AUSTIN | Misc. Discussions - No Politics

[We vs us]

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/...eport-shows-how-high-the-market-can.html

Interesting factoids from ABJ, regarding downtown office occupancies.

The [JLL Skyline] report looks deeply — and graphically — into downtown trophy buildings bigger than 200,000 square feet, and it outlines where space is available.

There’s not much. Even though the 18-story 5th+Colorado tower delivered coveted new office space last year, it’s not large enough to warrant a position in the Skyline Report. However, that delivery of 179,846 square feet likely impacted the occupancy figures a tad. According to the 2017 Skyline Report embedded above, the direct vacancy rate is up from last year’s low of 4.1 percent.

“That’s just a matter of timing,” said Jeff Coddington, senior vice president of JLL Capital Markets. “Space in downtown is highly desired and the direct vacancy will go down again.”

Rents continue a mind-boggling ascent with an average asking rate of $58.81 per square foot, up from $53.67 per square foot last year.

There’s another $4 to $7 per square foot added to that accounting for escalating operating costs and rapidly rising property taxes.

“Some (tenants) are waving white flags,” Coddington said.

But for every tenant that’s ready to move to cheaper digs there are four or five lined up to take their space.

As we've been talking about a new round of taller towers downtown, I'd been wondering whether where we are from a demand standpoint. Does the market really want that much more commercial/office space? Has that been one of the secret factors keeping our towers so limited in height?

Turns out not so much.

[KevinFromTexas]

This should be interesting. They're planning two owl statues east of the 2nd Street Bridge.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/AULC...%20AIPP%20Kemplen's%20Owls_PLANS.pdf

[The ATX]

Those owls are going to be 10' tall, and they will apparently be lighted since they are running electrical lines to them. It also sounds like Austin Proper is behind it.

[The ATX]

After a little Googling, here's a rendering and some info.


https://www.patreon.com/posts/kempelens-owls-8806771

[lzppjb]

Pretty cool.

I'm assuming they're going with owls because it's near the library.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Pretty cool.

I'm assuming they're going with owls because it's near the library.

Or because they're a HOOT to have around...BAH! I should be banned for that....sorry....

[H2O]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Those owls are going to be 10' tall, and they will apparently be lighted since they are running electrical lines to them. It also sounds like Austin Proper is behind it.

The art is associated with, and funded through the entire Green Water Treatment Plant Redevelopment. It just happens to be located on Block 188, where Austin Proper is rising.

[KevinFromTexas]

Here's some more cool public art. I actually really like this. I could totally see this thing flying over Butler Park creating some shade. This is really kind of beautiful.

https://www.facebook.com/mashable/videos...4zUW_B-xtNOAtgO3H5WR1dYAE2Bo&pnref=story

[pscajunguy]

Is the alt- right March on Google going to march to the empty Google Tower?

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by pscajunguy

Is the alt- right March on Google going to march to the empty Google Tower?

I was wondering the same. Someone had posted a link that said they would protest in a number of cities (including Austin) where Google had facilities.

[lzppjb]

We should designate a giant parking lot where the alt-right and alt-left can gather and have at it. The rest of us can get on with our lives.

[The ATX]

I don't think the protesters care if Google occupies the building or not. They just want a place to gather, and Google's name on the door is probably symbolic enough for them. They might not even be planning to march at a Google facility. They seem to be targeting cities where Google has a large presence.

[tie_guy]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

We should designate a giant parking lot where the alt-right and alt-left can gather and have at it. The rest of us can get on with our lives.

Alt-left? You're joking.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by tie_guy

Alt-left? You're joking.

Why? Can there not be a counterpart to this alt-right phenomenon that can't really be defined? Or should I just call it Antifa? Either way, I think we'd be better off without these fringe lunatics on both sides.

[tie_guy]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Why? Can there not be a counterpart to this alt-right phenomenon that can't really be defined? Or should I just call it Antifa? Either way, I think we'd be better off without these fringe lunatics on both sides.

Alt-right are racists who want this country to be that of a white man's nation. Radical. There is no equivalent to the alt-right. Suggesting so would place the leftist views of equality at an equivalence with views of hatred, oppression and separation. The so-called alt-left aren't arguing for white oppression, but responding to their own oppression. Alt-right initiate hate and fear. I don't think it's fair to equate someone who is a neo-nazi to someone who strives for race equality. I understand your point, but this "both sides" jargon appears to take bias for the morally wrong.

[lzppjb]

This is going to veer terribly off course if I reply with what I really want to say, so I won't.

[wwmiv]

This "both sides" jargon is a variety of a logical fallacy called false equivalence.

[wwmiv]

It is also an implicit instance of the use of whataboutism, which is a technique to deflect criticism against your own flaws by bringing up your opponents' flaws and/or negatives in response (whether related, whether or not logically, or not). without defending yourself or making an argument in favor of your own flaws or against the argument made against you. There isn't a good one, and so instead of trying to engage in it, you engage in both false equivalence, a logical fallacy, and whataboutism in order to perpetrate that outrageous false equivalence.

The term "alt-left" exists only as an epithet on the right leaning media and has been used only since 2016 directed at Warren and Sanders or to accuse certain liberals like Kathy Griffin of inciting violence. It was never a self-descriptor used proudly by the subjects. Alt-right, on the other hand, is used openly and proudly by its own subjects as a self-descriptor and is used by opponents to describe those subjects as well. It actually started as a self-descriptor almost a decade ago in 2008, when a number of op-eds published by conservatives included the term. And this doesn't even touch upon what groups are considered alternative right, which was simply created to normalize white supremacy by giving it a softer name.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by tie_guy

Alt-right are racists who want this country to be that of a white man's nation. Radical. There is no equivalent to the alt-right. Suggesting so would place the leftist views of equality at an equivalence with views of hatred, oppression and separation. The so-called alt-left aren't arguing for white oppression, but responding to their own oppression. Alt-right initiate hate and fear. I don't think it's fair to equate someone who is a neo-nazi to someone who strives for race equality. I understand your point, but this "both sides" jargon appears to take bias for the morally wrong.

From what I understand, the Antifa folks argue that the alt-right, white nationalists, et al are incapable of logical thought and listening to reason. So, there is no point in trying to reason with them. (I agree that there's little point in trying to reason with these people, so I wouldn't bother either.)

They further argue that since these people are incapable of reason, they must be dealt with in the only way they are capable of understanding. That is, showing up in force at KKK, Nazi, etc rallies and whatnot and being ready to fight if need be. (I get what they're trying to do, but I don't think it's helpful. Just ignore the 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 is what I say.)

I think I got that about right with respect to Antifa. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm off.

At any rate, Antifa is anti hate groups. Whether or not you agree with their tactics, it's hard to put them on the same moral plane as actual hate groups.

[AustinGoesVertical]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

This is going to veer terribly off course if I reply with what I really want to say, so I won't.

Respectfully, were you going to reinforce your equivalency between the so called "alt-left" and the self-annoited "alt-right"? Even if we want to call the tactics of these groups equivalent, which proportionality doesn't even pass the smell test anyway, there is a clear fallacy in equating the premise of these groups. The alt-right, truly a euphemism for if not Nazis then at the very least racists, believes they are the superior race and are being disenfranchised by a burgeoning double standard where minorities are given an accelerated path as a sort of overcorrection to past oppression. Now, I agree that some of this belief may be rooted in the disintegration of jobs, which some may believe is fueled by lesser opportunity for whites. Whether this is through residual affirmative action or immigrants cornering the low-skilled labor market, doesn't really matter since it's not at the absurd scale they contend. But at the end of the day, I think it's really an excuse or internal conflict for why someone who was dealt the right race/gender hand (which is still white male) isn't where they'd like to be. So they construct an illusion of reverse oppression. There is minor credence to their cause, but it's less institutional and more in rhetoric, such as MTV creating a "White people 🞵🞵🞵🞵 video" which is inherently racist and hypocritical. I thought that was an asinine thing to make, so I get the frustration there. But a good lens to view these two groups is to look at their composition. White people and those of many creeds may march with BLM, but there isn't one black person marching with the alt-right. Ask yourself why? The answer is that their premise is entirely different. The left can be comprised of multiple races because they're literally denouncing hatred and racism. The alt-right is really only white people because their message is couched in blanket superiority and disgust for certain groups, namely Jews and black people. This is to say nothing of women, who largely are not in this group either and you can do the math on why. And I'll tell you what the alt-left looked like circa 1944, since after all these groups are merely derivatives. The alt-left were the allies storming the beaches of Normandy. The alt-right were Hitler's Nazi pigs. So go ahead, compare the tactics of the two (weak argument in itself) but don't for a second equivalate the premise.

Again, respectively. Now back to skyscrapers.