heights_yankee

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 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.

Third, they think restaurant owners love families (as a former restaurant owner, I can unequivocally say they don't). And you wonder why singles and couples always complain about families in restaurants.

In the case of this specific restaurant, at least 3 of the 4 business partners are parents. One has 4 kids. Parents who own restaurants often want places they can bring their own kids.

Many families I know in the Heights eat out as much as childless people because often 2 working parents are too tired to cook, or a stay at home mom is too worn out to want to do dishes, yet meal time requires real food, not the kind of swill or bread and water I would have with my bottle of wine before I reproduced.

Where did you get that 75% stat? Not doubting you. Just wondering... In any case, a statistic doesn't take in to account a lot of the gray area important to this particular discussion. There are over 950 families in Heights Kids group. Of the childless homes in the Heights, many of them are elderly and don't eat out much anyway. THere are empty nesters who moved to a small house after their kids were grown, but are still welcoming toward young families. Another group is young couples who, like me, moved to the Heights from a less family friendly area to prepare for starting a family, so they just don't have kids yet.

I think MarkSMU was a little strong in his statement. I would not call Stella Sola particularly family friendly, although I have seen kids dining there, and it does an amazing amount of business. I would say it's here for the long haul. However, a casual dining restaurant will flourish more easily in the Heights if it welcomes and accommodates the needs of families. Of this there is no doubt.

My fifth-of-bourbon sense is kicking in. I prefer partaking in cocktails without children, and am wary of the company of parents that bring their children to adult/bar settings. We’ll see how it pans out, if the bar's vibe is too cool to pass up I may just have to recon when to sneak in a drink in between the play date times.

I do like my adult time, so I know what you mean. However, I think LK is intentionally set up to be a family friendly restaurant. It's not going to be a Berryhill, where kids are allowed to take the place over, but it's not a strictly adult spot, nor is it a bar.

Went to LIberty Kitchen last night for a drink. Great bar area. Cool, funky interior. HUGE menu and definitely set up to be kid friendly. Kids' menu items come served on old cafeteria trays. Menu also says something like "almost all of our items can be sized down for kids' meals." Nothing childish about it, though- especially the drink menu. Great cocktails mostly named after Heights streets/schools. Prices vary- some things seem like a great price for the item (fresh seafood and also a wine we had at another restaurant this weekend was $7 cheaper at LK), while some things seem a little pricey ($6 for an order of onion rings). Overall, though, seems like a very welcome addition.

I was told via text by one of the staff at BRC that Liberty Kitchen will be open tonight.

Saw a guy with an apron in his hand walking in at 4 oclock! Crossing my fingers they'll have oysters Kilpatrick at some point. My fave way to eat 'em! I've already requested it of the chef

I really cant wait for a place in the Heights with good seafood...the seafood options here are pretty slim, and even then not that great....I wonder what the price point for liberty kitchen is going to be...I am thinking $15-$22...I have not looked for a menu online, but that is just my guess....seafood is never cheap.

That sounds about right. Frankly, I would not eat cheap oysters. Good oysters come at a price.

Neither are restaurants owned by chefs...especially "famous" ones.

BTW, I just drove by. Looks like it may be open.

Coolio. Maybe the soft opening? If so, you can usually get free booze...

Liberty Kitchen is getting ready to open and so glad someone is finally using that freaking cute building behind it on 11th

http://houston.culturemap.com/newsdetail/11-17-11-liberty-kitchen-is-almost-ready-but-theres-more-coming-next-door/?utm_content=newslink&utm_campaign=news&utm_source=social+flow&utm_term=social+flow&utm_medium=socialmedia

Best hummus in the hood?

Best non-fancy Indian near here (chicken tikka, curry)?

I think Chatter's has the best hummus around. So good!

As far as Indian, I can't pin point anywhere north of I10...

Alamo Drafthouse in old Adickes studio?

http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2011/10/alamo-drafthouse-scouting-locations-near-the-heights/

Swamplot says "Not So Fast."

http://swamplot.com/an-alamo-draft-house-at-sculpturworx-not-so-fast/2011-10-17/

http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2011/09/harolds-modern-landmark-on-19th-street-finds-buyer/

Harolds was last owned by the people who owned Norman Ditto. I thought they would do something to update Harolds and make it competitive with M Penner and other high-end clothing stores. But they didn't. The store could have caught on to the popularity Mad Men and the mid-century Mod style to try to market to younger customers. But it seemed like they were just trying to hold on to an older clientele with an old haberdashery concept. That may have worked well for fifty years, but couldn't last forever.

Did you ever shop there? They carried a lot of contemporary designers. Also, they were not "owned" by Norton Ditto. They were in partnership.

I think Harold's had completely lost touch with the neighborhood.

That said, I hope to see a unique business take its place. I feel 19th street is ripe for business right now.

There were a lot of years when NONE of Harold's clients were from the Heights. They catered to doctors, lawyers, and oil men. Their clientele came from the Heights, River Oaks, West U, The Woodlands. All over the place. They were more of a destination than a neighborhood joint.

The thing to keep in mind is that they didn't close because they had no business and were going broke. Harold was about 120 years old and had been puttering around the store on an oxygen tank for at least the time I have lived in the Heights. They closed the store because, like many businesses today, the sons didn't want to run it.

Did anyone ever shop there? I was never even tempted to. Seemed like a relic.

I did. They had pretty high end clothes, so it wasn't for everyday stuff and the women's selection was a little too pricey/conservative/real housewives for my personal taste. However, I got some beautiful ties and cufflinks for my husband and brother (they both wear suits to work every day so this applies). I also got my husband a beautiful velvet blazer. Must say that he is not a flashy dresser, actually very conservative in his clothes choices, but he'll wear this blazer (it's traditionally tailored, not 3 button or Euro cut) with gray flannel pants or nice jeans around the holidays and it's a really timeless piece of clothing.

It was a bit of a relic in that they offered that old fashioned kind of customer service that mall stores just don't give a **** about providing anymore.

That conflicts with my experience. We pulled in to the lot, waited about a minute for a car to pull out, then parked our own vehicle. On the way out of the car the valet gave us a ticket and asked for our key. After our meal, we returned to find the valet had graciously (/sarcasm) turned our car 180 degrees. I then gave him my ticket, got my key back, begrudgingly gave him $1, and pulled my own vehicle back out.

That's not valet, that's a paid parking lot.

EDIT: It was in the parking lot in back (South side of the restaurant)

Well, that's what they told me. Your experience would have ticked me off. I have to wonder if that was the valet's own doing? I am a huge supporter of not blaming valets when restaurants hire the service. They are just doing their job. BUT sounds like this guy could have been working the system to make some extra bucks. Anyway, only time will tell what they really decide to do...

I just called Ruggles. They claim the lot is still open to whomever wants to park there, even when the valet is there, which will only be Fri-Sun. They are working out an agreement with the church next door to use their lot as well. He still didn't give me a clear answer about where the valets would be parking peoples' cars though. Oh well. Seems like the best scenario- options.

Valet for that building??? Whats next Valet at Someburger?

I agree. I am even a pretty regular valet user (if I am dressed up, bad weather, or alone with kids I always take valet if free). That is crazy. And I wonder where they are parking all the cars?

The flip side is maybe it will keep it a more neighborhood oriented restaurant, frequented by people on bikes and on foot. They should make that whole back lot a giant bike rack!

It is not much consolation that I will inevitably be inconvenienced by something so why not a jackhammer outside your bedroom at 7am (or cement truck).

At least the building is progress, the I-10, and 11th street construction is another story. I am convinced that studemont at I-10 is actually worse than before (unless you wanted to get to Chili's and Target from there, which I don't). If I-10 at Studemont looked like 59 at Montrose, that would be an improvement.

Actually, neighbors in that area had to call and complain because they were operating heavy machinery as late as 9 pm.

I agree about Studewood @ 10. It's definitely worse. Some mornings the traffic is backed up all the way to White Oak, which I never saw prior to the new lane configuration.

I always thought that place had potential, but the food was so greasy there. Glad to see that something better is going in.

Speaking of this intersection, I still haven't heard what will go in across the street in the old Houston Tamales Factory location. Anyone know?

Liberty Kitchen. Oyster bar-ish. Lance Feagan.

Yeah, I'll assume it was sunsets they were complaining about. I didn't see it 1st hand. I was told the construction (not necessarily the building, could be the cranes and such too) was bumming them out. You can really make the biggest deal out of nothing.

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but I Phil's BBQ at Heights/Washington is out of business. I think it happened in April. They sure put a lot of money into that remodel. I hope someone can open up another restaurant there and not some DB bar, but I guess it will have to be whatever they can make money with.

They had bad barbecue. Gatlin's is so much better.

Gatlin's is awesome but they run out pretty quickly. How Phil's thought they could have bad bbq with Hickory Hollow right across the street, I'll never know. But everything I've heard says that it was nothing more than a vanity project. Hopefully someone can take advantage of a move-in-change-the-sign situation (much like BB's did on White Oak).

Just got home from burgers at Christian's on White Oak. Awesome. The onion rings were to die for. Nice crowd for just opening. Tons of tvs (my kids went bonkers for the Formula 1 races). A real sports bar. I think it's going to do incredibly well.

Happy Fatz and Down House are both on my hit list for the weekend.

Down House was great but there was already a waiting list at 8:30 Sat morning.

If you stand on 11 1/2 Street, you will see a space between the building and the sidewalk of approximately 20 feet or so. That is sufficient for a pation on the corner, even if they put the circle drive in front on Studewood.

As for the suggestion that a "large chucnk" of your neighborhood losing afternoon sun, I have to say that this is a bit of an exaggeration. I hate to bust out my algebra on you, but it will help visualize how much shade the building will produce. The building will be approximately 60 feet tall. It sits 20 feet from the City right of way. Studewood is 75 feet wide, including sidewalks. The first house on the other side is approximately 15 feet from the edge of the right of way. So, a shadow must be 110 feet long to even reach the first house.

Obviously, at noon, there is no shadow. As the suns drops in the sky, the angle to the building will increase, lengthening the shadow. At approximately 4 pm, the sun would be at 45 degrees (VERY rough estimate). This would put the building's shadow at 60 feet, not even crossing Studewood. At 6 pm, the angle would be roughly 60 degrees, or 30 degrees above the horizon. This would produce a shadow of 104 feet, not quite reaching the first house across the street. After 6 pm, until sunset, the first house would be shaded. Remember, however, that every house to the east of that first house will also be shaded by the house directly west of it. So, by 6 pm, virtually all houses in the neighborhood will be blocked by the other houses. Effectively, NO houses will be blocked of afternoon sun, and only the FIRST house will be blocked of evening sun.

Remember that the building is only 100 feet wide, so the width of the shadow will only block one house.

I'll buy that. Fine. I really don't care to think 3 paragraphs about it. But the construction is already blocking the sun of my friend's house on Key in the late afternoon...

Well, since Swamplot was merely asking a rhetorical question, not stating a fact, I'll wait to see what the finished product looks like before passing judgment.

Interesting that you trashed two builders who design and build homes in the Heights to look like they've been here awhile. I completely agree. However, that is what that stupid historical ordinance attempts to impose on new construction. Faux history. But that's another topic.

It is, but I have to say I agree. That is the part of the ordinance I don't like. I do like the size restrictions but not the style. What I am most interested in (and the reason I bought in a historic district) is to save what's here, not to make new look old.

I can't help but pass judgement. I drive by this everyday and a large chunk of my neighborhood will lose afternoon sun because of it. I do look forward to more retail options, but only if they are independent/local.

To my previous concern about the patio in the rendering- I really just cannot see how. There is a huge concrete beam exactly at the corner. Of course, if you look at their rendering, there is no sidewalk either but there is not enough space between the existing sidewalk and the new building to have that drive thru area. I think the rendering is a bunch of bunk based on these observations. Again, I am not architect. Someone else needs to go over and look and tell me if I am crazy!

That is exactly the insinuation being made by Swamplot. They compared the renderings to the less than spectacular rendering at the construction site and suggested that budget issues may have done away with the window treatments and other niceties. We all know how often the real thing differs from the renderings, so we'll just have to wait and see how this thing pans out. If they are going to risk ridicule by building something new in the Heights, the least they can do is shut up the naysayers by making it look nice.

Really, anyone building anything new anywhere should make it look nice. There is no reason for crap design other than lack of caring. It doesn't need to be super fancy to be interesting.

I know I am a minority on this point: I am very strongly in favor of preserving old things for several reasons but when new ones are build, for the love, make them look new. Otherwise 9 times out of 10 you end up with a) bad design... Whitestone Builders, I'm talking to you... or living in the middle of Disneyworld... Harry James... I'm talking to you.

http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2011/06/heights-building-to-have-retail-and-condos/

According to this, the roof top pool is included with an outdoor kitchen. Developers claim that the architecture is supposed to look like a conversion of a historic warehouse. Hard to tell from the computer graphic what the detailing will be like. At least it looks like there is a good set back, leaving room for outdoor seating for a restaurant.

I have been trying to reconcile that rendering with the actual construction. I live a couple blocks away and, as of now, I just can't see how they are going to fit any kind of ample patio (like bigger than 4 cafe tables) off the side of that building. It may take some of the machinery vacating the location for it to come in to focus.

Also, did anyone else get the impression from the Swamplot post that most of the renderings they have on the architect's site are NOT what the building is going to have to be because they had budget issues?

I went to the White Oak BB's for dinner yesterday and the food was absolutely fantastic. Makes me think Big Mamou isn't long for this world, BB's is infintely better.

My husband was always raving about the BBs on Montrose so I was very excited when this one opened. We had a GREAT dinner and can't wait to go back.

It might be the death knell for mamou but maybe not. I have to wonder if BBs is going to be more of a bar/restaurant than restaurant/bar. If that's the case, a lot of families will still go to Mamou. Mamou has a very sweet owner and a great patio. Plus it sits in the middle of a casual restaurant dry zone. I dunno. Do I think Mamou is the bees knees? Nope but I hate to see a locally owned establishment with great people behind it close. I don't wish that on anyone and just hope there is room for both since they offer different things...

I am glad they are spurring development in the "washington heights" there is no way that would have occurred with out some help.

Yeah, because nothing has been happening in that part of town.

I support the idea of having a safer bridge and think it is a real issue. That being said, RUDH is pushing this and I think it's against their bad interest. As someone who is anti-Walmart (all Walmarts) I feel like a new bridge makes it easier for this damn thing to be built. Still, my concerns about the safety of the bridge actually outweigh my dislike of this development and my disgust about the anchor tenant.