Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mister X

216 Acres near NRG Stadium (formerly UT Research Campus Proposal)

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, bobruss said:

I tried to stay out of this argument but calling the University of Houston, a Tier one school, second rate is a little childish. 

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it’s absolutely second rate compared to UT. Being a part of a list of 115 schools doesn’t impress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Competition does not make better when both institutions are taxpayer funded at inequitable levels.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow what an insanely toxic thread for a local architecture forum. I personally cant wait for the mods to lock it again. 

 

Edit: IDK how to change my signature or whatever it is, I graduated a year and a half ago. 

Edited by jmitch94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vy65 said:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it’s absolutely second rate compared to UT. Being a part of a list of 115 schools doesn’t impress.

 

Duh. Everything is second rate in this state compared to UT outside of tiny/private Rice. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We always seem to return to these stupid conversations centered around the question "what're you scared of a little competition", when UT sympathizers try to justify the idea of a UT Houston. If "more competition" is so great when referring to tertiary education, then everyone should be ok with an announcement by A&M to build a campus in Austin. Of course, you would all say "no big deal" to that notion, knowing full well it would never be seriously considered nor tolerated, in addition to the enormous pushback by UT. UH is a large public school system. UH shouldn't have to "face competition" and be forced to persevere in order to survive. Most cities do not have two large school systems. Notice I used the word Most. Instead it should be well funded so it could realize its true potential. Having two state funded schools in a city does not improve the level of education, since each school sets its admissions standards independently, based on specific targets. A UT Houston will never be comparable to UT Austin in prestige. If that were the case then a degree from UT Dallas, UT Arlington or UTSA, etc, would be worth the same as that of UT Austin. Not every student is accepted into UT Austin, hence the alternatives in parts of Texas that are underserved by tertiary institutions.  Houston is not underserved. The Houston area has more undergrad students than any other metro area in Texas, plus UH is growing tremendously, as are the other schools in Houston. A UT Houston will only target the same students as UH and then there would be two publicly funded schools cannibalizing each other. That is not the best use of public funds. UH is not and may never be on the same tier as UT Austin, but a UT Houston will also be "second rate" in comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2018 at 1:05 AM, Houston19514 said:

Enough with the straw man arguments.  There was NEVER a plan to create a UT Houston.  They really could not have been more clear on that point.

 

That's based on the assumption they were being truthful - which evidence suggests quite the opposite given the top brass didn't disclose the intent for any campus and land purchases until after the fact. Data centers also don't have massive sports and athletic complexes that were clearly demarcated in the architectural plans/design. 

 

Not one major city in the U.S. has multiple 4 year major state university system campuses from different systems. If you want another college in Houston, open up a private college or set up your new UT campus in the Woodlands or Sugar Land. Otherwise, you are cannibalizing the existing state institutional system in Houston created to service Houston. It is clear UT's intent is to continue to remain king of public schools in Texas and that includes preventing others from garnering greater academic stature because their view of colleges is provincially analogous to sports. That childish perspective is what is holding Texas and Houston back. 

 

Finally, given the progressive decline of UT's academic credentials in recent years, I think they need to focus on cleaning up their own house before buying new homes. With their prodigious endowment (by and far the largest public school endowment in the country) and almost limitless trust fund, they should be nothing less than a top 3 public school and they're not even close. As taxpayers in the state, our so-called state flagship and investment in UT is being poorly managed and we deserve better. Talk about a third rate investment by taxpayers. And that has NOTHING to do with UH. 

 

Major public universities with a higher ranking in US News & World Report:

 

UCLA (shares endowment that is slightly more than  1/3rd the size of the UT system) 

UC - Berkeley (shares endowment that is slightly more than 1/3rd the size of UT system) 

U of Virginia 

U of Mich

UC - Santa Barbara (shares endowment...) 

UNC - Chapel Hill

UC - Irvine (shares endowment...) 

U of Florida

William & Mary

UC - Davis (shares endowment...) 

UC - San Diego (shares endowment...) 

U of Georgia

U of Illinois 

U of Texas - Austin (#49 in national universities)

 

 

 

 

Edited by nyc_tex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 0:05 AM, Houston19514 said:

Enough with the straw man arguments.  There was NEVER a plan to create a UT Houston.  They really could not have been more clear on that point.

 

If you believe that, then I have  some swamp land to sell you. 

 

I couldn't say it any better than nyc_tex. However, correct me if I'm wrong. I believe New York City has both the City University of New York (CUNY), and State University of New York (SUNY), which are both public university systems. Both have campuses in Brooklyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nyc_tex said:

 

That's based on the assumption they were being truthful - which evidence suggests quite the opposite given the top brass didn't disclose the intent for any campus and land purchases until after the fact. Data centers also don't have massive sports and athletic complexes that were clearly demarcated in the architectural plans/design. 

 

Not one major city in the U.S. has multiple 4 year major state university system campuses from different systems. If you want another college in Houston, open up a private college or set up your new UT campus in the Woodlands or Sugar Land. Otherwise, you are cannibalizing the existing state institutional system in Houston created to service Houston. It is clear UT's intent is to continue to remain king of public schools in Texas and that includes preventing others from garnering greater academic stature because their view of colleges is provincially analogous to sports. That childish perspective is what is holding Texas and Houston back. 

 

Finally, given the progressive decline of UT's academic credentials in recent years, I think they need to focus on cleaning up their own house before buying new homes. With their prodigious endowment (by and far the largest public school endowment in the country) and almost limitless trust fund, they should be nothing less than a top 3 public school and they're not even close. As taxpayers in the state, our so-called state flagship and investment in UT is being poorly managed and we deserve better. Talk about a third rate investment by taxpayers. And that has NOTHING to do with UH. 

 

Major public universities with a higher ranking in US News & World Report:

 

UCLA (shares endowment that is slightly more than  1/3rd the size of the UT system) 

UC - Berkeley (shares endowment that is slightly more than 1/3rd the size of UT system) 

U of Virginia 

U of Mich

UC - Santa Barbara (shares endowment...) 

UNC - Chapel Hill

UC - Irvine (shares endowment...) 

U of Florida

William & Mary

UC - Davis (shares endowment...) 

UC - San Diego (shares endowment...) 

U of Georgia

U of Illinois 

U of Texas - Austin (#49 in national universities)

 

 

 

 

 

The endowment supplies only a fraction, I think around 20%, of the annual budget, the rest of which comes from other sources. So there's a lot more that goes into your list. The California schools are highly ranked because in the 60's they developed a rigid 3 tier system whereby only the top students went to the UC schools, then the next level students went to CSU schools and the bottom level to community colleges. Whereas Texas never developed any such system and you have, to put it delicately, quite a range of students at both UT and A&M, our presumed flagships. If you cut those schools down to the top 10,000 students and kept nearly the same research funding you would have something like a UC school. Of course it would destroy the whole culture of both places.

Edited by H-Town Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TBooze said:

 

If you believe that, then I have  some swamp land to sell you. 

 

 

See below.  There was no need to take it on faith.

 

2 hours ago, nyc_tex said:

 

That's based on the assumption they were being truthful - which evidence suggests quite the opposite given the top brass didn't disclose the intent for any campus and land purchases until after the fact. Data centers also don't have massive sports and athletic complexes that were clearly demarcated in the architectural plans/design. 

 

Not one major city in the U.S. has multiple 4 year major state university system campuses from different systems. If you want another college in Houston, open up a private college or set up your new UT campus in the Woodlands or Sugar Land.

 

The non-prior disclosure of the land purchase by the foundation is meaningless. Nothing could have been developed there by UT without additional by the State.  That's pretty much his major real estate purchases are done.  There is nothing nefarious about that.  So, no, it is not just based on any assumptions of truthfulness. There was plenty of opportunity to enforce that pledge.

 

You're getting carried away with your claim of plans for "massive sports and athletic complexes".   Pretty hilarious, actually.

 

Not that drawing the line at the city limits makes any sense at all, but it seems the 1st, 2nd and 3rd largest cities in the country all have multiple 4-year public university campuses.  Next up, #4 Houston.

 

If you seriously think there wouldn't be the same response (or worse) if UT proposed a 4-year UT -The Woodlands or UT - Sugar Land, then, well, I have some swamp land to sell you.

Edited by Houston19514

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me when Texas A&M tried to buy STCL and UH threw a hissy fit.  They wound up in Fort Worth instead and took a law school that didn’t even register before to a top 100 school in less than 4 years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TBooze said:

 

If you believe that, then I have  some swamp land to sell you. 

 

I couldn't say it any better than nyc_tex. However, correct me if I'm wrong. I believe New York City has both the City University of New York (CUNY), and State University of New York (SUNY), which are both public university systems. Both have campuses in Brooklyn.

 

Good question - only CUNY is in NYC. Not one 4 year SUNY school is in NYC. They have a crappy med school and FIT but those aren't in competition with any of the CUNY schools or programs. They're two completely different systems. CUNY was made specifically for NYC and is only in NYC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

See below.  There was no need to take it on faith.

 

 

The non-prior disclosure of the land purchase by the foundation is meaningless. Nothing could have been developed there by UT without additional by the State.  That's pretty much his major real estate purchases are done.  There is nothing nefarious about that.  So, no, it is not just based on any assumptions of truthfulness. There was plenty of opportunity to enforce that pledge.

 

You're getting carried away with your claim of plans for "massive sports and athletic complexes".   Pretty hilarious, actually.

 

Not that drawing the line at the city limits makes any sense at all, but it seems the 1st, 2nd and 3rd largest cities in the country all have multiple 4-year public university campuses.  Next up, #4 Houston.

 

If you seriously think there wouldn't be the same response (or worse) if UT proposed a 4-year UT -The Woodlands or UT - Sugar Land, then, well, I have some swamp land to sell you.

 

Meaningless because you want it to be meaningless for your position. To others, it's far from meaningless. It also violated educational protocols for the state, which for many are not meaningless. Otherwise, UT wouldn't have pulled out. They knew they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Presumably, in the past being ranked higher than #49th nationally with a $27 billion state funded endowment entitled them to everything they ever wanted.  

 

Reread my post. Name one major city that has two or more public state 4 year + universities from two different state systems. 

 

Yup, the SL and Woodlands recommendations was sarcasm. Good eye. 

Edited by nyc_tex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nyc_tex said:

 

Meaningless because you want it to be meaningless for your position. To others, it's far from meaningless. It also violated educational protocols for the state, which for many are not meaningless. Otherwise, UT wouldn't have pulled out. They knew they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Presumably, in the past being ranked higher than #49th nationally with a $27 billion state funded endowment entitled them to everything they ever wanted.  

 

Reread my post. Name one major city that has two or more public state 4 year + universities from two different state systems. 

 

Yup, the SL and Woodlands recommendations was sarcasm. Good eye. 

 

Los Angeles (Cal State-LA and UCLA), and I think Chicago, but drawing the line at city limits is artificial and pointless. (I would venture to guess that an insignificant number of students choose their school based on in what city limits it happens to fall.)

 

A far more important question:  How many of the top 10 metros (other than Houston) do not have two or more public 4-year universities from two or more different state systems (or the equivalent, because not everyone has university "systems" the way Texas does)?

Edited by Houston19514

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2018 at 0:05 AM, Houston19514 said:

Enough with the straw man arguments.  There was NEVER a plan to create a UT Houston.  They really could not have been more clear on that point.

 

Cold not have been more clear?  Look up EVERY SINGLE story about this and you will see that "UT Chancellor William McRaven scuttled UT's project in March after lawmakers and UT's own regents criticized its high spending and lack of specific plan." "Earlier this year, after significant pushback to an obscure vision"  "“My greatest concern regarding the UT land deal has always been about the nontransparent method by which the land was acquired and by the system's inconsistent explanations for how the land was to be used.”

 

After the backlash, McRaven said that he did not plan to build a 4 year university but would not throw in guarantees.  After calling it off, the plans were unveiled showing the data center.  Unfortunately, the shady deal and the attempt to circumvent the state legislation had already killed this.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kbates2 said:

 

Cold not have been more clear?  Look up EVERY SINGLE story about this and you will see that "UT Chancellor William McRaven scuttled UT's project in March after lawmakers and UT's own regents criticized its high spending and lack of specific plan." "Earlier this year, after significant pushback to an obscure vision"  "“My greatest concern regarding the UT land deal has always been about the nontransparent method by which the land was acquired and by the system's inconsistent explanations for how the land was to be used.”

 

After the backlash, McRaven said that he did not plan to build a 4 year university but would not throw in guarantees.  After calling it off, the plans were unveiled showing the data center.  Unfortunately, the shady deal and the attempt to circumvent the state legislation had already killed this.  
 

 

Those quotes nicely confirm there were no plans for a 4 year university. Thanks for providing them.

 

I guess you overlooked quotes such as the following:

 

"UT Chancellor William McRaven has repeatedly said he has no plans to compete with UH and is open to working with the city's universities. UT plans to convene a task force of local leaders to guide a plan for how to use the property.

 

UT wants to use the land to develop a "higher education innovation, intellectual and idea hub that could ultimately increase Texas' national and international competitiveness," the university statement said. "The task force will focus on ways to significantly increase research funding and educational opportunities in nationally-emerging fields and will be asked to avoid recommending programs or initiatives that duplicate what other Houston institutions are already providing."https://www.chron.com/local/education/campus-chronicles/article/UT-closes-on-100-acres-in-Houston-plans-to-buy-6762200.php

Edited by Houston19514

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said clear, the quotes I used said obscure, nonstransparent, and inconsistent.  The point was to show that clear was the opposite of their initial plans.

 

I also indicated that after the backlash, McRaven sated that they would not be building a 4 year university.  That was not overlooking quotes, that was stating that they were after the backlash that effectively killed this.  

Edited by kbates2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, kbates2 said:

You said clear, the quotes I used said obscure, nonstransparent, and inconsistent.  The point was to show that clear was the opposite of their initial plans.

 

I also indicated that after the backlash, McRaven sated that they would not be building a 4 year university.  That was not overlooking quotes, that was stating that they were after the backlash that effectively killed this.  

 

That may have been your point, but you accidentally clarified that there was no specific plan.

 

Look at the quote I just posted.  It was from the very earliest stages, when they were first buying up the property, not after any backlash.

Edited by Houston19514

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Los Angeles (Cal State-LA and UCLA), and I think Chicago, but drawing the line at city limits is artificial and pointless. (I would venture to guess that an insignificant number of students choose their school based on in what city limits it happens to fall.)

 

A far more important question:  How many of the top 10 metros (other than Houston) do not have two or more public 4-year universities from two or more different state systems (or the equivalent, because not everyone has university "systems" the way Texas does)?

 

Are you saying Houston only has one public 4-year university? Good god, there are two in the Third Ward alone. Cough Cough. One of them was created to keep UTAustin lily white. 

 

Additionally, there are BA opportunities at TWU-Houston, A&M- Galveston, Sam Houston State, Prairie View A&M, and UTH. And that's just off the top of my head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KinkaidAlum said:

 

Are you saying Houston only has one public 4-year university? Good god, there are two in the Third Ward alone. Cough Cough. One of them was created to keep UTAustin lily white. 

 

Additionally, there are BA opportunities at TWU-Houston, A&M- Galveston, Sam Houston State, Prairie View A&M, and UTH. And that's just off the top of my head. 

 

Texas Southern University is not a school that's sought after by most undergrads. Prairie View definitely has more prestige than TSU but it too is just a blip (and I went to PVAMU my freshman year). Sam Houston State is in Huntsville so that doesn't count.

 

Houston is indeed the only top ten metro area without multiple 4-year public universities that rank. Phoenix is the 11th largest metro and the only one with just one large public university, but at least it's the state's flagship. It'd be like having UT-Austin somewhere in the Inner Loop. But I guess you could say that DC only has one large public university in it's metro, but that again is the state flagship (Maryland) and there are so many other colleges in and around DC that make up for it. Something Houston can't say.

 

Texas in general punches below it's weight in higher education, and so does Houston.

 

4 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Los Angeles (Cal State-LA and UCLA), and I think Chicago, but drawing the line at city limits is artificial and pointless. (I would venture to guess that an insignificant number of students choose their school based on in what city limits it happens to fall.)

 

A far more important question:  How many of the top 10 metros (other than Houston) do not have two or more public 4-year universities from two or more different state systems (or the equivalent, because not everyone has university "systems" the way Texas does)?

 

Don't forget CSU-Northridge in LA city limits. It's actually quite amazing how 4-year public unis there are in SoCal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

moo.

 

He didn't say anything about perceived quality. He insinuated there was just one 4 year public institution in the Houston metro area. And it is largely the State's fault (and Jim Crow) that TSU is not highly desirable to most undergrads. And it is the state's fault that despite 25 million or so residents we only have two schools that are "acceptable" to most undergrads. Opening a potential UT Houston branch does nothing to alleviate that problem. Working to elevate the status of existing schools would. 

 

Additionally, Arizona State is NOT the flagship of the state. The University of Arizona is the flagship and it is in Tucson. 

 

Going further, DC has a public institution (UDC) and Virginia offers George Mason as well.

 

Lastly, if you don't think students commute between SHSU and Conroe, the Woodlands, Atascocita, Spring, etc.. every day then you're sorely mistaken. 

 

If you want a 4 year public education within an hour drive of the Houston metro you have a ton of options. We don't need another one. We need to improve the existing ones. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, KinkaidAlum said:

moo.

 

He didn't say anything about perceived quality. He insinuated there was just one 4 year public institution in the Houston metro area. And it is largely the State's fault (and Jim Crow) that TSU is not highly desirable to most undergrads. And it is the state's fault that despite 25 million or so residents we only have two schools that are "acceptable" to most undergrads. Opening a potential UT Houston branch does nothing to alleviate that problem. Working to elevate the status of existing schools would. 

 

Additionally, Arizona State is NOT the flagship of the state. The University of Arizona is the flagship and it is in Tucson. 

 

Going further, DC has a public institution (UDC) and Virginia offers George Mason as well.

 

Lastly, if you don't think students commute between SHSU and Conroe, the Woodlands, Atascocita, Spring, etc.. every day then you're sorely mistaken. 

 

If you want a 4 year public education within an hour drive of the Houston metro you have a ton of options. We don't need another one. We need to improve the existing ones. 

 

Again, No one ever proposed adding another four-year university. That was never on the table.

 

But more important, if a respected entity with a lot of money behind them comes to town proposing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe the response should be more along the lines of "welcome, let's see what you have in mind and how we can help", while at the same time reasonably protect the interests of UH,  rather than setting our hair on fire over the invasion. That was not a good look. The DFW corporate relocation people were probably doubled over laughing at their food fortune.

Edited by Houston19514
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 6:49 AM, Houston19514 said:

 

Again, No one ever proposed adding another four-year university. That was never on the table.

 

But more important, if a respected entity with a lot of money behind them comes to town proposing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe the response should be more along the lines of "welcome, let's see what you have in mind and how we can help", while at the same time reasonably protect the interests of UH,  rather than setting our hair on fire over the invasion. That was not a good look. The DFW corporate relocation people were probably doubled over laughing at their food fortune.

 

lol

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Texas Constitution should be amended to allow equal access  (25%) to the Permanent University Fund (PUF) for the following systems: University of Texas, Texas A&M, the University of Houston & Texas Tech University. That still gives UT and TAMU a huge head start plus those two have built up two of the largest endowments. 

 

All other public schools in the State of Texas should be given a clear road map of what they need to improve to elevate themselves  into that top tier worthy of the PUF in the future. But right now, UH and TTU are the most worthy of making that leap into UT and TAMU tier 

 

We all need to look at this big picture, from a collaborative point of view. The state of California, with their UC system, is running circles around the state of Texas with our "fund TWO systems and let the rest fund themselves" attitude. Had this really been thought out, ALL state schools would have filtered into either the UT or TAMU system from the beginning but that isn't how it worked out.   

 

This gap will only grow larger if we don't find a way for a state, with 28 MILLION residents, to have FOUR Main campuses (UT, TAMU, UH & TTU) to compete with the California Public Universities. Most states have MORE prestigious public schools than Texas with a fraction of our population. 

 

Show me one Texas politician that even brings this let alone demands the PUF be open up to UH and TTU.

 

UT and TAMU have had their share of the PUF for long enough.

 

Adding a UT-Houston a few miles from a nearly 100 year old UH campus that is striving to become a really good public school is the absolutely WRONG thing to do. Just as adding a Texas A&M-Austin or UT- College Station next to the opposite would be the WRONG thing to do. Each region should establish a premiere Public and premiere Private school in the region. Houston has ALREADY ESTABLISHED BOTH with UH and Rice.

Edited by shasta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shasta said:

The Texas Constitution should be amended to allow equal access  (25%) to the Permanent University Fund (PUF) for the following systems: University of Texas, Texas A&M, the University of Houston & Texas Tech University. That still gives UT and TAMU a huge head start plus those two have built up two of the largest endowments. 

 

All other public schools in the State of Texas should be given a clear road map of what they need to improve to elevate themselves  into that top tier worthy of the PUF in the future. But right now, UH and TTU are the most worthy of making that leap into UT and TAMU tier 

 

We all need to look at this big picture, from a collaborative point of view. The state of California, with their UC system, is running circles around the state of Texas with our "fund TWO systems and let the rest fund themselves" attitude. Had this really been thought out, ALL state schools would have filtered into either the UT or TAMU system from the beginning but that isn't how it worked out.   

 

This gap will only grow larger if we don't find a way for a state, with 28 MILLION residents, to have FOUR Main campuses (UT, TAMU, UH & TTU) to compete with the California Public Universities. Most states have MORE prestigious public schools than Texas with a fraction of our population. 

 

Show me one Texas politician that even brings this let alone demands the PUF be open up to UH and TTU.

 

UT and TAMU have had their share of the PUF for long enough.

 

Adding a UT-Houston a few miles from a nearly 100 year old UH campus that is striving to become a really good public school is the absolutely WRONG thing to do. Just as adding a Texas A&M-Austin or UT- College Station next to the opposite would be the WRONG thing to do. Each region should establish a premiere Public and premiere Private school in the region. Houston has ALREADY ESTABLISHED BOTH with UH and Rice.

 

It really isn't unheard of that a state would establish a flagship school and then place the other public schools on a lower tier. University of Illinois at Chicago is below University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, UMass Boston is below UMass Amherst, etc. Texas is doing all it can to maintain two universities at or near the top 50; I don't think they want to level the mountains and have 6 or 7 schools all hovering around #100. Part of the fun of college is going off somewhere to school and that somewhere is usually not the big city, although Austin is turning into a big city. UH and TTU can hope for massive change but I don't think Houston and Lubbock have the legislative power to pull this off.

 

Focus on the Houston philanthropic community. It is the best in the state. Find a pipeline billionaire who wants to help higher ed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, shasta said:

The Texas Constitution should be amended to allow equal access  (25%) to the Permanent University Fund (PUF) for the following systems: University of Texas, Texas A&M, the University of Houston & Texas Tech University. That still gives UT and TAMU a huge head start plus those two have built up two of the largest endowments. 

 

All other public schools in the State of Texas should be given a clear road map of what they need to improve to elevate themselves  into that top tier worthy of the PUF in the future. But right now, UH and TTU are the most worthy of making that leap into UT and TAMU tier 

 

We all need to look at this big picture, from a collaborative point of view. The state of California, with their UC system, is running circles around the state of Texas with our "fund TWO systems and let the rest fund themselves" attitude. Had this really been thought out, ALL state schools would have filtered into either the UT or TAMU system from the beginning but that isn't how it worked out.   

 

This gap will only grow larger if we don't find a way for a state, with 28 MILLION residents, to have FOUR Main campuses (UT, TAMU, UH & TTU) to compete with the California Public Universities. Most states have MORE prestigious public schools than Texas with a fraction of our population. 

 

Show me one Texas politician that even brings this let alone demands the PUF be open up to UH and TTU.

 

UT and TAMU have had their share of the PUF for long enough.

 

Adding a UT-Houston a few miles from a nearly 100 year old UH campus that is striving to become a really good public school is the absolutely WRONG thing to do. Just as adding a Texas A&M-Austin or UT- College Station next to the opposite would be the WRONG thing to do. Each region should establish a premiere Public and premiere Private school in the region. Houston has ALREADY ESTABLISHED BOTH with UH and Rice.

 

Again, this should not be so difficult to understand... No one ever proposed adding a UT-Houston in the sense of a four-year university competing with UH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Again, this should not be so difficult to understand... No one ever proposed adding a UT-Houston in the sense of a four-year university competing with UH.

 

Again, UT bought the land and didn't provide a plan for the land.  When pressed they said they did not intend to add a four-year university but didn't have any solid plans to assure that.  As they had skipped the whole approval process when purchasing and they bought it for a ton from a donor alum, it all looked shady.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2018 at 3:04 PM, Houston19514 said:

 

Los Angeles (Cal State-LA and UCLA), and I think Chicago, but drawing the line at city limits is artificial and pointless. (I would venture to guess that an insignificant number of students choose their school based on in what city limits it happens to fall.)

 

A far more important question:  How many of the top 10 metros (other than Houston) do not have two or more public 4-year universities from two or more different state systems (or the equivalent, because not everyone has university "systems" the way Texas does)?

 

I'm not sure what public 4-year university is in Chicago besides UIC. I assume you don't think the University of Chicago is a public school. UCLA and CSU are on different tiers of the California higher ed system and therefore not competing. We do not have a tiered system.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

216-acre urban in-fill development site in Houston for sale

 

https://www.us.jll.com/en/newsroom/216-acre-urban-in-fill-development-site-in-houston-for-sale

 

HOUSTON, August 26, 2019 – JLL announced today that it has been named by The University of Texas System to market for sale or ground lease an approximately 216-acre, mixed-use development site near the Texas Medical Center and NRG Stadium in southwest Houston, Texas.



 

The property is less than three miles from the Texas Medical Center, the largest medical center in the world. Additionally, the site is located just south of the 610 Loop with Buffalo Speedway intersecting the property. Potential users for the site include life science companies, Big Pharma and biotech labs, as well as advanced medical manufacturing, public or private institutions of learning, government agencies and religious organizations. The site would also support high-density single-family, multi-housing and senior living uses.

 

The JLL Capital Markets team representing the seller is led by Managing Director Davis Adams and Senior Managing Director Rusty Tamlyn and also includes Executive Managing Director Scott Galloway and Senior Managing Directors Colby Mueck and Chris Curry.

 

“It is extremely rare to find a large contiguous development site in a premier infill location in any major market in the United States,” Adams said. “The site is ready for immediate development with proximity to billions of dollars of infrastructure located in the Texas Medical Center.”

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ekdrm2d1 said:

216-acre urban in-fill development site in Houston for sale

 

https://www.us.jll.com/en/newsroom/216-acre-urban-in-fill-development-site-in-houston-for-sale

 

 

 

Good !

It will be time for a celebration when this land is officially sold and that College in Austin fully realizes they cannot bully their way into a campus IN Houston. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, shasta said:

Good !

It will be time for a celebration when this land is officially sold and that College in Austin fully realizes they cannot bully their way into a campus IN Houston. 

 

"Bully"? They never "bullied" anyone. They bought the land, fair and square and clearly stated that it wasn't ever going to become a 4-year university. The advantages that it could have brought, on the other hand, are endless. Anyone who celebrates the loss of UT's presence here is shortsighted to say the least. 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jmosele said:

 

"Bully"? They never "bullied" anyone. They bought the land, fair and square and clearly stated that it wasn't ever going to become a 4-year university. The advantages that it could have brought, on the other hand, are endless. Anyone who celebrates the loss of UT's presence here is shortsighted to say the least. 

 

Fair and square...lol.

 

Did you not watch the actual state hearing where they admitted UNDER OATH  that everything about the deal was under the table, without the proper approval, without the knowledge of the UT Board of Regents, and that their renderings clearly showed more than just a academic satellite?

 

It was a Campus and they used PUF money to buy land OVER MARKET PRICE. Undesirable contaminated land and from a UT alum. 

 

Fair and Square...thanks for the laugh..lol

 

Next you are going to tell me that the PUF is also fair and square and making Texas' "other" public Universities fend for themselves for the majority of their existence is perfectly acceptable. 

 

But I'll go along with your theory that competition is good....Texas A&M should definitely build a 'Texas A&M- Austin' Campus TWO MILES from UT- Austin....Austin should be lucky to support that....right?  Where do I sign up?

  • Like 4
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but wonder if all of this might have been avoidable if we didn't care so much about football, but then, who wants to contemplate such an existence for too long. 

 

The political fiefdoms over higher education in this state are ridiculous, but with that much money flying around, who would expect anything else? 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Fortune said:

Such a huge missed opportunity for Houston!

Actually,  the state not initially  supporting their third largest public university is the missed opportunity for Houston. UH is almost 100 years old and with proper funding could be on par with UCLA or Boston College TODAY!

 

Instead, they were treated like a stepchild and had to fund themselves and have worked very hard to  put themselves in the argument  of starting to belong in the  class of a UCLA or a Boston College. So when another University system, one based in Austin,  comes sniffing around you can bet the Alpha public school in Houston is going to fight an intruder TWO MILES from their campus.

 

UT-Austin would do the same exact thing if Texas A&M, UH, or Texas Tech proposed building a campus a mile from theirs. They absolutely would!

 

But the biggest misstep is with the state of Texas...They COULD have established a one or two Public University system and funneled them ALL through one of those two systems BUT they did NOT.

 

Instead the protected two systems with the PUF (Permanent University Fund) and TOLD all others (UH, TTU, Sam, SFA, TX St., N Texas, etc.) to fend for themselves with limited help from the State. They also pitted the systems against each other. Compare this to the UC- system in California. 

 

So, UH did fend for themselves and has built a respectable system ON THEIR OWN...no PUF, no Land Grant money, very little from state sources so YES they are going to prevent competition....... while they continue to build the Infrastructure to become the BEST public school in the state of Texas.

 

Houston is the prize spot for the best public school in the state........ location, location, location.

 

There's a reason why Rice, located in Houston, is the best Private University in the State and in a generation, or two, the University of Houston WILL BE the best public school in the state of Texas. Just look at the projections, look at the money they can easily raise,  and look at their connections IN what will be the third most populous city in the nation. UT can try but they can't stop the extremely high ceiling UH now realizes they have. And this post is a week in which they received an anonymous 50 million donation to attract the best professors in the country and they released the renderings for their new Medical School wing, on campus.

 

Having the BEST public University in the state IS the OPPORTUNITY for Houston. Preventing UT expansion helps with that goal.

 

Houston understands this.

 

It's not possible to replicate the Houston synergy in Austin, College Station, or Lubbock.

Edited by shasta
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like UT expanding, its great for the city, I like A&M expanding too but both on the medical side. Both are doing so. The PUF money should go to UH in some kind of major deal like this, makes more sense to me since it is the public university in(of) Houston. 

Edited by ZRFkris
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Fortune said:

Such a huge missed opportunity for Houston!

What was proposed would have been awesome, but I'm hesitant to judge this as a missed opportunity until we've seen this fully play out.  TMC3 and TMC in general did not have the same level of hype 3 years ago, as it does now.  

 

From the article:

"Potential users for the site include life science companies, Big Pharma and biotech labs, as well as advanced medical manufacturing, public or private institutions of learning"

 

If the eventual buyer, pursues these types of use that would be a major win and would further propel the growth in the areas between TMC3 and this Plot.  I'm crossing my fingers for this type of bold vision, and I do think the demand will be there.  Also, UT could still pursue a presence here along with other institutions. Fingers crossed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, shasta said:

Houston is the prize spot for the best public school in the state........ location, location, location.

 

There's a reason why Rice, located in Houston, is the best Private University in the State and in a generation, or two, the University of Houston WILL BE the best public school in the state of Texas. Just look at the projections, look at the money they can easily raise,  and look at their connections IN what will be the third most populous city in the nation. UT can try but they can't stop the extremely high ceiling UH now realizes they have. And this post is a week in which they received an anonymous 50 million donation to attract the best professors in the country and they released the renderings for their new Medical School wing, on campus.

 

If location and proximity to powerful donors could change the hierarchy of public universities, we would probably have seen the University of Illinois at Chicago surpass the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign a long time ago. But Urbana-Champaign is still the tier one public school in the state, and Chicago is tier two. Every state has established its flagship public school or schools and you don't really ever hear of that changing.

 

Not saying UH can't become great, just saying I don't expect it to surpass UT or even A&M short of cataclysmic change.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

If location and proximity to powerful donors could change the hierarchy of public universities, we would probably have seen the University of Illinois at Chicago surpass the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign a long time ago. But Urbana-Champaign is still the tier one public school in the state, and Chicago is tier two. Every state has established its flagship public school or schools and you don't really ever hear of that changing.

 

Not saying UH can't become great, just saying I don't expect it to surpass UT or even A&M short of cataclysmic change.

 

 

You answered your own question University of Illinois AT Chicago...  There is a hierarchy within the system. The University of Houston (main Campus) is different...It is the FLAGSHIP campus in the University of Houston system. It will rise as high as it leaders want it to rise and has the location to rise. 

 

The University of  Texas may chose to hold back, say, the University of Texas- San Antonio, because they do NOT want it to overshadow their flagship campus, the University of Texas - Austin.  

 

Another example...the flagship University of Alabama may hold back the University of Alabama- Birmingham for the same reason. Actually, they did vote to dissolve their football program to concentrate efforts into their flagship 'Bama but had to retract after the backlash.

 

The only thing holding back the University of Houston was not allowing them access to the PUF but they have found a way around that. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, shasta said:

 

You answered your own question University of Illinois AT Chicago...  There is a hierarchy within the system. The University of Houston (main Campus) is different...It is the FLAGSHIP campus in the University of Houston system. It will rise as high as it leaders want it to rise and has the location to rise. 

 

The University of  Texas may chose to hold back, say, the University of Texas- San Antonio, because they do NOT want it to overshadow their flagship campus, the University of Texas - Austin.  

 

Another example...the flagship University of Alabama may hold back the University of Alabama- Birmingham for the same reason. Actually, they did vote to dissolve their football program to concentrate efforts into their flagship 'Bama but had to retract after the backlash.

 

The only thing holding back the University of Houston was not allowing them access to the PUF but they have found a way around that. 

 

You are taking a narrow view of the word "system." The whole collection of Texas public universities loosely constitutes a system. The state has historically decided to give priority funding to UT (Austin), secondary funding to A&M (College Station), and tertiary funding to everyone else. Can you think of many instances where the historical flagship public university of a state was unseated in that role by another public school?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like UT is keeping 80 acres to ground lease to someone and selling the other 220 acres. They also are apparently doing environmental remediation of the land, which is a nice benefit for Houston. Based on how much they paid to assemble it, I think they will suffer a huge loss on this when all is said and done.

 

https://www.costar.com/article/51236804/biggest-lot-of-its-kind-in-the-country-for-sale-near-major-medical-complex

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope this prediction doesn't come to pass but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this turned into a massive townhome development...

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprised by this announcement. With the rise of TMC3, and the ability to collaborate with other schools and organizations, it makes this concept obsolete. TMC3 is also less of a risk than it would be to build an entire campus yourself. I think they will invest in their campus which will be at the southern tip of TMC3.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm proud of what UT has done for Texas, the medical center and the world. It's a great University. I get it.

My wife works for UT nursing and has enjoyed her employment. I think we all owe the UT system a debt of gratitude for what they've done with some of their PUF money in building an enormous medical program unequalled to most anywhere. If they want to build a research only facility on that property thats fine. 

But don't tell me that the way they went about acquiring the land, and making the proposal under the table wasn't against the rule. Then plans appear that sure look like a college campus complete with athletic fields. That wouldn't get UT or A& M upset if U of H had tried this in Austin or Bryan.

Heck A&M went berserk when we wanted to open a campus in the Woodlands.

I just hate the fact that so much money goes to two state systems and the other state schools have to beg for money from the legislature.

 

I'm happy that  UT, TAMU, and Rice are all world class and hope they continue to be. 

I just want the best for University of Houston, and I think this PUF program stinks and should be re allotted more fairly.

As far as University of Houston becoming great. Well I personally think we're pretty great right now.

Especially considering the disparity in funding. 

We just finished a billion dollar fund raising campaign that has been topped off by an anonymous donor with a 50 million dollar matching grant donation.

We're doing just fine over on Cullen blvd. and we'll compete with the big boys, but it sure would be nice to have some of that PUF.

So go ahead UT and A&M build those research centers and help the city grow. 

Just share with us the money.

And who else could hire Matthew McConaughey as a professor.

 

 

Edited by bobruss
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

You are taking a narrow view of the word "system." The whole collection of Texas public universities loosely constitutes a system. The state has historically decided to give priority funding to UT (Austin), secondary funding to A&M (College Station), and tertiary funding to everyone else. Can you think of many instances where the historical flagship public university of a state was unseated in that role by another public school?

 

 

This more or less the best way to describe the Texas public university "system".  The state truly funds one system and it is broken into several.  This fact only further shows the ridiculousness of establishing a UT Houston as "competition" for UH.  There is one wallet; that wallet has leather dividers that allocate much more cash to one section than the next but to pretend that the wallet competing with itself is capitalism or anything other than a waste of money and a chance for UT fans to have their logo in this city is a pretty hard sell.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, kbates2 said:

 

This more or less the best way to describe the Texas public university "system".  The state truly funds one system and it is broken into several.  This fact only further shows the ridiculousness of establishing a UT Houston as "competition" for UH.  There is one wallet; that wallet has leather dividers that allocate much more cash to one section than the next but to pretend that the wallet competing with itself is capitalism or anything other than a waste of money and a chance for UT fans to have their logo in this city is a pretty hard sell.

 

I just wonder whether if M.D. Anderson hadn't been established back in the 1940's and UT came here today and said, "We want to build a giant cancer research center here on Brays Bayou," would the UH folks say, "Get out of here! We're the university in Houston! And we'll probably build a cancer center ourselves, as soon as the darn state gives us more money!" If one of those wallet dividers is overflowing with money, you might as well take your share, before it goes to other cities instead.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 1:11 PM, shasta said:

Fair and square...lol.

 

Did you not watch the actual state hearing where they admitted UNDER OATH  that everything about the deal was under the table, without the proper approval, without the knowledge of the UT Board of Regents, and that their renderings clearly showed more than just a academic satellite?

 

It was a Campus and they used PUF money to buy land OVER MARKET PRICE. Undesirable contaminated land and from a UT alum. 

 

Fair and Square...thanks for the laugh..lol

 

Next you are going to tell me that the PUF is also fair and square and making Texas' "other" public Universities fend for themselves for the majority of their existence is perfectly acceptable. 

 

But I'll go along with your theory that competition is good....Texas A&M should definitely build a 'Texas A&M- Austin' Campus TWO MILES from UT- Austin....Austin should be lucky to support that....right?  Where do I sign up?

 

Well maybe we just be really fair about it and eliminate all other university systems and just absorb them into Texas system and separately into the A&M system. The you can lose all control of UH and it'll just be A&M Houston or UT-Houston.

 

Go full California. Would you like that? My guess is not.

 

The PUF was set up as part of the land grant federal bill that was specifically set up to establish a flagship university and a mechanical/agricultural college. That's it.

 

If you want to talk about fair, maybe you can look at it in this way:

 

The UT system has a mandate to be pan-Texas. It's in every corner of the state. That's why it's funded w/ a large land endowment that was forked over to it by the feds/state.

 

UH does not have that mandate. It is a regional city college. A much smaller mandate. There's no UH Laredo or UH San Angelo or UH Texarkana. 

 

They should not be entitled to that money unless the state legislature decides that they need to revisit each system's mandate. But if they were to do that, my guess is they would probably streamline the systems and UH might actually be a big loser in that scrum.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do so enjoy my neutrality in what used to be known as the Southwest Conference.  :ph34r:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...