ABOVE went UNDER

But, what happened? Did the property taxes finally suffocate their operation?

There was speculation about this in January: https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/above-s-final-demise

UNder?  Or just revamping under a new chef and menu?  Hadnt heard whether the ownership really changed or not. 

New management and name (1 South). May or may not be open already from what I hear.

There is a website, but there's nothing there - http://1south.com/

It's open. Same decor, smaller TVs, Shorter menu, less Italian, fewer choices, better prepared, more expensive.

mapso_dino said:

But, what happened? Did the property taxes finally suffocate their operation?

I would say mediocrity as a restaurant did them in.  Not everything is about taxes.  

flimbro said:

It's open. Same decor, smaller TVs, Shorter menu, less Italian, fewer choices, better prepared, more expensive.

Everything you listed is fine except smaller tv’s.  

Smaller teeveees and they will close in a month.

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

flimbro said:

It's open. Same decor, smaller TVs, Shorter menu, less Italian, fewer choices, better prepared, more expensive.

Everything you listed is fine except smaller tv’s.  

Smaller teeveees and they will close in a month.

You know  that is hard to say.   Some times a restaurant owner has deep pockets and will remain open for

month after month when logic dictates he should simply close.........cut his losses and accept the inevitable

the food had become awful

There is a sign at the entrance to the supermarket that says they're now open for dinner.

I saw from the beginning that the restaurant would not survive. It advertised that there were so many choices and different cuisines. A restaurant needs a focus.

sheltiemum4 said:

I saw from the beginning that the restaurant would not survive. It advertised that there were so many choices and different cuisines. A restaurant needs a focus.

And yet it was open for 10 years.......  

mikescott said:

sheltiemum4 said:

I saw from the beginning that the restaurant would not survive. It advertised that there were so many choices and different cuisines. A restaurant needs a focus.

And yet it was open for 10 years.......  

I had read that when Eden Market bought the old Shop Rite years ago,  the primary motivation was

the potential to build and run a restaurant on top of the market.   They did so..........sold out within

a few years,  taking the money and running

sold out?   building has same owner and restaurant has same owner.  

They switched market operators and now restaurant operators.  fairly common to see that happen today.  

And would not be shocking if they sold the building 10 years later.... hardly just a few years.  

But keep making  up stuff

mikescott said:

sold out?   building has same owner and restaurant has same owner.  

They switched market operators and now restaurant operators.  fairly common to see that happen today.  

And would not be shocking if they sold the building 10 years later.... hardly just a few years.  

But keep making  up stuff

I don't make up newspaper stories.  The motivation as to the reason to buy the building for the rights

to build and maintain the restaurant are what happened.   That was the crux of the story.  That the ultimate

owners remained the same is news to me and the transfer story was an error.

To err is human and I never claimed I was anything but.

Unless the service and food are improved, it will fail again.

When the Garden Of Eden project was approved, it was with the stipulation that a restaurant requested NOT be built. The owner of the project / building agreed and then proceeded to build the restaurant anyway. When it came time to open the restaurant the owner dared the Village to enforce the stipulation and the Trustees caved. This may be an example of a bad start coming to a bad end.

Also,  when a building was totally refurbished in  Maplewood Village,  not the Circus bldg, the new

size deliberately exceeded the allowed parameters.   The owner paid the fine and considered it part

of the cost of doing business.

That's a horrible, horrible logo.

qrysdonnell said:

New management and name (1 South). May or may not be open already from what I hear.

There is a website, but there's nothing there - http://1south.com/

shh said:

That's a horrible, horrible logo.

qrysdonnell said:

New management and name (1 South). May or may not be open already from what I hear.

There is a website, but there's nothing there - http://1south.com/

Looks like an overfed penguin.

I don’t even know where to begin with the logo.  But given it seems incredibly petty to start trashing a restaurant before it’s really even fully open, and without having stepped foot in the place let alone having dined there, I’ll hold off.  

But I really really want to. 

...

Author: I don't recall any fine being levied on whoever built/owns Above, so there was no cost at violating the terms of the food market project's approval. In fact, the owner of the building claimed that the value of the restaurant improvement was included in the PILOT originally intended only for an upscale food market. 

Yeah, that logo pretty much says "we will make the same mistakes as the old place, don't bother coming"

shh said:

That's a horrible, horrible logo.

qrysdonnell said:

New management and name (1 South). May or may not be open already from what I hear.

There is a website, but there's nothing there - http://1south.com/

any evidence to back this up?  or what you might have heard second hand?

truth said:

When the Garden Of Eden project was approved, it was with the stipulation that a restaurant requested NOT be built. The owner of the project / building agreed and then proceeded to build the restaurant anyway. When it came time to open the restaurant the owner dared the Village to enforce the stipulation and the Trustees caved. This may be an example of a bad start coming to a bad en

shh said:

That's a horrible, horrible logo.

qrysdonnell said:

New management and name (1 South). May or may not be open already from what I hear.

There is a website, but there's nothing there - http://1south.com/

I have seen worse... but really does anyone go to a restaurant because of a website or logo?  

The matter was discussed in public BOT meetings and story was covered at the time by the News Record.

truth said:

Author: I don't recall any fine being levied on whoever built/owns Above, so there was no cost at violating the terms of the food market project's approval. In fact, the owner of the building claimed that the value of the restaurant improvement was included in the PILOT originally intended only for an upscale food market. 

I guess I was not clear when I said the "Village"  The building to which I referred is

in Maplewood Village.   If you PM me  I will give you the name.

As far as Above..........I think it was the owner of the building who had the intent

to put up the restaurant.   That he did not have permission is news to me

I was only referring to South Orange and Above.

Next?

-s.