I'm a bit surprise that nobody has posted this yet. It looks a bit bad (to me anyway) that the University has opened one of the most exclusive golf courses in the country (only 500 members, students at the school with which the course is associated not even allowed to play it) while they are closing one of the most historic and inclusive courses in the country. As one of the 6 billion minus 500 people in the world and one of the 50,000 students that doesn't have access to your course, I would like to say thank you to the board of regents for doing your best as trustees of a public educational institution for doing your best to exclude the public, including your students, from having the opportunity in the game of golf in favor of corporate development. At least now I know that your students really are your primary concern
The school is abut money first. Education, students and other things are distantly behind that. Ask staff, faculty, students, anybody close to it and they will agree. Money, baby.
The golf course at Steiner Ranch is just licensed by the University. I don't think UT actually opened it. I could be wrong, but I think it's just a naming rights deal. Now, we pour a lot of money into it for the teams, but I don't think UT owns it. This is similar to the Redstone/UH deal in Houston. Now, it would be bad if all of the student housing on the lake and the golf course were razed for a 5 star resort to be built. Then UT would actually open an exclusive golf resort and limit accessibility.
The University AND the City of Austin really dropped the ball on this one. Some sort of deal should be worked out to save the golf course. It's a very historic course and one that gives central Austinites the chance to play and get outside without having to drive forever and a day to the other public golf courses. The University's idea of putting up condo's and jamming way more people into a tiny space just for the sake of $$$ is very sad. I'm very dissapointed in both my beloved University and the City of Austin
The difference in dollar amount between current and proposed use of the land may seem significant, but money comes and goes very quickly, and in very large amounts when you are The University of Texas. And while there may be differing opinions on what the future of Muni should be, it's safe to say most feel what would be lost by its' closure greatly outweighs any financial gain reaped as a result of the change. Or perhaps I should say those who would be impacted the greatest certaintly feel that way. My personal opinion is the end result is anything but clear at this point; when all is said and done don't be surprised if the course remains as is.
Is Brackenridge Research/ Married Student Housing part of this too? This really is like NYC getting rid of Central Park if any part of this is let go. As Ed Clements asked on the radio the other day, do any of these regents live in Austin? Cheers to who started this thread.
One plan, the "Park Plan" shows the BFL reduced to 56 acres from 82. The other plan, "Village Plan" wipes out the field lab completely. Student housing development is toast either way. I can't imagine the PR **** storm that should befall UT if they displaced the golf course, affordable student housing and a rare academic field facility in favor of a bigger rent check. But, money talks. I've read that the current lease once expired, includes an option for three five-year extensions that can be canceled by the city or the regents.
