. A lot of us younger folks at the company were very disappointed they decided to double down on the suburbs.

[iheartphilly]

One of my other jobs in the city early in my career, my employer "paid" more in the city, but it was actually an offset to the city wage tax. My colleagues in the burbs did not get paid more in gross pay. Net pay for both city and suburbs even out because of the offset. Some companies realized that when they had suburb locations and city locations, employees didn't want to work in the city because they would get dinged on city wage tax and make less take home pay. Consequently, the company "paid" more to keep and retain folks in the city so that operations could continue and not disrupt the business.

Malvern is on the verge of exploding with residential and commercial developments. There are major corporations out there like Microsoft, Vanguard, Seimens, Pharma, etc. There's lots of land to grow out and no where near being built out anytime soon. Families love suburbs because of the superb education (both public and private) and families are into extra-cirriular activities after school like, sports, little league sports, music, etc. The well established suburbs have these amenities and land for use for outdoor sports that the dense city like Philly cannot compete. I think that's the icing on the cake for couples wanting to have kid and those with young kids. It's the thing to do when having kids K-12.

[UrbanRevival]

Good points all around about different circumstances dictating different life choices for everyone. The fact of the matter is that neither the suburbs nor the city are going to be ideal for every individual and family, even assuming that all other factors are equal (like job opportunities, tax rates, and public schools).

The great news is that the Philly region has fantastic options for everyone, regardless of their community-type preference. In fact, it's kind of amazing how that point gets completely lost in such a pointless and incredibly counter-productive city vs. suburb debate that gets waged ad nauseum and detracts from Greater Philadelphia's regional strength and attractiveness. Can we not do that anymore?

Anyway, I think it's also important to point out that the original article that prompted this discussion should be countered with some fact-checking. And the fact of the matter is, Philadelphia does continue to grow its jobs base, and at a respectable rate. Look no further than this past month's Bureau of Labor Statistics metro area annual job growth statistics in which the Philadelphia division (which, as I recall, includes Philadelphia and Delaware Counties--so the "urban core") grew almost twice as fast as the overall metro area. This means that it's the suburbs that's actually been lagging on the jobs front, and this has been going on for a matter of years now:

BLS April Release: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/metro.t04.htm

Moreover, the BLS numbers also place the Philadelphia division's annual growth rate pretty favorably (2.1%) as compared to other urban core division analogues listed in the same link, such as:

Boston (0.7%)
NYC (1.3%)
LA (0.7%)
Chicago (1.4%)
DC (0.6%)
Seattle (1.9%)

San Francisco and Dallas appear to be the only large cities in which the "urban core" divisions are growing notably faster, and we all know Dallas really isn't anywhere comparable to Philly in terms of the traditional urban core sense.

This isn't to say that Philly doesn't have areas to improve upon relative to economic competitiveness, because it certainly does, but the decades-old rhetoric about Philly's "troubling" economy that is "anti-business" continues to contradict today's on-the-ground facts and is just plain one-sided.

[mcgrath618]

Originally Posted by UrbanRevival

Good points all around about different circumstances dictating different life choices for everyone. The fact of the matter is that neither the suburbs nor the city are going to be ideal for every individual and family, even assuming that all other factors are equal (like job opportunities, tax rates, and public schools).

The great news is that the Philly region has fantastic options for everyone, regardless of their community-type preference. In fact, it's kind of amazing how that point gets completely lost in such a pointless and incredibly counter-productive city vs. suburb debate that gets waged ad nauseum and detracts from Greater Philadelphia's regional strength and attractiveness. Can we not do that anymore?

Anyway, I think it's also important to point out that the original article that prompted this discussion should be countered with some fact-checking. And the fact of the matter is, Philadelphia does continue to grow its jobs base, and at a respectable rate. Look no further than this past month's Bureau of Labor Statistics metro area annual job growth statistics in which the Philadelphia division (which, as I recall, includes Philadelphia and Delaware Counties--so the "urban core") grew almost twice as fast as the overall metro area. This means that it's the suburbs that's actually been lagging on the jobs front, and this has been going on for a matter of years now:

BLS April Release: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/metro.t04.htm

Moreover, the BLS numbers also place the Philadelphia division's annual growth rate pretty favorably (2.1%) as compared to other urban core division analogues listed in the same link, such as:

Boston (0.7%)
NYC (1.3%)
LA (0.7%)
Chicago (1.4%)
DC (0.6%)
Seattle (1.9%)

San Francisco and Dallas appear to be the only large cities in which the "urban core" divisions are growing notably faster, and we all know Dallas really isn't anywhere comparable to Philly in terms of the traditional urban core sense.

This isn't to say that Philly doesn't have areas to improve upon relative to economic competitiveness, because it certainly does, but the decades-old rhetoric about Philly's "troubling" economy that is "anti-business" continues to contradict today's on-the-ground facts and, frankly, is just based on ignorance.

This is an awesome stat. We also know that San Fran is on the brink of collapse at this point.

[Urbanthusiat]

Great point. That's data from the establishment survey, and it seems data from the household survey corroborates that our employment growth has been strong over the last year.

In February, 33 metropolitan divisions had over-the-year unemployment rate decreases, 3 had increases, and 2 had no change. The largest rate declines occurred in Nassau County-Suffolk County, NY, and Philadelphia, PA (-1.1 percentage points each). The largest over the-year jobless rate increase occurred in Elgin, IL (+0.6 percentage
point).

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/metro.nr0.htm

Granted, our employment rate is still above the national average, which is worth noting.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by summersm343

If Philly job growth doesn’t keep up, millennials will go where the good jobs are, new study warns

https://www.philly.com/business/philly-jobs-millenials-vanguard-comcast-wawa-penn-20190409.html


Yes x100 to this article. This just happened to my fiance and I. Never wanted to leave the city but we got much better job offers outside of the city. I'm making $50K more with my office now in West Chester than I was in the city, she's making $35K more with her office now in Blue Bell. It was a no brainer. The commute, coupled with the wage tax; it was just more appealing to move out of the city. If the wage tax didn't exist, we probably would've stayed and dealt with it. Or at least moved to Northwest Philly somewhere.

The city is faced with a dilemma right NOW. Either cut business taxes drastically to entice more companies into the city and accelerate job growth, OR eliminate the wage tax. OR DO BOTH!

Too bad our city government is too corrupt and ass-backwards to do anything worthwhile for the good of the city. Can't have your cake and eat it too, but the city politicians routinely try to do so.

If things don't change, I fear more and more young adults will continue to leave the city as they approach their 30s, have kids, etc. as myself/my fiance and a lot of our friends have done.

there are more companies coming than exiting at this point. Many suburban companies are opening satellite offices in the city to better attract talent. I dont know what you do but I have a hard time believing the ONLY reason you got $50k more is because the company wasn't in philly.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by summersm343

It's definitely great that graduates are staying in the area. It's a shame that a good amount of them are getting jobs in the suburbs. In Wawa, KOP, Malvern, etc.

None of those suburban office clusters has anywhere near as many jobs as CC or even University City. In total, there are a lot more jobs in the 6 or 7 collar counties, but none of the locations you mentioned is in the same ballpark as center city philly. It is OK for the city and burbs to add jobs at the same time. I think it's funny that so much is made of suburban jobs here and how that is a sign of failure on the City's part when the DC area has a similar situation and no one thinks it's a problem. A huge proportion of that region's jobs are outside of DC.

[ScreamShatter]

Originally Posted by cardeza

there are more companies coming than exiting at this point. Many suburban companies are opening satellite offices in the city to better attract talent. I dont know what you do but I have a hard time believing the ONLY reason you got $50k more is because the company wasn't in philly.

The burbs have a ton of professional jobs. If you work in financial services or pharma, it's difficult to find positions in Philly. Plus, the Philly jobs are super competitive to get so it's often a bit easier to get a position outside the city and it'll likely pay more, on average.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by PhilliesPhan

As a 23 year old city resident who graduated from Temple last year (Fox '18), I have no plans on leaving the city. I also don't believe that a suburban environment is better for raising kids in, so that won't deter me from city life when that day finally arrives. With all I've said, however, the aforementioned article points out several structural items that need to be fixed to ensure the long-term viability of living in Philadelphia.

At the moment, Philly has a budget surplus of over $340M. We should use that surplus money to fund certain services at the expense of cutting certain taxes. If we could slash the BIRT, net income tax, or even the wage tax for city residents (it should be higher for suburban residents, imo), I could see a higher level of job growth occurring. The revenue from the new business that the city could gain would EASILY offset any losses from the currently onerous tax environment.

I grew up in this city and watched it transform into the gem that it is today; the West Philly of 2019 looks nothing like the West Philly of the early/mid 2000s. I want to watch as the wave of revitalization crosses 52nd Street (it already has in many ways), goes further north of Market, reaches Lehigh Ave in North Philly, and touches neighborhoods that people would have previously thought of as immune to revitalization. All of this can happen, but the system of taxation within the city must be fixed. The Philly wage tax is the second highest line item on my paycheck. As much as I don't mind paying it (I consider it a premium to live in the best spot in the entire metro), several people do, and it eventually drives them out to the suburbs.

Saying taxes should be lower is akin to saying "I believe in world peace". Sounds good, but the devil is in the details. There is no magic bullet or easy solution. The biggest hope for change was the state bill to allow different RE tax rates- it went nowhere in Harrisburg in spite of intense lobbying by business leaders. With that being DOA there aren't any realistic measures out there that would result in significant cuts to any of the business taxes or wage tax. If anyone thinks this can be magically fixed by getting rid of "corrupt" politicians they are delusional to be frank. Politicians dont draw up budget documents or balance the books. The numbers are what they are and pensions, debt and employee healthcare costs eat up the majority of the budget. As with a company in the private sector- the number one cost is personnel- the only way to truly slash significant amounts from the budget is to reduce headcount- and that's not going to happen for a host of reasons.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by ScreamShatter

The burbs have a ton of professional jobs. If you work in financial services or pharma, it's difficult to find positions in Philly. Plus, the Philly jobs are super competitive to get so it's often a bit easier to get a position outside the city and it'll likely pay more, on average.

You named 2 fields. What about the rest of them? law? medical field? engineering? Almost every major national engineering firm that has a presence in this region has a CC office and in many cases it's their lead office for this area. There are lot of people making near or over six figures in Center City/UC. Pharma is exclusively in the burbs, but those companies have largely been shrinking in recent years. I know a lot of people who have worked or currently work in white collar jobs downtown. The other thing to note is there are tens of thousands of government and quasi governmental jobs in CC (City, State, SEPTA, Feds, PPA, etc.) and no other employment node in the region comes close. The of course you have Penn/HUP which employ like 28k people- many well paid.

[iheartphilly]

^
I believe there's a healthy amount of financial jobs in the city. Nasdaq philly and a few financial firms in Cira Center. There's a financial firm in Old City where the old Chemours building was and the Navy Yard has FS investments. I thought Janney Montgomery had a Philly office too. There may be others that I missed. Then I'm sure you have some boutique offices of the big names scattered downtown.

But yes, the heavyweights of mutual funds company like Vanguard, SEI and Lincoln Financial are out in the burbs.

Just for fun this was the link from the recent Philly millennial jobs article about where recent college grads from the philly schools where hired:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5798372-Campus-Philly-Tuesday.html

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

Families love suburbs because of the superb education (both public and private) and families are into extra-cirriular activities after school like, sports, little league sports, music, etc. The well established suburbs have these amenities and land for use for outdoor sports that the dense city like Philly cannot compete. I think that's the icing on the cake for couples wanting to have kid and those with young kids. It's the thing to do when having kids K-12.

^^This is an interesting take and I've found it to be the complete opposite. I've found no difference in terms of "sports" "little league" and "music" and I actually find the land and accessibility to everything in "established" city hoods is far better than the suburbs. My son has a 2 block walk to baseball/soccer fields, roller hockey court, open land, tennis courts, basketball courts - my suburban friends have to load up cars with kids and car seats and drive 10 minutes for that type of access.

Also, FWIW I find the quality of the organized sports in the city to be fantastic.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

^
I believe there's a healthy amount of financial jobs in the city. Nasdaq philly and a few financial firms in Cira Center. There's a financial firm in Old City where the old Chemours building was and the Navy Yard has FS investments. I thought Janney Montgomery had a Philly office too. There may be others that I missed. Then I'm sure you have some boutique offices of the big names scattered downtown.

But yes, the heavyweights of mutual funds company like Vanguard, SEI and Lincoln Financial are out in the burbs.

Just for fun this was the link from the recent Philly millennial jobs article about where recent college grads from the philly schools where hired:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5798372-Campus-Philly-Tuesday.html

People cherry pick a few huge suburban employers like Vanguard, etc. and then use that to make the case that the "good" financial jobs aren't in Philly. No one company in the city in that business comes close to employing as many as vanguard, but that isn't the same thing as there being no opportunity for folks in that sector in CC. And a huge number of college educated people (accountants, lawyers, BAs, etc.) work in the public sector and there have got to be at least 15-20k such jobs downtown- not even counting nonprofits or the hospitals like Jefferson and Hahnemman. Although no one has actually presented data to back up the notion that the same job pays better in the burbs, I wouldn't take that is proof of superiority. As someone inferred- higher wages often relate to difficulty in attracting talent. When I worked with an engineer who lived/worked in NY before moving here he said engineering salaries in NYC were about the same as they were here in spite of cost of living differences- why? Population and availability of talent. He said entry level engineers were expendable because there would be 10-20 applicants for any position in Manhattan so there was no incentive to pay well or treat employees well.