Mahoganys had a $10 cover this weekend. Is it a restaurant or a night club?

 

Was anyone there? Charging a cover in Cincinnati is a joke, unless there's a band playing or something. 

Mahoganys had a $10 cover this weekend. Is it a restaurant or a night club?

 

Was anyone there? Charging a cover in Cincinnati is a joke, unless there's a band playing or something.

 

My guess would be that there was some sort of Grand opening thing going on. But who knows. Kind looks like a club inside.

 

BTW, the food is pretty good. Serivce is pretty slow.

That's an interesting article.  It says that Toby Keith's got a $5.5 million loan that has no priority to it (i.e., local governments will be last in line to be paid off if the place goes under). 

^ Yeah, I don't remember a single article talking about the loans that other businesses got to open at the Banks except Mahogany's... I understand the frustration people have since Roberts owed taxes that she couldn't pay before, but still... It seems like the Enquirer was trying to stir controversy by not saying that when the hubaloo was going on about Mahogany's. As far as I'm concerned, TKILTBAG got 5X the government assistance than Mahogany's did...

That's an interesting article.  It says that Toby Keith's got a $5.5 million loan that has no priority to it (i.e., local governments will be last in line to be paid off if the place goes under). 

 

And Mohoganys got a grant, $684,000 that does not have to be paid back. This isn't a loan. Toby has a P/L statement and an operating history. They are a reasonable

credit risk.

^But wasn't that Grant from a federal source? The way I understand it we were given a federal grant that we could give out to a business. We chose Mahogany's. It isn't like the City of Cincinnati or Hamilton County shelled out $684k for them to open. I realize this money could have been given to another business, but the general public is under the impression that the City handed over $1M when in reality we transferred $684k and loaned 300k. Right?

^But wasn't that Grant from a federal source? The way I understand it we were given a federal grant that we could give out to a business. We chose Mahogany's. It isn't like the City of Cincinnati or Hamilton County shelled out $684k for them to open. I realize this money could have been given to another business, but the general public is under the impression that the City handed over $1M when in reality we transferred $684k and loaned 300k. Right?

 

Grant money came from the City. Now the City might have got that money from the Feds (taxpayers) $684,000, but the city granted it to Mohoganys. To me it isn't money well spent when there are other restaurant locations in the city that are vacant. Also the City/County has a major conflict of interest in that they are partners

in the Banks development. They are competing with other developers and landlords for retail or office tenants. Can you imagine what would happen if city council

gave a grant to a company so they could spend $684,000 in rent in an office building owned by a council member.

 

The City also wants an office tower @the banks, so they need tenants to sign up first. You know what they will do? Give tax incentives to an existing downtown office tenant to sign a lease in the new Banks Building. Other downtown landlords do not have the power to write tax laws or grant waivers, so a landlord will lose a

prime tenant because they are competing against the City. Not a fair fight.

I've reached out to my contact. She said there's no indication grant money was federal pass through funds and was instead city economic development funds but she will look into it to confirm.

Mahogany's owner Liz Rogers spent the noon hour as Bill Cunningham's guest. Give it a listen when it's made available in their podcast section.

 

 

EDIT

 

Here it is: http://www.700wlw.com/cc-common/podcast/single_page.html?podcast=bill_cunningham&selected_podcast=120821_1_WILLIE_1345569022_4459.mp3

The Wine Guy Bistro has now posted its menu (not the cheapest place in the world) at its Banks site, in addition to employment information.

 

 

When I'm back in Cincy, this is one of the first places I'm curious to try. I hope she succeeds.

Tin Roof opened today.

Woa! Talk about a soft opening...

Phase 2 of the banks

Not too bad.

How did you come by that rendering? I think it looks really cool.

Do you have a source for this image? Anybody who knows SketchUp can throw together a rendering and pass it off as official.

I'm obviously not going to get excited until there's a source for that image, but if something along those lines happened I'd be thrilled. It looks far more interesting than Phase 1's architecture and will offer a much greater vertical density to the development. The materials would also hopefully be a step (or five) higher as well.

emstructural.com/the banks phase 2

It looks like the same crap to me, just with the addition of some curved curtain walls on one side.  Whoop-de-freaking-doo

emstructural.com/the banks phase 2

 

That didn't work as a link, but I found this, which corroborates your picture: http://www.emstructural.com/the-banks-phase-ii-carter/

 

Nothing explicitly saying "this is the official rendering for this," but it's definitely interesting. Thanks for posting this.

If that is a legit rendering, then that should be well over the planned 300 residential units, correct?

If that is a legit rendering, then that should be well over the planned 300 residential units, correct?

 

Certainly looks that way. If this is official, I'm really excited for it.

 

Thirteen stories; was that the maximum height allowed for the Banks? I forget what they decided.

 

Also, didn't realize Tin Roof was open either until I walked by there last week. I'll have to check it out.

Nice find. Here's the full size image. It could grow on me.

 

The use of three materials is nauseating. I understand cost is the key driver but I'd rather they use one cheaper cost material for the entire exterior. The alternating materials in the rendering makes it look like a connect-4 game board. I guess three is better than the 5 or 6 they used on phase 1.

if you go to the actual website's main page you can see a different angle of it. It's small, but a different angle.

It would be awesome if The Banks Phase II is actually going to be that tall. There is a seemingly insatiable demand for apartments in Downtown Cincinnati right now, and this is just what we need.

I'm aware that this is a Cincinnati thread, thus making it prone to massive dissatisfaction, but these Banks-styled apartments are what developers are building all over the world.  Cheap, mute brick facade, often with some component of glass curtain.  In all seriousness, what has Cincinnati done to deserve better infill than most other cities?

 

We would all love to see high-quality development become a trademark of the City's rebirth, but having a project come to fruition that has urban living in mind is far more important that whether it looks average or spectacular.  This is Ohio we're talking about.  Corruption is rife, and even the most sensible of ideas will be soaked with cost overrun and over-analysis by the time the plan gets to the groundbreaking stage, limiting the potential of the realized project.  U Square at the Loop is a trademark example of a simple plot that had tall and urban written all over it, and we got that, only it's more appropriate for a less constricted area.  I would have no problems with U Square if it was in Hyde Park. 

 

I'll still take your U Squares, Banks', and Gateway Districts (Columbus) any day because they are anchors and there's a flat out demand for new housing with visibility and the appearance of safety.  What's being done on the back streets of Corryville with infill is unacceptable in most every instance, but these developments Cincinnati has in the works will work out just fine despite all the boardroom blunders that make it to construction.

 

 

I'm aware that this is a Cincinnati thread, thus making it prone to massive dissatisfaction, but these Banks-styled apartments are what developers are building all over the world.  Cheap, mute brick facade, often with some component of glass curtain.  In all seriousness, what has Cincinnati done to deserve better infill than most other cities?

 

I have to agree with you and I live in Cincy. I don't think The Banks look half bad and even once the new buildings have aged they still won't look half bad. To a person familiar with architecture who has an eye for that sort of thing, I'm sure these are an eyesore. However, to the common man walking between the buildings on his way to a Reds game - these look great. Almost anything is better than the hole that was there a few years back.

 

I love Cincinnati and Ohio dearly, but we're not New York, Chicago or LA - there aren't architects lining up to building something spectacular on the riverfront. I'll take what we've got and the sooner it's all filled in, the better.

Notice that loading dock for a large semi-trailer truck?  I wonder if this is the long awaited downtown Kroger.

The main thing I don't like about this design is the first floor. Looks really choppy and awkward. Overall it is better than the first phase of The Banks IMO

I don't know if its real. But I was the first person on here to find it. And urabanohio took it off

The schematic on the previous page is most likely what will go before the City's Design Review Board soon. I am also concerned about the first floor as it looks like the glass is set in from the brick. I'm not sure if there will be an interior canopy effect. Also I am assuming this is the 2nd Street frontage. The second picture from the website shows balconies (I am assuming off Race) that look interesting. And they get points for stepping back some of the building frontage above the 3rd story. Once again this design seems to highlight the main ethos of Cincinnati style infill which is good form and lousy architecture.

Not bad... Ideally the change in material would have coincided with the introduction of balconies along the lines of Liebeskind's original design for the Ascent (i.e. hiding the balcony in the depth of the brick) because the stepping looks a little too random right now.  That being said, it is an improvement over the Moody Nolan/ C+R crap thats there right now.

 

Edit: Looks like the thumbnail on the previous page does just that:

http://www.emstructural.com/category/recent/

 

Why not do that on the other sides? 

However, to the common man walking between the buildings on his way to a Reds game - these look great.  Almost anything is better than the hole that was there a few years back.

 

I don't buy it.  To the "common man" these buildings are unobtrusive, inoffensive, bland, and completely forgettable. They're not interesting in the least, so nobody will give them a second glance, but they're not so bland that they look stark and brutal.  They're the TGI Friday's, Honda Accord, cardigan sweaters of architecture.  It's boring mediocrity to the extreme.  I see way less than 15 pieces of flair. 

 

Also, and I know I've harped on this a few times already in other threads, but seriously, it's ok to build boring crap because it's better than a parking lot?  I'm sorry but that kind of attitude is why we can't have anything nice.  This is a prominent downtown location, so what if it was crapped all over in the past, new development should still be held to a high standard of excellence. 

I'm aware that this is a Cincinnati thread, thus making it prone to massive dissatisfaction, but these Banks-styled apartments are what developers are building all over the world.  Cheap, mute brick facade, often with some component of glass curtain.  In all seriousness, what has Cincinnati done to deserve better infill than most other cities?

 

Better original architecture is the reason.  Very few cities have neighborhoods that look like Over-The-Rhine, or most of the core urban neighborhood of Cincy. Most of the cities that do have that level of old architecture have better infill, though that's in part because they're bigger cities or put much more emphasis on architectural heritage. 

 

That's why people are demanding better, Cincinnati deserves better because its not Dayton or Columbus or Indianapolis or any number of other Midwest cities, with in view of the banks btw is a building that was the tallest in the world outside of New York City when it was built, it makes the banality  of what Cincy builds now look all the worse when its surrounded by excellence from another era.

The height is the best thing about the buildings. I have only seen the rendering posted in this thread and would appreciate it if someone could post the other views because that other site isn't working very well on my phone.

 

What will it look like from the river (as part of the skyline)?

If that is a legit rendering, then that should be well over the planned 300 residential units, correct?

 

I think the rendered building would still be about 300 units.  Phase one consists of two blocks of ~6 story buildings, totaling 300 apartments.  Phase 2 is only one block, and thus needs to be twice as high to accommodate the same number of units.

The "common man" might not care one way or the other, but intelligent people who travel know the difference.

Everyone's subconscious is affected by aesthetics.

Where is this building going to go?  Location please?

However, to the common man walking between the buildings on his way to a Reds game - these look great.  Almost anything is better than the hole that was there a few years back.

 

I don't buy it.  To the "common man" these buildings are unobtrusive, inoffensive, bland, and completely forgettable. They're not interesting in the least, so nobody will give them a second glance, but they're not so bland that they look stark and brutal.  They're the TGI Friday's, Honda Accord, cardigan sweaters of architecture.  It's boring mediocrity to the extreme.  I see way less than 15 pieces of flair. 

 

Also, and I know I've harped on this a few times already in other threads, but seriously, it's ok to build boring crap because it's better than a parking lot?  I'm sorry but that kind of attitude is why we can't have anything nice.  This is a prominent downtown location, so what if it was crapped all over in the past, new development should still be held to a high standard of excellence. 

 

Nailed it. I'm less offended by the casino being a bland piece of crap because A) that's what casinos are, and B) the ugly sides of the casino building are in a much less prominent location. I expect better for the Banks. They say architecture is frozen music. If that's true, these buildings would be a John Tesh album.

I was thinking more Rick Astley but ya know...

Yeah, watch these fans lose their minds when Tesh plays the NBA on NBC song:

Really wish they had invented smart phone video when I saw that Bon Jovi cover band playing at the Seneca Falls Casino. 

Really wish they had invented smart phone video when I saw that Bon Jovi cover band playing at the Seneca Falls Casino. 

 

:-o

Really wish they had invented smart phone video when I saw that Bon Jovi cover band playing at the Seneca Falls Casino. 

Hahaha, sounds like a good act to book for the Toby Keith bar. 

What I heard coming out of The Tin Roof the other night wasn't particularly auspicious.  The kind of band that would be booked in the early afternoon at Taste of Blue Ash.

What I heard coming out of The Tin Roof the other night wasn't particularly auspicious.  The kind of band that would be booked in the early afternoon at Taste of Blue Ash.

 

And they charged a cover, for the "Band"

 

 

I would pay to see "The Band"...but Mr. Levon Helm passed earlier this year....