Jump to content

The Heights Restaurant And Bar Scene - More Coming


Freelander

Recommended Posts

NIche, Harvard isn't really a good analog for the Heights, as something like half the students are zoned to other schools.

Overall, keep in mind that the Heights restaurants pull in folks from Timbergrove, Garden Oaks, Oak Forest, etc, and lots of us have kids. We generally won't go somewhere that isn't kid friendly, as our well behaved son goes with us except on special occasions. It's cheaper to feed him a (usually full price) good restaurant meal than it is to hire a baby sitter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was a child if it wasn't chuck e cheese or a place with a "arcade" area, i was expected to sit at the table and behave. The whole "kid friendly" concept was completely foreign to me, if it was a restaurant I could go. I doubt anyone really cares if they see a child in a restaurant, it's if they are acting out in some way that they see as annoying. I occasionally see kids with their parents late night at Onion Creek and I think its pretty cool, as long as they aren't running around uncontrolled. I think for heights restaurants it is a good idea to have some "kids" portions or items on the menu, but no further accommodations need to be made.

I think a lot of the households that "will have kids" will probably move once they have had kids, and be replaced with more young couples without kids...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NIche, Harvard isn't really a good analog for the Heights, as something like half the students are zoned to other schools.

You obviously know a great deal about the subject. I'll gladly run the numbers however you suggest.

Overall, keep in mind that the Heights restaurants pull in folks from Timbergrove, Garden Oaks, Oak Forest, etc, and lots of us have kids.

I absolutely agree, which is something that I was hoping to allude to. The Heights by itself is a very small market given the number of restaurants that serve it. Even if there is a growing population of affluent Heights-area parents, it is drowned out by the affluent populations of neighborhoods not-so-far-along as well as by commuters that travel into the big city for work or play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NIche, Harvard isn't really a good analog for the Heights, as something like half the students are zoned to other schools.

Overall, keep in mind that the Heights restaurants pull in folks from Timbergrove, Garden Oaks, Oak Forest, etc, and lots of us have kids. We generally won't go somewhere that isn't kid friendly, as our well behaved son goes with us except on special occasions. It's cheaper to feed him a (usually full price) good restaurant meal than it is to hire a baby sitter.

The fact that half of Harvard's students are zoned elsewhere is an even bigger indicator that there are not as many households with children in the Heights as some wish to suggest. As for Timbergrove, et al, this the the reason I chose 77008 as my demographic sample. The Heights is very small, and in fact, none of the restaurants are even located in the Heights proper. 77008 includes everyone from Studewood to 610, so it is a better sample size.

This entire debate is rather silly, as the only concessions being made by any of the restaurants is a few smaller items on the menu and perhaps a few high chairs for the little ones. There are no slides or monkey bars next to the restaurants. The fact that a kids menu qualifies as 'family friendly' suggests that Heights Yankee is very easy to please when it comes to accomodating her children (and I applaud her for that), rather than any concerted effort by the restaurants. And, given the small population of children in the area, it is not as if any of these places are overrun with kids. Even Berryhill, considered ground zero for families, never has more than 8 or 10 kids in it at any given time. The problem with Berryhill is that the parents let their kids run a little wilder there for some reason, making it seem like more kids than it is. Even so, it has never bothered me, as I don't go to Berryhill for the romantic atmosphere.

My only point in this exercise is to correct the misperception that the Heights is teeming with kids. It is more than than Midtown or West End, perhaps, but it is still a small percentage, as my comparison of Heights zip codes to Woodlands zip codes shows. And, none of us is trying to run the families off, either. I actually like kids, since they are not mine. The only kids on my block live on either side of my house, and I enjoy them. I really only jumped into this discussion to correct the common misperception that the Heights is full of families. It is not, for better or worse.

Now, get off my lawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I love a good debate, it is not nearly as much fun when the opposing viewpoint proves up my case before I get to respond. You state that 20-30% of the Heights residents who can afford to dine out have kids. Well, my post quoted a statistic that 25% of Heights households have kids. What's your point? You then claim that restaurants that do not cater to kids are alienating an "enormous, if not super majority" of the dining public. Since when did 20-30% of any sample become a super majority? Is that Republican math?

Your anecdotal evidence somewhat proves my point that you see what you want to see. When I hang out at my local Kroger, I see lots of middle aged singles and couples. Oh, sure, there are some kids, but nothing like I see when I visit a grocery store near my suburban office. And, the demographics bear me out. The Heights is known for two groups, gay couples moving from the more expensive Montrose, and empty nesters moving in from the suburbs. Neither of these groups bring kids with them. Just in the 8 years I've lived here, the number of families with kids on my block has dropped from 6 (out of 20 homes) to 2. The predominant group on my block is middle aged singles and couples, 'middle age' being defined as 40s to 60s. However, I am confident that in those parts of the Heights where the housing stock is less expensive that the number of younger couples with kids is higher.

OK, just to be clear on my own points here, I am not saying that the Heights is a majority of families- there are too many old people/empty nesters for that. However, there are hella more kids than there were when I moved here 7 years ago. My anecdotal evidence is the same as yours, but for the other side of the coin:

On my block, there was one young family on the block when we moved in. My block has 14 houses. They moved to a bigger house- in another part of the Heights. Since we have lived here, we have produced 2 small children and may have another if we get around to it. One young couple who bought there house 2 years before us had a baby and 3 other families with kids moved in. In the 14 houses there are 2 old bachelor brothers who live across the street from each other, 2 other bachelor types who have lived in their houses for more than 15 years each, another couple who raised their kids but the kids re grown and a gay couple who have lived there for around 10 years. So, these houses do not hold kids but with 1 exception, were all lived in by the current owners before the Heights had the "family friendly" vibe is does now. Of the 5 houses that have changed hands since I've lived here, 3 have brought children with them (and then there are the 2 of us who had kids after living here).

As far as the supermarket, I *never* bring my kids to the market with me if I can help it. In fact, I am just back from the bare shelved 11th St Kroger, where I also saw 2 other moms I know, childless. We relish that time. Kids are a handful and moms love their alone time, even if it's cruising the aisles at the grocery. Most of my mom friends shop a) when the kids are at school/MDO or B) at night when other parent is bathing and getting them ready for bed. I don't know about suburban moms, but moms in the Heights prefer the kids be elsewhere so we can shop efficiently.

And the large majority of families that I know do not have kids who are school age yet, so the Harvard stats don't really bare that out necessarily. My neighbor's daughter goes to Harvard but isn't zoned there. I have 2 friends who just bought houses in the Harvard zone because their older kids will start kinder in the next year or two. They moved from Heights houses to new Heights houses.

The point is, there is a point and counter point for all of these arguments. What it comes down to is families are not a majority, but they may hold the majority of the wealth. They are also growing in numbers as the Heights becomes more acceptable to even the most skittish city dwellers (we bought our house because at the time we were priced out of Montrose and wanted to have kids. People I worked with said things like "Oh, you can't have a family in the Heights." You'll rarely, if ever, hear that these days, even from the most suburban types).

The definition of "family friendly" has also changed, as Red noted in his last post. I don't take my kids to Chuck E Cheese and I would never eat at a Cici's. I don't feed my kids stuff that I won't eat. I expect them to sit at a restaurant (except Berryhill, which is such a playground because the patio is completely enclosed and they can't run out in to the street) and eat. A "family friendly" atmosphere just means they are willing to do a smaller portion and have a cup with a lid- doesn't even have to have a cartoon on it. The vast majority of my friends with kids are the same way. The ones who eat regularly at someplace like CEC live in the 'burbs.

Look at some of the recent successes and failures in the Heights. 6th St Bar & Grille- not good for kids. Failed. Beer Island- not good for kids and in serious financial trouble. Jenni's Noodle House- not the best food (although owners are super nice, neighborhood oriented and charitable people, still better food can be had), but thrives because of catering to families like their own. BB's- great for kids before 6-6:30 and does more early business for that reason, always packed.

So, back to the point of the thread--- yes, restaurants in this neighborhood will thrive if they allow parents to eat decent food and allow their kids to do the same. If they don't accommodate for families in some small way-- or make them feel unwelcome, which I have thankfully never experienced-- they will need to offer something really special that will draw from all over the city to make their business a cash cow. Otherwise, all it takes are cups with lids.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by RedScare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the demographics of the Heights are changing more rapidly than census or school data can accurately capture. I can think of a two block stretch near my end of the Heights that has had seven babies born just this past year. The Heights will never be the Woodlands, but is definitely seeing growth in the number of families, especially compared to 5-10 years ago. High-end places like Glass Wall, Stella Sola and Shade do not need to bother with kiddie menus because they pull clientele from all over Houston and are looking for people who will order three courses and a couple of bottles of wine. But, places that are going for the more casual dinning crowd would be foolish to set up shop in the Heights without trying to bring in families. The smart business model definitely seems to be to cover all the bases and have kids menu but also have plenty for the adults once the families go home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the demographics of the Heights are changing more rapidly than census or school data can accurately capture.

You are correct, but coming to the wrong conclusion. Increasing home values are driving out the large hispanic families with limited income, only to be replaced by singles, couples and some upper income families with one or two children. This may cause an increase in children whose parents have disposable income, but the number of children overall are dropping, as is the percentage of children and families. But, keep using anecdotes to prove your point. I love cute stories during the holidays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we moved onto our block we were two young professionals just like the stats said we should be....There was one child on the block when we moved in back in early 2007. Since we moved we have had 1 child, and have another on the way, another house has had 2 children, and five other houses have 1 each...of the 22 houses on my street there was one with a child in 2007...now in 2011 there are 7/22 houses with kids.

We also have a rental house 3 blocks away and I got to know neighbors there when I was rehabbing it....that block had 2 houses with kids when we bought it in 2009 and it now has 6/20 houses with kids....My Cousin also lives up on 21st and his block had no houses with kids in 2008 and now has 8/21 with children.

I am not arguing that the Heights is majority Child occupied, or ever will be, but I do not think Census data necessarily bears out the true numbers...it is too slow and even though we just had a census in 2010, a-lot has changed since then. We have 9 friends who went to law school with us who moved to the heights, and only 1 of them has not had a child.....

The big question is will the couples with Children stay? Personally I guess it depends on what they are looking for....we probably will not stay. I will not put my child in HISD, so we will either stay and goto private school, or we will move to the Memorial area....That is a decision we have not made yet.

I think restaurants in the area are certainly wise to cater to families and I agree with both Yankee and S3MH - you dont have to have a playground to be kid friendly...a kids menu and a handful of high chairs is really all that is necessary....the parents should be able to handle the rest. Right now my girl is not good so we get our food to go, but I look forward to getting to eat out again soon. Especially at Liberty Kitchen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct, but coming to the wrong conclusion. Increasing home values are driving out the large hispanic families with limited income, only to be replaced by singles, couples and some upper income families with one or two children. This may cause an increase in children whose parents have disposable income, but the number of children overall are dropping, as is the percentage of children and families. But, keep using anecdotes to prove your point. I love cute stories during the holidays.

In all fairness, these anecdotes may tell a story that is ignored by the school enrollment data. Neither Marksmu's or HeightsYankee's kids are school-age. All of Marksmu's SMU buddies' kids aren't school-age. There may be a vastly disproportionate number of very young children in affluent households. (Not that it should matter that much to a restauranteur if kids of that age suppress dining out in those households, and if those households are just going to move away in another few years or exhaust their disposable income on needless private schooling.)

Or...it may be that these posters are all from basically the same subculture, interact only within that subculture, and are oblivious to the demographic impact of several large and medium-sized apartment complexes on the periphery of their neighborhoods and the fact that the "Greater Heights Area" is still extremely heterogeneous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all fairness, these anecdotes may tell a story that is ignored by the school enrollment data. Neither Marksmu's or HeightsYankee's kids are school-age. All of Marksmu's SMU buddies' kids aren't school-age. There may be a vastly disproportionate number of very young children in affluent households. (Not that it should matter that much to a restauranteur if kids of that age suppress dining out in those households, and if those households are just going to move away in another few years or exhaust their disposable income on needless private schooling.)

Or...it may be that these posters are all from basically the same subculture, interact only within that subculture, and are oblivious to the demographic impact of several large and medium-sized apartment complexes on the periphery of their neighborhoods and the fact that the "Greater Heights Area" is still extremely heterogeneous.

None of my SMU friends live in the Heights, in fact only a few even live in Houston - most got jobs in Dallas before graduation so they stayed - most of the friends we have here are from my time at UH in Law School - that said - my child does not suppress my patronage of these places, rather I just get my food to go. I order to go frequently from many places... probably 3 or 4 meals a week.. I have been to every single restaurant on this thread with the exception of happy all cafe...I just cant bring myself to order from there - it just looks terrible.

The disposable income we have, and that of many of our friends, enables us to eat out frequently...even with private school tuition, we can afford to eat out. We eat many meals out b/c both parents in our house work and there is not always enough time to cook and clean when we are already tired from work, and just want to enjoy our family time....Private school will not impact that at all...ya, its another $1200 or $1500/ month but we already pay that in day care, so its of no consequence....if we could not afford two kids without a lifestyle change we would not be having a second.

The only reason for the move is that I can have a hard asset in the form of a bigger house in a slightly better area for the same price that I would pay to send my kids to private school. I see no reason not to keep the money in an asset, rather than give it to a school....HISD schools can not compete with the Spring Branch ones and I have no loyalty to the Heights other than its been a good place to live the last several years.

Also were not oblivious to the apartments in the area, or the multitude of children living in them - one need only drive by them to realize how populated they are - but the restaurants that have been opening in the area generally are not trying to draw that demographic....they are pricing the food to attract the increasing demographic, not the decreasing one....I have seen many a run down rental torn to the ground to be replaced by a nice house...the trend in home building is toward the nicer more expensive homes in the $400-$600,000 price range....that is not changing despite the influence the apartments have on the area.

Edited by Marksmu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HISD schools can not compete with the Spring Branch ones and I have no loyalty to the Heights other than its been a good place to live the last several years.

Little bit of a generalization there Marksmu.

I'd take Harvard, Travis, River Oaks, Timbergrove, Kolter, Love or half a dozen others over Spring Branch Elementary.

http://www.har.com/school/campus-Spring-Branch-Elementary-School-101920114.html

Additionally, if your kid is say 1 years old it. It is really hard to say that the "good" public schools now will be the same ones 5,10,18 years from now. I certainly wouldn't bet the house on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little bit of a generalization there Marksmu.

I'd take Harvard, Travis, River Oaks, Timbergrove, Kolter, Love or half a dozen others over Spring Branch Elementary.

http://www.har.com/s...-101920114.html

Additionally, if your kid is say 1 years old it. It is really hard to say that the "good" public schools now will be the same ones 5,10,18 years from now. I certainly wouldn't bet the house on it.

I should have stated that more succinctly ...I would not consider a move to an area that did not go to either Frostwood elementary....OR Bunker Hill Elementary...there is no sense in making a lateral move to a more expensive home in an equal school district.

http://www.har.com/s...-101920104.html

http://www.har.com/s...-101920102.html

And I agree that its difficult to know what a school will look like several years from now - which is why we are not moving now....we love our house and our street...But my personal belief is that a school can only be as good as the parents who are behind the students pushing and encouraging them....if you have a large population of children whose parents are not involved in their education, for whatever reason, you will not have the same quality of a school as population of students whose parents are very involved.

EDIT: To link this back up with restaurants though - the increase in the home values generally mean an increase in a demographic that has both 1) more disposable income for restaurants, and 2) a stronger belief in a good education....so I think that both restaurants and schools are going to continue to get better here as the demographic changes to a more affluent one.

Edited by Marksmu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all fairness, these anecdotes may tell a story that is ignored by the school enrollment data. Neither Marksmu's or HeightsYankee's kids are school-age. All of Marksmu's SMU buddies' kids aren't school-age. There may be a vastly disproportionate number of very young children in affluent households. (Not that it should matter that much to a restauranteur if kids of that age suppress dining out in those households, and if those households are just going to move away in another few years or exhaust their disposable income on needless private schooling.)

Or...it may be that these posters are all from basically the same subculture, interact only within that subculture, and are oblivious to the demographic impact of several large and medium-sized apartment complexes on the periphery of their neighborhoods and the fact that the "Greater Heights Area" is still extremely heterogeneous.

I still have nothing more than anecdotal evidence, but I still believe that there is a real demographic shift happening in the Heights. Of the mini-baby boom I described, all but one live in houses that would probably go on the market from $400k up to $700k. These are not typically the homes you buy when your intention is to bolt for the burbs when the kids hit grade school. Thus, I suspect that the population of families in the Heights is growing as families are staying and more families are moving in.

Further anecdotal evidence is the fact that the recent additions to the restaurant scene are either passively (token kids menu) or actively kid friendly. Just look at Menchie's. You do not put the Romper Room version of a yogurt shop in the middle of a neighborhood that does not have a lot of families. Jenni's didn't put a big sewer pipe on their back patio as a Dada-ist art installation. Liberty Kitchen doesn't have a kids menu to be PC. And Down House doesn't serve beer in children's sizes just to make a buck. They are responding to a real market in the Heights (maybe not Down House). So, while you can be stingy with statistics and show that there may be a net loss of children in the Heights as the demographic moves from the old population demographic to the newcomers families, I think there is definitely real growth amongst the newcomers that will continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, while you can be stingy with statistics and show that there may be a net loss of children in the Heights as the demographic moves from the old population demographic to the newcomers families, I think there is definitely real growth amongst the newcomers that will continue.

You have grossly misinterpreted my findings, as per usual.

I was being anything but stingy with the stats. I did not warrant my analysis as perfect. I was actually trying to be reasonable if not generous (for instance by assuming that every child is an only-child with two parents). I never stated anything about a net loss of children. I did not perform a time-series analysis. I do suspect that there is a growth of the 0-18 age cohort among non-Hispanic residents of the Heights, as you claim; however, the data does not support claims by previous posters that the percentage of adult non-Hispanic residents of the Heights that are parents is 25%, a majority, or anything like that.

I have stated that I am willing to re-run them however anyone (with an inkling of knowledge) suggests, however nobody has made any requests...reasonable or otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The disposable income we have, and that of many of our friends, enables us to eat out frequently...even with private school tuition, we can afford to eat out. We eat many meals out b/c both parents in our house work and there is not always enough time to cook and clean when we are already tired from work, and just want to enjoy our family time.

You're telling me, then, that you spend at least as much money eating out with children than you do without children? Sit-down meals typically entail a larger tip, alcoholic beverages, multiple courses, and will more frequently be in a finer establishment.

Also were not oblivious to the apartments in the area, or the multitude of children living in them - one need only drive by them to realize how populated they are - but the restaurants that have been opening in the area generally are not trying to draw that demographic....they are pricing the food to attract the increasing demographic, not the decreasing one....I have seen many a run down rental torn to the ground to be replaced by a nice house...the trend in home building is toward the nicer more expensive homes in the $400-$600,000 price range....that is not changing despite the influence the apartments have on the area.

The growth trend is to new apartments, condos, and townhomes on the peripheries...which from here on out is pretty much everwhere that the Heights preservation ordinances don't apply. Young, educated, early-career professionals (mostly singles and DINKs) may not do much for Stella Sola or Shade, but don't tell me that they aren't a core demographic for a huge number of Heights restaurants and bars. As for the fixed number of single-family homes in the Heights proper, its seems like there's merely a transition from one already-affluent demographic to another affluent demographic; I fail to see where that's adding quite the same value as does adding completely new housing units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're telling me, then, that you spend at least as much money eating out with children than you do without children? Sit-down meals typically entail a larger tip, alcoholic beverages, multiple courses, and will more frequently be in a finer establishment.

No, I cant say that. We are usually in more of a hurry when we are eating with the kids....but I do not order any less expensive meals, or drinks, and I am cognizant of the fact that a child is an inconvenience so even though my child can easily eat off my plate and we can all be full, I still always order a meal for her as well...worst case I take more food home and we eat it tomorrow...I do that more as a thank you to the restaurant for offering a children's menu than anything else.

I generally do not get appetizers and desert when with the kiddo, and I do with the wife...but again its all about the speed issue...when I eat out with my child, we are there for a max of 35-40 minutes....we order quickly and eat fast...when I eat out without the kid, even though my tab is higher, I stay longer 2-3x longer....I do not know what makes the restaurant more money....my in/out and turning the table, or a table that stays 3x longer and spends more than I do...I would suspect the restaurant and the waiter would prefer to flip the table more frequently.

The growth trend is to new apartments, condos, and townhomes on the peripheries...which from here on out is pretty much everwhere that the Heights preservation ordinances don't apply. Young, educated, early-career professionals (mostly singles and DINKs) may not do much for Stella Sola or Shade, but don't tell me that they aren't a core demographic for a huge number of Heights restaurants and bars. As for the fixed number of single-family homes in the Heights proper, its seems like there's merely a transition from one already-affluent demographic to another affluent demographic; I fail to see where that's adding quite the same value as does adding completely new housing units.

I agree with you on the outskirts, townhomes and condos, but not for the fixed number of single family homes...the trend there, is for an older or far more economically disadvantaged resident to move out, and for the homes to be replaced with a nice new $400-$600,000 home. The historic ordinance has curtailed that significantly within its boundaries, but there is still an enormous section of property from Shepherd to Ashland, and in various places in between that are not included in the historic ordinance.

Just in the 2 blocks from Waverly at 11th to Nicholson and 13th and back down Waverly there have been 7 new builds started in the last few months, and 3 new builds completed since I moved into that area in 2007....the historic ordinance certainly curtailed the influx of more affluent residents within its boundaries, but it has created a market outside of its boundaries but still within the Heights that is doing quite well. A quick search for lots or homes on HAR from Shepherd to Studemont and 11th to 20th with a min lotsize of 6000sq ft (what most of the larger builders are looking for) and a max price of $300,000 shows only 5 listings, one on Yale, which should really be more commercial and 2 of them must be purchased together...Sullivan builders at 15th and Ashland have a new section that they are building that is huge, probably 20 or more homes and those homes are quite expensive as well....so within the fixed home community I think the trend outside of the historic ordinance area is certainly still to raze and rebuild, and those people doing that are not coming back with small bungalows...they are building large nice new homes in the $500-$800K range.

Edited by Marksmu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the mini-baby boom I described, all but one live in houses that would probably go on the market from $400k up to $700k. These are not typically the homes you buy when your intention is to bolt for the burbs when the kids hit grade school. Thus, I suspect that the population of families in the Heights is growing as families are staying and more families are moving in.

They might be the typical homes young couples buy when their parents sport the down payment. After kid(s) make the scene, making a quick switch to a $150,000-250,000 mortgage in the Burbs isn't so hard with the equity the Heights market has been producing.

And Down House doesn't serve beer in children's sizes just to make a buck.

I thought I cleared up the kid's drinks/school cocktails thing earlier. Now I'll have to go to Down House to police their menu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you on the outskirts, townhomes and condos, but not for the fixed number of single family homes...the trend there, is for an older or far more economically disadvantaged resident to move out, and for the homes to be replaced with a nice new $400-$600,000 home. The historic ordinance has curtailed that significantly within its boundaries, but there is still an enormous section of property from Shepherd to Ashland, and in various places in between that are not included in the historic ordinance.

Just in the 2 blocks from Waverly at 11th to Nicholson and 13th and back down Waverly there have been 7 new builds started in the last few months, and 3 new builds completed since I moved into that area in 2007....the historic ordinance certainly curtailed the influx of more affluent residents within its boundaries, but it has created a market outside of its boundaries but still within the Heights that is doing quite well. A quick search for lots or homes on HAR from Shepherd to Studemont and 11th to 20th with a min lotsize of 6000sq ft (what most of the larger builders are looking for) and a max price of $300,000 shows only 5 listings, one on Yale, which should really be more commercial and 2 of them must be purchased together...Sullivan builders at 15th and Ashland have a new section that they are building that is huge, probably 20 or more homes and those homes are quite expensive as well....so within the fixed home community I think the trend outside of the historic ordinance area is certainly still to raze and rebuild, and those people doing that are not coming back with small bungalows...they are building large nice new homes in the $500-$800K range.

Compare what you have cited to the 1,100+ apartment units in the Greater Heights area over the last decade. And I have no idea how many new townhomes have been developed over that period of time, but clearly townhomes account for added housing units on net, whereas single-family homes have only replaced other single-family homes.

You cannot sincerely believe that the majority of Heights residents are like yourself or will become like yourself in any reasonable time horizon. Spatial constraints and municipal ordinances will forbid it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what is trying to be said here is that there is an increasing amount of affluent families with children in the neighborhood, which I agree with.

What I think is failed to be seen is that this number would need to increase 400% for it to actually be a significant.

My observations... The only restaurant where I see a larger amount of kids has been Berry Hill... and I've noticed that alot of them are the same ones I've seen previously (pretty cool, I can see them growing up by comparing their size to the fountain).

There are VERY few kids on my street, I only know of two in the immediate blocks. When my wife and I start having kids it will greatly increase the percentage of kids on the block, but the overall percentage for the neighborhood will still be very small.

I do feel that I see a lot more babies in the neighborhood compared to 5 years ago. Only time will tell if these people stick around once there kids get to be school aged. I think we will see a lot of improvement in the area schools in the near future.

Edited by SilverJK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what is trying to be said here is that there is an increasing amount of affluent families with children in the neighborhood, which I agree with.

What I think is failed to be seen is that this number would need to increase 400% for it to actually be a significant.

To I think Niche's point. Even if this number increased 400% they are simply replacing lesser affluent familes that on average have more children.

So net, the heights has to be losing children not gaining if any of these trends are to be believed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compare what you have cited to the 1,100+ apartment units in the Greater Heights area over the last decade. And I have no idea how many new townhomes have been developed over that period of time, but clearly townhomes account for added housing units on net, whereas single-family homes have only replaced other single-family homes.

You cannot sincerely believe that the majority of Heights residents are like yourself or will become like yourself in any reasonable time horizon. Spatial constraints and municipal ordinances will forbid it.

My whole point in this conversation has been, not that children make up a majority or ever will in the Heights....its not even that there are more children in the area than there were before I moved here in 2007....I accept the fact that lower income families have more children in smaller homes....My point, regardless of whether or not I have state it clearly, is that as less affluent residents move out of single family homes, many of those homes are torn down, and replaced with new, significantly larger more expensive homes, many of which now are being sold to more affluent people with children, or young professionals many of whom are planning to have children. The quantity of affluent people with disposable income, who have children is increasing, even though the net quantity of children is decreasing.

Most of the restaurants opening up around the Heights are not catering towards the less affluent apartment dwellers, or those on fixed income...the restaurants are targeting those people with disposable income...the menu prices make that clear...an increasing percentage of those with disposable income are starting to have children, thus a restaurant would be foolish not to make trivial accommodations to cater to those families with kids. I do not argue there are still far more affluent people who don't have kids than there are those who do, but I am arguing that since 2007 the percentage of affluent residents who have kids has increased considerably....These nicer restaurants are drawing from a relatively small area, of which only some can even afford to come to your place...to alienate 15 to 20% of your already small customer base because they have children would be foolish.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My whole point in this conversation has been, not that children make up a majority or ever will in the Heights....its not even that there are more children in the area than there were before I moved here in 2007....I accept the fact that lower income families have more children in smaller homes....My point, regardless of whether or not I have state it clearly, is that as less affluent residents move out of single family homes, many of those homes are torn down, and replaced with new, significantly larger more expensive homes, many of which now are being sold to more affluent people with children, or young professionals many of whom are planning to have children. The quantity of affluent people with disposable income, who have children is increasing, even though the net quantity of children is decreasing.

Most of the restaurants opening up around the Heights are not catering towards the less affluent apartment dwellers, or those on fixed income...the restaurants are targeting those people with disposable income...the menu prices make that clear...an increasing percentage of those with disposable income are starting to have children, thus a restaurant would be foolish not to make trivial accommodations to cater to those families with kids. I do not argue there are still far more affluent people who don't have kids than there are those who do, but I am arguing that since 2007 the percentage of affluent residents who have kids has increased considerably....These nicer restaurants are drawing from a relatively small area, of which only some can even afford to come to your place...to alienate 15 to 20% of your already small customer base because they have children would be foolish.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by heights_yankee
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I have kids, and I hated that damn sandbox. Why the hell would I want my kid to get all sandy, ever, especially when going somewhere? I hate going out to eat when kids are rowdy everywhere. We take ours out sometimes, and sometimes they are good. When they aren't, I can't get out of there fast enough. That's only partially because of the impact to others, most of it is that I don't want to deal with it. Baby-sitters are awesome. Tomorrow night will reaffirm that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kid’s-sized beer glasses

Ugh. I was just poking fun at Down House for serving pricey craft beers in very small glasses. Nothing at Down House is family friendly. In fact, many complain that nothing at Down House is friendly at all. I have been fortunate to be treated well there and have not experienced any of the misfires of the new chef. But, the tiny beer glasses are pretty annoying. I will gladly pay $12 for a full size serving of St. Bernardus. I don't need to be lured into it with a little 6-8 oz glass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...