^What they need to do is get some traveling exhibitions that people want to see. Once you've been once, there is really no reason to return as it currently is.  Contrast this to the museum center or art museum which both have great rotating exhibits throughout the year.

^Absolutely.  I'm not sure how many traveling exhibitions there are that would fit in with the Freedom Center, but it's worth looking into.  They might be also be able to form strategic partnerships with similar museums to bring in some of their materials on occasion.  The Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC is the first that comes to my mind.  Something like that would broaden the scope of the Freedom Center's offerings while staying true to its core message.  I love the chunk of the Berlin Wall that they have on their grounds.  They need more things like that.

The initial 21,000 square feet of retail space will be developed along West Freedom Way, wrapping to the corners of Race and Rosa Parks streets. In addition, the developers are building out a 40,000-square-foot space along Second Street as parking for residential units at the Banks, but this space could be converted once the developers land a tenant or tenants.

 

The space could be used by one 40,000-square-foot tenant or divided into two 20,000-square-foot spaces. One of the users Swadel said the Banks would like to land is a grocery store.

 

“We would love one,” Swadel told me Tuesday afternoon. “A number of groups have attempted to land one in downtown. We’ll keep pursuing that, but no promises.”

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2013/08/is-banks-phase-iia-saving-room-for-a.html?page=all

 

Don't grocery stores typically cluster near their competition? I could see a Trader Joe's or Fresh Market opening up in response to the other new downtown grocery store.

^What they need to do is get some traveling exhibitions that people want to see. Once you've been once, there is really no reason to return as it currently is.  Contrast this to the museum center or art museum which both have great rotating exhibits throughout the year.

 

That's EXACTLY what drew me in the first time.  I went to see the "Women Hold Up Half the Sky" exhibit and was in awe.  It's an amazing museum with a great mission.

Discussion of grocery stores moved to: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,10268.msg694756.html#msg694756

Everyone loves to pile on when a business owner is in a little trouble. but the city was warned.

 

http://www.wcpo.com/money/local-business-news/banks-tenant-mahoganys-falls-behind-on-sales-taxes-workers-comp-premiums-city-loan-payments

it would be in everyone's best interest if Mahogony's succeeded but this comes as no surprise and is why a lot of people were quite upset about the decisions made by the city to provide them money.

Predicted this. No bank would loan her money because she failed to make payments in the past, so she went to the city. The city argued that although her finances were not sound, it was about expanding diversity at all costs and risks:

 

"Right now our downtown does not reflect a good portion of the population of the city. The city does do deals that are different than private sector does. This is a deal worth pursuing because of what it means for development downtown."

 

Even though there are plenty of diverse food options in downtown and OTR that receive traditional loans with no problem.

^ I agree with the city that The Banks needed to have some diversity, and I applaud them for wanting to create a downtown that is truly for everyone.  Keep in mind that a large portion of the city views the resurgence of downtown as not being 'for them'.  The streetcar debate illustrated this perfectly.  A lot of African Americans and some lower income whites feel excluded from the new restaurants and shops opening, and it's honestly pretty easy to see why.  If we want to stop/mitigate this 'us vs them' mentality, the city has to take measures to ensure inclusion.

 

That said, I don't think Mahogany's should have been given almost a million dollars with the prior history of financial troubles.  They should have issued some sort of RFP for minority owned businesses, and selected the best and most financially sound business.  That way the process would have been transparent, and perhaps a more stable business could have been placed at the Banks.  If Mahogany's goes out of business, it will only make it harder to lure/incentivize black owned businesses in the core.

Predicted this. No bank would loan her money because she failed to make payments in the past, so she went to the city. The city argued that although her finances were not sound, it was about expanding diversity at all costs and risks:

 

"Right now our downtown does not reflect a good portion of the population of the city. The city does do deals that are different than private sector does. This is a deal worth pursuing because of what it means for development downtown."

 

Even though there are plenty of diverse food options in downtown and OTR that receive traditional loans with no problem.

 

Sherman, those restaurants in OTR are mostly funded by rich families.  How many rich black families are there?  Not many.  There are thousands of rich white aunts and uncles throwing money at their young relatives. 

 

Just curious and sorry for being naïve, but why would it be harder to incentivize black owned businesses to the core if this restaurant goes out of business?  Do you mean as far as the city's sake, they will be more cautious to finance a minority owned business?

 

I agree on your point though.  I mean they had all this trouble before making payments, why take the risk on them?  I am sure there are plenty of minority owned business that could do well there or that are deserving of grants and loans.

 

In a perfect world, when looking at tenants and possible business to give a grant to, it seems like they should look at all the financial history and credit worthiness of all businesses that apply, then make a decision based of the business that is most sound.  Or, at least narrow it down to a few of them, then if a minority owned business is in that area, take that risk.  It seems like Mahogany's was very high risk, you shouldn't have given them any grants.

 

The owner of Mahogany's must have done an amazing sales job to convince the city of giving them all of that money.

 

I am all for inclusion, but sheesh make a good, sound business decision.  That is a ton of money  :?

Predicted this. No bank would loan her money because she failed to make payments in the past, so she went to the city. The city argued that although her finances were not sound, it was about expanding diversity at all costs and risks:

 

"Right now our downtown does not reflect a good portion of the population of the city. The city does do deals that are different than private sector does. This is a deal worth pursuing because of what it means for development downtown."

 

Even though there are plenty of diverse food options in downtown and OTR that receive traditional loans with no problem.

 

Sherman, those restaurants in OTR are mostly funded by rich families.  How many rich black families are there?  Not many.  There are thousands of rich white aunts and uncles throwing money at their young relatives. 

 

 

So what.  That doesn't mean the City should fund them just because they don't have rich families to support them.  I'm white and I don't have a rich family to support me, should the city throw money at me?  If The Banks needs more diversity than the market will dictate that.

If The Banks needs more diversity than the market will dictate that.

 

That's not really true... The market is inherently flawed. Not saying Mahogany's was the correct business to invest in, but the free market has a lot of problems.

The city and other levels of government subsidize profitable white-owned businesses all the time.  We just had Chris Finney pursuing welfare for his law firm -- the very thing he's attacked countless others for. 

 

The real shame in all this is that the racially-motivated attack on this restaurant scared a lot of people away from it, and no doubt has hurt their business, increasing the likelihood of its failure. 

The city and other levels of government subsidize profitable white-owned businesses all the time.  We just had Chris Finney pursuing welfare for his law firm -- the very thing he's attacked countless others for. 

 

The real shame in all this is that the racially-motivated attack on this restaurant scared a lot of people away from it, and no doubt has hurt their business, increasing the likelihood of its failure. 

 

The color of the skin of the person who owns the business should matter zilch.  Were those white owned business subsidized because they were white? I sure as hell hope not.  If they subsidize any business it should be based on solid financial analysis, not race.

The city and other levels of government subsidize profitable white-owned businesses all the time.  We just had Chris Finney pursuing welfare for his law firm -- the very thing he's attacked countless others for. 

 

The real shame in all this is that the racially-motivated attack on this restaurant scared a lot of people away from it, and no doubt has hurt their business, increasing the likelihood of its failure.

 

What scared people away from this place is that the service is terrible. These worst service I have experienced at any downtown restaurant. With Johnny rockets coming in a close second. I gave Mahogany's three chances to provide decent services, each time it was terrible.

Agreed, CincySAL. It's hard enough to get a loan but to receive one because of poor financial planning is unheard of. No bank would lend to the restaurant for this reason and those fears were proven true. This isn't about race, but about credibility - if the city continued to loan out money to businesses that couldn't show a solid business plan, working capital and competency, then we'd be stuck with millions more out of pocket to prop up a market that cannot exist on its own. There are those restaurants that had humble beginnings that are at The Banks, such as Holy Grail, that relocated to The Banks only after it was a success elsewhere (near Short Vine).

 

Reviews are mixed:

 

http://www.yelp.com/biz/mahoganys-cafe-and-grill-cincinnati

http://www.yelp.com/biz/mahoganys-at-the-banks-cincinnati#query:Mahogony

http://www.urbanspoon.com/r/32/1694308/restaurant/Downtown/Mahoganys-at-the-Banks-Cincinnati

http://www.opentable.com/mahoganys-at-the-banks

 

A successful restaurant is based upon price, good service and food quality. Patrons vary rarely come back for a second chance if the first try failed in any of those respects.

The city and other levels of government subsidize profitable white-owned businesses all the time.  We just had Chris Finney pursuing welfare for his law firm -- the very thing he's attacked countless others for. 

 

The real shame in all this is that the racially-motivated attack on this restaurant scared a lot of people away from it, and no doubt has hurt their business, increasing the likelihood of its failure. 

 

The color of the skin of the person who owns the business should matter zilch.  Were those white owned business subsidized because they were white? I sure as hell hope not.  If they subsidize any business it should be based on solid financial analysis, not race.

 

Basically all government programs prior to the Sixties were geared toward white people.  For example, employers of farm laborers and domestic servants were originally excluded from having to pay Social Security, and that was a direct result of Southern legislators during the New Deal.  Heck, the housing projects built after the Second World War were explicitly segregated.  It's not so much that the other restaurants were subsidized because they were white, it's that if you're white you automatically get subsidized- mostly by benefitting from the decisions made in ages past.

 

Why do people get so up in arms about Mahoganny's?  Cincinnati and governments on every level, heck tons of private business, make stupid decisions that aren't based on solid financial analysis all the time.  Remember six years ago when basically every major bank in the country was about to go under?

The Montgomery Inn Boathouse gets to keep all of their parking lot revenue -- except they don't own the parking lot and the city paid to pave it back in 1988.  They also got a ridiculous deal on that building -- the row boats in the basement made it eligible for some sort of grant that meant they got a huge discount on their space, aside from the lucrative parking.

 

Jim Tarbell told me in person that when he was on council he attempted to get a cut of the parking back for the city but that effort went nowhere. 

It's not so much that the other restaurants were subsidized because they were white, it's that if you're white you automatically get subsidized- mostly by benefitting from the decisions made in ages past.

 

As someone who is white, "getting subsidized" at all has not been my experience.  But this conversation is about to go way off the rails.

"I never felt privileged; I worked hard for each reward I got. But I see now: being in a position to work hard & get rewards IS a privilege." --Shay Pierce

The whole idea is that there are certain priviledges granted through the institutionalization of our society that benfit white people, men, native-English speakers, straight individuals, middle or upper class people, and native citizens (among other things).

 

In the 50s and 60s there were policies that helped white people buy property and build detached single family housing in the suburbs. Banks lent money to white people disproportionately, companies hired whites disproportionately, and whites were elected disproportionately.

 

It isn't that banks are still denying people of color loans or the opportunity for success because of their skin color. But the fact that they USED to do that puts a large proportion of minorities today at a disadvantage from birth. It is difficult to climb out of poverty when your environment puts you at a disadvantage.

 

I would argue that being middle class at birth is a much bigger "priviledge" than being white nowadays, but the fact remains that our former policies (both governmental policies and those from the private sector that were never "official") disproportionately placed white citizens in the middle class, offering them more opportunities today.

 

And to keep it on topic, that is why cities and other government entities (universities, etc) will give loans to businesses like Mahogany's to encourage minorities to pursue a path to success when traditional outlets will not take the risk.

^The problem with your argument is that you're lumping all/most whites into the middle and upper classes.  If you come from a poor or lower middle class white family, you have none of the advantages you've cited, yet you are also not eligible for most of the programs aimed at alleviating inequalities.  I don't think anyone would argue that there wasn't discrimination in the past, nor that the world is a fair place, but the emotion that gets stirred up by this sort of thing is largely because sound business sense was ignored on the basis of race.

^ exactly.  And if policies were geared towards white people in the 50's and 60's, I should pay for that now because I'm white?  Or we make it better by reverse discrimination?  Financial decisions, and pretty much all decisions (including enrollment) should not be based on the color of someones skin. 

^I mostly agree with you. The exact same priviledges are not available for middle class white kids in suburban Columbus going to a top tier public school as there are for poor white kids in poor Appalachian counties of Ohio with failing school districts.

 

There are programs in Cincinnati that help lift people out of poverty in these traditionally poor areas of Ohio too (regardless of race). I work with a development company who provides affordable housing, and extra consideration is given by the state for projects located in Appalachian counties of Ohio. There is also special consideration to building affordable housing in good school districts, or high-income census tracts. This is meant to give people the environment to raise children in a middle class environment, even if they are not middle class themselves.

 

I personally think being born into the middle or upper class environment is a greater advantage than being white and I think that "white priviledge" is a misleading term and not politically correct.

 

Unfortunately there is no way to make a perfect system. It isn't punishing people for the past. It is trying to make a more equitable society by giving those who have been disenfranchised a chance to work hard and do something productive that without it would not be possible or would be extremely unlikely. I think some people (including me) fail to fully understand the incredible disadvantage the (mostly) urban, black population has had in the US. Poor neighborhoods, crime, terrible schools, exposure to drugs, teen pregnancies (from a mixture of poor education), etc.

 

I'll be the first to admit that I agree: race should not decide who gets accepted into college, or how private companies are allowed to hire. But the government should be able to help solve the problem by offering scholarships to aspiring students, putting more human/health services in poor neighborhoods, investing more in failing schools, and providing entreprenuers with loans/grants to open a business that they deem successful/worthy.

 

I don't agree with how the city determined to give the money to Mahogany's (I wish it was a competitive process open to anyone who wished to apply themselves and with full disclosure to the council about tax issues in the past). But I do agree that we should be trying to encourage the disadvantaged in society to apply themselves when there are so many factors against them from the start.

 

Though I think this is starting to get off topic. We should all agree to at least reference The Banks in our discussions at some point in every post so it stays relatively on-topic. I don't want to turn this into a separate thread, but if it keeps going in this direction away from the topic at hand I likely will.

My biggest thing with the Mahogany's related posts on this thread is that, if you look at all the businesses that are subsidized in all different ways by local governments, this subsidy is pretty small.  It might be have been dumber or more hopeful than most, but it's never struck me as being nearly as big a deal as countless other subsidies out there.  Also, isn't better to subsidize locally owned businesses on the Banks than anyone of all those chains?  The chains provide a benefit because they are familiar for tourists, but I'd rather try to help out a local, new place, than some nationwide chain or a place like the Maisonette which was poorly run and asking for hand-outs because of new competition.

My biggest thing with the Mahogany's related posts on this thread is that, if you look at all the businesses that are subsidized in all different ways by local governments, this subsidy is pretty small.  It might be have been dumber or more hopeful than most, but it's never struck me as being nearly as big a deal as countless other subsidies out there.  Also, isn't better to subsidize locally owned businesses on the Banks than anyone of all those chains?  The chains provide a benefit because they are familiar for tourists, but I'd rather try to help out a local, new place, than some nationwide chain or a place like the Maisonette which was poorly run and asking for hand-outs because of new competition.

 

Good point about local versus chains.  And for the record, the city *did not* bail out the Maisonette.  They had unrelated parts of their business that failed and that's what brought their restaurants down. 

 

The Banks will never fail in the way The Flats failed in Cleveland or how Laclede's Landing treads water in St. Louis.  It's much more interconnected with the rest of the city than either of those two. 

IN-DEPTH: Where's the rest of The Banks?

Project leader says, 'The grand slam is yet to come'

Feb. 6, 2014

Written by Sharon Coolidge

 

 

Cincinnati’s vision for its riverfront was a bustling shopping and entertainment district that would buzz 24/7 with office workers, residents, diners, tourists and shoppers.

 

Fifteen years later, The Banks gets credit for injecting what Reds owner Bob Castellini called “a dust bowl” with new life and vibrancy. It’s pumped $92 million a year into the economy – even without all of its originally planned features, one study showed.

 

Last Saturday night, couples celebrated their anniversary at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse, a group of dads and kids scooped up Orange Leaf yogurt after ice skating on Fountain Square and some people waited almost two hours for a table at The Yard House.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?NoCache=1&Dato=20140206&Kategori=NEWS&Lopenr=302060153&Ref=AR

This is just ridiculous.

 

Phase II was slated to break ground in Dec. 2012, then Dec. 2013 then last month. What is going on? Apartment demand is through the roof. Carter has sold all of Phase I so they are sitting on a pile of money. The county & the Bengals say the hold up is not the height limit controversy. So what is it then?

It all seems very suspicious. 

 

Everyone acting like everything is fine, but no one will commit to anything and just keeps saying "soon, next month"... no date has been set in stone.  The market is so hot right now, why would this not be a huge priority to get this started

From the Akron Beacon-Journal/Associated Press:

 

Cincinnati river development disappoints

 

Associated Press

 

CINCINNATI: Restaurants, bars and apartments that have risen in The Banks project have enlivened Cincinnati’s riverfront, but the development is still far from achieving earlier visions.

 

The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that only a portion of the 18-acre site between stadiums where the Cincinnati Reds and Cincinnati Bengals play has been built up as planned. The goal of a mixed-use urban neighborhood is still missing key pieces such as a hotel, office building, condos and retail shops as development continues.

 

There’s a 300-unit apartment building soon to be joined by a luxury apartment building, and condos are still part of future plans. Efforts to draw a hotel and retailers are continuing.

 

There are more than a dozen eateries and bars. But one restaurant owner says business is slow when there is no major event such as a game or concert.

 

http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/cincinnati-river-development-disappoints-1.465329

That article said absolutely nothing. Guess someone just needed a paycheck this week.

I will always be baffled by the public's insistence that a "city" be represented by some tourist area that comprises well under 1% of its land area.  Why do people ignore the decrepit public housing when glowing about a trip to New Orleans?  How do they block out the strip malls that lurk just around the corner from Savannah's famous historic district?

 

People go visit a national park or tourist location to go see what they've heard about.  They'll come back from a trip and the first thing they'll talk about is how great the weather was during the trip and how "the drive" was. 

That article sucked.  It seems that people in Cincinnati just like to complain about the city.

I will always be baffled by the public's insistence that a "city" be represented by some tourist area that comprises well under 1% of its land area.  Why do people ignore the decrepit public housing when glowing about a trip to New Orleans?  How do they block out the strip malls that lurk just around the corner from Savannah's famous historic district?

 

People go visit a national park or tourist location to go see what they've heard about.  They'll come back from a trip and the first thing they'll talk about is how great the weather was during the trip and how "the drive" was.

 

Agreed, but probably the reason is because most visitors are not very adventurous. For instance, imagine the traditional trip to Disney World... plenty of their visitors never even leave the park grounds itself!

 

And the list goes on.... how many tourists go and check out Queens while they are in New York unless they know someone there? etc.

 

 

 

What is important is to have these "showplace" locations to draw people into the area, and back it up with developments that truly enhance the quality of life for residents. The Banks, ideally, would make a great "showplace", a place for outsiders to come, visit, experience, and love so that they then decide to try out other areas of Cincinnati.

 

Those suburbanites referenced earlier? I bet before the Banks existed they hopped in their car the second the game was over and went back to wherever they were from. Now they linger and spend money downtown. Maybe after a while they will decide to even adventure across FWW into downtown itself, then maybe even consider buying a place within city limits. And that's how it starts.... baby steps to get people outside of their comfort zones...

Totally accurate.  It's not just for tourists, it's really for people who live here, too.  I happened to be at the Art Museum yesterday.  There was a fairly large group of LaSalle high school students there with parents, clearly all working on some school assignment.  I overheard one of the mothers talking to another about it, and she said, "I've never been to the Art Museum before today."  Now whether or not she is a life long resident I have no idea, but it's clear that she has enough roots in the city to be sending a kid to high school here, and has never set foot in the museum. 

 

  Sometimes on here I think we forget that this place can be an echo chamber of people interested in cities in Ohio/the rest of the country/rest of the world, who know what's happening in terms of development/preservation/building, who care about public transit, who love places like Over-the-Rhine, etc.  There's a good chance that many people in Greater Cincinnati don't know much about the city outside of (1) where they live and surrounding areas, and (2) Downtown, and that view of Downtown is built by places like the Banks, Fountain Square, the Stadiums, the Aronoff, etc. 

Cincinnati is blessed with so many top tier healthcare institutions. But none of them have significant presences downtown. Wouldn't it be great if The Banks (or anywhere downtown) housed a big health care facility? I'm not sure it needs to be a full hospital, but downtown needs better access to medical facilities. I know I would be more likely to schedule an appointment with a doctor if I didn't have to go to Uptown or the 'burbs. I could just walk over during lunch break, or whenever. I feel like between TriHealth, Catholic Health Partners, UC Health, Children's, and Christ...  They all have satellite offices around the city, but none have a presence downtown. Between all the downtown workers and the downtown residents, there should be more than enough demand to justify a significant medical center. The Banks seems like an ideal opportunity and would do a nice job of increasing foot traffic throughout the day, more so than traditional office space would. Does anybody have an estimate of how much medical office space is in downtown now?

Cincinnati is blessed with so many top tier healthcare institutions. But none of them have significant presences downtown. Wouldn't it be great if The Banks (or anywhere downtown) housed a big health care facility? I'm not sure it needs to be a full hospital, but downtown needs better access to medical facilities. I know I would be more likely to schedule an appointment with a doctor if I didn't have to go to Uptown or the 'burbs. I could just walk over during lunch break, or whenever. I feel like between TriHealth, Catholic Health Partners, UC Health, Children's, and Christ...  They all have satellite offices around the city, but none have a presence downtown. Between all the downtown workers and the downtown residents, there should be more than enough demand to justify a significant medical center. The Banks seems like an ideal opportunity and would do a nice job of increasing foot traffic throughout the day, more so than traditional office space would. Does anybody have an estimate of how much medical office space is in downtown now?

 

Medical office users in Downtown are probably in the $17-$22 Range, mainly small users in B building like the Carew Tower.

Mercy opened a HealthPlex in one of the Atrium buildings.

Why are they mostly in B office space downtown? Seems like healthcare usually wants new class-A space.

Why are they mostly in B office space downtown? Seems like healthcare usually wants new class-A space.

 

Multi Tenant Class A owners don't want surgery centers and people in wheelchairs zipping around the lobby.

Most Class A medical office buildings only have medical tenants.

Cincinnati is blessed with so many top tier healthcare institutions. But none of them have significant presences downtown. Wouldn't it be great if The Banks (or anywhere downtown) housed a big health care facility? I'm not sure it needs to be a full hospital, but downtown needs better access to medical facilities. I know I would be more likely to schedule an appointment with a doctor if I didn't have to go to Uptown or the 'burbs. I could just walk over during lunch break, or whenever. I feel like between TriHealth, Catholic Health Partners, UC Health, Children's, and Christ...  They all have satellite offices around the city, but none have a presence downtown. Between all the downtown workers and the downtown residents, there should be more than enough demand to justify a significant medical center. The Banks seems like an ideal opportunity and would do a nice job of increasing foot traffic throughout the day, more so than traditional office space would. Does anybody have an estimate of how much medical office space is in downtown now?

 

There actually two fantastic dentists as well as two primary care physician locations (see below) downtown.  PM me if you have any questions.

 

The Christ Hospital Physicians - Primary Care (312 Walnut St) - this is where I go

 

UC Health Downtown Medical Office - Primary Care (US Bank Tower at 425 Walnut St) - http://healthnews.uc.edu/news/?/23624/

Every couple of months, I get a "downtown doctors" postcard in the mail, advertising dentists, optometrists, etc. that are located in the CBD. So even though they may not be clustered in some sort of health center, they are pooling their advertising budgets and working together.

Cincinnati is blessed with so many top tier healthcare institutions. But none of them have significant presences downtown. Wouldn't it be great if The Banks (or anywhere downtown) housed a big health care facility? I'm not sure it needs to be a full hospital, but downtown needs better access to medical facilities. I know I would be more likely to schedule an appointment with a doctor if I didn't have to go to Uptown or the 'burbs. I could just walk over during lunch break, or whenever. I feel like between TriHealth, Catholic Health Partners, UC Health, Children's, and Christ...  They all have satellite offices around the city, but none have a presence downtown. Between all the downtown workers and the downtown residents, there should be more than enough demand to justify a significant medical center. The Banks seems like an ideal opportunity and would do a nice job of increasing foot traffic throughout the day, more so than traditional office space would. Does anybody have an estimate of how much medical office space is in downtown now?

 

There actually two fantastic dentists as well as two primary care physician locations (see below) downtown.  PM me if you have any questions.

 

The Christ Hospital Physicians - Primary Care (312 Walnut St) - this is where I go

 

UC Health Downtown Medical Office - Primary Care (US Bank Tower at 425 Walnut St) - http://healthnews.uc.edu/news/?/23624/

 

Dentists are usually OK tenants for Class A operators, and B also. My dentist is in the Carew Tower and before that the TriState Bld.

Been going there since the 70s'.

My Dentist is at 4th and Walnut on the 11th floor. Been going there for years.

Mahogany’s defaults on lease at the Banks

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

Mahogany’s, the financially troubled soul food restaurant at the Banks, has defaulted on its lease with the development’s new owner and has been threatened with eviction, according to documents obtained by the Courier.

 

In a letter to Mahogany’s owner Liz Rogers, Jeffrey R. Anderson Real Estate says that Mahogany’s owes nearly $53,000 in rent and utilities. Anderson Real Estate is the agent for Banks owner NIC Riverbanks One.

 

“If at the end of 10 days the default is not entirely cured, the landlord intends to retake the premises,” wrote Tracy Nemenz Schwegmann, an agent at Jeffrey R. Anderson Real Estate.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/02/20/mahoganys-defaults-on-lease-at-the.html

Such a bad idea to start a business of any kind with that much debt. 

 

It's just a cycle. Businesses with loans and grants fail all the time. How much did the city lose over the years  in subsidies did they gave  to Saks 5th avenue? They ended up moving to Kenwood.

Or having a hand in tearing down a building for Nordstrom. Do we still subsidize Macy's for their downtown store?

Saks, Macy's, and Nordstrom are all valiant efforts though, as they are large and profitable companies. Even though Nordstrom fell through and Sak's left, most investors would agree that they're worth the risk. However, even setting aside your opinions on the validity of subsidizing diversity and multiculturalism at The Banks, Mahogany's seemed like a horrible idea from the get go.

 

 

I thought it sounded good. Soul food? Can't hate on that, and it's something Downtown (and the city in general) lacks. Too bad I never got to taste it.

 

I can't believe Johnny Rockets will outlast them.