Report

NYCEDC Office Adaptive Reuse Task Force

by

In 2022, ESI and Packard Beasley Consulting were engaged by the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) to provide management and technical support to a city-council mandated task force study that provided strategic recommendations to encourage the conversion of vacant or commercially unviable office space to other uses, with an emphasis on housing. Throughout the project, the ESI team worked closely with the New York City Department of City Planning, who managed the task force.

The Office Adaptive Reuse Task Force was convened following declines in office utilization in New York City as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing work-from-home policies. Historically high vacancy rates, paired with strong demand for housing in high-density commercial districts, suggested an opportunity to examine regulations governing conversions and evaluate the potential of financial incentives to encourage the production of affordable housing.

ESI completed four components:

  • Evaluated an analysis of the commercial and residential markets in New York City completed by the New York City Economic Development Corporation and suggested research methods to carry out the remainder of the work.
  • Conducted 26 interviews with nearly 40 industry experts, including brokers, property owners, engineers, architects, developers, and bankers.
  • Created a series of future scenarios to benchmark the range of possibilities for the office market based on projected supply and demand for office space.
  • Built a model to assess the financial feasibility of converting specific office buildings to residential uses.

These efforts informed the task force on making recommendations to the City and State of New York on regulatory and zoning changes as well as financial incentives to secure the future of the New York City office and residential markets. The ESI team also produced the task force’s final report.

King of Prussia Business District Comparative Location Analysis

by

Jurisdictions have long competed to be destinations of choice for employers and employees, based on tax mix, amenities, transportation infrastructure, and other location characteristics. At present, this competitive landscape seems particularly fluid and intense. Most notably, COVID has hollowed out commercial office cores, scrambled real estate markets, and increased people’s preferences for outdoor amenities and other wellness resources.

Meanwhile, economic uncertainty has forced a reckoning for jurisdictions in their relative tax burden positions. Lower tax burden jurisdictions are caught between heightened fiscal pressure if they maintain their low rates, and loss of competitive advantage if they raise rates. Higher tax burden jurisdictions, in turn, are finding that if they continue to raise rates, they cause mass outcry amongst residents and businesses, while if they rein in tax rates they stretch their already tight budgets.

In such a climate and at such a time, King of Prussia District is tasked with catalyzing economic development and job growth for UMT/KOP. This report helps substantiate where UMT/KOP holds a competitive advantage over neighboring jurisdictions as a destination of choice for employers and employees, and conversely where UMT/KOP fares more poorly relative to competing jurisdictions. The former can inform promotional efforts such as HQ KOP, while the latter can inform King of Prussia District’s discourse with local elected officials and business leaders.

ESI’s 2022 analysis of how Upper Merion Township/King of Prussia (UMT/KOP) compares as a business location relative to other nearby suburban jurisdictions represents an update to research conducted in 2017 and 2011, also commissioned by King of Prussia District. It covers relative tax burden and other locational characteristics, and enables both a comparison across jurisdictions, as well as a comparison across time.

Catalyst for Change: The Future of Cities

by

As Econsult Solutions celebrates the one-year anniversary of ESI Center for the Future of Cities, we are thrilled to present a collection of our smart city-focused thought leadership and research. This portfolio connects the firm’s urban economics, policy, and strategy expertise and sits at the forefront of addressing the most challenging issues city leaders face today. The ESI team has produced ground-breaking research that has helped lay the foundation for building out a more just, sustainable, and prosperous future in four key focus areas:

Livability – Investigating how cities can improve quality of life for all citizens, interconnecting and leveraging resources to ensure cities are safer, and cleaner.

Mobility – Exploring the rise of autonomous and electric vehicles, assessing the catalytic impacts of transit investment, in addition to exploring the delicate balance between optimal density and congestion.

Investment – Analyzing how technology can improve and foster inclusive economic growth, the importance of an environment that attracts and retains innovative talent, strategic public and private partnerships for sustained success of smart city programs.

Governance – Understanding how governments are leveraging new technology and practices to enhance quality of life and foster growth, enhancing cybersecurity systems and increasing citizen engagement.

As we move forward, ESI Center for the Future of Cities will continue to build on those ideas and sit squarely at the intersection of public and private needs. As the firm’s thought leadership arm, it brings together ESI’s expertise in urban economics to address the most prominent issues facing cities around the world. City leaders need a blueprint for building safer, more sustainable, and resilient 21st Century cities.

The State of Cell and Gene Therapy in the Greater Philadelphia Region

by

Commissioned by the Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia and researched by Econsult Solutions, Inc. (ESI), The State of Cell and Gene Therapy in the Greater Philadelphia Region compares cell and gene therapy (CGT) hubs in five key categories: research infrastructure, human capital, innovation output, commercial activity, and value proposition, ranking Philadelphia as second overall among 14 major hubs of CGT in the US. Within each category of ranking, ESI found that:

  • Philadelphia researchers are national leaders in receiving NIH funding for CGT research, with $317M in awards since 2018.
  • A concentration of research infrastructure is one of the most important resources in creating a biomedical innovation hub, primarily in the form of top-tier research universities, which serve as the magnet for human capital, research grants, and corporate partnerships.
  • Strong patent and clinical trial activity in Greater Philadelphia include over 300 CGT patents approved over the last decade and approximately 130 clinical trials of novel therapies held.
  • In addition to the research and capital needed to become a world class CGT hub, Greater Philadelphia is an extremely livable region, boasting some of the world’s best museums, top notch restaurants, and large open spaces at a comparatively affordable price.
  • Greater Philadelphia is the place where CGT was born and is where many growing companies want to locate.

Valuing the Potential Economic, Social, and Environmental Impacts of the Philly Tree Plan

by

The Philly Tree Plan (the Plan) is a strategic plan for the equitable growth and care of Philadelphia’s urban forest, commissioned by the City of Philadelphia (the City) and led by Philadelphia Parks & Recreation (PPR). Developed in partnership with the urban planning consultancy Hinge Collective, and in alignment with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission’s Philadelphia 2035 Comprehensive Plan and the Greenworks sustainability plan, the Philly Tree Plan calls for a sizable investment in tree planting and care across Philadelphia, with a primary focus on communities determined to be in highest need of additional tree cover.

The ultimate goal of the Plan is to reduce disparities of tree canopy distribution within Philadelphia to allow all residents to be able to directly benefit from a renewed investment in trees as public health infrastructure. Achieving 30 percent tree canopy cover by the year 2050 was identified as a benchmark in the Philly Tree Plan because of the supporting body of research that projects significant health impacts associated with 30 percent cover. This also aligns the Philly Tree Plan with the canopy cover goal stated in both the Greenworks Plan and the Philadelphia 2035 Plan.

PPR engaged ESI, a Philadelphia-based urban economics consultancy, to evaluate the potential economic, social, and environmental benefits that could accrue to the City of Philadelphia and its residents if the Philly Tree Plan were to be implemented as proposed. The following report describes estimates of these potential benefits. ESI developed estimates of the monetary value of the social and environmental benefits from the Philly Tree Plan, based on economic and scientific research. ESI estimated the economic output, employment, and tax revenue impacts from capital investments and operations of the Plan using IMPLAN input-output modeling software and industry-standard procedures and assumptions.

Financing Green Infrastructure: Lessons from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

by

Communities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and across the nation are deploying green infrastructure to manage stormwater and provide economic, environmental, and social benefits for residents. Large cities such as Baltimore, Washington, and Philadelphia are leaders in the use of green infrastructure to 1) fulfill regulatory mandates (i.e., reducing combined sanitary-storm sewer overflows, or CSO) and 2) achieve broader community objectives (i.e., improving health and addressing climate change). For smaller communities, lack of financial resources can be a significant barrier to employing green infrastructure solutions.

This report provides a guide for decision makers in small to mid-sized communities on how to pay for green infrastructure. It covers green infrastructure definitions and benefits, the monetary value of benefits provided, available funding sources and financing techniques, and how to develop a funding and financing strategy for green infrastructure investment. The report draws on interviews and research of green infrastructure applications by communities inside and outside the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Several case studies drawing from ESI’s research on the economic value of protected open space and stormwater infrastructure are included alongside examples of green infrastructure practices, financing techniques, and key takeaways from communities that have effectively implemented green infrastructure.

ESI Senior Advisor David Rouse served as project lead for this white paper and was supported by Senior Vice President and Principal Steve Wray, Associate Director Melissa Wright, and Analyst John LaVaccare.