The Heights Restaurant And Bar Scene - More Coming

[TheNiche]

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.

[TheNiche]

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.

[Marksmu]

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 November 29, 2011 by Marksmu

[callisthenes]

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.

[TheNiche]

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.

[SilverJK]

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 December 1, 2011 by SilverJK

[J008]

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.

[Marksmu]

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.

[J008]

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.

[heights_yankee]

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 December 1, 2011 by heights_yankee

[20thStDad]

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.

[callisthenes]

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.

[s3mh]

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.

[heights_yankee]

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.

[TheNiche]

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.

Allowed? Nobody is talking about banning anybody from anywhere for any reason. The scope of the discussion has to do with which groups are the most profitable for restauranteurs, as that will shape the kind of dining experiences that restauranteurs are willing to expend resources to provide. Relative to the potential for profit, affluent parents may be an underserved or overserved demographic. I'm not sure. But I am fairly certain that the restauranteur has a strong preference as to who they cater to; and their clientele (not knowing how your kids might behave or whether your kids might be diseased or contagious or otherwise do disgusting things) probably also has an opinion on the subject.

Also, if everything you're saying about your kids is true, then kudos to you...but don't start thinking that yours is the typical experience. Some parents are as bad as you are good, and I don't want to be eating anywhere in the vicinity of their children!

[Marksmu]

Friday night quick dinner out at Collinas on 19th around 5:30 I believe proved the point I have been trying to make about Children...the restaurant was full, only 1 table available when we got there, and over 80% of the restaurant was families with young children eating out. By catering too, or at least tolerating children at that early hour the place was able to do much much more business than if it had just sat back and waited for the adult dinner crowd to show up and eat later....

Granted Collina's is not some fancy restaurant - but I think families with children can help places do quite a bit of early business it would not otherwise do.

[tanith27]

Friday night, 5:30 at Collinas, baby in hand. Yup, we contributed to that 80%.

[J008]

Friday night quick dinner out at Collinas on 19th around 5:30 I believe proved the point I have been trying to make about Children...the restaurant was full, only 1 table available when we got there, and over 80% of the restaurant was families with young children eating out. By catering too, or at least tolerating children at that early hour the place was able to do much much more business than if it had just sat back and waited for the adult dinner crowd to show up and eat later....

Granted Collina's is not some fancy restaurant - but I think families with children can help places do quite a bit of early business it would not otherwise do.

Yes and most restaurants make most their money on the 5:30 crowd. I agree with you in many respects, but restaurants are not moving to the heights for the children.

[SilverJK]

That reminds me... has anyone else been to the restaurant inside Nundini's (since they made a nice sit down area)? I have been several times and it is fantastic. I have seen a few children in their everytime I've been... Traditional Italian dining is always family friendly... I have not been back to Collina's since the Nundini's restaurant opened.

Edited December 5, 2011 by SilverJK

[s3mh]

That reminds me... has anyone else been to the restaurant inside Nundini's (since they made a nice sit down area)? I have been several times and it is fantastic. I have seen a few children in their everytime I've been... Traditional Italian dining is always family friendly... I have not been back to Collina's since the Nundini's restaurant opened.

Best kept secret in Houston. Even before the sit down version, they would serve a prosciutto pannini for $7 that had about $10 of high quality proscuitto on it.

I do not think that families are driving the restaurant boom in the Heights, but I do think families are a real factor in how restaurants in the Heights do business. Scott Tycer's uber unfamily friendly Textile crashed and burned and was replaced by a family friendly expanded Kraftsmen. Menchie's is practically the Chuck E Cheese of frozen yogurt. But I doubt the new branch of Sonoma on Studewood will do much of anything for families. It will be interesting to see what the fare at Sale Sucre will be like. Looking at the large bar, it may not be looking to get the families. But, you never know until they open.

[SilverJK]

I just want to know more about Sale-Sucre. Anyone hearing anything about it?

[Jesse]

I just want to know more about Sale-Sucre. Anyone hearing anything about it?

Please restate you question with a generalized comment about Walmart, Children, Paving Roads, Wild cats, Ruggles, and Airbinder, and someone will gladly respond :-)

[SilverJK]

I just want to know how Sale-Sucre plans on running a business when they obviously will be undersold by walmart, overrun by children and wild cats, while Yale is being repaved and Ruggles/not ruggles is indirectly competing against them, all while not having a developer like airbinder to get them a 380 agreement...

I also am curious about their food.

[Jesse]

I just want to know how Sale-Sucre plans on running a business when they obviously will be undersold by walmart, overrun by children and wild cats, while Yale is being repaved and Ruggles/not ruggles is indirectly competing against them, all while not having a developer like airbinder to get them a 380 agreement...

I also am curious about their food.

Bravo!

[Eggplant]

With news that the folks at Ruggles Green have announced their takeover of the 11th Street Cafe, I thought it was time we officially retired the "Lack of Restaurant Diversity in the Heights" thread. It has served us well as a deserved dumping ground for disappointment since the first post in 2006, but things have changed over the years. "Abundance" may be a bit of a stretch, but we're well on the way. Let's celebrate.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Eggplant

[Texasota]

I just ate at Liberty Kitchen. That was pretty awesome.

[Urbannomad]

I thought it was time we officially retired the "Lack of Restaurant Diversity in the Heights" thread.

Not until we get an Indian restaurant!

[innerloop]

Not until we get an Indian restaurant!

I second the motion.

[samagon]

With news that the folks at Ruggles Green have announced their takeover of the 11th Street Cafe, I thought it was time we officially retired the "Lack of Restaurant Diversity in the Heights" thread. It has served us well as a deserved dumping ground for disappointment since the first post in 2006, but things have changed over the years. "Abundance" may be a bit of a stretch, but we're well on the way. Let's celebrate.

lol, maybe 'better than average restaurant diversity in the heights'? but with a place that sells mac and cheese, what else could anyone possibly need/want?

[heights_yankee]

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

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

Edited January 25, 2012 by heights_yankee