Exciting UNT Facility Master Plan Feb. 2013 Update

[Harry]

A good fan here on the board shared this information with me tonight. It's pretty exciting and so I wanted to share it with everyone. This is available in the public domain so I am not revealing any secrets here and many thanks go out to the person who was able to locate it. If you have Adobe Acrobat (.PDF) you can get to the presentation slides directly from this link right here:

http://untsystem.edu/untmasterplan/documents/WEB-UNT_MP_2ndCommunity-Workshop%5B1%5D.pdf

If you don't have PDF capability go to the following address: http://untsystem.edu/

NEXT - After bringing up the above website, select Campus Master Plans on the left hand side then hit MASTER PLAN WEBSITE under the University of North Texas which is at the top towards the middle of the page. When the next page comes up, hit Presentations on the left hand side. These presentations that show up towards the middle of the page will give you the latest plans for maps concerning the UNT Campus in Denton. Select the presentation titled Community Forum (February 6, 2013).

What you will find are a couple of before and after maps showing proposed facility enhancements for the entire UNT Denton campus. Of particular interest is PAGE 34 which highlights the Eagle Village side of 35E. The new conference center and hotel is there, as well as a unique bowling and upper deck addition to the student side of Apogee; the new baseball stadium (which is positioned similar to the softball field); what appear to be two new baseball and softball buildings/locker rooms; a new dorm; more parking; a new main stage for the Waranch tennis facility; what appears to be a new track facility; and last but not least a new large building that appears to be about half the size of a football field on the lower left hand section of the page. My best guess is that this could be a new football practice facility.

Also of note, there appears to be a demolition of Fouts which will provide additional parking and green space. I found it interesting how they illustrated Apogee being expanded and how the bowled it yet kept the wing structure in place. Baseball and the hotel/conference center appear to be of the highest priority. Also note that they are planning a transit mall on Highland street.

It's hard not to get excited about the future when you read through these ambitious plans that are in place and appear to be schedule for final approval at the May Board of Regents meeting. GMG!

[Joshdude182]

Notice the baseball stadium?! It's coming!

[Eastwood Eagle]

1) Don't like the direction the stadium is facing. Wish the back drop would be Apogee.

2) Are we proposing building off campus buildings where Sack-and-Save and that strip mall is? If I read the map correctly that is what the plan looks like. That would eliminate a nice eye sore.

[Harry]

2) Are we proposing building off campus buildings where Sack-and-Save and that strip mall is? If I read the map correctly that is what the plan looks like. That would eliminate a nice eye sore.

I read that the same way and totally agree -- there is no reason to have that sack and save be the most visible thing you see when driving in from Dallas.

[tcat75]

2) Are we proposing building off campus buildings where Sack-and-Save and that strip mall is? If I read the map correctly that is what the plan looks like. That would eliminate a nice eye sore.

I noticed that too, and it does seem like that's what they're planning. Hard to tell from just the map, though. I hope that's the plan.

Edited April 9, 2013 by tcat75

[Christopher Walker]

I hope Ayers/Saint/Gross took our comments towards making the two sides of campus more cohesive and hopefully seen as one identity.

When I represented the Sustainability stakeholders, that was a big issue for us, of all things.

[Christopher Walker]

1) Don't like the direction the stadium is facing. Wish the back drop would be Apogee.

2) Are we proposing building off campus buildings where Sack-and-Save and that strip mall is? If I read the map correctly that is what the plan looks like. That would eliminate a nice eye sore.

From what the lead architect explained to me: partner with the City to purchase the lots, but hopefully keep most of the existing businesses there, but with revamped façades that are cohesive to the rest of campus, thus making it an "entrance gateway" to the university via Ave C.

[MDH]

1) Beautiful green space + tees

really? I like some of the things in this materplan, but it was really a high-school effort in many respects, especially when compared to the one from 2005. Maybe Neinas was in on this.

I'm happy that there is some concern with our visibility from 35, the hotel will help with this, as will getting rid of Fouts.

Edited April 9, 2013 by MDH

[golfingomez]

1) Beautiful green space + tees

really? I like some of the things in this materplan, but it was really a high-school effort in many respects, especially when compared to the one from 2005. Maybe Neinas was in on this.

I'm happy that there is some concern with our visibility from 35, the hotel will help with this, as will getting rid of Fouts.

green fees? i thought we got rid of the golf course

[MeanGreenHoops]

A good fan here on the board shared this information with me tonight. It's pretty exciting and so I wanted to share it with everyone. This is available in the public domain so I am not revealing any secrets here and many thanks go out to the person who was able to locate it. If you have Adobe Acrobat (.PDF) you can get to the presentation slides directly from this link right here:

http://untsystem.edu/untmasterplan/documents/WEB-UNT_MP_2ndCommunity-Workshop%5B1%5D.pdf

If you don't have PDF capability go to the following address: http://untsystem.edu/

NEXT - After bringing up the above website, select Campus Master Plans on the left hand side then hit MASTER PLAN WEBSITE under the University of North Texas which is at the top towards the middle of the page. When the next page comes up, hit Presentations on the left hand side. These presentations that show up towards the middle of the page will give you the latest plans for maps concerning the UNT Campus in Denton. Select the presentation titled Community Forum (February 6, 2013).

What you will find are a couple of before and after maps showing proposed facility enhancements for the entire UNT Denton campus. Of particular interest is PAGE 34 which highlights the Eagle Village side of 35E. The new conference center and hotel is there, as well as a unique bowling and upper deck addition to the student side of Apogee; the new baseball stadium (which is positioned similar to the softball field); what appear to be two new baseball and softball buildings/locker rooms; a new dorm; more parking; a new main stage for the Waranch tennis facility; what appears to be a new track facility; and last but not least a new large building that appears to be about half the size of a football field on the lower left hand section of the page. My best guess is that this could be a new football practice facility.

Also of note, there appears to be a demolition of Fouts which will provide additional parking and green space. I found it interesting how they illustrated Apogee being expanded and how the bowled it yet kept the wing structure in place. Baseball and the hotel/conference center appear to be of the highest priority. Also note that they are planning a transit mall on Highland street.

It's hard not to get excited about the future when you read through these ambitious plans that are in place and appear to be schedule for final approval at the May Board of Regents meeting. GMG!

So their plan is to fill in the most unique aspect of the stadium with a bowl and get rid of the wing? If I'm reading that right, then our leadership truly is clueless.

[laxtonto]

So their plan is to fill in the most unique aspect of the stadium with a bowl and get rid of the wing? If I'm reading that right, then our leadership truly is clueless.

I got no problem with removing the wing... It was always the plan and more importantly it was designed to be unbolted to begin with. Once it is removed it allows for a full wrap around second deck, which is the 3rd phase of 4 for the expansion of Apogee..

If you notice the master plan has the east side of the stadium being worked on as well... the idea was to psudeo mirror the west side and then connect the two with a 2nd deck on the endzone. The wing has and always was a short term solution to keep initial construction costs down.

[glick1980]

So their plan is to fill in the most unique aspect of the stadium with a bowl and get rid of the wing? If I'm reading that right, then our leadership truly is clueless.

If attendance increases to the point where we need additional seating then this would happen. However, at this point it is merely identified as a project that may be funded at a later date. If the stadium doesn't need to be expanded then I doubt it will be. If we reach the point where it needs to be, having it identified in the master plan means the project does not have to be approved by the BOR because it already has been. We could move directly to the funding and construction portion assuming that all of the expansion was designed during the initial design phase of the stadium.

[Cerebus]

How I read this.

UNT needs to tell the THECB about any projects of X dollar amount. Even if it does or does not have the money in hand or planned for in bonds.

I expect everything marked First Phase, is already well on its way to being paid for/bonded. Most of the money will come from the legislature, as we have been told to expect the largest public funds outlay in the history of the school. A lot of it will be in the form of dorms and teaching space. The THECB has been talking about making UNT a major destination for over a decade now, mainly to take growth stress off of UT/aTm and it seems the money is about to be put down.

First phase includes the hotel/convention center. That makes sense because it will be the new digs for school of hospitality. It also includes the baseball stadium, which can't be state education fund money. It must be coming from some combination of existing fees, existing bonds, new bond issues, or donations.

First phase does not include expansion of Apogee. I don't expect that to happen any time in the near future. The school just has to notify the THECB so that it could plan to do so at some point.

[cdizzle86]

So their plan is to fill in the most unique aspect of the stadium with a bowl and get rid of the wing? If I'm reading that right, then our leadership truly is clueless.

Re-purpose the wing and put it behind the outfield of the new baseball stadium.

[Wag Tag]

This is pretty cool. Getting rid of the Sack and Save strip center would be great!( more exposure on 35). Also a Hotel , the Stadium and a Baseball field would really look impressive!

NTSU what is that!

[Eagle61]

The softball stadium is situated so that the sun hits the eyes of the spectators (and batter) in the late afternoon. I attended some games when the college league played there and it was not a good experience, always squinting to see the pitcher and batter. The designers should take a look at that before it is final. I stopped going for that reason. Very uncomfortable. Anyone else ever been to the stadium for a game?

[Eagle61]

Anything that involves the city will be opposed by the neighborhood group south of the stadium - the Denia neighborhood group. I know they oppose the convention center. They oppose EVERYTHING and they have the ear of the city council. I live out there and stopped going to their meetings because all they did was oppose. They opposed the dorms, the stadium, Acme Brick, and everything else that upsets the status quo. Some residents went to Austin to oppose the dorm before the legislature.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Anything that involves the city will be opposed by the neighborhood group south of the stadium - the Denia neighborhood group. I know they oppose the convention center. They oppose EVERYTHING and they have the ear of the city council. I live out there and stopped going to their meetings because all they did was oppose. They opposed the dorms, the stadium, Acme Brick, and everything else that upsets the status quo. Some residents went to Austin to oppose the dorm before the legislature.

You need to go to their meetings again to give them a voice of reason.

[Harry]

Anything that involves the city will be opposed by the neighborhood group south of the stadium - the Denia neighborhood group. I know they oppose the convention center. They oppose EVERYTHING and they have the ear of the city council. I live out there and stopped going to their meetings because all they did was oppose. They opposed the dorms, the stadium, Acme Brick, and everything else that upsets the status quo. Some residents went to Austin to oppose the dorm before the legislature.

I hear you but I wonder if space is the issue as well as having it similar to the direction of the softball field. It sure doesn't hurt to ask he question.

[laxtonto]

Re-purpose the wing and put it behind the outfield of the new baseball stadium.

Repurpose it as the batter eye backdrop with a UNT green tarp covering it with a white logo maybe? It keeps the seats and makes a nice photo backdrop

[NorthTexan95]

I completely agree with changing the direction of the baseball and softball fields.

Also, there's the outline of a soccer field in the middle of the proposed new track stadium. Is this an additional practice facility for the women's soccer team or could it be hinting to the adding of a men's soccer team.

Or perhaps RV had them add that to the drawing just to drive us crazy trying to figure it out.

[MeanGreenTexan]

I completely agree with changing the direction of the baseball and softball fields.

Also, there's the outline of a soccer field in the middle of the proposed new track stadium. Is this an additional practice facility for the women's soccer team or could it be hinting to the adding of a men's soccer team.

Or perhaps RV had them add that to the drawing just to drive us crazy trying to figure it out.

Why wouldn't a mens team play in the same stadium as the women?

Edited April 9, 2013 by MeanGreenTexan

[GL2Greatness]

How I read this.

UNT needs to tell the THECB about any projects of X dollar amount. Even if it does or does not have the money in hand or planned for in bonds.

I expect everything marked First Phase, is already well on its way to being paid for/bonded. Most of the money will come from the legislature, as we have been told to expect the largest public funds outlay in the history of the school. A lot of it will be in the form of dorms and teaching space. The THECB has been talking about making UNT a major destination for over a decade now, mainly to take growth stress off of UT/aTm and it seems the money is about to be put down.

First phase includes the hotel/convention center. That makes sense because it will be the new digs for school of hospitality. It also includes the baseball stadium, which can't be state education fund money. It must be coming from some combination of existing fees, existing bonds, new bond issues, or donations.

First phase does not include expansion of Apogee. I don't expect that to happen any time in the near future. The school just has to notify the THECB so that it could plan to do so at some point.

just a few things here....I am not sure where you are hearing about a large increase in the state funding because this press release from north Texas says the exact opposite

http://inhouse.unt.edu/report-83rd-texas-legislatures-regular-session

it does say that The State of Texas expects to spend more on higher ed, but that is state wide not for Denton

also in the north Texas LAR they have gone with a zero increase budget from 2013 as well as represented on page 110

http://www.unt.edu/ereports/pdffiles/UNTLAR2015.pdf

and a zero increase in state appropriations from 2013 means that the appropriations would be less than 2012 by about 1.6 million

The State of Texas funds ZERO for the construction of dorms....NOTHING.....100% of dorm construction and upkeep is funded from housing revenues and nothing is funded from The State of Texas for dorms

The THECB does not talk about making any university a particular destination they set enrollment increase goals based on the "Closing The Gaps" plan that is in place and the THECB goal for north Texas is is 40,087 students by 2015 and north Texas is currently at 89.3% of that goal and as clearly pointed out in the master plan documents (linked below) north Texas is not expected to be at 45,000 students until at least 2020...and the interesting thing is if you actually pay attention to the graph it shows that even the north Texas FPC line only reaches 40,323 students by 2020 even though the notation says the "45,000 goal has been re-affirmed" while the THECB line reaches 41,345 even though it is BELOW the north Texas FPC line....so clearly whoever made that actual graph had their head up their ass and was just blowing smoke

http://untsystem.edu/untmasterplan/documents/WEB-130206_UNT_MP_WKSHP_5.pdf

most likely north Texas plans on having (some students) 41,345 students by 2020 even though they have "re-affirmed" the goal of 45,000 students and the THECB plans on north Texas having 40,323 students and the person making the graph either just got back from a weed break or needed to go take a weed break before completing that graph and placing it in a "master plan".....but hey you get what you pay for....anyone have the number for Sasaki?.....in the very first presentation from may 30 2012 it had The University of Texas San Marcos listed as one of the universities they had planned a building for.....that should have been a hint to call Sasaki right then haha

I have seen nothing that says the new hotel or convention center will house the HRM program and the only involvement for north Texas I have ever seen is renting the land for $100,000 per year......it would not be wise planning to have in your "master plan" or budget to place a program in a privately funded building that has not even be confirmed that it will even be built yet....and since part of the hold up is the fact that Denton wants the private developer of the hotel to cover $500,000 to $800,000 per year in bonds for the convention center portion I see it as doubtful that same developer is looking to have significant space dedicated to classes....I am sure they will wirk with the HRM program on some things, but not house them.....and also on the linked plan above in the 10-15 year section CMHT expansion is one of the possible projects so I doubt a private developer is going to allocate space in a hotel for something that will only be there less than 10 or so years

and lastly for the sports facilities...bond money does not just hang around....it is not possible and probably illegal and surely an issue with the bond covenants to use facility bond money for purposes it was not allocated for.....that would almost surely be a legal/criminal issue with the state and the bond holders would have something to say as well most likely in court....sometimes cities and other government entities (especially crappy run ones like dallas) will have "leftover bond money" that they fritter away on other useless crap, but that is not how university construction projects work because of the differences in how things are funded.....cities are not backed by the state and their bonds are not backed by the state.....when a university funds a construction project they issue "commencial paper" which is very short term debt (less than a year) and often if the project is a long term project they do not issue paper for the entire amount at one time and as the project progresses progress payments are made to the various contractors and then upon completion of the project and acceptance of the final work and upon final payment and varification of the release of all sub-contractors leans ect. the university issues long term bonds in the exact amount of that project and pays off the commercial paper and the project goes into long term bond debt.....one of the reasons this is done (amongst many) is so that universities won't go around over estimating project after project and then ending up with a million here and a million there that they can then use to build sports facilities and other facilities that are not allowed legally to be state supported while using bond money that is being covered by the state

http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents/Appropriations_Bills/83/Decision_Docs/825_Overview%20of%20Tuition%20Revenue%20Bonds.pdf

as you can see on the above link dorms are specifcically not allowed to be built with tuition and revenue bonds.....tuition revenue bonds are bonds covered actually by ALL revenues of a university SYSTEM, but generally paid with tuition, fees, AND some state funding as you can see in the above link as well (sometimes line items (not often) and mostly in general appropriations (formula funding))......so if a university did mix in a project with some existing bonds because they happened to have 8 million or so left over from an approved project they would be making a huge mistake because they would be making it not possible to ever have the debt service of those bonds covered with a line item or even with formual funding (general appropriations)...dorms have to be bonded with bonds backed by the housing revenue stream.....sports facilities can be backed with tuition revenue bonds, but if a university was to mix a sports facility in with bonds for some project that is approved for tuition revenue bonds (and eligible for state support) they would be forgoing the opportunity to have any of the debt service on those bonds supported by a line item or even general appropriations....so they would be making a huge financial mistake

also you will see the only projects up for tuition revenue bonds for 2014-15 for north Texas in Denton are a COVA bulding and a research building addition and that is also what is so far in the existing bills before the senate higher ed committee and the "system" project has no bill for that project so barring any last minute emergency bills being filed (if that is still possible at this date) those are the two major projects that have a chance for approval for 2014-15

Edited April 9, 2013 by GL2Greatness

[MeanGreenTexan]

just a few things here....I am not sure where you are hearing about a large increase in the state funding because this press release from north Texas says the exact opposite

http://inhouse.unt.edu/report-83rd-texas-legislatures-regular-session

it does say that The State of Texas expects to spend more on higher ed, but that is state wide not for Denton

also in the north Texas LAR they have gone with a zero increase budget from 2013 as well as represented on page 110

http://www.unt.edu/ereports/pdffiles/UNTLAR2015.pdf

and a zero increase in state appropriations from 2013 means that the appropriations would be less than 2012 by about 1.6 million

The State of Texas funds ZERO for the construction of dorms....NOTHING.....100% of dorm construction and upkeep is funded from housing revenues and nothing is funded from The State of Texas for dorms

The THECB does not talk about making any university a particular destination they set enrollment increase goals based on the "Closing The Gaps" plan that is in place and the THECB goal for north Texas is is 40,087 students by 2015 and north Texas is currently at 89.3% of that goal and as clearly pointed out in the master plan documents (linked below) north Texas is not expected to be at 45,000 students until at least 2020...and the interesting thing is if you actually pay attention to the graph it shows that even the north Texas FPC line only reaches 40,323 students by 2020 even though the notation says the "45,000 goal has been re-affirmed" while the THECB line reaches 41,345 even though it is BELOW the north Texas FPC line....so clearly whoever made that actual graph had their head up their ass and was just blowing smoke

http://untsystem.edu/untmasterplan/documents/WEB-130206_UNT_MP_WKSHP_5.pdf

most likely north Texas plans on having (some students) 41,345 students by 2020 even though they have "re-affirmed" the goal of 45,000 students and the THECB plans on north Texas having 40,323 students and the person making the graph either just got back from a weed break or needed to go take a weed break before completing that graph and placing it in a "master plan".....but hey you get what you pay for....anyone have the number for Sasaki?.....in the very first presentation from may 30 2012 it had The University of Texas San Marcos listed as one of the universities they had planned a building for.....that should have been a hint to call Sasaki right then haha

I have seen nothing that says the new hotel or convention center will house the HRM program and the only involvement for north Texas I have ever seen is renting the land for $100,000 per year......it would not be wise planning to have in your "master plan" or budget to place a program in a privately funded building that has not even be confirmed that it will even be built yet....and since part of the hold up is the fact that Denton wants the private developer of the hotel to cover $500,000 to $800,000 in bonds for the convention center portion I see it as doubtful that same developer is looking to have significant space dedicated to classes....I am sure they will wirk with the HRM program on some things, but not house them.....and also on the linked plan above in the 10-15 year section CMHT expansion is one of the possible projects so I doubt a private developer is going to allocate space in a hotel for something that will only be there less than 10 or so years

and lastly for the sports facilities...bond money does not just hang around....it is not possible and probably illegal and surely an issue with the bond covenants to use facility bond money for purposes it was not allocated for.....that would almost surely be a legal/criminal issue with the state and the bond holders would have something to say as well most likely in court....sometimes cities and other government entities (especially crappy run ones like dallas) will have "leftover bond money" that they fritter away on other useless crap, but that is not how university construction projects work because of the differences in how things are funded.....cities are not backed by the state and their bonds are not backed by the state.....when a university funds a construction project they issue "commencial paper" which is very short term debt (less than a year) and often if the project is a long term project they do not issue paper for the entire amount at one time and as the project progresses progress payments are made to the various contractors and then upon completion of the project and acceptance of the final work and upon final payment and varification of the release of all sub-contractors leans ect. the university issues long term bonds in the exact amount of that project and pays off the commercial paper and the project goes into long term bond debt.....one of the reasons this is done (amongst many) is so that universities won't go around over estimating project after project and then ending up with a million here and a million there that they can then use to build sports facilities and other facilities that are not allowed legally to be state supported while using bond money that is being covered by the state

http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents/Appropriations_Bills/83/Decision_Docs/825_Overview%20of%20Tuition%20Revenue%20Bonds.pdf

as you can see on the above link dorms are specifcically not allowed to be built with tuition and revenue bonds.....tuition revenue bonds are bonds covered actually by ALL revenues of a university SYSTEM, but generally paid with tuition, fees, AND some state funding as you can see in the above link as well (sometimes line items (not often) and mostly in general appropriations (formula funding))......so if a university did mix in a project with some existing bonds because they happened to have 8 million or so left over from an approved project they would be making a huge mistake because they would be making it not possible to ever have the debt service of those bonds covered with a line item or even with formual funding (general appropriations)...dorms have to be bonded with bonds backed by the housing revenue stream.....sports facilities can be backed with tuition revenue bonds, but if a university was to mix a sports facility in with bonds for some project that is approved for state support they would be forgoing the opportunity to have any of the debt service on those bonds supported by a line item or even general appropriations....so they would be making a huge financial mistake

also you will see the only projects up for tuition revenue bonds for 2014-15 for north Texas in Denton are a COVA bulding and a research building addition and that is also what is so far in the existing bills before the senate higher ed committee and the "system" project has no bill for that project so barring any last minute emergency bills being filed (if that is still possible at this date) those are the two major projects that have a chance for approval for 2014-15

I didn't read any of that....

So what do you think of the spring positional battles? How weird is it that PJ Hardwick and Clarke Overlander transferred? Crazy!!!

[laxtonto]

I have that idiot on ignore... don't quote him..