Bellaire/Southside Place/West University Place Real Estate

[KinkaidAlum]

West U is a great neighborhood altough the McMansion craze has clearly won the war. Very few original houses remain although the "commercial" center retains it's old-school charms (the indie grovery store, soda fountain, Edloe Deli, etc...). The public schools are stellar and there is a strong sense of place/community.

That said, it isn't diverse at all.

Sadly, there really aren't too many diverse hoods in Houston (or the entire nation for that matter).

Assuming you can afford the price range and reading what you were asking for, I'd look at the City of Houston's neighborhoods right around West U. The schools are pretty much the same (including Lamar H.S.) and the overall "feel" is slightly more progressive than West U proper. Check neighborhoods like Southampton, Edgemont, Boulevard Oaks, Southgate, Ranch Estates, and Southampton Extension. These have stellar locations and are closer to Rice U, The Museum District, Med Center, Hermann Park, and Montrose which means they are slightly more funky.

[VicMan]

If you are looking for a somewhat affordable place to live where it is clean and safe then Meyerland is your best bet. Kolter or Parker are your primary schools while Johnston is the middle school. You would have to use private school for High since one should go into Westbury High only with a concealed weapon, a tazer, and a ballistics vest on. Meyerland has excellent access to the city, mature tree lined streets, well kept large yards, and homes that are not cookie cutters (all look the same) like most post WW2 era tract housing or McMansions built in the past 20 years.

Meyerland proper is zoned to Bellaire High School. Some neighborhoods near Meyerland are zoned to Westbury.

[amdave]

Thanks. I do have a certain amount of money to burn. The house I am selling has sky-rocketed in value, so I could buy in the 1 to 1.2 million dollar range.

What about Bellaire?? How does it compare to West U? I found driving around Bellaire to be nice also, and the location is also good for us, as we love the galleria area. Nice trees and homes in Bellaire also it seems.

I would like to avoid a completely homogenous environment, as I am Asian, but I don't necessarily need a heavy Asian population like in Sugar Land.

Thanks for the advice and please keep the info coming - great website!

[TheNiche]

Along with high property values, this causes taxes to be significantly higher in West U.

The tax rate in West U is $0.402 per $100 valuation as compared to $0.645 per $100 in the City of Houston. The tax on a $1 million home in West U is only as much as a $1.6 million home in the City of Houston.

[Vertigo58]

I feel very safe when visiting West U. There is a rare sense of real community that we seldom see any more in a city as big as ours. Everything you need is within close proximity and just knowing that the Texas Medical Center is near is very near should be of comfort to West U folks. Take a tour of the area and judge for yourself. You will love it.

[sevfiv]

Thanks. I do have a certain amount of money to burn. The house I am selling has sky-rocketed in value, so I could buy in the 1 to 1.2 million dollar range.

What about Bellaire?? How does it compare to West U? I found driving around Bellaire to be nice also, and the location is also good for us, as we love the galleria area. Nice trees and homes in Bellaire also it seems.

I would like to avoid a completely homogenous environment, as I am Asian, but I don't necessarily need a heavy Asian population like in Sugar Land.

Thanks for the advice and please keep the info coming - great website!

i grew up in bellaire, and it has a similar feel to west university, but also has fallen victim to the onslaught of "custom" homes crammed on small lots. you could easily spend near a million on one of the new homes, but imo they are architecturally and structurally appalling for the prices asked.

and here is the 200 census information for bellaire: link

[texas911]

Living in WestU is great. Sense of community, yea, I guess. What I love about WestU is that its all about WestU. We got all new streets, and not the paved over kind, they tore it all up and laid fresh concrete. Improved drainage too. Now they're redoing all the sidewalks! Its going to feel just like any Suburbia development, but with more diverse housing styles. And bigger trees. Another thing I love about WestU are the cops. They keep the place safe. I once left my garage door open overnight and the cops came and closed it for me and left me a note on my car! Location is another thing. Some parts are OK but the parts closer to the Village is great. Away from the rail road tracks. And I absolutely love that my city taxes aren't going to support some crack addict rehab or other stupid public program because WestU just doesn't have any of those. No crazy deed restrictions either. Build what you want your house to look like (Darth Vader's house). The newer McMansions are boring and dull though. Used to be that people who built in WestU hired a real architect and had a custom. Now its just builders and their stupid spec homes.

WestU elementary rocks, but I know most of the families try and move their kids to private school when they reach middle school because they don't want their kids going to school with apartment dwellers from Braeswood. There are still some rough parts that is zoned to Pershing. The mayor did try and implore WestU families to send them to the all new Pershing. But most friends I've talked to won't do it.

[VicMan]

WestU elementary rocks, but I know most of the families try and move their kids to private school when they reach middle school because they don't want their kids going to school with apartment dwellers from Braeswood. There are still some rough parts that is zoned to Pershing. The mayor did try and implore WestU families to send them to the all new Pershing. But most friends I've talked to won't do it.

I believe most of the apartments zoned to Pershing that are "rough" are zoned to Shearn Elementary School. Those apartments are also zoned to Madison High School.

Dowling is severely overcrowded, so perhaps a new middle school somewhere near Shearn ES could help.

[amdave]

Thanks - how diverse is the neighborhood? How do the neighbors get along etc? Is it overly snooty due to the wealth there?

I would like my kids to have some semblence of a "normal" upbringing if you know what I mean. I also value some diversity of thought and ethnicity.

[VicMan]

Thanks - how diverse is the neighborhood? How do the neighbors get along etc? Is it overly snooty due to the wealth there?

I would like my kids to have some semblence of a "normal" upbringing if you know what I mean. I also value some diversity of thought and ethnicity.

The city of West University's ethnic makeup is shown here in the 2000 census:

* 92.37% White

* 4.74% Asian

* 1.41% Two or more races

* 0.90% Other races

* 0.50% African-American

* 0.07% Native American

* 0.02% Pacific Islander

Of the population, 4.72% is Hispanic.

Anyway, the zoned middle and high schools are more racially and socioeconomically diverse since they serve many neighborhoods.

In my view, Houston's diversity doesn't show in neighborhoods but in services and places used by community members (i.e. schools, public libraries, etc.)

[editor]

There used to be a "West U and the Villages" section, but it was hardly used.

[KinkaidAlum]

WestU elementary rocks, but I know most of the families try and move their kids to private school when they reach middle school because they don't want their kids going to school with apartment dwellers from Braeswood. There are still some rough parts that is zoned to Pershing. The mayor did try and implore WestU families to send them to the all new Pershing. But most friends I've talked to won't do it.

This attitude just bugs the &%*$ out of me. I totally understand it, but maybe, just maybe, the world would be a better place if we all just didn't leave the poor behind at every turn and act like they don't exist. Maybe, just maybe, those kids from the apartments would have a better life if the parents who had the money and time to make Pershing a better school stayed on as active parents instead of running away from the slightest perceived differences. Additionally, maybe those kids of the wealthy West U parents would grow up with a little bit more respect for the different classes than their parents currently have.

Of course, that just isn't reality. The end result is a totally segregated school systems (by class and race) where the poor kids know right off the bat that society doesn't give a damn about them. How's that turning out for us?

Sorry for the rant, but it just irks me.

[VicMan]

Pershing, from the statistics, seems to be a fairly diverse school racially (White plurality at 36%) and socioeconomically (free lunch is 40%) - I know some people who go there.

Pershing is actually considered to be among the top HISD middle schools - not as good as Lanier, but close to Lanier.

This attitude just bugs the &%*$ out of me. I totally understand it, but maybe, just maybe, the world would be a better place if we all just didn't leave the poor behind at every turn and act like they don't exist. Maybe, just maybe, those kids from the apartments would have a better life if the parents who had the money and time to make Pershing a better school stayed on as active parents instead of running away from the slightest perceived differences. Additionally, maybe those kids of the wealthy West U parents would grow up with a little bit more respect for the different classes than their parents currently have.

Of course, that just isn't reality. The end result is a totally segregated school systems (by class and race) where the poor kids know right off the bat that society doesn't give a damn about them. How's that turning out for us?

Sorry for the rant, but it just irks me.

[millennica]

This attitude just bugs the &%*$ out of me. I totally understand it, but maybe, just maybe, the world would be a better place if we all just didn't leave the poor behind at every turn and act like they don't exist. Maybe, just maybe, those kids from the apartments would have a better life if the parents who had the money and time to make Pershing a better school stayed on as active parents instead of running away from the slightest perceived differences. Additionally, maybe those kids of the wealthy West U parents would grow up with a little bit more respect for the different classes than their parents currently have.

Of course, that just isn't reality. The end result is a totally segregated school systems (by class and race) where the poor kids know right off the bat that society doesn't give a damn about them. How's that turning out for us?

Sorry for the rant, but it just irks me.

I second that emotion.

[Absinthe_1900]

West U. native, I'm staying just to bug the McMansion owners.

[RedScare]

West U. native, I'm staying just to bug the McMansion owners.

Great, let's all go to Absinthe's house, and sit in lawn chairs on his driveway, drinking beer.

That ought to rile 'em up a bit.

Can't really speak to what WestU life is like. Heights guy myself. We are are really diverse here. We have both kinds...smart AND stupid.

[TheNiche]

This attitude just bugs the &%*$ out of me. I totally understand it, but maybe, just maybe, the world would be a better place if we all just didn't leave the poor behind at every turn and act like they don't exist. Maybe, just maybe, those kids from the apartments would have a better life if the parents who had the money and time to make Pershing a better school stayed on as active parents instead of running away from the slightest perceived differences. Additionally, maybe those kids of the wealthy West U parents would grow up with a little bit more respect for the different classes than their parents currently have.

Of course, that just isn't reality. The end result is a totally segregated school systems (by class and race) where the poor kids know right off the bat that society doesn't give a damn about them. How's that turning out for us?

Sorry for the rant, but it just irks me.

Kinkaid, you miss the point. Those wealthy folks don't act like the poor don't exist. Otherwise, they wouldn't spend so much money to send their kids to a school without poor people. They perceive the poor as a problem that must be actively avoided (except for tax purposes or to get their name on a charitible organization's plaque) rather than shrugged off. ...and it annoys me too, at least on a personal level.

But it seems to me that many of the rich kids that were born with silver spoons in their mouths tend not to be able to replicate the wealth of their parents. They are pampered, face few hardships, and are completely unprepared to leave the nest and enter a world in which society doesn't give a damn about them. And while it is true that they are more likely to have an advantage in getting better education, I have observed that education doesn't have much to do with intelligence or ambition. On the whole, while they may make more money than folks in society with their same intellectual abilities, I have witnessed efforts to maintain their parents' lifestyles that result in a massive burden of debt and either bankruptcy, a mommy/daddy bailout, or perhaps a sudden inheritance with freakishy good timing. It's pretty sad and pathetic, really.

In contrast, perhaps those at the lowest rungs of society are best equipped to rise to the top. How many times in American history has a poor immigrant child become a major force in the economy or political realm? The first couple generations of Kennedys, David Sarnoff, and Arnold Schwarzenegger come to mind, but surely there are millions that have fit the mold, even if not in such a high-profile way. That archetype is persistent in our culture...and perhaps it is linked to the knowledge that society indeed does not give a damn about them, and that success--however they define it--is theirs and theirs alone to win or lose. I see the greater problem as not that society doesn't give a damn about poor folks, but that people are made to believe that each person is special or entitled to anything, or that society should give a damn about them. That is what irks me.

Great, let's all go to Absinthe's house, and sit in lawn chairs on his driveway, drinking beer.

That ought to rile 'em up a bit.

I'm in. I'll even bring my beat up old 1981 Chevy pickup (gunmetal grey with rust spots), if only to park it on the curb and watch the neighbors squirm.

Heh, heh.

[millennica]

In 2005 both The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal ran a series of stories about the way economic and social class shape the lives of Americans, with some provocative findings.

The articles review recent research on class and social mobility and conclude that the the reality about economic mobility is more complicated than the myth. According to the research cited by the Times economic mobility decreased in the United States between the 1970s and 1990s, and France, Canada and Denmark have more economic mobility than the United States.

According to the Times article, "Americans have a hard time accepting the notion that their society isn't terribly fluid. "Americans have never been comfortable with the notion of a pecking order based on anything other than talent and hard work," the authors write. "Class contradicts their assumptions about the American dream, equal opportunity and the reasons for their own successes and even failures. Americans, constitutionally optimistic, are disinclined to see themselves as stuck."

Link to Times series

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/class/index.html

The first 3 paragraphs of the WSJ article follow below.

As rich-poor gap widens in U.S., class mobility stalls

First in a Series

Friday, May 13, 2005

By David Wessel, The Wall Street Journal

The notion that the U.S is a special place where any child can grow up to be president, a meritocracy where smarts and ambition matter more than parenthood and class, dates to Benjamin Franklin. The 15th child of a candle-and-soap maker, Franklin started out as a penniless printer's apprentice and rose to wealth so great that he retired to a life of politics and diplomacy at age 42.

The promise that a child born in poverty isn't trapped there remains a staple of America's self-portrait. President Bush, though a riches-to-riches story himself, revels in the humble origins of some in his cabinet. He says his attorney general "grew up in a two-bedroom house," the son of "migrant workers who never finished elementary school." He notes that his Cuban-born commerce secretary's first job for Kellogg Corp. was driving a truck; his last was chief executive.

But the reality of mobility in America is more complicated than the myth. As the gap between rich and poor has widened since 1970, the odds that a child born in poverty will climb to wealth -- or a rich child will fall into the middle class -- remain stuck. Despite the spread of affirmative action, the expansion of community colleges and the other social change designed to give people of all classes a shot at success, Americans are no more or less likely to rise above, or fall below, their parents' economic class than they were 35 years ago.

[TheNiche]

In 2005 both The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal ran a series of stories about the way economic and social class shape the lives of Americans, with some provocative findings.

The articles review recent research on class and social mobility and conclude that the the reality about economic mobility is more complicated than the myth. According to the research cited by the Times economic mobility decreased in the United States between the 1970s and 1990s, and France, Canada and Denmark have more economic mobility than the United States.

According to the Times article, "Americans have a hard time accepting the notion that their society isn't terribly fluid. "Americans have never been comfortable with the notion of a pecking order based on anything other than talent and hard work," the authors write. "Class contradicts their assumptions about the American dream, equal opportunity and the reasons for their own successes and even failures. Americans, constitutionally optimistic, are disinclined to see themselves as stuck."

Link to Times series

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/class/index.html

The first 3 paragraphs of the WSJ article follow below.

As rich-poor gap widens in U.S., class mobility stalls

First in a Series

Friday, May 13, 2005

By David Wessel, The Wall Street Journal

The notion that the U.S is a special place where any child can grow up to be president, a meritocracy where smarts and ambition matter more than parenthood and class, dates to Benjamin Franklin. The 15th child of a candle-and-soap maker, Franklin started out as a penniless printer's apprentice and rose to wealth so great that he retired to a life of politics and diplomacy at age 42.

The promise that a child born in poverty isn't trapped there remains a staple of America's self-portrait. President Bush, though a riches-to-riches story himself, revels in the humble origins of some in his cabinet. He says his attorney general "grew up in a two-bedroom house," the son of "migrant workers who never finished elementary school." He notes that his Cuban-born commerce secretary's first job for Kellogg Corp. was driving a truck; his last was chief executive.

But the reality of mobility in America is more complicated than the myth. As the gap between rich and poor has widened since 1970, the odds that a child born in poverty will climb to wealth -- or a rich child will fall into the middle class -- remain stuck. Despite the spread of affirmative action, the expansion of community colleges and the other social change designed to give people of all classes a shot at success, Americans are no more or less likely to rise above, or fall below, their parents' economic class than they were 35 years ago.

I appreciate the link, but they want me to subscribe. From what I can get my hands on, mostly just the multimedia bits and peices as well as what you've posted here, I'm not sure that I agree with what seems to be printed not as a quote from a study or expert uninterested 3rd party but as an editorial opinion. I don't see it as necessarily a problem that economic mobility remains constant in the U.S.--neither improving or declining--and I don't see it as a problem that there is a gap between rich and poor. In fact, it is exactly the kind of viewpoint that is framed here, that society is comprised of wealthy and poor (i.e. winners and losers) that I abhore. So many people are concerned with how the economic pie is divided. I want to bake a bigger pie.

And as for citing France as having such high levels of economic mobility, I think of that as hogwash. Ask a French Muslim about opportunity.

[RedScare]

Hard to take your opinion seriously when you refused to read the article. It is a free subscription, BTW. Your abhorence of the fact that society is comprised of rich and poor suggests that you want to believe the first paragraph, and do not want to accept the reality that may be the third paragraph. The article makes clear at the start (the part you have not read) that it is not editorializing whether class is good or bad, how the pie should be divided...it offers no "solutions" at all. It merely attempts to look at American beliefs on the "anyone can become President" ideal, and compare those beliefs to some statistical realities.

Not having read it all myself, I will refrain from stating my opinion further.

[TheNiche]

Hard to take your opinion seriously when you refused to read the article. It is a free subscription, BTW. Your abhorence of the fact that society is comprised of rich and poor suggests that you want to believe the first paragraph, and do not want to accept the reality that may be the third paragraph. The article makes clear at the start (the part you have not read) that it is not editorializing whether class is good or bad, how the pie should be divided...it offers no "solutions" at all. It merely attempts to look at American beliefs on the "anyone can become President" ideal, and compare those beliefs to some statistical realities.

Not having read it all myself, I will refrain from stating my opinion further.

FIRST PARAGRAPH

The notion that the U.S is a special place where any child can grow up to be president, a meritocracy where smarts and ambition matter more than parenthood and class, dates to Benjamin Franklin. The 15th child of a candle-and-soap maker, Franklin started out as a penniless printer's apprentice and rose to wealth so great that he retired to a life of politics and diplomacy at age 42.

Red, the first paragraph is devoid of very much information. When I read this, the only thing that registers with me is "Some people hold a notion that the U.S. is a meritocracy." Everything else is rhetoric or extraneous information, and the "some people" concept is very poorly defined. I do not follow how this paragraph is meant to communicate what you claim that it communicates. If anything, that the first two paragraphs use examples drawn more from politics than the economy act to confuse the reader as they come to the meat-and-bones of the third paragraph. Certainly a person can be successful in the one field and never in the other. A wealthy man need not be popular. Moreover, while there can only be one President of the U.S. at any given moment, there can be many multitudes of wealthy folks.

I have given the data from the third paragraph the benefit of the doubt--I have no reason to doubt it at this point--and if you read my reply, it stated "I don't see it as necessarily a problem that economic mobility remains constant in the U.S.--neither improving or declining--and I don't see it as a problem that there is a gap between rich and poor." How you manage to turn that into me supposedly not wanting "to accept the reality that may be the third paragraph," is beyond me. I accept reality and don't see it as a problem.

IMO, the article was rhetorically framing the article as a problem. That is what the press does. They cannot write articles that exclaim in bold type that "nothing has changed." That's not a good way to sell newspapers. They must create the illusion of crisis, conflict, and conjecture. To the extent that I have read their article, or at least the start of it, I have merely attempted to disarm them of class-based rhetoric.

[VicMan]

Some West U families go to Lanier MS (Remember that Lanier is also (like Pershing) major feeder school for Bellaire HS and Lamar HS).

EDIT: This one kid, who is in GT classes, says that most of the kids in the GT classes at Pershing are wealthy.

[texas911]

Niche, man those are some broad generalizations of the wealthy. This is what scares WestU parents from sending their kids to Pershing...

http://www.braeswoodplace.org/index.cfm/ac.../startrow/2.htm

Assisted the Campus Park Patrol, HPD and Pershing Middle School staff in dealing with problems created by students remaining in our area after school dismissal. On one day, a fight broke out and attracted approximately 100 students. Two students were detained. They also investigated a report of juvenile with a gun in the nearby City library.

[VicMan]

Again, I know that wealthy people send their kids to Pershing, but I have a feeling that their kids do not interact with the kids in the regular classes (as in the kind who start fights such as described that report likely have no motivation to travel in the university preparatory route).

Niche, man those are some broad generalizations of the wealthy. This is what scares WestU parents from sending their kids to Pershing...

http://www.braeswoodplace.org/index.cfm/ac.../startrow/2.htm

[TheNiche]

Niche, man those are some broad generalizations of the wealthy.

They might've been, yes. That's why I used words like "those" and "many" to indicate that what I describe applies to some people and not others.

[VicMan]

I haven't traveled to the "West U Downtown" that often, but I guess I should more often.

[millennica]

As rich-poor gap widens in U.S., class mobility stalls

First in a Series

Friday, May 13, 2005

By David Wessel, The Wall Street Journal

The notion that the U.S is a special place where any child can grow up to be president, a meritocracy where smarts and ambition matter more than parenthood and class, dates to Benjamin Franklin. The 15th child of a candle-and-soap maker, Franklin started out as a penniless printer's apprentice and rose to wealth so great that he retired to a life of politics and diplomacy at age 42.

The promise that a child born in poverty isn't trapped there remains a staple of America's self-portrait. President Bush, though a riches-to-riches story himself, revels in the humble origins of some in his cabinet. He says his attorney general "grew up in a two-bedroom house," the son of "migrant workers who never finished elementary school." He notes that his Cuban-born commerce secretary's first job for Kellogg Corp. was driving a truck; his last was chief executive. But the reality of mobility in America is more complicated than the myth. As the gap between rich and poor has widened since 1970, the odds that a child born in poverty will climb to wealth -- or a rich child will fall into the middle class -- remain stuck. Despite the spread of affirmative action, the expansion of community colleges and the other social change designed to give people of all classes a shot at success, Americans are no more or less likely to rise above, or fall below, their parents' economic class than they were 35 years ago.

Although Americans still think of their land as a place of exceptional opportunity -- in contrast to class-bound Europe -- the evidence suggests otherwise. And scholars have, over the past decade, come to see America as a less mobile society than they once believed.

As recently as the late 1980s, economists argued that not much advantage passed from parent to child, perhaps as little as 20 percent. By that measure, a rich man's grandchild would have barely any edge over a poor man's grandchild.

"Almost all the earnings advantages or disadvantages of ancestors are wiped out in three generations," wrote Gary Becker, the University of Chicago economist and Nobel laureate, in 1986. "Poverty would not seem to be a 'culture' that persists for several generations."

But over the last 10 years, better data and more number-crunching have led economists and sociologists to a new consensus: The escalators of mobility move much more slowly. A substantial body of research finds that at least 45 percent of parents' advantage in income is passed along to their children, and perhaps as much as 60 percent. With the higher estimate, it's not only how much money your parents have that matters -- even your great-great grandfather's wealth might give you a noticeable edge today.

[TheNiche]

Millenica, I appreciate that you made the article available. Thanks!

My opinion remains unchanged. The hook that engages the reader is that the issue is framed as a problem. While the data is interesting, it is very intuitive--exactly what I'd expect. And while the article seems to tip-toe around the issue of pie slicing vs. pie size (clearly an important consideration when comparing to more socialistic countries like France, which have had slower economic growth), a lot of the information fits well with my own opinions on the matter.

[VicMan]

I remember finding an article stating that many of the "rich" are middle-aged men, while many of the not-so-well off are younger people.

[millennica]

Millenica, I appreciate that you made the article available. Thanks!

My opinion remains unchanged. The hook that engages the reader is that the issue is framed as a problem. While the data is interesting, it is very intuitive--exactly what I'd expect. And while the article seems to tip-toe around the issue of pie slicing vs. pie size (clearly an important consideration when comparing to more socialistic countries like France, which have had slower economic growth), a lot of the information fits well with my own opinions on the matter.

Niche, my purpose in posting the entire article ( a large section of which the moderator has now deleted because of copyright violations) was to make it available to anyone who cared to read it in its entirety, which apparently you chose to do. Please know that I have absolutely no interest in changing your opinion about this article or anything else. I don't agree with your assessment that the issue is framed as a problem, so we will simply have to agree to disagree on that point.