kylejack Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) Uhh. I original said it's NOT like they demanded Gus Wortham.. And then you responded saying "That's exactly what they did".. So tell me how you weren't the one accusing the botanical garden people of demanding Gus Wortham.Evidence.. Lulz. You have no evidence that the botanical garden people specifically seeked out a city owned golf course prior to having knowledge that the properties were being put up for lease.. Just give it up and stop slandering an organization with a fantastic vision for the city of Houston and its residents. The properties were never put up for lease prior to botanic gardens expressing interest in 2013. The botanic gardens wanted Gus Wortham and asked for it. There was a deliberative process with plenty of input from all vested interests and it was decided that Glenbrook Valley would be better, and that HGA would renovate Wortham. I'm pleased with the outcome, and it seems like you are too. So I don't really know what we're arguing over. Edited February 7, 2016 by kylejack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 It sounds like what the botanical garden people did wrong was to seek the best site for their garden. I don't understand the complaint that they targeted a golf course rather than "found their own land." That's like saying that Hilcorp shouldn't have bought Foley's for their new tower, they should have found their own land. That's how you find land - see who's willing to sell.I didn't say they did wrong, I said they encountered resistance because they pursued a historic golf course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted February 7, 2016 Author Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) I didn't say they did wrong, I said they encountered resistance because they pursued a historic golf course. You might not of said they did wrong, but you sure implied it... The conflict arose because the botanic gardens people didn't want to secure their own land but wanted to take over existing land that was already in use for a golf course. Nobody had a problem with a botanic garden existing... the problem was that they wanted to take over something else rather than buying and building on their own.As if every other cities non-profit botanical garden forked over however many millions of dollars it would cost to "secure their own land" in the middle of a major city.. Right...You might want to do some research on botanical gardens and how they operate. Leasing land from the city is commonplace. Edited February 7, 2016 by cloud713 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobruss Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Why don't we just relax. Its Sunday, and I think that both parties should just step away from the tee box. It looks to me that you both are happy with the out come and besides we have a super bowl to get ready for! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 This thread has turned into that latest Democratic debate where all three candidates just aggressively agreed with each other. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmitch94 Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 So is Gus getting a reno? If so this is actually a good agreement, new gardens and a nice public course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Yes, HGA is renovating and taking over Gus Wortham. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 I'm sorry, but a golf course is not a park. I am otherwise very sympathetic to this argument though. How much of the gardens really need to be restricted access? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 a golf course isn't a park, but municipal golf courses are added when calculating parkland, apparently. furthermore, having played the course, there were families walking the paths, kids flying kites on the 18th fairway. I didn't see anyone fishing, but there were also people cycling on the cart paths. So it's not like the author was making it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timoric Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 (edited) - Edited July 10, 2019 by Timoric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Regardless the number of people who play from any given demographic, unlike darts (another sport using deadly objects if you are standing in the way of the flight path), the field required for golf is huge, and for previously mentioned reasons, it's impossible to realistically share the field of play with others. When I've played at glenbrook it's because no one goes there. I can confidently drive up to the course, and just walk up to the first tee and play. it's a fun course, but there don't need to be two municipal courses on the east side of town. I don't think anyone is contending that this course needs to stay a golf course, I think the contention is that the land, while being a golf course, is underutilized in its current configuration, people from the neighborhood utilize it in other ways as a result (I can corroborate), if it becomes a botanical garden, they will lose that use. I do wonder if the whole thing will be fenced in, or if there will just be sections of it that are fenced? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmitch94 Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 As someone who has never really been to a botanical garden are they some members only thing or pay per visit set up? I find it odd for the city to be involved in something that from what if read sounds like a private park. Correct me if I am wrong, I am truly confused about the fencing off and not letting the local community in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 (edited) I've been to the one in Dallas you have to pay for entry, some are free some are not. It's like a zoo for plants. I've not heard whether Houston's would be free or not, so I think everyone is just speculating at this point. They do close at specific times, but then, so do most parks. It is a good assumption that it would not be free, as it's being run by a private organization, but that's just an assumption, so please don't use it as fact. Edited March 29, 2016 by samagon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryDierker Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Couldn't they make it free for residents of sector#6, kinda like the Texas city dike? that way it's a win-win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoustonIsHome Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 What's wrong with just creating more parks? To me it would serve the east end better to have three 40 acre parks spread throughout the community than one big park. That way more parkland is evenly distributed to the people. I would be happier to have discovery green across the street than to have to go 3 or 4 miles to memorial park. Also , it's easier to maximize the use of smaller parks and they are safer and more family oriented. If the city does reinstate the acreage of parkland, then I see this as a net gain for that area in that the botanical garden would still be considered green space and the new parks would be increasing the acreage of greenspace. Sounds like a win win win for me. New parks/increase in greenspace New economic flow to the area in patrons to the park. New amenity for the area and the city. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted March 31, 2016 Author Share Posted March 31, 2016 On March 29, 2016 at 11:38 AM, jmitch94 said: As someone who has never really been to a botanical garden are they some members only thing or pay per visit set up? I find it odd for the city to be involved in something that from what if read sounds like a private park. Correct me if I am wrong, I am truly confused about the fencing off and not letting the local community in. Ive been to a few. They have a "membership" option if you plan on visiting often, or a pay per visit set up. Most botanical gardens seem to charge around $10 for admission. And as for cities "being involved", most cities botanical gardens are built on public land that they lease from the city. And yes, they are typically completely fenced off. Heres an excerpt from an article talking about NYC's botanical garden.. Quote When he arrived from his post as the New York Public Library's vice president for public affairs and development, neighborhood residents were using the garden as a park. His first act included fencing in the grounds, banning cars and dogs, and charging admission, an unpopular but necessary move: The garden needed money to renovate. http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140902/NONPROFITS/308319987/money-grows-on-botanical-gardens-trees More on the gardens.. Quote Mr. Long knows better than anyone that money doesn't grow on the garden's 30,000 trees. "Horticulture is expensive. Those trees need to be fertilized," he said, while nibbling on cookies and sipping tea in the Garden Terrace Room on a recent summer afternoon. "Our biggest challenge is finding new resources to support all we do." He casually added that the room is available for weddings and other parties. In his 25 years at the institution's helm, Mr. Long has continually pushed the nonprofit in search of new revenue. He introduced the wildly popular Holiday Train and Orchid shows, opened restaurants, and created festivals that have helped more than double the number of annual visitors, to 900,000, and increased the institution's earned income fivefold, to $21 million. Six million dollars will be used to expand the Family Garden, where people learn how to grow and prepare fresh food. The money will also fund the creation of the Edible Academy, with indoor test kitchens and classrooms so healthy eating can be taught throughout the year. That project is especially dear to Mr. Long. The students love the educational programs, and they exemplify how the garden is more than a place where pretty flowers grow. "We want to stay relevant, and education has always been part of our mission," said Mr. Long, 67 ... In 2004, he opened a new visitor entrance with a large gift shop and restaurant. A parking garage followed in 2012. All three bring in money and make the garden more pleasant. Another milestone was the restoration of the Enid A. Haupt Conservatory, which holds the annual train and orchid exhibits, as well as special displays like the successful re-creation of Monet's garden. In recent years, smaller events—jazz nights and family picnics—have turned into moneymakers and magnets drawing people to the garden. Next year's exhibit will feature Mexican artist Frida Kahlo's garden and some of her art work. Mr. Long expects that it will be a major lure. "We really depend on those exhibits to bring money and attention," he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted March 31, 2016 Author Share Posted March 31, 2016 Maybe the HBG could designate a small portion of it as public green space, surrounded by the gardens (maybe have a small "local" garden entrance coming from the green space). Like a larger Centennial Gardens-esque "lawn", that you dont have to go through a gate to access. A place for kids to fly a kite, kick a ball around, maybe even have a themed playground, etc. Or possibly incorporate public trails around manicured edges of the property, outside the fence line? Throw in a basic pedestrian bridge on the outer edges of the property to cross the bayou around the gardens for that public/community access. I agree that it would be a shame for the residents to have less park space, but the golf course ISNT a park, and probably should of never been included in the total "green space" in the first place. Maybe the city can add some playgrounds and/or sports fields on empty lots around the district to appease the residents, but it seems completely asinine for the local residents to not want this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminare Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Do we know how many of the "locals" actually use it in the first place? Thats the more telling statistic. Show that. Only in Houston is a membership golf course a "public park" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pragmatist Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 A bit off topic, but I kinda wish they would get rid of the golf course at Hermann Park. That space could be more useful to a greater number of people if it was repurposed. The park would also benefit by combining all of the various surface lots into garages with smaller footprints. Of course, all of this is pie-in-the-sky thinking in a world with a limitless supply of money. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 2 hours ago, Luminare said: Do we know how many of the "locals" actually use it in the first place? Thats the more telling statistic. Show that. Only in Houston is a membership golf course a "public park" Glenbrook is a city course, not a membership course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 15 hours ago, The Pragmatist said: A bit off topic, but I kinda wish they would get rid of the golf course at Hermann Park. That space could be more useful to a greater number of people if it was repurposed. The park would also benefit by combining all of the various surface lots into garages with smaller footprints. Of course, all of this is pie-in-the-sky thinking in a world with a limitless supply of money. I've said this many times, actually I said it when they were considering Gus Wortham for the botanical garden location. the golf course at hermann park is very popular though. would some of those users of that course shift over to gus wortham and glenbrook (well at least gus wortham) if hermann park were shut down? As golf courses rate, hermann is my least favorite to play, it's so boring. oh, another straight hole? Nice. a par 5 with a dogleg? may as well be straight. nice. what's the elevation change on this hole? flat, like every other hole? awesome. so boring. both glenbrook and gus wortham are far more interesting courses to play. anyway, yeah, rip out that course, put in some underground parking (like disco green) accessible from almeda. remove the parking lot in front of the zoo (or at least make it handicapped only). make hermann park drive usable by official park vehicles and handicapped only (so they can park in front of the zoo), at that point, you can make it a lot smaller, and possibly even remove some of it. something like that would maybe even entice people to use the part of hermann park that's on the other side of macgreggor. but, that course makes too much money for whatever entity maintains the golf courses and they wouldn't want to let it go. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elecpharm Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbannizer Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/houston/article/Houston-s-Glenbrook-Golf-Course-to-become-a-12735997.php?utm_campaign=fb-premium&utm_source=CMS+Sharing+Button&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=twitter-premium&utm_source=CMS Sharing Button&utm_medium=social Work will begin within months on the first phase of converting Houston’s Glenbrook Golf Course into what the nonprofit Houston Botanic Garden hopes will be a marquee destination for visitors and residents alike. Golf operations will cease at Glenbrook on April 1, Mayor Sylvester Turner said, in announcing Wednesday that the botanic garden group had met its commitment in its contract with the city to raise at least $20 million by the end of 2017. The garden’s first phase is scheduled to open in late 2020, the mayor said, with site construction beginning next year. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ernie5823 Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 I grew up in Meadowbrook (Barkley Drive) and worked as a caddy for a while at Glenbrook, must have been in mid/late 1950s. Seems like we got paid $3.00 for 18 holes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_cuevas713 Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 (edited) Glenwood Golf Course is being transformed in to a botanic garden. We are one of two cities in the U.S. without one. Go figure lol http://hbg.org/ Edited March 9, 2018 by j_cuevas713 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 11 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said: Glenwood Golf Course is being transformed in to a botanic garden. We are one of two cities in the U.S. without one. Go figure lol http://hbg.org/ There's obviously some qualifier missing from that statement. I guarantee there are more than two cities in the United States without a botanic garden. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobruss Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 Isn't there a thread for this already? It seems like Ive read about this maybe in the east end section. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_cuevas713 Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 Cool thanks guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobruss Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 This is going to be a great project, but it will take several years for it to come to be and another twenty years for it to become a mature botanical gardens. Too bad it's not more centrally located. The good thing about the location is it will bring tourists to a completely different side of town than the normal tourist centers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnTonY Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 (edited) Not that Glenbrook is bad, but Gus was a FAR superior location for this thing. If there's still opportunity, then they really should switch back to Gus. @bobruss, luckily, the east/southeast sides of Houston have more mature trees and natural lushness compared to areas farther west. That should provide more than enough sight to look at while the garden is growing in. Edited March 10, 2018 by AnTonY 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.