Houston CORE developments thread (Howe, Anderson: to buy, property, park)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
UH whined but no one complained when they blanketed the city with other satellite campuses close to other universities who specialize in those areas - they built a UH Katy with an emphasis on engineering - hmm - what university 25 miles north also specializes in engineering?
I wouldn't call the UH system "blanketing the city with Campuses."
UHD was already a college before it joined the UH system and it, along with UHCL and UHV are definitely NOT satellite campuses of UH. They are independent colleges in the UH system. UH-Sugarland and UH- KATY ARE satellite campuses.
Schools like UTSA and UTD are NOT satellite schools of UT Austin, they are independent schools in the UT system just like UHD, UHCL and UHV in the UH system.
I think it is great that UH system has multiple campuses across the metro and beyond. A lot of school systems have multiple schools in a metro or beyond.
I also don't see having a school with an emphasis on engineering 25 miles away is a big deal. There are 5 or 6 medical school departments and a ton of nursing schools in TMC and it's no big deal. TSU and UH has tons of overlap and Rice and TAMU are the biggest threats in the engineering department in that part of Texas, not UH.
But again I can see both sides.
UH was already salty that they were not getting a fair share of PUF funds and in comes UT saying "nothing to see here folks, we are not building another campus" but it did look like that was what they were doing.
On the flip side, I don't think it is up to UH to decide who can and cannot start up a campus. I think the whole stink was related to the PUF
I still maintain that Houston metro is big enough to house more than one large university but I do see how the core is saturated with large schools. Dallas has UNT, UT Arlington and UT Dallas but then again these are spread around the metro. LA has multiple universities from UC and USC all in the same metro and UCLA, UC-Irvine, USC, and California Institute of Technology are all top 40 schools. But California funds their schools differently.
So it always comes back to the PUF. I think UH would still have made a stink even if the PUF funding was equal, BUT they had more of a point BECAUSE the funding was unequal. UT had the funds to stop UH rise in the ranks dead in its tracks by funding more/better research and poaching students, faculty and opportunities.
UH endowment is 1B
UT is over 30B that's a huge disparity.
I wouldn't call the UH system "blanketing the city with Campuses."
UHD was already a college before it joined the UH system and it, along with UHCL and UHV are definitely NOT satellite campuses of UH. They are independent colleges in the UH system. UH-Sugarland and UH- KATY ARE satellite campuses.
Schools like UTSA and UTD are NOT satellite schools of UT Austin, they are independent schools in the UT system just like UHD, UHCL and UHV in the UH system.
I think it is great that UH system has multiple campuses across the metro and beyond. A lot of school systems have multiple schools in a metro or beyond.
I also don't see having a school with an emphasis on engineering 25 miles away is a big deal. There are 5 or 6 medical school departments and a ton of nursing schools in TMC and it's no big deal. TSU and UH has tons of overlap and Rice and TAMU are the biggest threats in the engineering department in that part of Texas, not UH.
But again I can see both sides.
UH was already salty that they were not getting a fair share of PUF funds and in comes UT saying "nothing to see here folks, we are not building another campus" but it did look like that was what they were doing.
On the flip side, I don't think it is up to UH to decide who can and cannot start up a campus. I think the whole stink was related to the PUF
I still maintain that Houston metro is big enough to house more than one large university but I do see how the core is saturated with large schools. Dallas has UNT, UT Arlington and UT Dallas but then again these are spread around the metro. LA has multiple universities from UC and USC all in the same metro and UCLA, UC-Irvine, USC, and California Institute of Technology are all top 40 schools. But California funds their schools differently.
So it always comes back to the PUF. I think UH would still have made a stink even if the PUF funding was equal, BUT they had more of a point BECAUSE the funding was unequal. UT had the funds to stop UH rise in the ranks dead in its tracks by funding more/better research and poaching students, faculty and opportunities.
UH endowment is 1B
UT is over 30B that's a huge disparity.
A lot of good points. But, as you noted, UT said over and over that they were not planning a 4-year school or even a 4-year branch campus. It is my understanding that the establishment of such a campus or separate university would have required the approval of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, so if UT had gone back on their word, they could have been stopped there. UT also invited the local universities to work with them on developing plans for the real estate. But the provincial locals said no, we don't want your stinkin' money in our town. I'm a fan and supporter of UH and hope they continue to make strides in their quality, but I will never forgive them for this. And by the way, shortly after all the kicking and screaming about UT invading UH's territory, UH opened their own medical college, which had previously been UT's territory. Apparently, principles are for schmucks.
FWIW, personally, I wish they had been planning a new 4-year university. A metro area of 7.5 million people (and growing fast), should have more than one public 4-year university (and more than 2, if you want to count Sam Houston). As noted, other large metros manage such diversity of educational options. DFW has:
UNT, UNT at Dallas,
UT at Dallas,
UT at Arlington,
UNT at Dallas-Downtown,
Texas A & M University-Commerce,
and Texas Woman's University.
Last edited by oil capital; 09-25-2023 at 11:37 AM..
UH’s role in stopping UT’s entrance is pathetic, no excuses. Competition always has an effect on business.
I’ll give credit where it is due. UH didn’t stop UT from coming just to not improve. It has constantly improved more than I thought it could in this amount of time. The medical school opened since. It joined the big 12. It’s rised in ranking. The new. HPE bled some nice investments in the data sciences Institute.
I went to UH for my masters in 2021. One thing I noticed then by attending events is that the CompSci program had some questionable ordering in courses. I saw they fixed most of those this year. I’m sure curriculums in other degrees have improved as well.
But UH can bat a thousand in decision making from now for the rest of its life. It’s role in stopping UT is pathetic and always will be.
A lot of good points. But, as you noted, UT said over and over that they were not planning a 4-year school or even a 4-year branch campus. It is my understanding that the establishment of such a campus or separate university would have required the approval of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, so if UT had gone back on their word, they could have been stopped there. UT also invited the local universities to work with them on developing plans for the real estate. But the provincial locals said no, we don't want your stinkin' money in our town. I'm a fan and supporter of UH and hope they continue to make strides in their quality, but I will never forgive them for this. And by the way, shortly after all the kicking and screaming about UT invading UH's territory, UH opened their own medical college, which had previously been UT's territory. Apparently, principles are for schmucks.
UH whined but no one complained when they blanketed the city with other satellite campuses close to other universities who specialize in those areas - they built a UH Katy with an emphasis on engineering - hmm - what university 25 miles north also specializes in engineering?
There is no university 25 miles North of UH Katy. Prairie View is 30 miles, TAMU is 78 miles. PVAMU isn't an engineering powerhouse and is a little far to drive daily and that's ignoring the tolls.
UH Katy is aimed at students in the area who need to live at home, but still want a Tier 1 education.
But, as you noted, UT said over and over that they were not planning a 4-year school or even a 4-year branch campus.
Full transparency, I was in favor of UT establishing a presence in Houston. There are 4 other threads on C-D related to this topic and you can find my comments there. BUT, you are dead wrong with your facts. The fact is that McRaven could not articulate ANY plans for the UT purchase of land in Houston. That is why his whole idea was shot down because he could not produce an actual plan. Go back and re-read the facts. Here are some excerpts from the Chronicle:
"Upon being asked by members to justify the act, McRaven repeatedly implored them not to be scared, to "be bold." After numerous similar incantations, one member finally retorted, "No one here is scared." An awkward moment followed.
The acrimony that the chancellor faced that day wasn't a product of fear. It was, rather, the reaction of sheer incredulity at a breathtakingly imprudent act made without any warning, much less a request for advice and consent, to the legislature or Higher Education Coordinating Board.
After the spectacle ended, one editorial mourned that Houston had lost its ability to pioneer grand projects and dream big. Nonsense. The scuttling of the deal isn't an obituary recording the death of bold ventures in Houston. It is, rather, a memorial to the perils of entitlement, wealth without accountability, and egregious overreach.
The truth is that McRaven's Folly was such a boondoggle that UH was far from alone in its opposition. Detractors of UT's expansion included unaligned members of the Texas Legislature, the governor (a UT alumnus), and even members of UT's own system. Their concerns included the method by which the deal was accomplished, the lack of any plan at the time the purchase was made, and the effect on other UT System Institutions. Furthermore, it probably isn't the best idea to have one system attempt to unilaterally impose policy for the entire state.
The failure to present a vision for the site frustrated state lawmakers as well. It also served to reinforce the idea that UT was simply spending money without a purpose. Senate Higher Education Committee Chairman Kel Seliger (R-Amarillo) remarked that UT "looks to me like an entity that has a lot more money than they know what to do with."
Recently, when a bill was submitted in the Legislature seeking to allocate additional funding for UH, Texas Tech and others, leaders from UT and Texas A&M mobilized their alumni and supporters to oppose the proposal. Representatives from the better-funded systems claimed that elevating UH and others would "destroy" their own institutions."
Lol, how would elevating UH and others hurt the behemoths that are A&M and UT? Both top public schools in a state this huge?
Boston, NY, Philadelphia, Chicago, LA and San Francisco metro areas have as many Tier 1 research schools as the 2nd most populated state in the country. Having UH, Tech, UTSA and UTD elevated wouldn't put a dent in UT and TAMU.
You are obviously a UT grad. Six years later and the sky has not fallen.
Your dramatic outburst did get me thinking though... as a native Houstonian what would I say has been the "worst day in the history of Houston?" Hmmm...
Hurricane Harvey I suppose...but that was a natural disaster so let's put that one aside.
Personally, I think the collapse of Enron was one of the worst days in the history of Houston. That, and the subsequent collapse of Arthur Anderson left a huge void in downtown Houston. It also had global repercussions.
Another candidate was when President Obama effectively killed the NASA Space Program.
Full transparency, I was in favor of UT establishing a presence in Houston. There are 4 other threads on C-D related to this topic and you can find my comments there. BUT, you are dead wrong with your facts. The fact is that McRaven could not articulate ANY plans for the UT purchase of land in Houston. That is why his whole idea was shot down because he could not produce an actual plan. Go back and re-read the facts. Here are some excerpts from the Chronicle:
[/color]
One can not know exactly what you are doing do with a property and at the same time know with certainly what you are not going to do with it.
“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. (2015)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
