Brief History
In 1910, the University of Texas accepted a gift of 503 acres along the Colorado River from Board of Regents member George W. Brackenridge. The University of Texas was outgrowing its original forty acres and Brackenridge envisioned a new, larger campus on this property. The later acquisition of an additional 135 acres adjacent to the original forty made relocation unnecessary leaving the University with 503 acres separate from the main campus. Its deed stated that the property was “for the purpose of advancing and promoting University education” to be used “for educational purposes” (http://www.utbracktract.com/files/deed.pdf ). Given that the acreage would not contain a new campus, subsequent Boards of Regents interpreted Brackenridge’s intent as permitting “low-cost student housing, for athletic and recreational grounds, for research, support, and non-academic facilities that would not be used regularly for academic purposes by sizeable numbers of students and faculty, and for such other Main University activities as would develop in time.” (p 26, Frank Erwin’s History of Brackenridge Tract, 1973, http://www.utbracktract.com/files/erwinhistory.pdf). In 1985, the University reviewed the increasingly valuable tract’s usage and formulated the Brackenridge Development Agreement (BDA), effective from 1989 through 2019. The BDA specifies development rules for the non-university portions and “specifically prohibits non-university development of the tract occupied by the Brackenridge Field Laboratory for so long as the Agreement is in effect.” (Brackenridge Tract Task Force Report, October 12, 2007 http://www.utsystem.edu/BOR/files/bracktract/report.pdf). A subsequent 2006 Task Force evaluated “University uses” and “leases or sales of other portions of the tract” and found University uses wanting (revenues on p 14, http://www.utsystem.edu/BOR/files/bracktract/report.pdf). Task Force reports stated UT President Powers position to be:
Because the University has no plans for program and facility expansion on the Brackenridge Tract, he noted, the revenue potential of the property affords the most valuable benefit as U.T. Austin struggles to maintain and improve its competitive position among the nation’s most highly regarded research universities. (p 22, above, emphasis added)
Current situation
At present, the tract as a whole continues its dual purpose:
“University uses on portions of the tract” such as Brackenridge Field Laboratory and Student Housing and
“leases or sales of other portions of the tract to generate needed funds to support the educational mission of the University” (Brackenridge Task Force, 2007).
The funds generated by the latter are substantial. The academic capital generated by environmental research in a field research station near campus pales by comparison, at least to the Board of Regents and its most recent task force. This particular group’s findings and conclusions contain dire warnings of “increasing financial challenges in meeting its educational mission” and spell out how “the tremendous increase in the value of the land compel a new vision for the tract that will provide greater financial benefits to the University in support of its educational mission” (Brackenridge Tract Task Force Report, 2007, URL above). Restated, biological field stations, student housing and rowing centers don’t pull in the bucks. What’s a University to do? Hire a consultant, of course – hiring them “under a contract with the regents that calls for the firm to receive up to about $5.1 million in fees, travel expenses and other charges” (Austin American Statesman 6/19/09). Enter Cooper, Robertson and Partners (CRP), a New York architecture and urban design firm hired to make recommendations regarding the “highest and best uses of the property consistent with the intent of the gift.“ Asking a New York architecture and urban design firm what to do with valuable waterfront property is like asking a dog what to do with a bone – the answer is predetermined and it does not include a research station. CRP’s June 18 presentation to the Board of Regents was a stunning display of high tech promotion. Colorful graphics, charts and digitally rendered watercolors portrayed a Utopian series of neighborhoods where happy bike-riding residents buy from the farmer’s market found in their neighborhood’s commons. Happy campers were blissfully living the “main street shopping experience” in “a place of great engagement.” And, best of all, this was available without driving so it will be oh-so-environmental. The parkland corridors around existing waterways will preserve selected “heritage trees” culminating in Schulie Branch park, the “grand central park of the scheme.” Not only are the extra parks to become “useful and meaningful open spaces”, they will serve environmental conservation as “a water quality effort” upholding “our efforts to maintain the regional ecology”. But wait, there’s more! Streets will be “linear parks.” The flower lined boulevards shown in the watercolors did seem as beautiful as a New England garden magazine. You get the picture - if not, you can see it online at http://www.utbracktract.com/?q=node/115
CRP suggested two development scenarios, both of which develop the acreage into several very dense neighborhoods of mixed retail plus multi-story residential buildings. One plan eliminated the Field Lab, stating that it could be moved to McKinney Roughs “only 30 minutes away” and the second plan reduced it to 56 acres. The consultants recommended moving it in order to develop the entire tract. The Field Lab was described as “a place of mystery” therefore not appropriate for the new lakefront district.
So what’s the big deal?
Any number of questions came to mind. At no time was finance even mentioned. I found this interesting in view of the plans to alter City of Austin infrastructure – major streets are to be re-routed and widened, MoPac entrances re-worked and a foot bridge to Red Bud Isle is to be built. Lake Austin boulevard, now “lacking character” apparently requires transformation into a wide tree-lined “grand boulevard” friendly to traffic of every kind. I wondered how City of Austin Parks and Recreation will handle the loss of income from Lion’s Municipal Golf Course and whether they are to assume management of the many proposed “pocket parks.” Does a densely developed area like this really seem like an Austin neighborhood? It looked more like some sort of idealized Brooklyn.
Here is the problem. The University wants to enter the real estate development business at the expense of several University facilities including Brackenridge Field Laboratory (BFL). Why save BFL when it could be converted into high-end mixed use real estate? Here’s why — a University’s “highest and best use” for its property is not necessarily financial. A University is, after all, an educational facility therefore a research lab benefiting both graduate and undergraduate curriculum should have some sort of value, just not the sort that comes with dollar signs. A researcher wishing to remain anonymous stated
“BFL represents the most valuable asset in the Section of Integrative Biology, … removing this asset would be akin to selling off one of the art collections or libraries held by other departments.”
Of course, he was speaking of scientific value and the potential value of the lab’s research to the community at large. Though these commodities bring little revenue, they are far more important.
The woodland area housing the lab has value as urban greenspace, one of the few left in Austin. If all such areas are developed or manicured into parks, we will be left with the sort of dense cityscape typical of the East Coast or worse, Houston. The only wildlife seen there will be rats, feral cats and roaches. Brackenridge Field Lab’s 82 acres is now far richer
“…a ‘stepping stone’ among the few remaining undeveloped tracts with particular value for organisms that disperse or live in riverine habitats. [Our] county is highly fragmented and each remaining segment becomes ever more valuable, since at critical degrees of fragmentation or size reduction, the landscape becomes disconnected and some species are likely to die out” (anonymous researcher)
Writing for the Austin American Statesman, Mike Legget stated
“In the middle of an increasingly urban area, with million-dollar homes perched high above on the bluffs across the river, researchers have identified 1,200 species of moths and butterflies, 180 bird species, 370 different species of plants, 200 native bee species” (AAS 6/29/09).
Moving the lab can allow some research to be continued, but the alternate sites fail in several ways:
• Habitat and species found there have lower diversity
• The forty year land use history and data collection at BFL all but loses its utility. The baseline surveys and past studies on this site document a long-term dynamic specific to this site. Scientifically, this is very valuable.
• They are not close enough to allow the daily use by undergraduate biology classes
The lab’s proximity to campus is particularly important to biology education at the University. This issue was brought to the attention of the Brackenridge Task Force in 2006:
“Dr. Mary Ann Rankin, Dean of the College of Natural Sciences, and Dr. Larry Gilbert, Director of the Brackenridge Field Laboratory, urged the Task Force to retain the field laboratory at its current location, noting that a recent external review conducted by three members of the National Academy of Sciences retained by the college supported that position. These experts and several faculty members stressed that the field laboratory is particularly vital to the section of Integrative Biology, which is nationally recognized as an outstanding program, in the School of Biological Sciences” [emphasis added].
(http://www.utsystem.edu/BOR/files/bracktract/report.pdf p 20)
Eliminating the research lab and its acreage in favor of lucrative development deals bespeaks shallow values. What will future generations think of a University which paved over a beautiful area containing a rich diversity of wildlife? Surely such areas will only become more valuable as greenspace becomes more scarce. It is a question of values.