307-Acres Near NRG Stadium (Formerly UT Research Campus Proposal)

[BayouCityMan]

I can't say I'm the biggest fan of this. I bleed Cougar Red and I do think UT is sliding in here for nefarious and harmful reasons. If they wanted to expand their research in the city, why not add a tower or two to the UTMB cluster in the Med Ctr and focus on what their presence here has always been about. Just saying....

[Moonb007]

I use to live in the neighbourhood off West Belfort and Metro had plans for a commuter light rail running out to Missouri City.  So I don't see them commenting on this unless it changes what they had planned.  They have already modified W. Belfort in some areas that will be how the traffic pattern will become after the rail, but it is not going to happen for several years.  It's nice to see something other then apartments proposed as that is how the lots seemed to get getting built out in that area.  Below are links to the metro info.

 

https://www.ridemetro.org/MetroPDFs/AboutMETRO/CurrentProjects/90A%20Southwest%20Rail/US90A_Newsletter_May2012_06.pdf

 

https://www.ridemetro.org/Pages/90A-Southwest_RailCorridor.aspx

 

 

will Metro itself ever make an announcement on these "potential plans"? They've been pretty quiet in regards to anything new for a while.

 

[brian0123]

I'm still a little confused about what UH is worried about. If someone wants a UT degree today they currently leave Houston. Now, we'll just have more students stay in Houston. It will make for a more vibrant city and could enhance UH by encouraging more redevelopment in the third ward. They'd anchor a triangle (Rice, UT, UH) that could host thousands of students and encourage even more student life.

[brian0123]

The alarmists on this thread make it sound like UH is a crappy school with poor funding who can't compete against UT. If UH is in that bad of shape then your arguments are wanting me to get UT even more. Houston needs top universities and if UH is in that bad of shape then we need UT in this city.

[OkieEric]

More whining...  Are any Rice or other non-UH graduates against UT's plans?  Just curious

 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/education/campus-chronicles/article/State-reps-ask-UT-to-step-back-from-Houston-6692292.php

 

So is there any way (through public records or other) to verify when/if UT closes on the land?  I've tried some online searching on the County Clerk's office but no luck

 

 

[The Ozone Files]

Above link without paywall:

 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/education/campus-chronicles/article/State-reps-ask-UT-to-step-back-from-Houston-6692292.php?t=dafdd51b46&cmpid=twitter-premium

[monarch]

^^^ we shall build.. we shall grow.. we shall dominate...

no entity nowhere shall stop us.

we're TEXAS.  what we do here changes the world...

[OkieEric]

Hmm...  I'm starting to see a common theme here:

 

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/12/lawmaker-asks-coordinating-board-to-stop-uts-expansion-into-houston.html/

 

 

Rep. Carol Alvarado, D-Houston, said in a letter to Paredes on Wednesday that the board should stop the UT System from moving forward with its plans. She wrote that UT System’s decision to purchase the land without receiving the commissioner’s or the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board’s approval “undermines and weakens” the commissioner’s authority on higher education in the state.

 

Carol Alvarado:  UH graduate

 

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/12/texas-senator-objects-to-ut-systems-houston-expansion.html/

 

 

“In all candor, in my 42 years of service in the Texas Legislature, I have not seen such an affront to the legislative process and the conservative deliberations of the higher education community,” Whitmire wrote in his strongly worded letter.

 

John Whitmire:  UH graduate

 

 

The article posted earlier today had 19 signatures including Sylvester Turner (UH grad) and Alvarado.  Granted, a lot of the others are not from UH, but the grumblings from some of these folks makes me wonder whether they are more interested in what's best for the city of Houston or their alma mater.  From what I've read it doesn't seem that the purchase can actually be blocked, but I don't like the fact that Turner signed

 

[swtsig]

they want what's best for their alma mater - that much is obvious. there are no real negatives to the proposed UT Research Campus at all.

[Grizzly46]

they want what's best for their alma mater - that much is obvious. there are no real negatives to the proposed UT Research Campus at all.

 

Check out the stuff I posted two above you...no real negatives?

You see what you want to see.

[bobruss]

I honestly think this will enhance whatever's going on at TMC. The two sites are separated by 3 miles as the crow flies, and already have light rail-ready infrastructure between them.

Thats not my point. The Texas Medical Centers plan for their research campus was

very dependent on U.T. and its muscle and money and now it looks as if UT is going

to create its own research center and more than likely blow off the TMC.

I mean why would they invest that kind of money and then duplicate their efforts

with TMC?

Trust me this will lessen the chances of TMC's research center without UT's

involvement.

Read the TMC literature about their project and you will se they were counting on UT.

[bobruss]

swtsig

I respect your knowledge and appreciate your fairness in your response, however I do think there is a

negative, and no one seems to want to address my question about what this will do to the plans to build the new TMC research campus that was planned with UT as a major player. They won't do both.

Its not just U of H that would be affected.

[BigFootsSocks]

swtsig

I respect your knowledge and appreciate your fairness in your response, however I do think there is a

negative, and no one seems to want to address my question about what this will do to the plans to build the new TMC research campus that was planned with UT as a major player. They won't do both.

Its not just U of H that would be affected.

Bob, other people have responded to your question if you haven't seen it yet, but just to reiterate; this isn't for UT med and will most likely coincide with the TMC 3 expansion.

[Fortune]

swtsig

I respect your knowledge and appreciate your fairness in your response, however I do think there is a

negative, and no one seems to want to address my question about what this will do to the plans to build the new TMC research campus that was planned with UT as a major player. They won't do both.

Its not just U of H that would be affected.

As much as I would like the TMC3 Campus to come to fruition it is still very much so just a concept. The TMC does not have funding for the development and UT or any of the other institutions have signed on for the campus.

[bobruss]

As much as I would like the TMC3 Campus to come to fruition it is still very much so just a concept. The TMC does not have funding for the development and UT or any of the other institutions have signed on for the campus.

Bob, other people have responded to your question if you haven't seen it yet, but just to reiterate; this isn't for UT med and will most likely coincide with the TMC 3 expansion.

Thank you both for your clarification and sorry if I mussed it.

I hope your both right.

[htownproud]

As someone that went to neither school, my two cents are that if this new campus threatens TMC3 then I am firmly against it. With no disrespect, I would much rather have (and think it would be much better for the city to have) TMC3 than another UT Arlington or insert other sataleite UT campus. Those UT satellites are fine schools, but it would not be a "game changers" here in Houston. TMC3 might not be either, but it's got a chance. I would like to see a clear statement from UT on TMC3.

[The Ozone Files]

Just a thought: This campus has been advertised as a "research" campus. The qualifier indicates that the campus would not function as a traditional four-year university. It follows, then, that the campus would not compete for undergraduate admissions. It may plausibly attract some local graduate students or faculty who might otherwise choose UH. However, academic recruitment at the graduate and faculty level typically draws from a national or international pool of applicants, especially for highly-competitive, well-funded departments.

 

Anyone familiar with the academic job market will know that there is a surplus of highly-qualified graduate students, post-docs, and faculty in the United States and abroad. The University of Texas System has access to tremendous resources (probably inequitable access, as some have noted) in the PUF, which has only grown larger thanks to the fracking boom. They are proposing to invest these otherwise untapped resources in Houston; recruit a national pool of talented, yet underutilized applicants to Houston; and presumably bring greater federal and private research grants to Houston. This is intellectual and financial capital that would simply go unused or go elsewhere.

 

The end result should be more academic faculty, more highly-qualified students, more research dollars, and more capital investment in the Houston area, all in addition to the important growth occurring at the University of Houston. The centers of innovation in this country were preceded by a concentration of top-notch academic institutions and subsequent growth in the knowledge class: Silicon Valley and North Carolina's Research Triangle come to mind. Why can't we have this, too?

 

And I say all this as an Aggie.

 

Now, would it be more sensible to instead simply share the PUF more equally? Perhaps. But that's a separate, if germane, discussion.

 

Edited December 16, 2015 by The Ozone Files

[brian0123]

As someone that went to neither school, my two cents are that if this new campus threatens TMC3 then I am firmly against it. With no disrespect, I would much rather have (and think it would be much better for the city to have) TMC3 than another UT Arlington or insert other sataleite UT campus. Those UT satellites are fine schools, but it would not be a "game changers" here in Houston. TMC3 might not be either, but it's got a chance. I would like to see a clear statement from UT on TMC3.

This would only further encourage TMC3 to happen. A nearby talent pool of healthcare graduates and researchers available to be hired on by core institutions and new biotech companies is a win for everyone.

[Houston19514]

Seems like a lot of posters need to take a look at what UT Is actually proposing. Hint: it's not UT-Houston or any other sort of full degree-granting campus.

[The Ozone Files]

Seems like a lot of posters need to take a look at what UT Is actually proposing. Hint: it's not UT-Houston or any other sort of full degree-granting campus.

 

Now if only we could have our elected officials do the same.

[htownproud]

Seems like a lot of posters need to take a look at what UT Is actually proposing. Hint: it's not UT-Houston or any other sort of full degree-granting campus.

Fair point. I was being charitable. I should have said I would rather have TMC3 than something even worse than UT-Arlington, which as you note is what is being proposed.. If it won't affect the funding of TMC3, then let's hear that from UT officials.

[monarch]

Although specific plans for the land have not yet been decided, ChancellorWilliam McRaven called it a game changer for Houston, the UT System and the state of Texas.

“This will not be a University of Texas at Houston. Rather, it will be an ‘intellectual hub’ for UT — an opportunity for all our campuses to take advantage of the Houston professionals in the fields of medicine, energy, engineering, business, aerospace, health care and the arts,” McRaven said in prepared remarks to the board of regents on Nov. 5.

Early next year, McRaven will convene a task force of civic leaders, legislators, academic and health presidents, faculty, students and regents, along with other constituents, to begin the planning process for the property.

“We have educational and research gems across our UT System portfolio that, if leveraged with key sectors of health, energy and business in Houston, will allow us to accelerate discoveries and expand research and educational opportunities — complementing our existing UT health institutions — and significantly grow our state’s economic competitiveness,” McRaven said in a Nov. 5 statement.

 

Other “quantum leaps” within the strategic plan listed within the statement are:

• The Texas Prospect Initiative to foster unprecedented levels of engagement and collaboration between higher education and preK-12, with a focus on improving literacy;
• The creation of the American Leadership Program, which will make leadership and ethics training part of the core curriculum for all students at UT institutions;
• Renewed investment in bringing world-class faculty to UT institutions;
• A laser focus on enhancing fairness and opportunity for women and minorities in leadership positions at UT institutions;
• Developing a UT Health Care Enterprise to leverage UT System’s size and expertise to improve the health of Texas and beyond;
• Expanding research into brain health by investing more into the existing, revolutionary programs at several UT institutions, establishing another at UT Austin, and tying efforts together to accelerate discoveries and treatments for diseases of the brain;
• Building a UT Network for National Security, a systemwide alliance that will confront the world’s most vexing problems facing our nation.

 

 

Edited December 16, 2015 by monarch

[ADCS]

Just a thought: This campus has been advertised as a "research" campus. The qualifier indicates that the campus would not function as a traditional four-year university. It follows, then, that the campus would not compete for undergraduate admissions. It may plausibly attract some local graduate students or faculty who might otherwise choose UH. However, academic recruitment at the graduate and faculty level typically draws from a national or international pool of applicants, especially for highly-competitive, well-funded departments.

 

Anyone familiar with the academic job market will know that there is a surplus of highly-qualified graduate students, post-docs, and faculty in the United States and abroad. The University of Texas System has access to tremendous resources (probably inequitable access, as some have noted) in the PUF, which has only grown larger thanks to the fracking boom. They are proposing to invest these otherwise untapped resources in Houston; recruit a national pool of talented, yet underutilized applicants to Houston; and presumably bring greater federal and private research grants to Houston. This is intellectual and financial capital that would simply go unused or go elsewhere.

 

The end result should be more academic faculty, more highly-qualified students, more research dollars, and more capital investment in the Houston area, all in addition to the important growth occurring at the University of Houston. The centers of innovation in this country were preceded by a concentration of top-notch academic institutions and subsequent growth in the knowledge class: Silicon Valley and North Carolina's Research Triangle come to mind. Why can't we have this, too?

 

And I say all this as an Aggie.

 

Now, would it be more sensible to instead simply share the PUF more equally? Perhaps. But that's a separate, if germane, discussion.

 

This exactly. I'm an OU alum and am happy to knock UT when the opportunity arises, but this is a no-brainer for Houston. 

 

Also, when I read things like this:

 

 

 

• The creation of the American Leadership Program, which will make leadership and ethics training part of the core curriculum for all students at UT institutions;
•  

• Building a UT Network for National Security, a systemwide alliance that will confront the world’s most vexing problems facing our nation.

 

This suggests that the State and UT are interested in investing in Houston as Texas' global city. That's incredibly exciting for so many reasons.

 

At the same time, it might also explain the trepidation of so many local politicians - they like the current machine for what it is, and don't want that sort of transformative development.

[urbanize713]

Just a thought: This campus has been advertised as a "research" campus. The qualifier indicates that the campus would not function as a traditional four-year university. It follows, then, that the campus would not compete for undergraduate admissions. It may plausibly attract some local graduate students or faculty who might otherwise choose UH. However, academic recruitment at the graduate and faculty level typically draws from a national or international pool of applicants, especially for highly-competitive, well-funded departments.

 

Anyone familiar with the academic job market will know that there is a surplus of highly-qualified graduate students, post-docs, and faculty in the United States and abroad. The University of Texas System has access to tremendous resources (probably inequitable access, as some have noted) in the PUF, which has only grown larger thanks to the fracking boom. They are proposing to invest these otherwise untapped resources in Houston; recruit a national pool of talented, yet underutilized applicants to Houston; and presumably bring greater federal and private research grants to Houston. This is intellectual and financial capital that would simply go unused or go elsewhere.

 

The end result should be more academic faculty, more highly-qualified students, more research dollars, and more capital investment in the Houston area, all in addition to the important growth occurring at the University of Houston. The centers of innovation in this country were preceded by a concentration of top-notch academic institutions and subsequent growth in the knowledge class: Silicon Valley and North Carolina's Research Triangle come to mind. Why can't we have this, too?

 

And I say all this as an Aggie.

 

Now, would it be more sensible to instead simply share the PUF more equally? Perhaps. But that's a separate, if germane, discussion.

 

Yes, a thousand times yes. This is the point I have been trying to make. It seems there are two camps. The first camp is choosing to hear what they want and believe big bad ole UT is coming for their school. The second camp is listening to what has ACTUALLY been proposed and how it benefits the city as a whole and see no downside. Who is being resonable and who is not?

 

[jmitch94]

In the end no one going to change anyone's opinions, both sides see each other as irrational and we have absolutely no say in this. Just my two cents.   

[Houston19514]

Fair point. I was being charitable. I should have said I would rather have TMC3 than something even worse than UT-Arlington, which as you note is what is being proposed.. If it won't affect the funding of TMC3, then let's hear that from UT officials.

I don't see this in any way as "worse than UT-Arlington" (and for the record I never noted that UT proposed anything "worse than UT-Arlington"). They have proposed something entirely different from UT-ARLINGTON,

Further, if, as you claim, they are indeed proposing something worse than UT-Arlington, what does UH have to worry about? Do all you Cougs really think so little of your school that you think it can't hold its own against an institution worse than UT-Arlington?

[Triton]

UH alumni here. Just build the damn thing.

[Urbannizer]

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/McRaven-It-s-on-me-to-build-trust-for-UT-s-6705373.php

[DNAguy]

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/McRaven-It-s-on-me-to-build-trust-for-UT-s-6705373.php

 

Can someone please help those who don't own a chron subscription out and just post the article?

 

Thanks!

 

--Non subscribers everywhere

[AREJAY]

Can someone please help those who don't own a chron subscription out and just post the article?

 

Thanks!

 

--Non subscribers everywhere

 

Do a google search for the title of the article, click on the first link and enjoy