Every New Albanian has an opinion about Steinert's -- what it used to be, what it became, and whether it was good or bad. I won't kid you and say I went there often in more recent times, but there were periods in the "old days" when I was a regular.My first experiences at the original location was in 1980 or thereabouts. It was what the Brits would call a "boozer," basic and catering to the shot and beer crowd.
The Steinert family then executed a power move of epic dimensions, closing for extensive remodeling circa 1983, and emerging a few months later with a barroom that looked more like Cheers than anything else ever seen hereabouts previously.
I remember seeing the dazed looks of the older regulars, who soon were supplanted by a new, young and freer spending crowd, which grew older with the reinvented business. Undoubtedly it was a sharp move to reinvent, and contributed to enhanced value when the business ultimately was sold by the family.
Remember this: You never stop reinventing your business, or yourself. If you do, you die. Steinert's is now reinvented for downtown New Albany, as the article below makes clear.
Some will scoff.
I don't.
This is an established local name moving from further outside the center into downtown. This is a very good thing for downtown, whatever the circumstances that brings Steinert's to within spitting distance of the Ohio. I just hope they'd like to sell locally brewed beer on draft ... but there's plenty of time for that.
Welcome to the 'hood, guys.
Steinert’s Bar and Grill reopens in downtown New Albany, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune).
The first six months after Steinert’s Bar and Grill burned beyond repair, co-owner Rick Geoghegan was overwhelmed by the same questions.
When will the bar — which originated in 1877 and eventually located along Charlestown Road in New Albany before the May 2008 fire — reopen and where?
Geoghegan and business partner Jerry Roby won’t have to respond to those inquiries after Tuesday, when Steinert’s will celebrate a new beginning at the former Redman’s Club building, located at the intersection of East Main and Fourth streets.
46 comments:
Anyone know if they plan to allow smoking at the new place? Either way I wish them well.
Now I only have to walk one block home instead of three. *grin*
Actually, I never had the pleasure of trying the old Steinert’s so I’m not sure what to expect of my new neighbor.
I'm glad to see more activity along that block of Main. Last night I walked along that stretch. The sidewalk cracks have sprouting weeds a full four feet in height.
The old Steinert's was a great place, at least in days gone by. I went there for the first time on my 21st birthday, and was there many times in the ensuing years. I'm happy for the owners and eager to try the new location. I have the same question that Brandon does about smoking, though. If I walk in and the place is a giant smoke cloud, I'll quickly move on to another venue.
I'm pretty sure it's smoking, but it's so big inside I don't think you'll be covered in a cloud.
If one smoker's inside, I’m walking the couple extra blocks to another place 10 times out of 10.
It'll be nice to see another place coming downtown, and I, too, hope it's smoke free. Won't go there with the family if it is not.
Did you all not see NASCAR mentioned in the article? It didn't used to be called the Winston Cup for nothing.
Oddly enough, an employee of Steinert's just this moment purchased some open top tanks from us. I'm guessing to set some kegs in. Didn't think quickly enough to ask him about smoking.
You're probably about 10 times more likely to leave a bar after having a few and get in a wreck or get run over crossing the street than you are to get cancer from secondhand smoke. As a smoker myself I have no problem going outside as I can see how it would be annoying, but I do find it funny that people drinking have a health problem with smoking. Purty ironic. Hey Hoosier, you and Pitino going out for dinner tonight?
It's not irony, it's just a choice for some. It may not even be about health, it may be they just don't like the smell.
Personally, I don't let that interfere with my decision on where to go out.
I don't smoke, but it doesn't really bother me all that much either.
If my drinking hurts me, it hurts me. If I hurt someone else due to my drinking(DUI...)there are consequences--to me. Where's the consequences to you for your second hand smoke giving me cancer?(if it causes it) Whatever...
Pitino, hell. Sampson called me and we are going to pick up "blondie" and go to BSB. Assuming Roger will give me the keys to lock up after I'm "done".
Oh, and "Billy Clyde" is going to be the designated driver/lookout.
The price I have to pay is unfair taxes on a product that most of this nation including the fine state you work in Hoosier was founded on. It's a never ending debate, but I'm going to say it's pretty doubtful you're going to get cancer from sitting in a bar with a smoker every now and then.
There's a lot of "unfair" taxes. You'll have to do better than that. Tax on booze, too, you know.
I've spent my share of time in smoker's areas. Will probably continue to do so. It's my choice. It's not the employee's choice. And don't tell me the employee can choose not to work there. We don't accept that as an excuse when an employer doesn't have a safety fence around a pot of boiling chicken parts. Or sufficient ventilation in a coal mine.
The only leg(or lung)that you have left is, 2nd hand smoke does not constitute a severe enough risk to others. That may be the case, but all this other "rights" stuff is bogus.
I never said anything about rights. But yes, you don't have to work somewhere, eat somewhere, any of that stuff if you don't want to. There are extreme examples you can point to for not allowing something at work, but hating smoking is just the fad right now that's why all the sob stories. Maybe next time the ignorant masses will decide they don't like looking at long hair while they work, and then I'll be screwed. Until fast food and drinking are banned(which they shouldn't be), I'll have a problem with singling out public smoking.
As an ex-smoker, you desire to make ill health upon yourself, go for it, please just do not include me in the formula. Thank you so much for stepping outside.
I wish them luck, but I really wish they would have rebuilt around the way in the original location.
It was nice to have a "neighborhood bar" when the mood hit....
Now another vacant lot.
Again, if you want to eat a cheeseburger twice a day, every day, it is your body. Doesn't begin to directly affect the person sitting or working around you in any way, shape, or form. I find these kind of examples to be like comparing apples and brioche.(wink to bluegill)
However, I will part by agreeing totally with Ed, thanks for stepping outside. Ed is a wise man. You could learn a lot from both of us. VBG
Economists agree. Smokers save government more money than they cost government. The reason is that smokers per capital draw a tiny fraction of the social security checks that non-smokers draw. It’s hard to draw social security when you’re dead. Yes, smokers cost more for state run hospitals, but that additional cost to the states if far outweighed by the savings to social security.
Daniel S., irrespective of how accurate your statistics are of the dangers of smoking versus the dangers of drinking, the fear of getting cancer is hardly my only motive for not wanting to longue at a smoke filled restaurant. The most immediate reason is that it smells absolutely repugnant. I don’t want to smell tobacco when I’m trying to enjoy a beer or hours later when the stench is still on my clothes and in my hair.
Ed wants me to step outside cos he knows he'd still like to fire one up. say you hate smoke cos of the smell and I can see it. Say you hate it while drinking a beer and I find it comical. Plus what if a fat person falls on you?
Steinert's isn't just a bar, you know--it's a restaurant, too. I wouldn't feel right sitting my child down to eat in a smoking establishment.
I hope they have a separate smoking debate area.
Good luck to Steinert's.
Oops on igniting the smoking debate. My bad. I have an extra-selfish reason for wanting to know the smoking status.
Yeah, I wouldn't want my kids to sit around in a smokey environment either. Basically I just like to argue with Hoosier at any chance I get. He's a bad person who is mean to dogs.
I think we all wish Steinert's well either way.
Just be glad that I have enough decorum not to discuss what I have heard about you and certain animals.
"Again, if you want to eat a cheeseburger twice a day, every day, it is your body. Doesn't begin to directly affect the person sitting or working around you in any way, shape, or form. I find these kind of examples to be like comparing apples and brioche."
Not meaning to stir the pot, and even though I am a smoker (one who NEVER SMOKES indoors anywhere, if is allowed or not)
The cheeseburger statement DOES effect everyone.
The numbers of smokers has greatly declined, yet the promised savings in healthcare costs have not.
It is becoming readily evident the morbid obesity is just as big, or a bigger drain on the healthcare system as smoking is or was.
As the population gains weight, and the organic processes that goes hand in hand with morbid obesity increases, we are seeing a marked increase in the total costs of healthcare to everyone.
Look at it like this, If you replaced obesity with car wrecks, and dramatically increased the number of car wrecks that are occuring, we would ALL see a rapid increase in the premiums we pay for Auto insurance, this is exactly what is happening with obesity.
On elast thing and I will climb down off my soap box, said it before and I will say it again, as far as indoor smoking, there will be more ground for the venomous anti-tobacco groups when we as a society remove all risks from our air that certain populations do as a choice that may beharmful or bothersome to others, such as heavy perfumed persons (allergies and Asthma), indoor carpeting (cancer causing compounds are realsed into the air), driving (car exhaust contains many of the same bad things as cigarette exhaust), coal fired, and heavy oiled fired power plants (mercury vapors and mercury solids released in the air and water)
Truth is, the incidence of illnesses linked to "2nd hand" and now "3rd hand" smoke have just as many other environmental contaminants that could be the cause of the illnesses blamed soley on 2nd hand smoke now. (aside from the smell, which I myself dont like)
But in closing, diabetes, obesity, and liver malfunction is a bigger drain on our clinics and the indigent patients we serve than smoking, day in and day out.
Hope I didnt step on too many toes, but its a simple matter of choice, if a business owner chooses to allow smoking, so be, no one is forcing anyone to be exposed to anything, we all have choices of where to go, and places where there is no choice have all ready been made smoke free, a move which I FULLY agree with (hospitals, government offices, schools, ect)
This is a very important issue. Some cities have conducted anti-obesity campaigns, weight loss campaigns, health eating campaigns, exercise campaigns, etc.
I think a good discussion could begin by asking what NA can do to promote physical activity among its residents (including but not limited to sidewalks and bike lanes).
Other cities have discussed junk food taxes, etc. Not that I think that necessarily would fly in NA, but I’m curious to hear ideas.
Let me clarify. I’m no expert on this, but for me, the ideal city sponsored public health initiative would not be something like a new exercise trail. The program shouldn’t be something that will just be used by already active people to become more active. For me, the ideal program would get a good chunk of the least active people moving about, even if it’s just a stroll down the street.
Jerry Abrahamson has an annual hike with the mayor. I’m sure there are better ideas out there.
Louisville has done a lot of work trying to address “food deserts,” parts of the city where it is difficult for residents to buy fresh produce. I know at least one non-profit has been going to west end gas stations and food marts talking them into carrying fresh apples and bananas.
Christopher,
Of course you are correct, on a societal level.
Say that I work in a restuarant. You order a double cheeseburger w/bacon, deep fried in pork fat. After the meal, you light up. The "bad" food that you consumed is in you--not me. Your smoke is in you and me. The worker doesn't have to eat a cheeseburger but has to inhale your smoke.
I'm not arguing that 2nd hand smoke is a significant risk to others. I don't know. My point is the comparing of 2nd hand smoke to "cheeseburgers". It's not the same thing. Not even close. There is "choice" with one and not the other. It's not about which one is worse for a person, healthwise.
Go to McDonalds. Count how many of the patrons eating double cheeseburgers, fries and a regular Coke are elementary age children.
They’re not old enough to vote, not old enough to drive, not old enough to get married. But they are old enough to choose to give themselves adult onset diabetes? To make informed nutritional decisions?
You're both right, fat people hurt our pocket books while exposure to smoke can eventually lead to health problems. Besides having recreational facilities available, not sure there's much you can do to encourage good health. Kids are lazy, video game players, parents are too consumed with their jobs and the rest of us struggle to find the time. That said, gym memberships are on the rise, not that that in itself proves people are getting in better shape.
But back to the argument, as a smoker I'm the first one to tell you it's bad for you. But the drinkers need to realize their actions are more damning than smokers'. The drunk driving fatality numbers don't lie. Not to mention the problems of alcoholism that may not even lead to a death, such as being a sorry IU fan.
You're going to have to change the plight of democracy and capitalism in general before you can start dictating what people can eat, I think. I don't want to live in a nation that tells me I can't eat fried chicken because it's bad for me.
*edited link*
http://tinyurl.com/2z34q9
You're going to have to change the plight of democracy and capitalism in general before you can start dictating what people can eat, I think. I don't want to live in a nation that tells me I can't eat fried chicken because it's bad for me.
Sorry Daniel, you already live in that nation, and it has no new effect on capitalism or democracy. Again, a lot of people think they have a constitutional right to do this or that, when in fact they do not. There’s never been a constitutional right to feed your kids a particular good, or more specifically, food cooked with particular additives or in a particular method. The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to legislative for public health issues and they have been doing so for 200 years. FDA regulates many substances, from illegal drugs to the amount of rat poop allowable in your yogurt to when trans fats may be used.
Ultimately, trans fats are not the problem. People eating too much is the primary problem. I don’t know how to address it but the FDA has the authority to take certain measures, and it wouldn’t be any more a threat to democracy than say another socialist intrusion on individual rights, the seat belt. One hundred years ago, France started a public health campaign to educate mothers to not overfeed their babies. The campaign worked and now the French simply don’t get heart disease and they’re not obese despite a lot of wine, meat, cheese and cream consumption.
Yeah, but you have to draw the line somewhere. I don't think anybody wants to live in a country where we have to eat saltines and celery and that's it. Well, unsalted crackers at that. People deserve choices.
Hoosier,
Unfortunately we will have to agree to disagree.
We ALWAYS have a choice. Workers who knowingly accept a job at an establishment that allows smoking, in todays age over over bombardment of every little thing that might make you sneeze all the way up to make your head explode, knowingly accept the risks associated with the reported, and wholey unsubstantiated risks of SHS.
Employees at such establishments have the right and the choice to decide to not accept a job there, or seek employment in the same industry in facilities which do not allow smoking by the business owners choice.
Unfortunately, the majority of smokers come from the "socio-economic class" (I hate that term) of service industry workers. So in essence we are using the excuse of "workers have no choice" to protect them from their statistical selves.
Personally, I hate smoking, it sucks, it is a financial drain, its stinky, and smokers are pretty much persecuted anymore, and it has become socially acceptable to do so.
But I keep doing it, and I do it by 50% choice and 50% spite.
Again, I highlight further that areas where people have NO CHOICE, and actually do NOT have a choice, are now smoke free indoors, more examples of this would be jails, prisons, youth shelters, rehab facilities, etc.
So, we ALL have choices, yet we choose to force our preference on others.
As for me, again, I am a smoker but never an indoor smoker period. When my family and I go out to eat or what ever, I choose more often than not to patron establishments that are non-smoking by the owners choice, and our availability has not suffered from this decision making process.
“Saltines and celery” would be the “Death panels” of the food debate. Let’s talk facts, not jump to conclusions.
Christopher,
Go back and read some of my previous comments. Then add this, that you wrote:
"...and wholey unsubstantiated risks of SHS."
You'll see that I have covered that. It's the ONLY argument that you have. It may be correct.
"IF" we have a disagreement, it should only be about that. We don't let coal miners make the choice of working in a safe or unsafe coal mine, do we?
If SHS is not dangerous, I'm with you 100%.
If it is, are you with me 100%?
By the way, Sunday, I will be 5 months totally tobacco free. "Basically" quit several years ago but not totally. I hear you, man.
Those could be the facts eventually. Let's not forget this country was formed because people wanted to get away from government interference, religious zealots claiming they knew what was best for everybody. Sure, we can agree that cheeseburgers aren't good for you, but what's next? Once you open the door, the precedent is set. I think I have the right to decide what's best for me as long as I'm not hurting someone else. You're right, that's not a constitutional guarantee, it's a freedom that was given to us at birth and has been taken away from us by governments since the beginning of time, all claiming they know what's best for us.
Hoosier,
Coal Miners and unsafe mines:
Again, its a risk they know is present when they take the job.
Same goes for crab fisherman, bridge painters, and bloggers ;)
We have choices, and we choose to not make informed decisions and accept responsibility for our own actions and decision making, we find a person, a group, a chemical, an anything but ourselves.
I am not trying to discount the potential threat that SHS may or may not pose, and I am in no position to state if it is harmful or not, but what I am in a position to state is that we as a society have jumped on a bandwagon and and decided its an all out witch hunt against tobacco in all forms and its users, yet we continue on a daily basis to use products and services that are far more deadly, far more dangerous, and we do so almost with celebration.
Congratulations on quitting tobacco, I am proud of you, and I seriously mean that!
Thanks. Actually, it's Monday. St. Patrick's day was my last. Sunday is my wedding anniversary. Too many dates for this old man.
NOt to mention what, 22 years and five months since IU last won a basketball title...not that I was keeping track...
Oh! Oh! He got me. When I wasn't looking, he blew smoke in my face.
And one more attempt at clarity. I can make myself unhealthy by eating the cheeseburger ALONE. I can only get unhealthy by SHS, IF SOMEONE WHO SMOKES IS THERE.
I believe "Jimmy Olson" wrote this:
"I think I have the right to decide what's best for me as long as I'm not hurting someone else."
Thank you for agreeing with me. You are dismissed for the weekend.
For me it just comes down to two basic things:
First and Foremost, we are expecting and demanding Government to remove all sense of personal accountability of our own decisions by demanding that anyting someone else can do that MAY be harmful be strictly controlled, setting the stage for future restrictions when more groups start griping about more things they do not find socially acceptable.
And Secondly, we place more importance on issues such as SHS than we do about hunger, poverty, crime, and poor education, not realizing if we expended as much energy on those things we would reduce the number of persons who smoke in the first place, as it is a statistical fact that the more education a person has the less likely they are to smoke.
Post a Comment