Is Real Estate In The Heights Really This Hot

[barracuda]

I'm not sure your statement is always true.  Someone in an $800k house in Houston with a homestead exemption will pay about $16,000/year in property taxes (~2%).  I believe that the equivalent tax on an $800k house in CA would be about $6,000 (0.75%), so it is a wash between the two states (assuming $10k in income tax).  

 

Furthermore, once you stop working, you still have to pay the property tax every year, but your income tax is minimal.  So if your Texas home appreciates to $2 million by the time you retire, you're on the hook for $40k/year in property tax after retirement.   Meanwhile in CA, I believe you are paying property tax based on the year you bought the home (no appreciation), so about $6k, and your income is significantly lower.  So your combined income and tax bill in CA is drastically lower than someone in Texas.  

 

I'm sure in many instances someone moving to Texas is better off in terms of lifetime taxes, but I don't think that is always the case.  

 

Not necessarily. There are property tax exemptions for homeowners over-65 as well as for surviving spouses. The over-65 exemption can be significant over time, since the school taxes are capped unless the homeowner makes improvements to the home. I have a couple elderly neighbors on my block who were capped years ago when property values were far less, and their overall tax rate is now a fraction (e.g. - 1/6) of those with only a homestead exemption. 

[htownproud]

Not necessarily. There are property tax exemptions for homeowners over-65 as well as for surviving spouses. The over-65 exemption can be significant over time, since the school taxes are capped unless the homeowner makes improvements to the home. I have a couple elderly neighbors on my block who were capped years ago when property values were far less, and their overall tax rate is now a fraction (e.g. - 1/6) of those with only a homestead exemption. 

I don't dispute this either.  I originally said that in some cases it was better tax wise for folks to move from CA to TX, but that it wasn't always the case.  And I don't know enough about the property taxes in Houston, but I thought the over-65 exemption only meant that taxes would not go up any further, not that the tax rate/amount would decrease.  That's why I suggested that at retirement on your taxes would be $40k forward.  

 

Also, the following suggest that the average CA tax rate is 0.68% (and TX is 2.57% -- this seems not to reflect the homestead exemption):  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/business/11leonhardt-avgproptaxrates.html?_r=0

[livincinco]

Correct -- the analysis would be different if you were dealing with two different priced properties.   I was assuming similar priced properties -- I think most people buy what they can afford, so would be getting roughly the same priced house (albeit that house in Houston may have much more square-footage).  

 

I don't think that's an accurate assumption though.  Speaking as a member of the California-ex pat community, I think that there's wide variety in how people handle that difference.  I can tell you that personally I paid about less than half for my house here than the selling price of my house in California.

 

My experience is that people are more concerned with matching or lowering their monthly payment than they are with buying a house of equivalent value and that they include taxes in that calculation.

[livincinco]

I don't dispute this either.  I originally said that in some cases it was better tax wise for folks to move from CA to TX, but that it wasn't always the case.  And I don't know enough about the property taxes in Houston, but I thought the over-65 exemption only meant that taxes would not go up any further, not that the tax rate/amount would decrease.  That's why I suggested that at retirement on your taxes would be $40k forward.  

 

Also, the following suggest that the average CA tax rate is 0.68% (and TX is 2.57% -- this seems not to reflect the homestead exemption):  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/business/11leonhardt-avgproptaxrates.html?_r=0

 

That's probably a weighted tax rate based on assessed values and including the cost of houses that were grandfathered into the Prop 13 laws back in the 70's. 

 

The following is from the California Legislative Analyst's website.

 

A Property Tax Bill Includes a Variety of Different Taxes and Charges. A typical California property tax bill consists of many taxes and charges including the 1 percent rate, voter–approved debt rates, parcel taxes, Mello–Roos taxes, and assessments. This report focuses primarily on the 1 percent rate, which is the largest tax on the property tax bill and the only rate that applies uniformly across every locality. The taxes due from the 1 percent rate and voter–approved debt rates are based on a property’s assessed value. The California Constitution sets the process for determining a property’s taxable value. Although there are some exceptions, a property’s assessed value typically is equal to its purchase price adjusted upward each year by 2 percent. Under the Constitution, other taxes and charges may not be based on the property’s value.

 

http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-primer-112912.aspx

[SilverJK]

 http://www.apartments.com/District-of-Columbia/Washington/Camden-Grand-Parc/22270?searchCriteria=Dy2hfU5rAXd7IxFaKtBPNxOFXed7T2UEI9u0CA0EAfydBPAxPAPXFwuIsmuQ1rK8805FxLecCevKChEhnqUGVTr2LViBHliOJNzo73e9wN6Z/j6u/cQQpyjjgAGcYo/OBa6JsfExlWu7HDlo7XnhtceYQaD7ydHsGiAWjl5rtfrFiD8ngfPAeJO/RYTGvabiAXr270fGQMqxG1759vYIcqN-|-|HVDa9cY&sid=f2132308-f67f-4825-910b-3040ce6ed9fe&stype=cityseo&match=4

 

http://www.apartmentguide.com/apartments/California/Los-Angeles/Hikari/75268/

 

http://www.columbusplaza.com/chicago-chicago/columbus-plaza-columbus-plaza/floorplans/

 

Yes, Houston is cheaper, but not cheap.  That is my point.  You are doing a nice job of trying to change the subject, but the fact is that Houston is not cheap. 

 

And $500 a month is significant except that in places like DC, San Fran, Chicago, and NY, you can get by without a car, especially now with the option of Zipcars and similar services.  When you factor that in, Houston's price advantage becomes much less significant.

 

LOL  even your own links prove my point.  There are only a few apartments from those list that are under 2,000 and they are less than 600 sq. ft. 

 

$1500 is getting you an 800 sq. ft. apt in Houston.

 

Apples to apples a 600 sq. ft apt in Houston is around 1200-1300.  

 

My old apartment (camden heights) over 5 years ago was 682 sq. ft and cost $975,  it is now $1229-1329  for the same unit.  Yep, still cheap.

[htownproud]

I don't think that's an accurate assumption though.  Speaking as a member of the California-ex pat community, I think that there's wide variety in how people handle that difference.  I can tell you that personally I paid about less than half for my house here than the selling price of my house in California.

 

My experience is that people are more concerned with matching or lowering their monthly payment than they are with buying a house of equivalent value and that they include taxes in that calculation.

I'm sure it differs from person to person.  Many of the folks I know that have moved here from CA have spent about the same on housing (albeit that is a limited sample set) -- your name suggest that you live in the suburbs--nothing wrong with that, but many folks from CA don't want to do that.  And Ross stated his real estate taxes were $1,900 in CA.  Assuming your rate of 1.25%, his house in CA was valued at $152,000.  Here, if his property taxes were $3,600, his house was significantly more expensive (about $180,000).  

 

I don't want to veer too far off topic though.  My point was simply that the tax situation is not as simple as some suggest (as our posts demonstrate).  

[livincinco]

I'm sure it differs from person to person.  Many of the folks I know that have moved here from CA have spent about the same on housing (albeit that is a limited sample set) -- your name suggest that you live in the suburbs--nothing wrong with that, but many folks from CA don't want to do that.  And Ross stated his real estate taxes were $1,900 in CA.  Assuming your rate of 1.25%, his house in CA was valued at $152,000.  Here, if his property taxes were $3,600, his house was significantly more expensive (about $180,000).  

 

I don't want to veer too far off topic though.  My point was simply that the tax situation is not as simple as some suggest (as our posts demonstrate).  

 

I agree that people are generally going to move to comparable environments.  I moved suburbs to suburbs so the cost structure was comparable.  The comparison that I provided previously on costs was an urban to urban comparison.

 

My point is simply that it's really not accurate to try to imply that there's a comparable tax expense in Texas and California.

[s3mh]

LOL  even your own links prove my point.  There are only a few apartments from those list that are under 2,000 and they are less than 600 sq. ft. 

 

$1500 is getting you an 800 sq. ft. apt in Houston.

 

Apples to apples a 600 sq. ft apt in Houston is around 1200-1300.  

 

My old apartment (camden heights) over 5 years ago was 682 sq. ft and cost $975,  it is now $1229-1329  for the same unit.  Yep, still cheap.

 You said you cannot get an apartment in the urban core for $2000.  I showed that you can just by posting the first thing that popped up on the internet.  You can get 600 sq feet for 1200-1300 if you live right by the highway or at an older complex that could get bought out and demoed at any moment.  The new and newer complexes generally don't go smaller than 700 sq feet and are all starting at $1500+.  Not cheap at all.   

[SilverJK]

i also said if you did it wouldn't come close to comparing to the $1500 houston one... which is exactly what you tried to do.

 

 

1200-1300 can easily be had in a 600 sq. ft not next to the highway and in a newer complex.  (but if you had your way wouldn't all these midrises be along the highway?)

[s3mh]

i also said if you did it wouldn't come close to comparing to the $1500 houston one... which is exactly what you tried to do.

 

 

1200-1300 can easily be had in a 600 sq. ft not next to the highway and in a newer complex.  (but if you had your way wouldn't all these midrises be along the highway?)

 

Actually, the few I picked from other areas are in very prime locations.  For the scant 100 sq ft you lose, you more than make up in being in a very in demand neighborhood. 

 

1200-1300 cannot easily be had inside the loop for 600 sq feet, unless you get the unit by the dumpster, HVAC or garage entrance.  $1500 is the entry point for most of the decent complexes.  And if "newer" to you means Memorial Archstone, that is old by Houston standards as the complex has plans to be demoed.  $1,500 is not cheap. 

[Texasota]

Actually, the few I picked from other areas are in very prime locations.  For the scant 100 sq ft you lose, you more than make up in being in a very in demand neighborhood. 

 

1200-1300 cannot easily be had inside the loop for 600 sq feet, unless you get the unit by the dumpster, HVAC or garage entrance.  $1500 is the entry point for most of the decent complexes.  And if "newer" to you means Memorial Archstone, that is old by Houston standards as the complex has plans to be demoed.  $1,500 is not cheap. 

 

This is a bit hyberbolic; there are plenty of very nice garage apartments and units in 4plexs in both Montrose and the Heights for well under $1500. I'm not sure why there should be any priority on "new" apartment complexes, as long as quality is at least somewhat comparable.

 

 

*edited to remove unhelpful snarkiness

[SilverJK]

Actually, the few I picked from other areas are in very prime locations.  For the scant 100 sq ft you lose, you more than make up in being in a very in demand neighborhood. 

 

1200-1300 cannot easily be had inside the loop for 600 sq feet, unless you get the unit by the dumpster, HVAC or garage entrance.  $1500 is the entry point for most of the decent complexes.  And if "newer" to you means Memorial Archstone, that is old by Houston standards as the complex has plans to be demoed.  $1,500 is not cheap. 

 

Yeah if you went to "availalbe options" you would see that the ones you picked were also likely the unit by the dumpster/hvac/garage entrence.  One of my coworkers just signed a lease (he hasn't even moved in yet) for a nice 1 bedroom that is 750sq. ft in midtown in a newer building... It was $1300 but with a year lease they dropped it to $1200. 

 

Not quite the picture your painting. 

 

 

You can get a nice 800 sq. ft. apartment in Kingwood close to 59 for like $700 bucks.  Commute is very easy (30 minutes even in rush hour).  That is CHEAP. 

 

 

$1500 for a one bedroom in an urban core is cheap. 

 

Super elistist uber expensive One Park Place is only $2400 for a one bedroom. 

 

Houston is cheap. 

[s3mh]

 

 

$1500 for a one bedroom in an urban core is cheap. 

 

 

 

 That is a price point that maybe 5% of the population can afford.  Last I checked, things are called cheap because they are affordable to at least a majority of the population.  A Lamborghini Aventador costs about $400k.   When the economy was in the tank, you could probably find someone in desperate straits willing to unload one with super low mileage for $250k.  That does not make it cheap.  Houston's inner loop real estate is no longer cheap.  Prices have spiked dramatically and will only continue if there is even a mild improvement in the economy.  In two years, we will probably be talking about how cheap it was in 2013 when you could get a 1 bd in the loop for $1,500.

[Texasota]

Again, I think it's worth mentioning that there are functionally 2 rental markets in central Houston:

 

1. newer, larger apartment complexes: tend to be well advertised, more likely to be visible to people moving here from elsewhere.

 

2. garage apartments, duplexes, 4plexes, smaller complexes from the 60's or earlier: not well advertised, units tend to be passed on by word of mouth or sheer luck. 

 

For many younger people, particularly in the creative class, that second category is actually more desirable, and tends to be hundreds of dollars cheaper.

 

This is the only city I've lived in that has such a noticeable distinction between those two housing options, probably partially because there is just *so much* new multifamily housing going up right now.

[Ross]

I'm sure it differs from person to person.  Many of the folks I know that have moved here from CA have spent about the same on housing (albeit that is a limited sample set) -- your name suggest that you live in the suburbs--nothing wrong with that, but many folks from CA don't want to do that.  And Ross stated his real estate taxes were $1,900 in CA.  Assuming your rate of 1.25%, his house in CA was valued at $152,000.  Here, if his property taxes were $3,600, his house was significantly more expensive (about $180,000).  

 

I don't want to veer too far off topic though.  My point was simply that the tax situation is not as simple as some suggest (as our posts demonstrate).  

 

California house was valued at $125k (Bakersfield was one of the cheapest places in California), Townhouse in Midtown was $160k, minus exemptions that took it pretty close to the California value. My point was more that someone living in an $800k house in California (most places) could find something in a similar neighborhood here for $250k, which means taxes will be about $5k, assuming it's not in one of the brand new MUD's that have $1.30 tax rates. The standard of living would be similar, as would the commute. If the Ca transplant buys a house for the same price, it's more of a wash, but the house will be far larger. And that doesn't include any intangibles, like less regulation and petty rules.

 

[TGM]

That is a price point that maybe 5% of the population can afford. Last I checked, things are called cheap because they are affordable to at least a majority of the population. A Lamborghini Aventador costs about $400k.

Lamborghini Miuras go for $600k+ 'cause they're historic and stuff....

[laiall]

..and the lack of quality schools will prevent the housing from skyrocketing any further. Most of the new residents are families with children or planning on having children, and they are generally only 7 year residents, generally moving on once Kindergarten of first grade hits.

If the Heights could improve the schools, the market in the neighborhood would continue to rise....but until the schools catch up with the price, I think we have reached a peak.

Is your statement about Heights residents only staying for 7 yrs and moving on based on any data or evidence? Early-1990s West U, in my opinion, is exactly the situation the Heights is in today; professionals on the cusp of starting or freshly started a family moving in. The schools in West U were nothing to brag about then either. It is the gentrification process that is the tide that lifts all boats. The changing demographics of the neighborhood is what will drive improved schools not the other way around. As a resident of the Heights, i can speak on behalf of myself and the friends and family i have that also live in the neighborhood that we have no plans to leave and do expect that the schools will be improving. As a matter of fact, both Travis and Harvard elementaries are already ranked and recognized schools in HISD currently.

[htownproud]

Is your statement about Heights residents only staying for 7 yrs and moving on based on any data or evidence? Early-1990s West U, in my opinion, is exactly the situation the Heights is in today; professionals on the cusp of starting or freshly started a family moving in. The schools in West U were nothing to brag about then either. It is the gentrification process that is the tide that lifts all boats. The changing demographics of the neighborhood is what will drive improved schools not the other way around. As a resident of the Heights, i can speak on behalf of myself and the friends and family i have that also live in the neighborhood that we have no plans to leave and do expect that the schools will be improving. As a matter of fact, both Travis and Harvard elementaries are already ranked and recognized schools in HISD currently.

I agree that the yuppie-fication of West University in the 80's (not 90's) is similar to what is occurring in the Heights now, but even then West University Elementary was one of the top HISD elementary schools.  And West University was never a ghetto with rampant crime, so gentrification did not really occur.  West University has always been a middle class neighborhood, which is why the schools were always good (and I do think the good schools helped West University explode). I'm sure the Heights will get better schools, but I suspect it will take many years before they are as good as comparable schools south of 59. 

[tanith27]

And I will add that Hogg Middle and Reagan High are now recently International Baccalaureate schools.  The domino towards good schools at all levels is well under way.

[Angostura]

Is your statement about Heights residents only staying for 7 yrs and moving on based on any data or evidence? Early-1990s West U, in my opinion, is exactly the situation the Heights is in today; professionals on the cusp of starting or freshly started a family moving in. The schools in West U were nothing to brag about then either. It is the gentrification process that is the tide that lifts all boats. The changing demographics of the neighborhood is what will drive improved schools not the other way around. As a resident of the Heights, i can speak on behalf of myself and the friends and family i have that also live in the neighborhood that we have no plans to leave and do expect that the schools will be improving. As a matter of fact, both Travis and Harvard elementaries are already ranked and recognized schools in HISD currently.

 

I think it's based on anecdotal evidence, but strong anecdotal evidence. You see a lot of (middle class) pre-school age kids around the neighborhood, but not a lot of (middle class) adolescents.  Gradually, as the elementary schools improve, more families will stay. At least until middle school.

 

For the five elementary schools in the Heights, I looked at the proportion of students with Free/Reduced Lunch.  HISD's website has numbers for 2007/8 thru 2011/2. Over this time period:

 

- Travis is steady at 42%

- Harvard has dropped from 67% to 41%

- Helms has dropped from 81% to 75%

- Love is steady at 92%

- Field is steady at 96%

 

As a point of comparison, River Oaks Elementary is 8%, and Oak Forest is 41%, both unchanged over the last 5 years.  Recall that 1/3 of the kids enrolled in 07/08 would still be enrolled in 11/12, so Harvard's drop from 67% to 41% is a massive change, and probably means that the incoming kindergarten classes at Harvard have probably had a lower proportion of FRL than Travis the last couple of years.  So the numbers show that at least for families zoned to Harvard and Travis, and to a lesser extent Helms, middle class families are increasingly comfortable with their local elementary school.

 

However, the story changes when you look at middle school.  Travis and Harvard feed into Hogg. If you look at the FRL proportion of the seven elementary schools that feed into Hogg, and assumed that all the students in those 7 schools moved on to Hogg MS, you would expect 70% of Hogg students to be FRL.  The actual proportion is 90%.  That means that middle class enrollment in Hogg is only 1/3 that of its feeder network. It's not clear what proportion of this drop-off is from families that stay in HISD but transfer to other middle schools (by comparison, Hamilton is 76% FRL, Lanier is 31%), and what proportion is due to gentrification lag, but it's a pretty big drop-off.  

[Angostura]

I agree that the yuppie-fication of West University in the 80's (not 90's) is similar to what is occurring in the Heights now, but even then West University Elementary was one of the top HISD elementary schools.  And West University was never a ghetto with rampant crime, so gentrification did not really occur.  West University has always been a middle class neighborhood, which is why the schools were always good (and I do think the good schools helped West University explode). I'm sure the Heights will get better schools, but I suspect it will take many years before they are as good as comparable schools south of 59. 

 

This is a good point.  Often the gentrification follows the schools, not the other way around.  Look at Oak Forest, for example.

[s3mh]

 

 

However, the story changes when you look at middle school.  Travis and Harvard feed into Hogg. If you look at the FRL proportion of the seven elementary schools that feed into Hogg, and assumed that all the students in those 7 schools moved on to Hogg MS, you would expect 70% of Hogg students to be FRL.  The actual proportion is 90%.  That means that middle class enrollment in Hogg is only 1/3 that of its feeder network. It's not clear what proportion of this drop-off is from families that stay in HISD but transfer to other middle schools (by comparison, Hamilton is 76% FRL, Lanier is 31%), and what proportion is due to gentrification lag, but it's a pretty big drop-off.  

 

 A lot of parents will bail on public schools after elementary school.  Also, Travis is Vanguard.  The Vanguard kids will often pick Lanier over Hamilton.  And now that Black is turning around, they may also bypass Hamilton for that school.  Otherwise, a lot of Harvard and Travis kids go to magnets like Pershing, Lanier or Pin Oak.  It gets a little easier to get to a middle school magnet as families move out of the district or switch to private school.  Thus, it takes a lot longer to turn around a middle school in HISD. 

[SilverJK]

I plan to send my kids to Travis (I only have one so far and he's still a baby), I'm really hoping that by the time they get to middle school Hogg will have turned around a good bit.  I have had a few conversations with the principal there and like the direction they are trying to go, but it is going to take something big to get the local residents to send their kids there.  I work with a group that is trying to establish an cultural program at Hogg, and for the most of the past 7 years Hogg wasn't receptive.. the newer principal however is interested.  The more local community groups that get involved with Hogg the better.

[Marksmu]

I have been in the Heights for 7 years.  I Just moved out because of Schools.  I am the second to last of quite a few good friends to move b/c of schools.

 

Elementary schools are not a big concern.  As was mentioned above Harvard & Travis are both considered good schools...I would be comfortable with those schools for my children...Unfortunately I was not zoned to those schools...I was Love and I would not send my kids to Love.  Despite how much it and the whole neighborhood has improved in the 7 years I've been in the Heights, its still not even a decent school, and Im not going to send my kids to a bad school just to live in an area that is convenient for me.  Could I afford to move into the Harvard district?  Sure - but for what?  1-5th grades?   Im still stuck with the middle and high being abysmal.

 

If you are interested in playing the magnet game and jumping through the different hoops to get your kid into the right program, at the right magnet, then you can still get a pretty good education in HISD.  However, even if your kid is in the programs, he is still surrounded by a bunch of kids who are not.  Without trying to make this into a haves/have not conversation, suffice it to say that many of the lower income residents simply do not put the same emphasis on education that I do.  There are also quite a few gangs and other pretty rough elements that goto the same schools but are in different programs.  I would prefer not to expose to my kids to that element or lifestyle. 

 

For about the same cost as the Heights I can get a house in Frostwood, Bellaire, or West-U where those elements are almost completely non-existent.  The financial demographics are completely different and the school performance shows what a difference demographics and involved parents make.  Its not about income/race/religion/etc its about values and whether or not a family cares or is involved.   There are still drugs and bad kids, but they are on a completely different level. 

 

The Heights is great.  The families that live in the Heights are great but there just are not very many families in the Heights who send their kids to schools here past elementary.  I do not know even one single family who sends their kids past elementary.  With only one exception every single family I know has moved out b/c it was cheaper to move than pay for private school.  The one family I know who is staying is still undecided on what they will do with the schools for their kids.

[Angostura]

 

If you are interested in playing the magnet game and jumping through the different hoops to get your kid into the right program, at the right magnet, then you can still get a pretty good education in HISD.  However, even if your kid is in the programs, he is still surrounded by a bunch of kids who are not.  Without trying to make this into a haves/have not conversation, suffice it to say that many of the lower income residents simply do not put the same emphasis on education that I do.  There are also quite a few gangs and other pretty rough elements that goto the same schools but are in different programs.  I would prefer not to expose to my kids to that element or lifestyle. 

 

For about the same cost as the Heights I can get a house in Frostwood, Bellaire, or West-U where those elements are almost completely non-existent.  The financial demographics are completely different and the school performance shows what a difference demographics and involved parents make.  Its not about income/race/religion/etc its about values and whether or not a family cares or is involved.   There are still drugs and bad kids, but they are on a completely different level. 

 

The Heights is great.  The families that live in the Heights are great but there just are not very many families in the Heights who send their kids to schools here past elementary.  I do not know even one single family who sends their kids past elementary.  With only one exception every single family I know has moved out b/c it was cheaper to move than pay for private school.  The one family I know who is staying is still undecided on what they will do with the schools for their kids.

 

 

We were fortunate enough to be able to send our son to a good HISD elementary school, but it was very stressful, and 5 years from this January when the magnet lottery results get sent out, I'll have my real estate agent and mortgage broker on speed dial.

 

Just curious, though: aren't West U and Bellaire part of HISD? Is moving to those municipalities any better than moving to somewhere zoned to Lanier/Lamar?

[laiall]

You guys all bring up very valid points. I am definitely in agreement that the Middle and High Schools in the Greater Heights are not quite up to par yet. Speaking from just personal experience, every coworker, friend or family member I know of in the neighborhood either has a child less than 1 year old, are currently pregnant, or are planning to start a family in the next 1-2 years (I personally fall in this last category). I think we all agree that for those Heights residents zoned to Travis and Harvard the schools are already good. That means for those with newborns it will be 6 years from now before they start grade school and another 5 years before they would be middle school age. That gives a full 11 years for school development. 11 years worth of demographic changes, 11 years worth of displacement of lower income families due to increased rent and increased property taxes. I really don't want to leave, but at least I have the comfort of knowing it will be more than a decade worst-case before I would need to look to move. If I was a betting man though, I'd put my money on 11 years being more than enough time to revamp the middle and high schools.

 

Also, I'm not sure I agree with statement above "gentrification follows the school." In my opinion, while having a good elementary school is definitely a plus, I think what we are witnessing is a generational shift in psychology. The "white flight" to the suburbs has reversed and now professionals are more interested living closer in to the city center. People are seeking shorter commute times and less cookie cutter homes.

[htownproud]

Yes both are HISD. Pershing and Lanier are fairly similar quality for middle schools (you are in a lottery for Pin Oak if you are in West U and Bellaire (and other surrounding areas for that matter)). Bellaire is a better high school than Lamar, although I think that most of West U is zoned to Lamar.

[brian0123]

For about the same cost as the Heights I can get a house in Frostwood, Bellaire, or West-U where those elements are almost completely non-existent.  The financial demographics are completely different and the school performance shows what a difference demographics and involved parents make.  Its not about income/race/religion/etc its about values and whether or not a family cares or is involved.   There are still drugs and bad kids, but they are on a completely different level. 

 

Agreed. That's why we bought in Knollwood Village (South Braeswood area, just south of West U). The homes are newer/better than the Heights (like living in 1950's Leave it to Beaver), you get more for your money, WAY less crime, more families, and zoned to better schools (Longfellow, Pershing, Bellaire). I like the Heights as well, but I don't understand why a family would spend the crazy amounts of money to live there when you can get a 3/2/2 or 4/2/2 for around the same cost in S. Braeswood. Our neighborhood is nice throughout... unlike the Heights where certain streets have some really sketchy places. Plus, we have deed restrictions that will keep it at single-family. For those reading this forum and trying to look at the Heights and finding it unaffordable, listen to Marksmu and I.

[Angostura]

Agreed. That's why we bought in Knollwood Village (South Braeswood area, just south of West U). The homes are newer/better than the Heights (like living in 1950's Leave it to Beaver), you get more for your money, WAY less crime, more families, and zoned to better schools (Longfellow, Pershing, Bellaire). I like the Heights as well, but I don't understand why a family would spend the crazy amounts of money to live there when you can get a 3/2/2 or 4/2/2 for around the same cost in S. Braeswood. Our neighborhood is nice throughout... unlike the Heights where certain streets have some really sketchy places. Plus, we have deed restrictions that will keep it at single-family. For those reading this forum and trying to look at the Heights and finding it unaffordable, listen to Marksmu and I.

 

Very different "feel" than the Heights, though. The curvy streets with limited entry/exit points and lots of space between houses all feel very suburban (Oak Forest feels the same way to me). I don't mean suburban as a pejorative; I think it's a lovely area, but if someone bought in the Heights for a certain "feel", it won't be duplicated here.  The largest width of frontage you tend to see in the Heights is 50 ft, often less with newer construction, and the ubiquitous front porches and lack (for the most part) of front-facing garages encourages interaction with neighbors rather than isolation from them.

 

Also, if you're commuting to NW Houston or the Energy Corridor, you have to cross the Galleria at rush hour to get there from Bellaire and West U, and access to downtown from the Heights is quicker as well.

[s3mh]

Agreed. That's why we bought in Knollwood Village (South Braeswood area, just south of West U). The homes are newer/better than the Heights (like living in 1950's Leave it to Beaver), you get more for your money, WAY less crime, more families, and zoned to better schools (Longfellow, Pershing, Bellaire). I like the Heights as well, but I don't understand why a family would spend the crazy amounts of money to live there when you can get a 3/2/2 or 4/2/2 for around the same cost in S. Braeswood. Our neighborhood is nice throughout... unlike the Heights where certain streets have some really sketchy places. Plus, we have deed restrictions that will keep it at single-family. For those reading this forum and trying to look at the Heights and finding it unaffordable, listen to Marksmu and I.

 

The pockets of old 1950s homes around Braeswood are definitely the best value in the City right now if your main concern is schools.  But there are definitely some big trade offs.  The 1950s housing stock has low ceilings and very drab exteriors.  If there is a problem with the old slab foundation, you are looking at a very expensive repair.  While the little neighborhoods are nice and quaint, S. Main is a dump.  The nearest decent restaurants/shopping are all up on Bellaire/Holcombe.  Access to downtown is not very good compared to the Heights.

 

The Heights has seen a big spike in B/Es because HPD has basically sat on their butts and let it happen.  That kind of crime is more likely in neighborhoods where the lots are smaller and there is alley access to garages.  More opportunities in a smaller area than in a more spread out neighborhood.  But all the other crime stats in the Heights have been steadily declining for years. 

 

The number of derelict properties in the Heights is rapidly declining.  In three years on my side of the Heights (WHD), two crappy apartment complexes are flipped/in the process of getting flipped, an old warehouse was demoed and is going to be 4 single family homes, and about a dozen properties that were anywhere from needing updating to just barely being able to be saved have been redone.  Even the SW quadrant of the Heights is seeing a major clear out of old derelict rentals.  A few pockets remain, but Rome was not build in a day.

 

If you are just looking for the best roof and schools inside the loop for your buck, the SW corner of 610 is the best bet.  But, if you have the money to pay for private school and value the amenities of the Heights, it is worth every penny.