PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[ScreamShatter]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Not sure why anyone would ever do this. The slight rebalancing would do nothing, and if anything would tend to push more jobs to the suburbs. Also, rates are higher for residents because they are viewed as using more resources and services than non-residents who work in the City during the day and then leave and aren't here nights and weekends in way residents are. It surely is true.

The slight imbalance adds up, especially for people 6-figures --especially when you start looking at all the various city taxes that someone is already paying. But it's also psychological too -- when people hear Philly is lowering taxes that helps change people's perspectives that Philly is just a tax and spend city. Also, consider what about people living in the city who commute to the burbs for jobs? Those people have to pay the high Philly wage tax PLUS the wage tax of the city they work in. The high Philly wage tax has made places like Conchi and KOP desirable for many groups of Millennials who don't want to pay the Philly wage tax.

I question the theory that more residents use city services than non-residents. Think about the airport, which is owned and ran by the city. Think about all the marathons, the football/baseball games. Think about the Pope visit or all the concerts on the Parkway. Think about the parades or fireworks shows. And think about all the people from the suburbs who come into the city for those activities and all the various city services and infrastructure that have to be used to support those activities. If a study were done, I think we'd see people from the burbs use city services or city resources just as much as residents. And because of that, I believe they should be paying the same as residents.

In an ideal world, the wage tax would go down for everyone; our wage tax should be closer to 3% than 4%. But if that isn't any option, I think the city needs to prioritize lowering for residents as we want to encourage more people living in the city than living in the burbs and commuting in.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by Tatts

Then appeal the assessment. Simple. Done.

The Inquirer has reported on the number of appeals. Mistakes happen; that's why you were, as you admit, undervalued for years. That's why there is an appeals process. Now they are correcting things, and in time the mistakes will become fewer and smaller.

I'm guessing you've never gone through that process. It's not simple, done!

You need to realize that the backlog on appeals is in the tens of thousands. I went in with very simple to understand photos and comparisons with 3 other houses on my block that are built the same, but are in much, much better interior condition, 2 of which have off street parking and garages, and would have a sizable higher resale price and a larger market of buyers. I had a couple of statements from realtors and a simple professional evaluation of my houses present market value, and I got turned down cold-----and with no reason given. So making a further appeal is that much harder because it's officially not based on anything. Its a time consuming and frustrating process, and its certainly not set up in a honest method to correct mistakes. I'm sure that appeals are won----my neighbors seem to have no problem getting 10K or 20K knocked off the taxable value without a second thought, but to have a real change made, well, its not working for me.

[Aaamazarite]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

It makes sense for very low inventory to be driving prices up. I find myself wondering whether the slowdown is in part caused by the prices being asked currently being in excess of what the market will bear? That is, that the reason the slowdown in sales is happening is because, while the product is good, it isn't quite that good? If this is the case, then bringing more inventory to market should bring slightly overheated prices back into line and cause more movement in the market.

It also occurs to me that there is inventory being brought to market now in many more neighborhoods than even just a decade ago. Where in the past, most of the inventory movement was highly concentrated in a handful of neighborhoods, now it's much more decanted, which means that even if the inventory being brought to market on a per-neighborhood basis has decreased somewhat, because there are many more neighborhoods where inventory is being brought to market, the overall amount of inventory being brought to market is still increasing!

(Funnily enough, I'm noticing more construction this season than either of the previous two years, by the way.)

All of this is of course predicated on the idea that the very low inventory counts being registered is the essential bottleneck, driving an overheated price, and therefore that increasing inventory should bring the price down a tad which should generate more market movement.

Dr. Gillen still hasn't published the Q1 2019 housing report, his analysis takes all kinds of other factors into account so I'll be interested to find out what he has to say. The longer days on market this year could be a result of recent changes in how the MLS software counts days on market so that number may be skewed.

Long & Foster has an ongoing housing report on their website but it's for the whole city so the numbers aren't going to represent what's happening near the core, however you'll notice that the inventory for "attached" houses is way down: http://marketminute.longandfoster.com/Market-Minute/PA/Philadelphia-County.htm. The report doesn't include April, which any agent will tell you has been crazy so far in general sales volume.

[GtownFriend]

One aspect of this discussion I haven't seen here is that the national urban housing market has cooled considerably going into 2019. A combination of rising prices and rising interest rates.
I saw (sorry I can't find the full reference off hand) an article in a Seattle paper early this year that was ranking cities by how many houses received multiple bids. Most of the "hotest" cities had dropped off from very high percentages to percentages under %50. Philly had actually risen a few points into 2nd place. One of the few markets that hadn't
(at that time) been impacted by the national financial trends.
This would be consistant with a serious lack of supply here, but also indicates continued demand.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by ScreamShatter

The slight imbalance adds up, especially for people 6-figures --especially when you start looking at all the various city taxes that someone is already paying. But it's also psychological too -- when people hear Philly is lowering taxes that helps change people's perspectives that Philly is just a tax and spend city. Also, consider what about people living in the city who commute to the burbs for jobs? Those people have to pay the high Philly wage tax PLUS the wage tax of the city they work in. The high Philly wage tax has made places like Conchi and KOP desirable for many groups of Millennials who don't want to pay the Philly wage tax.

I question the theory that more residents use city services than non-residents. Think about the airport, which is owned and ran by the city. Think about all the marathons, the football/baseball games. Think about the Pope visit or all the concerts on the Parkway. Think about the parades or fireworks shows. And think about all the people from the suburbs who come into the city for those activities and all the various city services and infrastructure that have to be used to support those activities. If a study were done, I think we'd see people from the burbs use city services or city resources just as much as residents. And because of that, I believe they should be paying the same as residents.

In an ideal world, the wage tax would go down for everyone; our wage tax should be closer to 3% than 4%. But if that isn't any option, I think the city needs to prioritize lowering for residents as we want to encourage more people living in the city than living in the burbs and commuting in.

I don't think what you are saying makes any sense at all (and do not think studies would remotely show what you suggest; the existing ones probably show the opposite, which is why it is broken down as it is in pretty much all cities) but am burnt out on tax talk. I think most agree that the NPT and BIRT and wage tax need to be dropping. As is happening. It would be good to find ways to speed it up.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by GtownFriend

One aspect of this discussion I haven't seen here is that the national urban housing market has cooled considerably going into 2019. A combination of rising prices and rising interest rates.
I saw (sorry I can't find the full reference off hand) an article in a Seattle paper early this year that was ranking cities by how many houses received multiple bids. Most of the "hotest" cities had dropped off from very high percentages to percentages under %50. Philly had actually risen a few points into 2nd place. One of the few markets that hadn't
(at that time) been impacted by the national financial trends.
This would be consistant with a serious lack of supply here, but also indicates continued demand.

Philly has done well compared to the nation in 2018. But I think the stats will show a cooling market in the upper price ranges in 2019. From what I can tell from redfin, sale prices are down in Philly's wealthiest neighborhoods compared to last year. In 2018, even the more expensive homes had prices in the stratosphere and were being gobbled up. Not so much the case now. However, average home price citywide is still up about 2.5% from last year, and it remains a very competitive seller's market. https://www.redfin.com/city/15502/PA/Philadelphia/housing-market

[ScreamShatter]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

I don't think what you are saying makes any sense at all (and do not think studies would remotely show what you suggest; the existing ones probably show the opposite, which is why it is broken down as it is in pretty much all cities) but am burnt out on tax talk. I think most agree that the NPT and BIRT and wage tax need to be dropping. As is happening. It would be good to find ways to speed it up.

Honest questions -- do you believe the suburbs of Philly would exist in the size they do today without the city and it's services? Would all the businesses in the suburbs exist without access to an airport, client entertainment/culture options in the city, large city universities built off the infrastructure of the city that translate to large employment recruitment talent pools, etc? Would any of this exist if Philly didn't offer these services as a backbone for the region? There is no way they would without Philly's services driving the region; without Philly, this area would be no different than a small tier city.

And as for non-residents working in the city, why should our tax structure have built-in incentives to reside outside the city? Our tax structure shouldn't encourage CEOs, Senior Partners, Wealthy Lawyers, Doctors, etc to retreat to Gladwyne, Haverford, Villanova, etc to save money as opposed to putting city living in Philadelphia on equal playing field with surrounding areas. If they are a non-resident employee in Philly, they spend 2/3 of their life in the city and the business is located in the city b/c of the competitive advantages the city brings, why should city residents pay the tax premium when literally the entire region is built off (and leaches off) Philly?

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by ScreamShatter

Honest questions -- do you believe the suburbs of Philly would exist in the size they do today without the city and it's services? Would all the businesses in the suburbs exist without access to an airport, client entertainment/culture options in the city, large city universities built off the infrastructure of the city that translate to large employment recruitment talent pools, etc? Would any of this exist if Philly didn't offer these services as a backbone for the region? There is no way they would without Philly's services driving the region; without Philly, this area would be no different than a small tier city.

And as for non-residents working in the city, why should our tax structure have built-in incentives to reside outside the city? Our tax structure shouldn't encourage CEOs, Senior Partners, Wealthy Lawyers, Doctors, etc to retreat to Gladwyne, Haverford, Villanova, etc to save money as opposed to putting city living in Philadelphia on equal playing field with surrounding areas. If they are a non-resident employee in Philly, they spend 2/3 of their life in the city and the business is located in the city b/c of the competitive advantages the city brings, why should city residents pay the tax premium when literally the entire region is built off (and leaches off) Philly?

I think you have serious misconceptions as to the power of the city in relation to its very prosperous suburbs with more affluence and very strong independent nodes of employment (and more Fortune 500 companies than the city). This city does not have the ability to strongarm the suburbs, and anything that drives the already high cost of doing business up in the city is a bad idea. The city's focus needs to be on making the city a more business friendly and attractive environment and better live, work, play place. Not punishing suburban commuters with leverage it does not actually have. The suburbs would not exist in the form they exist today if Philadelphia had not been a powerhouse through the 1950s. But it is 2019. Punitive taxation on suburbanites will do nothing to make the city more prosperous today.

[ScreamShatter]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

I think you have serious misconceptions as to the power of the city in relation to its very prosperous suburbs with more affluence and very strong independent nodes of employment (and more Fortune 500 companies than the city). This city does not have the ability to strongarm the suburbs, and anything that drives the already high cost of doing business up in the city up is a bad idea. The city's focus needs to be on making the city a more business friendly and attractive environment and better live, work, play place. Not punishing suburban commuters with leverage it does not actually have. The suburbs would not exist in the form they exist today if Philadelphia had not been a powerhouse through the 1950s. But it is 2019. Punitive taxation on suburbanites will do nothing to make the city more prosperous today.

I will say, it's kinda funny that your first comments says "The slight rebalancing would do nothing, and if anything would tend to push more jobs to the suburbs" but then you then go on about raising taxes .2% on people from the burbs while giving residents a .2% reduction would be earth-shattering. So which is it? If it doesn't make much of a difference, then be consistent. I get it....you probably live in the burbs and don't want to pay more in taxes. Philly needs to focus on its residents first and foremost though.

I believe taxes must go down on Philly residents as the Trump tax reform have dramatically increased taxes on specific individuals who are upper middle class in high tax areas. My general opinion is that the wage tax should go down for everyone, but if we had to make the budget balance, I believe taxes should go up on non-residents and down on residents. Additionally, the city needs to stop targeting the middle class by making the city less financially attractive for them to stay long term.

I stand by my point that the burbs are leaches on city services. When you are in the city on the weekend bumping into 50% suburban people, it becomes clear just how much they use the city, our infrastructure, etc. The city has plenty of options to be competitive against the burbs -- and the people in the burbs need to pay more. If you don't want to raise the wage tax, let's split the sales tax and other city taxes where locals pay 1/2 the amount of anyone outside the city, and then toll all the entrances to the city. That gives locals a discount and makes sure the outsiders pay more. There are options, but I'm sick of the burbs mooching off the city, enjoying the best parts of the city that they don't pay for, and then leaving the rest of the city with bad infrastructure, education, and high taxes to fund their weekend and after work playground.

Let me give an example. Nearly every large suburban company has a box at one of the major Philly team stadiums. These are used to wine and dine clients in an attempt to close a sale or encourage contract renewal. How many $1m+ sales processes have involved a Philly stadium, restaurant, or cultural site? And how much tax revenue does Philly collect off those deals? The answer -- the sales tax from the restaurant or ticket sale, mostly (very little). But the burbs get the tax revenue from the contract -- be in $1m or $100m. I'd be willing to venture that 90% of all $1m+ deals from suburban companies touch Philly somehow via entertainment or travel, but Philly doesn't see the rewards of that. That's my point. The burbs are benefiting off Philly -- our investments into the city trickle out to the burbs, but the burbs investments do not trickle back at anywhere near the same rate. We have an uneven and disproportionate fiscal relationship with the suburbs, which would never be solved unless cities could tax their MSAs someway.

Anyways, I know we've chatted about this for too long so I'll end it now . Just think about what I'm saying in depth and you might start to realize I'm not that far off on many of these points, as unsettling as that may be to some. Thanks for the chat.

[Milksteak]

Originally Posted by ScreamShatter

I will say, it's kinda funny that your first comments says "The slight rebalancing would do nothing, and if anything would tend to push more jobs to the suburbs" but then you then go on about raising taxes .2% on people from the burbs while giving residents a .2% reduction would be earth-shattering. So which is it? If it doesn't make much of a difference, then be consistent. I get it....you probably live in the burbs and don't want to pay more in taxes. Philly needs to focus on its residents first and foremost though.

I believe taxes must go down on Philly residents as the Trump tax reform have dramatically increased taxes on specific individuals who are upper middle class in high tax areas. My general opinion is that the wage tax should go down for everyone, but if we had to make the budget balance, I believe taxes should go up on non-residents and down on residents. Additionally, the city needs to stop targeting the middle class by making the city less financially attractive for them to stay long term.

I stand by my point that the burbs are leaches on city services. When you are in the city on the weekend bumping into 50% suburban people, it becomes clear just how much they use the city, our infrastructure, etc. The city has plenty of options to be competitive against the burbs -- and the people in the burbs need to pay more. If you don't want to raise the wage tax, let's split the sales tax and other city taxes where locals pay 1/2 the amount of anyone outside the city, and then toll all the entrances to the city. That gives locals a discount and makes sure the outsiders pay more. There are options, but I'm sick of the burbs mooching off the city, enjoying the best parts of the city that they don't pay for, and then leaving the rest of the city with bad infrastructure, education, and high taxes to fund their weekend and after work playground.

Let me give an example. Nearly every large suburban company has a box at one of the major Philly team stadiums. These are used to wine and dine clients in an attempt to close a sale or encourage contract renewal. How many $1m+ sales processes have involved a Philly stadium, restaurant, or cultural site? And how much tax revenue does Philly collect off those deals? The answer -- the sales tax from the restaurant or ticket sale, mostly (very little). But the burbs get the tax revenue from the contract -- be in $1m or $100m. I'd be willing to venture that 90% of all $1m+ deals from suburban companies touch Philly somehow via entertainment or travel, but Philly doesn't see the rewards of that. That's my point. The burbs are benefiting off Philly -- our investments into the city trickle out to the burbs, but the burbs investments do not trickle back at anywhere near the same rate. We have an uneven and disproportionate fiscal relationship with the suburbs, which would never be solved unless cities could tax their MSAs someway.

Anyways, I know we've chatted about this for too long so I'll end it now . Just think about what I'm saying in depth and you might start to realize I'm not that far off on many of these points, as unsettling as that may be to some. Thanks for the chat.

I don't even know where to start with this one...you claim that the burbs wouldn't exist without the city, then go on to state that half the people you bump into in the city on the weekend are suburbanites, and that the burbs are funding the city's major sports team. According to your argument, the city wouldn't survive without the suburbs fueling all of the business in the city. I'm not sure why you are mad that suburban companies have box seats to Philly teams...are you upset that suburbanites are using Philly roads? Last I checked, those sports teams employ plenty of people and pay their taxes to the city of Philadelphia, if you removed the suburbs they would crumble.

Also, I don't remember where it was posted...but the stats on how many people enter the city for work and exit the city for work were posted, it was more even than you'd think - even I was surprised and I did the reverse commute for years. Since you want to tax suburbanites more, should the surrounding counties do the same to city residents? Shall the suburbs also toll everybody leaving the city?

The city wouldn't survive without the suburbs, and the suburbs wouldn't survive without the city. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it will always be.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by ScreamShatter

"The law doesn't ban the city from raising income taxes on commuters. It says that commuters must pay LESS than residents." Cool. I actually didn't know that, but it makes sense. So conceptually, they could lower the rate of residents from 3.8809% to 3.65% and increase the rate of non-residents from 3.4567% to 3.6% to give residents a tax break. Let's not split hairs with the point that taxes on non-residents CAN go up and residents CAN go down. Thanks for proving my point.

"I didn't misunderstand the categories at all." No offense; you still don't get it. No where did I say the Parking Authority should be merged with other agencies (just like when I listed SEPTA in Transportation did that mean it makes sense to dissolve it). I just showed a list of all the agencies and how much overlap there are. By I'll bite, your point is still moot. Philadelphia could reclaim ownership of the Parking Authority and merge it into other agencies if someone had the vision of doing it, but I'm not suggesting that in what I put above. Again -- I'm showing the full list of city agencies as listed by Philly's government. If you can't see there's a lot of overlap between chunks of those city offices then you can't see the forest for the trees.

"The amounts you are proposing to save through micromanaging this minutae is immaterial. It wouldn't pay for 4 days' worth of police coverage. You have no perspective of this in a $4.5 billion budget." You don't know that. Just looking at the Diversity departments and reorging them, I found $1m in budget, and these are the smallest offices. If someone were to look at the bigger offices, I'm confident basic reorgs could find $30m to $50m a year, easily, while avoiding the big union fights. Say whatever you like, but I do this for a living and looking at the city budget, it was obvious it was bloated and could easily be streamlined .

"I didn't prove any such thing by pointing out the gaping holes in your plan and your lack of knowledge about the city." LOL - I didn't have a plan. I had a list that shows overlap of a bunch of offices that you are trying to paint as a plan to position with your own spin. Again, proving you aren't open to looking into all options to make the city better. Typical Philly mindset that holds this city back.

The fact remains you have very little understanding of how the city government is structured or how limited the City is in terms of making major changes when the state has ultimate control over so many aspects of tax policy. You can rant and rave all day and those facts will not change. Everyone wants a fair valuation system, but the fact that your house was overassessed (or whatever you're pissed about) doesn't prove that the city could slash taxes if it just got rid of all these phantom useless departments you are speaking off. Only a few departments eat up the majority of the discretionary spending. There is very little control over the mandatory spending. The city is stuck with contractual agreements made decades ago- including pensions that were awarded in contracts from the 70s and 80s.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by City Wide

I'm guessing you've never gone through that process. It's not simple, done!

You need to realize that the backlog on appeals is in the tens of thousands. I went in with very simple to understand photos and comparisons with 3 other houses on my block that are built the same, but are in much, much better interior condition, 2 of which have off street parking and garages, and would have a sizable higher resale price and a larger market of buyers. I had a couple of statements from realtors and a simple professional evaluation of my houses present market value, and I got turned down cold-----and with no reason given. So making a further appeal is that much harder because it's officially not based on anything. Its a time consuming and frustrating process, and its certainly not set up in a honest method to correct mistakes. I'm sure that appeals are won----my neighbors seem to have no problem getting 10K or 20K knocked off the taxable value without a second thought, but to have a real change made, well, its not working for me.

I filed first and second level appeals for 2019 valuation. First one was denied, but the second one was upheld and they lowered by valuation by $40k. It took me about 20 minutes to type up my appeal justification. I wish I didn't have to do it, but it wasn't a complicated process.

[El Duderino]

this has been the least enjoyable few pages of this thread i can remember - i never thought i would pine for people complaining about ugly buildings.

[acenturi]

Originally Posted by El Duderino

this has been the least enjoyable few pages of this thread i can remember - i never thought i would pine for people complaining about ugly buildings.

Yep, it's the same ole, same ole few soapbox egocentrics. This thread should be renamed: City-Data.com 2, cause it sure isn't about construction and definitely is not about Skyscrapers. Come on Moderators, keep this Forum ON TOPIC.

[Elevator1]

Second those thoughts.

[ScreamShatter]

Originally Posted by cardeza

The fact remains you have very little understanding of how the city government is structured or how limited the City is in terms of making major changes when the state has ultimate control over so many aspects of tax policy. You can rant and rave all day and those facts will not change. Everyone wants a fair valuation system, but the fact that your house was overassessed (or whatever you're pissed about) doesn't prove that the city could slash taxes if it just got rid of all these phantom useless departments you are speaking off. Only a few departments eat up the majority of the discretionary spending. There is very little control over the mandatory spending. The city is stuck with contractual agreements made decades ago- including pensions that were awarded in contracts from the 70s and 80s.

I'm not angry at all at the city of Philly. But I'm being realistic that the city is growing VERY slowly(around 5k per year), and the new tax reform makes it much more expensive to live in high tax areas. That's a fact. And lots of people are impacted or will be impacted, and it could send Philly into negative growth within coming years if steps aren't taken to reduce the tax burden.

Let's review the conversations on here: people don't want any cuts to city government (no streamlining, no restructuring, they are happy with inefficiency), they don't want any increase in taxes on non-residents, they don't want tax decreases on residents, they want more spending on education but have no clue how to fund it, etc. People want more spending, but they don't want any change and don't realize the tax code has now changed and that will drive this city into the ground if we don't wake up and realize some trends are changing.

So feel free to propose some solutions if you care so much and think you have the answers.

[ScreamShatter]

Originally Posted by Milksteak

I don't even know where to start with this one...you claim that the burbs wouldn't exist without the city, then go on to state that half the people you bump into in the city on the weekend are suburbanites, and that the burbs are funding the city's major sports team. According to your argument, the city wouldn't survive without the suburbs fueling all of the business in the city. I'm not sure why you are mad that suburban companies have box seats to Philly teams...are you upset that suburbanites are using Philly roads? Last I checked, those sports teams employ plenty of people and pay their taxes to the city of Philadelphia, if you removed the suburbs they would crumble.

Also, I don't remember where it was posted...but the stats on how many people enter the city for work and exit the city for work were posted, it was more even than you'd think - even I was surprised and I did the reverse commute for years. Since you want to tax suburbanites more, should the surrounding counties do the same to city residents? Shall the suburbs also toll everybody leaving the city?

The city wouldn't survive without the suburbs, and the suburbs wouldn't survive without the city. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it will always be.

Let's not mix up what I'm saying. I welcome people from the suburbs into the city, even if they are just coming in to walk around on Kelly Drive or Rittenhouse (for free). What I'm saying is people from the burbs use a disproportionate amount of the city's services and infrastructure than what they pay. In fact, they profit off of the city, but the city doesn't profit off the burbs at nearly the same rate. And yes -- you are right....the amount of suburbanites who come into the city is extremely high, but how much revenue is that generating for the city? Very little when you look at the amount of city services they use.

I also did the reverse commute out of Philly for a decade. And I also was constantly asked to entertain clients in Philly because we wanted them to see more than the suburban campus. We closed hundred million dollar deals thanks to Philly, but do you think Comcast is closing hundred million dollar deals sitting at KOP? No. The burbs benefit from the city. The city does not benefit from the burbs. Please show me sizable examples of how the city benefits from the existence of burbs.

If the burbs want to toll the roads going into them, they should do it. A very small percent of people from the city go to the burbs. Let's have the city toll the roads into the city like NYC does (isn't it around $20 to get into Manhattan via car). The point, Philly needs to collect more revenue from the burbs....however, possible -- be it, tolls, taxes, etc. And taxes in Philly need to go down for residents to keep the city a competitive place to live.

[jsbrook]

Shoot me in the head. In an attempt to move this away from tax talk, which could appropriately be talked about in any variety of facebook groups (cough, urbanphl) or elsewhere, I will say that I saw a senior partner at Morgan Lewis last night involved in firm management. The firm is in the early stages, but he said moving to a new construction building is not out of the question.

Another interesting thing he had noted, when MLB first moved to 1701 Market in the late 1990s some of the office floors were a parking garage and later converted to office floors for the firm. Nice to see that this can sometimes happen. I have a number of buildings I'd love to see cut or eliminate the parking.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Shoot me in the head. In an attempt to move this away from tax talk, which could appropriately be talked about in any variety of facebook groups (cough, urbanphl) or elsewhere, I will say that I saw a senior partner at Morgan Lewis last night involved in firm management. The firm is in the early stages, but he said moving to a new construction building is not out of the question.

Another interesting thing he had noted, when MLB first moved to 1701 Market in the late 1990s some of the office floors were a parking garage and later converted to office floors for the firm. Nice to see that this can sometimes happen. I have a number of buildings I'd love to see cut or eliminate the parking.

But . . . . what did he have to say about city taxes???

[eixample]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Another interesting thing he had noted, when MLB first moved to 1701 Market in the late 1990s some of the office floors were a parking garage and later converted to office floors for the firm. Nice to see that this can sometimes happen. I have a number of buildings I'd love to see cut or eliminate the parking.

I believe the garage has to be built with conversion in mind from the start, which is rare I believe. Maybe some engineers or architects can shed more light on that.