heights_yankee

I suppose bludgeoning with a club would be okay right? Also across from this there wasn't there a lady who pulled a gun on people for parking infront of her house or something?

I know this happened on 10 1/2. It was an African American couple parked on the street. The wife was walking up to Davis Hardware to get her check and her husband was parked under a tree. A woman came out of her house, pointed a shot gun at him, and yelled a bunch of racist epithets and threats.

Speaking of beer drinking, the owner of Down House is opening a beer spot on Cavalcade, right near th epost office. This isn't far from where TownIn City brewery will be, either. Excited for more options east of Studewood.

Ruggles is moving really fast on the 11th St location. There were workers there all day on Thanksgiving and I have yet to see them take a day off.

Not soon enough.

I live right by there and have yet to see a stitch of work so it's not going to be too soon.

I didn't read all the posts to see if someone stood up for Hamilton but of the two Heights MSs, it's by far the better one. I don't have a child there but know several people whose kids did/do attend. Hamilton is either a magnet or Vanguard, can't remember which one, and these days is rumored to be very hard to get in to due to the demand. It's definitely better than Hogg, although Hogg is making some wonderful changes for the better.

Another option to look at is Frank Black, which was awarded a $multi-million grant of some sort and is supposed to be really gaining traction. Here is a note that came from the school some time last year

LOTS of Heights families have kids at Wilson (in Montrose) but that is Montessori, which may not be your bag. Still, another school worth checking out.

Listen, people, I'm not saying I wouldn't love a great sushi restaurant in the Heights but if you want a couple simple rolls, there are places to go. Carry on.

I think something similar in size to the development on 11th and studewood would fit nicely there. But really i just want a sushi or indian restaurant.

Off topic but a lot of people don't know that Thai Spice on 19th has sushi. It's not a huge assortment, but it has always been fresh and it's BYOB.

Still don't know who your source is, but they're apparently wrong.

Per Ronnie Killen on an Eater comment:

Excellent. Excellent.

Not anymore. Killen's bailed. Word is that building is going to become a doctors office.

Wow. That sucks.

And i'll get mine on 20th (Chilosos). Unless they are closed, then it will be a battle between Torchy's and Taco's A gogo.

Have you tried El Gallo de Jalisco? Cash only but a damn fine taco to be had there.

That space is bigger than one realizes.

It'll be nice to have some more windows facing 19th St.

Yeah, that place is HUGE and has ample parking. I agree about the windows. I just wish it wasn't an Austin based chain. I am not an Austin lover... but that's just me. I'll get my tacos on White Oak.

update here: http://theheightslifehouston.blogspot.com/2012/06/harolds-torched-for-tacos-but-what.html

Speaking of Heights "hip" I wonder how the vinyl shop and the stationary shop on White Oak are doing.

Doing well and still open. I guess the record store has to be doing very well considering it is about to have some competition on 19th. Another record shop is opening where the bead store (but more likely a fronting operation of some sort) was for the last couple years....

In a related note, the latest issue of Esquire (is that a hipster magazine? I read it on the plane) had an article about the coolest new turntables that seemed to be written without irony. One is almost pocket sized and sort of reminds me of swiping a credit card, except the it holds the card and and spins it around, if you can picture that...

If you are like me and really enjoy a good steak and great service, this might be the best food news in the Heights ever

Killen's coming to the Heights

I probably use these trails more than the average person in the neighborhood, and I've never once felt any form of danger for myself. I have seen a few teens and dumb adults barrel through these intersections without even looking though. I agree with Niche, I dont think we should receive a disproportionate amount of funding to make this happen. If the petition included a section for the neighborhood to raise funding necessary to make these changes I would gladly sign it. If the city approves of the desired changes the group could organize one of those websites to raise the money in a certain timeframe. I'd gladly throw a little bit of money to help make it happen (even though I don't think I personally need the changes whatsoever).

I'd love to see the residents get more active in paying for improvements, I think enough people are willing to throw their own coin at some projects to get them done and stop waiting for the city to pay for it.

Actually, finding funds on their own is part of what the group has in mind. The petition is just a way to gauge/show support. After all, even if we (the neighborhood) can raise the funds, the City still has to want us to do it and let us do it.

While the petition is about pedestrian controlled lights at these intersections, it's really about not starting at a point of compromise. This is the ideal for some people, but there are other acceptable options. While I am very careful on my bike, the fact that I have 2 small passengers towed behind me makes me take a little longer to get through intersections. On Nicholson, I think the rise in the road helps slow people down. However, on White Oak, you'll see a car doing 40 get passed on the left by a car doing 50 and they don't even realize there is a bike path there because it's not clearly marked.

so much hate for cyclists

Texasota, I REALLY wish there was a safe/viable option for me to ride my bike along highway 3 to get to work, it's 13 miles one way, and I would not mind the commute by bike, but damn, there's no way in hell I would ride my bike down highway 3 without a bicycle path running along the railway.

Anyway, I would sign the petition (even though online petitions are completely useless) if it were more towards doing real improvements for bicycle safety around the city, not just centered on the Heights, I mean, looky here:

http://maps.google.c...119.62,,0,11.15

this bicycle path crosses a feeder road for 45 where the speed limit is 40mph, which means people realistically drive between 45 and 50. This path is not used as heavily as the one in the Heights, but it is a exceedingly less safe crossing location for cyclists, or families that have babies in strollers.

The Heights has had a woman killed jogging and a biker hit by a car in the last few months. From the discussion leading up to the petition, I can say that it's based in the Heights because it was started by people who live in the Heights. The more serious bikers, some of whom are parents and some of whom are not, hope that this can just help be a stepping stone for other areas. If all the neighborhoods the bike path goes through put out similar petitions, organizations like Bike Houston could make an even stronger case for the whole city. The idea is that this petition may not/will noy get anything done on it's own, but it backs up what some other orgs (like Bike Houston, CTC, etc) are trying to do. Eventually, some of the people who organized the petition will go down in front of City Hall and show an additional group, albeit smaller, than the others who have been lobbying for this already.

I didn't want to start a whole new thread and this was the 1st biking related one I found.

An online and paper petition has been started to try and get some signalized crossings for the bike trail at super busy/dangerous intersections. If you're interested, sign. If not, don't.

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/safe-walking-and-biking-in-the-heights.html

The suggestions of "what we'd like better" came later in the process. When the complaints began and RUDH formed, the City had a few community meetings regarding the site. Later, Mayor Parker literally walked the neighborhood behind the site talking to residents. She was quoted in news accounts as asking for suggestions to make the Walmart palatable. She made it clear that the City had no legal way to stop Walmart from building there. She lamented that the only response from residents and RUDH was, "No Walmart!"

Later, these mixed use renderings were published. Just as before, they ignored the fact that the City could not keep Walmart out. The renderings were simply drawings of stuff they would rather see. They were in no way a solution to the problem. I should also point out that even your description of the materials makes it clear that the suggestions were of projects to REPLACE Walmart, not improve it. In this way, RUDH pissed away a very real opportunity to influence the design of the site. Instead, we will get whatever Walmart feels like building.

When a group spurns a chance to make something better in favor of an illegal solution (denying Walmart's right to build), they have done a disservice to those they claim to be helping.

No. These suggestions came after RUDH (which was then still just STHWM) held their very 1st public meeting.

And a lot of the suggestions by professionals in urban planning were how WM could make the center better. RUDH's mission was to stop the Walmart but that was not the end-all for many of the contributors. They cited issues that are the very reasons most Walmarts are dangerous, like no exterior windows, and proposed that this WM could be more palatable if they went outside their normal building plan and did X,Y,Z.

I don't recall those. Can you post a link to them?

Actually, I went to the site and it's not up there. It was assembled after the 1st couple meetings at the rehab place. At that time, they also solicited ideas and opinions from the public and, as absurd or unrealistic as some were, even included those.

Those morons only said, 'no Walmart'. They went all in and lost.

This isn't actually true. There was a large packet of materials with everythign from architectural renderings to landscaping recs made by professionals on how the building could be safer, more livable, greener. These plans were drawn up by professionals in these industries and people from organizations like Houston Tomorrow. Some of these folks even went through the trouble of demonstrating how better eco-friendly landscaping, for example, could save WM/Ainbinder money. RUDH folks asked that some of these be implemented via the 380. I believe that they actually put them in order of importance, as if to say "if you only do 3, we prefer these 1st 3." The City did not request any of these things of the developer. Parker sold the 380 to Council as a way to have more "control" over the development but in the end asked them for pretty much nothing.

It is very good. If you are not used to ethnic grocery stores, you might not love the look of the place, but the kitchen pumps out some great food. They have a website with their menu: http://asiamarkethouston.com/

Growing up in a part of the country where the older and more ethnic it looked, the better the food, i am ready and willing to eat here. thanks for the info!

Does anyone know about this supposedly awesome Thai place on Cavalcade? Someone I know had take out (brought by someone else who I don't know) from there and said it was incredible but knows nothing about it. I know most people don't consider Cavalcade "The Heights" but close enough to count it's restaurants if they're awesome.

ETA: I appreciate the spirit of this post but I did like the continuation of the old one because it served as a "see how far we have come" time line. The fact is, people looove to delicate flower about/debate restaurants (especially Liberty Kitchen, it seems) so it won't be long before you'll see disappointment expressed here as well. Still, I'm happy to participate in either thread.

A job well done.

I can only speak for myself, but as a child-free adult, I have no real problems with children, at restaurants or out about town. Obnoxious children do get noticed, but I can tell you that one of the most salient memories I have of child behavior at a restaurant is that of a lovely, less than two year old girl, who behaved angelically sitting at a table at Glass Wall with her parents.

One point of the most recent posts in this thread is that it is parents who want to take their children to these restaurants. I find it implausible that children are crying out for Gulf seafood with local brews, for example. Young children are at the mercy of their parents’ culinary preferences, but given the right coaching can probably be convinced that anything from the simplest box of mac-and-cheese to the $25 crab legs entree is the best thing ever. Another point is that children’s behavior in restaurants is the direct responsibility of their parents. Children only tear through Berryhill and swim in the fountain because their parents allow them to do it.

Parents who are reaching for “child-friendly” signs, such as a Berryhill management resigned to rambunctious children, cocktails named after schools, kid’s-sized beer glasses, or who view themselves as an aggrieved minority ignored for too long by the restaurant industry are taking things a bit too far. They don’t need to organize and picket local restaurants, or require that I be either for or against their children. Managing your children’s behavior in restaurants, and in other public places for that matter, is just one of the job requirements of parenthood. Most parents do that, and if you do it in my presence, you will at least get a gold star on my mental checklist for doing your job.

I do not mean this in any kind of sarcastic or bitchy way- but I think this is so awesomely funny because this was the kind of thing I would have said when I was childless, too. Kids are so strong willed and opinionated! Who knew? If only I could get my kids, through any kind of persuasion available, to eat as well rounded and healthy a diet as I would like. We've gone through phases where my 4.75 (if you ask him) year old would go 3 nights a week without dinner because he wouldn't eat what I cooked. I am no short order cook so hungry to bed it was. My 2 year old has a much more diverse palate but still knows what he likes and doesn't like. He'll try almost anything once but making a meal of it? Another story. But back to the topic...

This food struggle does tie in to the topic at hand in a way. When my older boy was being super, duuuper finicky, we ate out even more than normal. Parents have to be super careful to not relinquish control to the 3 ft dictators because it's virtually impossible to ever wrestle it back. At least in a restaurant, my son could order and feel independent without arguing about what I cooked. This was the only way he had dinner some times. We also had to diversify our restaurants because if we always went to Berryhill, he would aways order fried fish. If we always went to Lola, he would always order a cheeseburger. We want him to be independent in a restaurant and develop the ability to have a dialogue with the waiter himself, so arbitrary meal ordering was never something we did and by the time he was in this picky stage, he was well accustomed to ordering for himself. Just add another to the myriad reasons parents eat out

And as a parent, thanks for your understanding and acceptance of our progeny. It is a parent's job to control behavior. There is a big difference between a parent who is letting their child run amok or not caring about what the child is doing (like the parents whose kids I would have to reprimand in the disgusting Lupe sand box. RIP!) vs a parent who is trying to get control of a situation when a child is being particularly strong willed. Sometimes we will try to vacate, but there is a still a check to get, food to box and receipt to sign.

Its been a long time since I waited tables, but I clearly remember loathing tables with children. A four top with two adults and two children is going to get you less than half the tip (or profit) as one full of adults.

An adult only table is at least twice more likely to order appetizers, desserts, or an extra round of drinks... the most lavish kids' menu simply can't make up the differnece that is lost. If the restaurant assigns waiters sections and makes them clean their own tables it only gets worse since kids almost always make a bigger mess than a sober adult.

I agree that if you can get kids\parents during the lull between lunch and dinner (2-5pm) that it is probably a good thing, but any other time it is certainly nothing to cater to or get excited about.

Luckily, I didn't have to clean my own tables or have "sections", a kid table usually wouldn't count as a full turn so we were normally made whole, but there are few waiters or restaurants who wouldn't prefer a couple adults (preferrably smoking and drinking ones) to a table full of kids and parents.

The fact that Lupe Tortilla is ditching the sandbox is probably a better sign of the times.

I waited tables for 10+ years. There are a lot of tables waiters tend to hate. If what waiters stereotypically hated kept people home, women not accompanied by men, old people and certain minorities would not be allowed to eat out, either.

I worked at an old Tex-Mex joint in Dallas, as well as a nice seafood house and a white table cloth restaurant. Except for the latter, I always waited on families. Families who would take their kids to these places were exactly the kind of customers MarkSMU is talking about. They were upper middle class (or better) with disposable income. They would have a couple drinks and leave a 20% tip. It was no different than any other table who would be eating out for an early dinner.

With my group of friends who dine out a lot, we have a joke that the hidden cost of children no one tells you about is all the extra gratuity you leave when eating out. If my kids (when they were small) made a mess under the table, I a) got my ass under there and picked up the worst of it, and 2) left an extra $5-10 depending, for the trouble (mostly for the busboy, who would clean it, not the waiter. I've even been known to slip the busboy a $5 on the side).

Again, I see some valid points on both sides the of this issue. However, I think those of you without kids only see the obnoxious kids at restaurants because they're being... well... obnoxious. You may barely realize my kids are with me if I am 2 booths away from you at Liberty Kitchen. You know why- because we've been bringing them to restaurants since they were born. They eat at the table at home, too. They know what "meal time" means. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that MarkSMU is doing himself a disservice by avoiding restaurants while his daughter goes through a "spirited" phase because she'll have to be retrained when she is ready again. Instead, there are restaurants (Berryhill) where kids are always welcome and can be a good training ground for bigger, better eating out later on. In any case, most waiters would love to wait on me and my friends, kids included.

You know, I was asked to post actual data, and I did so. Niche did as well. So, what do you do? You go dig up my sarcastic anecdotal response and write a big long response to that. Then you take any establishment that fails and claim it was because kids were not welcome, without having any clue as to the internal ownership problems within those businesses. But, I guess this just keeps on proving my point. When parents have children they begin to associate with other parents, and soon enough they believe everyone has kids, even when the US Census tries to tell them otherwise.

Whatever works for you. Data is only useful to those who read it.

I didn't take "any." I took 2 and I know that both those establishments had internal issues but they may have been able to make more money had they gone with a different business model. That's all I was saying. I asked where you were getting the info because I was interested and was interested in the stats. I read them and I did say that I agreed that families with kids are not the majority but added that they/we are often the ones spending the money. A moderate income Hispanic family with 4 kids probably eats out 2x a month. My family eats out 2x a week with kids and usually once without. Less kids, but more eating out. Hell, I know a single mom with a high paying job that eats out almost every night so she can spend those 2 hours between daycare pick up and bedtime talking to her kid rather than cooking. That was my point. Basically, I was saying everyone is right. The census proves something but it isn't a compete sociological study on the behaviors of the families that make up the numbers. Don't be so defensive. It's not personal. Geesh.

I think you are right on.

From the before posts you and niche narrowed the relevant kid households to 5-10% I'd say liberty kitchen probably holds 50-75 people and you might see 3 to 7 tables with children. Some see it as kid friendly someone from the woodlands may see it as kid starved. I doubt liberty kitchen has more than 3-7 high chairs so I think all the analysis is pointing to a small minority of kids in any restaurant (Berryhill on friday being an exception). The trend (household income >~$70k w/ kids) is certainly increasing but nowhere near a plurality or majority.

Though the time of day may skew your sample. If you go out at 9 or 10 to a restaurant you'll rarely see a kid out, and if you are out at 5pm you may see only kids and families out. I really think you could all be right.

Totally. That's like when we go to BBs or even Christian's. I would not be there with my kids past 6:30ish, mostly out of respect for the later-coming adults, but any time before that is fair game for a burger for the kiddos and and beers/burgers for mom & dad.