Aja Steakhouse

I am surprised to see that no one has discussed the new Aja Steakhouse (in the new Dana Hotel). I went for dinner on Friday night and all I can say is Wow!

I have very high sushi-standards and this may be, perhaps, the highest quality sushi I have had outside of Tokyo. Although they didn't seem to have any 'special' cuts of fish (no special Tuna, which was a bit of a disappointment), the cuts they did have were out of this world. My group of 4, tried nearly every roll on the menu and a number of other appetizers. The highlights for me, included a spectacular tuna ceviche with tomato, red-onion and a wonderfully seasoned soy-sauce and a melt-in-your mouth scallop/grapefruit appetizer. I also thought their unagi was great and the standby spicy tuna roll was above average.

My only complaint: not enough options. I wish their menu was a bit larger, especially their rolls. They also seemed a bit expensive.

We did have a few minor service issues (one of my sushi rolls went someone else's plate, my friend asked for no avocado on a roll, but it was served with avocado, etc.) but overall, I couldn't see too many opening problems.

*Just to note: I am not a troll, just a very enthusiastic sushi eater

Aja Steak
660 N.State Street
Chicago, IL 60610
312-202-6050

What kinds of fish did you eat (outside of rolls)?

I am interested in the steak offerings. Anyone been to Aja, and tried the kobe, or waygu beef they offer?

jimswside wrote:I am interested in the steak offerings. Anyone been to Aja, and tried the kobe, or waygu beef they offer?

Aja is open for breakfast as they are in a hotel, I'm wondering if they serve Japanese style breakfast.

G Wiv wrote:

jimswside wrote:I am interested in the steak offerings. Anyone been to Aja, and tried the kobe, or waygu beef they offer?

Aja is open for breakfast as they are in a hotel, I'm wondering if they serve Japanese style breakfast.

MMMM....Kobe & Eggs.

stevez wrote:MMMM....Kobe & Eggs.

I was thinking more along the lines of miso soup, pickle, rice and salt grill fish, but now you have me thinking about kobe beef and eggs.

jesteinf wrote:What kinds of fish did you eat (outside of rolls)?

I'll admit to being a more mainstream sushi eater, so I stay within the bounds of normalcy: I tried the unagi nigiri and then had the salmon sashimi, the hamachi sashimi and the Hirama sashimi.

I had my camera with me, but was too ashamed (sitting at the sushi bar and all) to pull it out and take pictures. I plan on returning very soon and perhaps will get over my fears and take pictures.

G Wiv wrote:

jimswside wrote:I am interested in the steak offerings. Anyone been to Aja, and tried the kobe, or waygu beef they offer?

Aja is open for breakfast as they are in a hotel, I'm wondering if they serve Japanese style breakfast.

sounds great, although the bone in filet @ Joes Stone Crab is not kobe beef, one of my favorite meals is a Saturday, or Sunday "brunch" @ Joe's Stone Crab with a bone in filet cooked rare, some over-easy eggs, and hashbrowns to start my day.

stevez wrote:

G Wiv wrote:

jimswside wrote:I am interested in the steak offerings. Anyone been to Aja, and tried the kobe, or waygu beef they offer?

Aja is open for breakfast as they are in a hotel, I'm wondering if they serve Japanese style breakfast.

MMMM....Kobe & Eggs.

The Kobe at ajasteak is $18/oz, with a 3 oz. minimum. But you do get to eat it in a place that, according to the website, has "An organic mixture of textures, imagery and sound. Tasteful, harmonic and humble in its confidence."

The website also notes that the "Coveted cuts of robust-flavored beef, cohabitate with Sushi and Yakitori in an East-Asian inspired, yet culturally and flavorfully eclectic palate." No mention of ovum-bovine cohabitation.

David Tamarkin pretty much pummels AJA in this week's TimeOut Chicago. Though I tend not to think single incidents with obnoxious customers should be taken much into account when evaluating a restaurant, his critiques of the food are, at best, dismissive if not damning:

http://www.timeout.com/chicago/articles ... 1/ajasteak

David Hammond wrote:David Tamarkin pretty much pummels AJA in this week's TimeOut Chicago. Though I tend not to think single incidents with obnoxious customers should be taken much into account when evaluating a restaurant, his critiques of the food are, at best, dismissive if not damning:

http://www.timeout.com/chicago/articles ... 1/ajasteak

I read the first paragraph. He begins by complaining about being dissed by a couple of businessmen who sneered at him and his companion for their casual dress and manner. And then he goes on in his very next sentences to sneer at the other customers who don't meet his criteria for dress and manner. And he doesn't see the irony in this.

Shockingly, the ajasteak concept didn't work, and the place closed. A new, completely different place is opening in the same space, with the brand new name: aja.

I can't wait.

Amazing that ajasteak couldn't have made it, given that it was so strong it was winning awards even before it opened.

Yes, simply shocking. I wonder which Wagstaff genius recommended in the concept meeting that the new restaurant should continue to leverage "aja" brand equity with its nomenclature.

Kennyz wrote:Shockingly, the ajasteak concept didn't work, and the place closed. A new, completely different place is opening in the same space, with the brand new name: aja.

I can't wait.

My brother worked there from the day they opened, as a server (though he left voluntarily a few months ago). The restaurant might have never caught on, and the concept of steak and sushi is certainly an odd one, but their food was actually quite good - both the steak and the sushi. Say what you will about the name, concept, or even the management of the restaurant, but the food itself was worth going for, and it's a shame they closed.

I'm happy that the steakhouse nomenclature has been dropped, so that finally this establishment can be seen for what it truly is -
Chicago's only true Steely Dan-themed restaurant.

grahamhh wrote:I'm happy that the steakhouse nomenclature has been dropped, so that finally this establishment can be seen for what it truly is -
Chicago's only true Steely Dan-themed restaurant.

Serving up Asian women covered in green goo? They should have stayed a steakhouse.

These people are earning a paycheck? No wonder our economy went in the tank.

Kennyz wrote:These people are earning a paycheck? No wonder our economy went in the tank.

The image is pornographic, and pornography sells. I happen to agree with most of Laura Kipnis' thoughts on pornography, belong to the pro-porn camp so to speak, which is probably why I'll never eat at aja. I don't want that kind of transgression in a restaurant.

happy_stomach wrote:Serving up Asian women covered in green goo? They should have stayed a steakhouse.

happy_stomach wrote:

Kennyz wrote:These people are earning a paycheck? No wonder our economy went in the tank.

The image is pornographic, and pornography sells. I happen to agree with most of Laura Kipnis' thoughts on pornography, belong to the pro-porn camp so to speak, which is probably why I'll never eat at aja. I don't want that kind of transgression in a restaurant.

I've been struggling with this image because, to me, it seems to be effective marketing, and not just because it's raised a discussion on this board and elsewhere. For the Halloween season, we have a yucky candy-coated head (and, I believe, sugar-dusted lips) -- that, to me, is more funny than pornographic. The ethnicity of the model reflects the Asian focus of the place (at least in its former incarnation) and is not, by my interpretation, a slam to women of color. Now, Kipnis makes a load of intriguing points but my standard of "pornographic" is more in line with those of the once-banned author Jimmy Joyce who defined pornography as "Art that moves you to do something you would not normally do." Simple, maybe too simple, but this ad does not seem to motivate to abnormal behavior. Laughter is normal. This ad seems more Nickelodeon than Knave.

As marketing, it's humorous, memorable...and grabby.

This is a tough subject, and as one Supreme once said, and I paraphrase, "Porno is in the eye of the beholder," so YMMV.

David Hammond wrote:I've been struggling with this image because, to me, it seems to be effective marketing, and not just because it's raised a discussion on this board and elsewhere.

It may be "effective" in that people are talking about it, just as people were talking about that place that served sushi on naked bodies. And lots of people were talking about Ajasteak before it opened too. I suspect that the new aja will have the same fate as those places, but what do I know. The ad may be more funny than pornographic (I think it's neither), but either way, it doesn't give me much reason to want to eat there.

Kennyz wrote:

David Hammond wrote:I've been struggling with this image because, to me, it seems to be effective marketing, and not just because it's raised a discussion on this board and elsewhere.

It may be "effective" in that people are talking about it, just as people were talking about that place that served sushi on naked bodies. And lots of people were talking about Ajasteak before it opened too. I suspect that the new aja will have the same fate as those places, but what do I know. The ad may be more funny than pornographic (I think it's neither), but either way, it doesn't give me much reason to want to eat there.

Taking this from a different and maybe more interesting angle, can you think of a single advertisement for a restaurant that has motivated you to want to eat at that place? I'm not sure I can think of one restaurant I ever went to because I thought they had an effective advertisement. It seems like maybe the best an advertisement can do is to lodge the name of the place in your head. This ad does that.

David Hammond wrote:For the Halloween season, we have a yucky candy-coated head (and, I believe, sugar-dusted lips) -- that, to me, is more funny than pornographic.

But is your candy-coated head modeled after a young Asian woman with no visible clothing who seems to be reveling in being masked by a viscous substance and thereby selling a sexy hotel restaurant?

David Hammond wrote:The ethnicity of the model reflects the Asian focus of the place (at least in its former incarnation) and is not, by my interpretation, a slam to women of color.

[/quote]

I definitely don't think it's a slam to women of color. (Though not a main point of the Kipnis essay I linked to, one of my major areas of agreement with Kipnis--elaborated in her book Bound and Gagged and in other essays I can't now find online--is her idea that pornography, even when depicting women in submissive roles, isn't actually harmful to women.) That said, it's actually the model's race and her depiction that make this image pornographic for me (though, yes, my definition is probably broader than yours, David, and, to be clear, "pornographic" isn't negative to me). I just can't think of another instance where the use of representative ethnicity would work for restaurant marketing.

David Hammond wrote:Taking this from a different and maybe more interesting angle, can you think of a single advertisement for a restaurant that has motivated you to want to eat at that place? I'm not sure I can think of one restaurant I ever went to because I thought they had an effective advertisement. It seems like maybe the best an advertisement can do is to lodge the name of the place in your head. This ad does that.

In fact, restaurant advertisements almost always have the opposite of their intended effect on me. Almost universally, when I see an advertisement for a restaurant, the place goes on the mental "avoid" list.

David Hammond wrote:Taking this from a different and maybe more interesting angle, can you think of a single advertisement for a restaurant that has motivated you to want to eat at that place? I'm not sure I can think of one restaurant I ever went to because I thought they had an effective advertisement. It seems like maybe the best an advertisement can do is to lodge the name of the place in your head. This ad does that.

I think that's a tough question to ask in this context, in this community. First, I don't think I see that many restaurant advertisements. The only ads I can think of are the ones I see in the Reader and Time Out. Second, even if I was exposed to more ads in my daily life, I think restaurant and food advertising overall has less effect on me than advertising from other industries just because I read so much (relatively speaking) about food. In other words, I'm usually seeking out much more information on a restaurant or food product than an ad--print, TV, radio, web--can give me. Generally, an advertisement will help me remember a restaurant name that I will then search on LTH or google. Even when I see an ad that makes me think I don't want to eat a restaurant (aja is a perfect example), I'll still usually look for more information.

Back when I had titles in advertising that seemingly suggested younger people should approach me for work, I would commonly get a bunch of sample ads from fresh-out-of-college types. This being the 90s mostly, the heyday of AIDS awareness and whatnot, they would invariably have a condom ad among them (right, because there are so many condom accounts floating around, you can hardly open an issue of Field & Stream or Highlights without seeing a bunch of ads for Trojan or Ramses). And this condom ad would invariably have an "edgy" hip headline like "Have the balls to wear one."

After I finished yawning, I had a standard letter I would send back explaining how they had done all 15 of the things guaranteed NOT to get you a real job at a real agency ("Do not send me a rubber duck with a card attached to it that says 'It'd be just ducky to work for you!'... Do not print your resume in silver type on black paper... Do not write your entire cover letter in rhyme...")* And one of those things was do a fake edgy ad for something that it's easy to be edgy about, but that wasn't really that edgy. If you really want to be edgy, do it for Kraft mac and cheese or something, that will impress me. Condoms are just too obvious.



I'm pretty sure 95% of those who received the letter changed careers more or less instantly.

Anyway, there's nothing easier in advertising than faux shock value. Or as somebody says in David Ogilvy's Ogilvy on Advertising, "If all you want is to get attention, there's always just showing a gorilla in a jock strap."

* If you want more heartless laughter at the expense of aspiring young people, go here.

happy_stomach wrote:

David Hammond wrote:Taking this from a different and maybe more interesting angle, can you think of a single advertisement for a restaurant that has motivated you to want to eat at that place? I'm not sure I can think of one restaurant I ever went to because I thought they had an effective advertisement. It seems like maybe the best an advertisement can do is to lodge the name of the place in your head. This ad does that.

I think that's a tough question to ask in this context, in this community. First, I don't think I see that many restaurant advertisements. The only ads I can think of are the ones I see in the Reader and Time Out.

I read both Reader and Time Out regularly, but as I reflect on my reading behavior, I read the reviews and food articles but my eyes go right past the many advertisements for restaurants. They don't catch my eye. Now, the American Apparel ads, different story

David Hammond wrote:I read both Reader and Time Out regularly, but as I reflect on my reading behavior, I read the reviews and food articles but my eyes go right past the many advertisements for restaurants. They don't catch my eye. Now, the American Apparel ads, different story

I'd probably still skip to the reviews, but restaurants ads in general underuse food pornography. I wonder if that's because food porn has proven less effective in the lower res context of print (speaking on the Reader and Time Out).

I love American Apparel.

David Hammond wrote:Taking this from a different and maybe more interesting angle, can you think of a single advertisement for a restaurant that has motivated you to want to eat at that place?

I've never been to the Erie Cafe, but they have a low-budget commercial that runs on daytime cable (I see it on CNBC that runs in my office). Something about the commercial works for me and makes me want to eat there. I think it's the straightforward honest pitch of the whole thing, they basically don't say much more than, "Come eat here. We have the best food."

eatchicago wrote:

David Hammond wrote:Taking this from a different and maybe more interesting angle, can you think of a single advertisement for a restaurant that has motivated you to want to eat at that place?

I've never been to the Erie Cafe, but they have a low-budget commercial that runs on daytime cable (I see it on CNBC that runs in my office). Something about the commercial works for me and makes me want to eat there.

But yet, you've never been, so I guess it's not that great of a commercial after all.