Well, kind of.
I’m sure you’ve all read the news about the Waterfront breaking from (most) of its moorings and making a run for it on the swollen Ohio. Its cargo included lots of dry-aged steaks, a band, and Cris Collinsworth.
I know from talking with the GM of the Waterfront in the past that it’s expensive to maintain a floating restaurant– as expensive as it is to maintain one on-ground, a floating restaurant is much worse. Think about it: exposure to the elements, rusting, extra liability (what if a drunk person falls overboard?). The Waterfront itself, though it had a standard Ruby’s menu (with an extra emphasis on seafood), had terribly dated decor– it felt like Crockett and Tubbs could walk in at any time– but the view of the city was spectacular.
So we know that floating restaurants are a slow Friday night news story waiting to happen (though how it could be that slow with all that’s going on in Japan is beyond me), but why aren’t there more restaurants with a city view that aren’t floating? When I drive home from the airport, I usually take 471– it’s faster for me. But if I’m feeling just a little bit homesick, I’ll take 75 and anticipate the sparkling skyline view from the cut in the hill. When I’ve eaten at the Waterfront, I could overlook the terrible decor because I was so fascinated by the view.
Which restaurants have skyline views? I was going to sit and think of them myself, but it turns out Metromix did the thinking for me (though I think they forgot Hooter’s and The Charthouse on that list). Most of the restaurants are actually on the Cincinnati side– why so few on the Kentucky side (where the view is arguably better)? Are many of the restaurants on the riverfront chains because of cost? Do you even want to go to a restaurant that takes advantage of the Ohio River– on either shoreline?
(Photo courtesy Carrie Cochran, Cincinnati Enquirer).