ADCS

Actually, the recent oil downturn makes me think that this is all irrelevant, at least for now. The gas taxes (which were low before) will now go even further down, draining funds for mega-projects like this, and the land value will also cool down, which will make the "selling the land below the Pierce Elevated" even more of a losing proposition. 

 

On the plus side, it doesn't mean all these plans will go to waste, as I'm sure many of the ideas to try to straighten out the freeways & rework some exits can still be salvaged. Like at Allen Parkway, for instance...it will do everyone better if the lanes tightened into the traditional "exits and frontage roads" configuration with signalized stoplights and pedestrian crosswalks rather than the squiggly mess of tight curves and left hand exits.

Gas tax revenue will go up, owing to the increase in consumption that low prices brings. Also, oil had been in the tank for a good nine months when the project was announced.

oh yeah, I know it's possible to do a curved cable design. however, outside of the foot bridges referenced, all of the bridges are single curve, large radius. does any of the stuff going over the bayou appear that it could be done in this manner? 

 

Don't answer that actually, because feasibility isn't really something I think there's any question about, it could be done. Throw the problem at some engineers, they'll find a solution. The real question is, do you think that txdot would pay for a cable bridge with multiple tight radius curves?

 

we'll get piers, there'll be beams, it'll be glorious.

I actually do think that it's possible to get the city, the Midtown TIRZ or the Parks District to throw some cash at the bridge project to enhance its visual and pedestrian impact. It's a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a signature addition to what has increasingly become Houston's capstone amenity. I'll certainly be asking around about how we can get funding for the project.

I guess they might have less piers as the design will be a few decades newer using new processes, but how could they do a cable, arch, or any other bridge that's not beams and piers with the bridges having as many complex curves in them as the current design depicts? 

Here are a few examples of curved bridges with cable-stayed designs:

http://structurae.net/structures/bridges-and-viaducts/cable-stayed-bridges-with-curved-deck

Here's an image of the most recent document published of the plans around downtown:

 

 

Link to full PDF:

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs5/20150922_NHHIP_Seg3_Updates.pdf

 

by my count there are going to be more lanes overall crossing the bayou? heck, doesn't matter how many lanes. it could be 1 lane and it would be more than enough to obstruct.

The integration may be better if they convert the bridge from a beam design to a more attractive arch or cable-stayed/extradosed design with a longer main span. It's the array of piers that causes the psychological barrier (more hiding spaces, more dangerous looking) rather than the deck itself.

TBH I'm on the outside of this UT/UH debate. My allegiance lies elsewhere.. But why is UT against UH building a medical school on their own campus..? If UH donors coughed up the money for a medical school would they still not be able to build it? Or is UH trying to rely on state funds (that UT wants) to build the med school? I would love to see UH get into the local medical collaborative research game.

As an outsider as well, I've got no problem with a UH medical school. No problem with a UH-Austin, either, silly as the concept might be.

Another absurd example. You're really good at exaggeration. Buffet's money belong to HIM. The State of Texas money belongs to ALL the citizens of the state, not just those who are students/graduates of the UT.  

Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly good rhetorical technique, and given the absurd demands of many UH supporters in the thread, is particularly apt.

Per the State Constitution, it belongs to the institutions that are the University of Texas and Texas A&M University, and it belongs to them for the benefit of all citizens of the state. They benefit because they have two universities with the resources to support world-class research and innovation. I've seen no arguments from UH supporters as to why this should be disrupted, beyond a puerile appeal to fairness, and a barely-concealed lust for that money.

They just want a share of the pie and rightfully so. 

Rightfully so how? Just because they want it doesn't make it right. I'd like a billion of Warren Buffet's dollars, but it doesn't mean I have any right to it.

All I keep taking away from this thread is that UH folks are upset that they don't have access to the PUF or the Big 12. I don't see any vision of an alternative that would be better for Houston and the state. It smacks of tribalism.

you should finish the sentence:

 

... to the detriment of other universities in the state.

 

I mean, because that's what is going to happen should they build in Houston. Give UT all the money, that's fine, UH does very well on their own, but as UH is such a major commuter school, to let UT build a campus anywhere in Houston would be to the severe detriment of UH.

 

Either way though, UH does excel in one area that UT and A&M will find won't be so easy to match. UH has the best campus coffee shop

It's not to anyone's detriment, and it's only people who think these universities are in competition with each other who think so. Leave the competition on the football field.

The judicial system exists, in part, to dispense equity - fairness. When separate did not really mean equal, the courts stepped in and changed the education landscape.

 

As I have already said, and apparently you defer, Dr. Khator is not going to permit this to happen without a fight. Be careful what you ask for from the ivory towers, you might find yourself evicted from the castle and living amongst the poor. Oh, what a shame that would be for the privileged elite to have to experience life at the proletariat level.

Everyone in Texas has an equal chance to attend UT or A&M. Some have a more-than-equal chance owing to efforts to mitigate social disadvantages. Distribution of funding is seen primarily as a political question by most judicial authorities, unless it's a clear disparity to the disfavor of some suspect class, such as in the case of segregated schools.

I don't understand why there would be a reason to dispute the notion that the university's president is going to fight this development. I am disputing the wisdom of doing so.

Well, I applaud your honesty "it's not an issue of fairness."

 

It's not an issue of fairness when it comes to the distribution of State funds? Presently there are over 100,000 students enrolled in the University of Houston system and Texas Tech. Apparently you are of the opinion that they, and their families, are inferior citizens not entitled to an equal sharing in the money the state can expend on higher education. Why don't we just close those schools and direct all the state's resources to the expansion of the UT system? Obviously, God made the UT Austin in his image.

It's not an issue of institutional fairness, because it is an issue of what is best for the state as a whole. In my opinion, it is in the state's best interest to have a world-class flagship university that drives research, technology and economic development.

The central point of my post is left unchallenged, because there is no plausible answer. Why is UH blocked from establishing a facility within 50 miles of Sam Houston State, but UT is permitted to establish a facility within 5 miles of UH? 

 

With respect to the PUF, you are entirely incorrect in your assertion that the PUF "was set up to benefit the University of Texas system." It was set up to assist in the funding of higher education. At the time it was formed the Universtity of Texas didn't even exist. The fund was first comtemplated in 1839, and UT was created in 1858. Since UT was the first public university in Texas it obviously became the focus of the fund. The UT "system" was only included pursuant to a constitutional amendment passed in 1984. Obviously, at any time an amendment could be offered to include UH and Texas Tech as recipients, couldn't it? I assume you urge such action since you feel like everything is so fairly divided.

 

It all comes down to what is the fairest thing for the taxpayers of the State, who so generously support the operations of all the public universities of Texas. UH is a tier one research facility. There is no compelling need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars when UH is only miles away. And there is no justification for imposing encroachment rules upon the UH and none upon the UT.

To me, it's not an issue of fairness - the state of Texas is best served by having a world-class research university, and it is able to have one because of the funding the PUF provides.

The reason UH was blocked is because it serves a similar purpose to SHSU, just at a higher level. UT serves a much bigger purpose than both of those schools. Certainly, the state constitution could be changed to end this division, but I believe the state as a whole would suffer for not having a top-five endowed university in the country anymore.

If the rules apply to UH, they should apply to UT. When UH was exploring a campus on the north side of Houston, approval was stalled on the basis that it would encroach upon Sam Houston State. UH didn't throw a "hissy fit" and complied with legislative sentiment. But UT doesn't care about legislative sentiment because it doesn't need the legislature's money to buy the land. So where is the money coming from? Oh yeah, the PUF, that's where. A fund that enriches UT in the amount of almost a half a billion dollars a year, that UH does not receive. So that's playing by the rules?

 

You can be assured that UH will contest this vigorously. If it takes challenging the discriminatory manner in which UT and TAMU are benefited through the PUF payments that will happen too. Dr. Khator has her allies in the legislature and in the city. Don't think for a second she's going to let this go without a fight. 

It's pretty simple - the PUF was set up to benefit the University of Texas system. A&M gets a chunk because it was spun off from the UT system. UH has never been associated with the UT system, and yet it thinks it's entitled to those monies?

The only way it would make sense for UH to get PUF money would be to merge into the UT system, but I do not see anyone pushing for that. This is attempting to have your cake (administrative independence) and eat it too.

Is 'property that's been in my family for generations' supposed to elicit sympathy from the the vast majority that were born propertyless?

 

So you don't want to sell a few acres of the 5000 acres your great grand pappy left you. Boo mf'n hoo!

Well, there's a not-too-subtle attitude from many of these folks that the opinions of those who don't hold real property don't matter all that much.

I'm ready for some investigation into where Texans Against HSR's funding comes from. They've been pretty persistent for losing every step of the way.

Is your office a Nielson home?

It's not, but it's indicative that many people in the Houston area might've had the game on, who would not otherwise be watching the game. 

You're missing the Saturday vs. Wednesday comparison. Time slot was the same (11 am local kickoff) but Wednesday is a work day for many, even on December 31st. Pulling a 10+ on a Wednesday morning is the news here. That's a HUGE rating. 

We had the game on at the office. I would not have watched this game otherwise.

For those that are under the impression that teh Univesity of Houston football is NOT a big deal in the Houston market, check out these numbers.

 

The Houston/ Florida State Peach Bowl at 11:00 AM on a Wednesday (New Years Eve) on CABLE (ESPN) drew a 10.5 in the Houston metro.

By comparison, the annual Texas/ Oklahoma game, on local TV (ABC) on a Saturday drew a 7.2

 

When UH is big time...Houstonians care

 

That's only because Texas was crap up to that point, and not expected to win.

The important thing isn't so much that the best UH team in a generation managed to pull a high rating for a top-tier bowl, it's that Texas can still draw a 7.2 while playing its worst football in 20 years.

It's not just about athletics, but it's pretty clear that UH is investing in athletics. College football is somewhat of a big deal not only in the state of Texas, but nationally, in terms of interest and revenue. I'm not sure if you are an Aggie or Longhorn but their athletics have an impact on their institutions from an image standpoint, recruiting students, having a strong alumni base, etc.. It is big business and people want to be part of a campus with that sort of "it" factor.

 

However, the Big 12 is just part of the several issues that need to be clarified from UT, which I don't think is unreasonable. 

Big-time athletics makes sense as a fundraiser for a flagship state school, or a private school with a large endowment, owing both to the large and/or wealthy alumni base, and the resources to weather the down times. It doesn't make sense for a school like UH, whose market niche is very different from UT, A&M, LSU or Notre Dame.

Yes, it's a very silly way for rich people to feel important - and it works, once you get to a certain scale. UH isn't at that scale, and likely never will be, and it's only a matter of time before the spending on athletics turns to frivolity and severely harms the bottom line. If the school really wants to make its mark, it needs to be looking at doing different, dynamic and disruptive things, and not trying to out-UT the state flagship.

FYI - neither Aggie or Longhorn

Does UT support UH in the Big 12?

The fact that this keeps coming back to football is demonstrative of a need for UH to reevaluate its priorities.

So, you're implying that UH isn't open to all Texans? That people outside of Greater Houston pay out-of-city tuition? That there are no students from Austin, DFW, The Rio Grande Valley, or Piney Woods at UH?

 

I really don't understand your point at all. 

Are you saying that the vast majority of UH students don't come from the Houston metro?

Fair share of state funding would be ALL (not just UH) state schools getting a portion of the PUF fund respective to their enrollment.

 

I think it is best for me just to stop coming to this thread seeing nothing involving the actual development is being discussed.  

Yet that is not what the PUF is for - it's to fund the state flagship systems. If you think it should be spread wider, then perhaps we should consider a reorganization of the state's public universities under the California model.

$296.4 million to $68.9 million. 

 

The first number is what UT received in State support in 2014, the second is what UH was given. So, there are 227 MILLION reasons why anyone who supports UH might be wary of UT's encroachment into the City. 

As said below, that's really not that disproportionate, given population.

Non-Greater Houston Population of TX: 20.34 million, 75.4%

Greater Houston: 6.62 million, 24.6%

UT proportion of UT/UH state funding pool: 81.1%

UH proportion of UT/UH state funding pool: 18.9%

Considering that UT serves Houston students as well, state funding is fairly equitable given each school's mission. We need to stop thinking of our public universities as being in competition with one another. This ain't football here.

Sorry, but the world is never just black or white. There are always shades of gray. The truth of the matter is UH backers have every reason to not trust UT. Additionally, the timing is beyond coincidental...

In what way? UT is a huge organization, one that most likely doesn't pay much attention to UH in its decision making.

I'd be inclined to take the criticism more seriously if it weren't so flimsy, and I weren't 90% sure it's primarily about Big 12 football.

Some of these pro-UH comments border on paranoid conspiracy theory.

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.