US fashion chain to open York store (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
Urban Outfitters to open in former Habitat store
9:30am Thursday 9th February 2012 in News
A MAJOR fashion chain is to move into the former city-centre home of one of York’s flagship stores.
American clothing retailer Urban Outfitters, which says it has had its eye on the city for some time, has signed a 15-year lease to take over the “iconic” High Ousegate building which once housed home furnishings giant Habitat.
The city’s Habitat branch was one of 30 stores which closed last September after the firm went into administration, with about 20 jobs being lost as all but three of its premises were sold off. The building covers 10,253 square feet in one of the city centre’s busiest shopping streets.
The deal was signed by commercial property firm CBRE Retail, a division of the huge global real estate company CBRE Group, and its spokesman Tim Starling said today: “Urban Outfitters has had a long-standing requirement for York, and this iconic building fits the brand’s image extremely well.”
The clothing chain sells men’s and women’s fashions as well as gifts and accessories and also has a boutique line. It has 21 stores in the UK, two in Dublin and seven throughout mainland Europe, but its arrival in York will give the company only its second Yorkshire branch, the other being in Leeds.
Last year, Urban Outfitters announced expansion plans including nine new stores and two additional outlets for womenswear retailer Anthropologie, which it also owns, as well as enlarging its Free People brand which is sold on a wholesale basis through Harvey Nichols. It usually concentrates on two or three-storey buildings but said it would also be looking at smaller formats, adding that it could eventually grow to boast 50 British stores.
More details about when work on the chain’s York store will begin and when it will open, as well as how many jobs may be created, are expected to be confirmed in due course.
Stylish boost
YORK is to get another high-end fashion store in a development which will further boost the city’s reputation as a major shopping destination. US clothing retailer Urban Outfitters has signed a 15-year lease on the former Habitat store in High Ousegate. Its arrival will bring 20 new jobs and is another welcome vote of confidence in the city centre.
Urban Outfitters is a young, trendy label and its presence in a street less well known for fashion will add enormously to what York has to offer.
Comments(45)
Mike Oxuge
says...
1:32pm Wed 8 Feb 12
yorkonafork
says...
1:35pm Wed 8 Feb 12
But those scummy York people who choose to work or live just a few miles out of the centre don't matter, that's right isn't it?
Anyway, without being too sarcastic, this is good news and good that the space can be filled. Adds another well know place to the City and some more jobs. Welcome.
TerryYork
says...
1:37pm Wed 8 Feb 12
Mike Oxuge wrote:There's people leaving Selby as we speak, due to the massive impact this will have. :D
Surely this will kill Monks Cross and Clifton Moor?
YorkShrimper
says...
1:39pm Wed 8 Feb 12
The Great Buda wrote:Castleford already has one. It's the final nail in the coffin of the city centre!!
Some one should tell them the bad news. York City Centre is going to end up like Castleford. They'd be best off moving there.
Mr Udigawa
says...
1:39pm Wed 8 Feb 12
rogue84
says...
1:46pm Wed 8 Feb 12
plus, I've got a feeling that Starbucks at Monks X may suffer due to Urban Outfitters opening as it's dragging away their customer demographic....
Justinheaven
says...
1:47pm Wed 8 Feb 12
ian923
says...
1:54pm Wed 8 Feb 12
yorkonafork
says...
1:54pm Wed 8 Feb 12
Justinheaven wrote:No, I think you're missing the gag. I'd suggest that no one who's commented so far is actually unhappy at the fact this new store is coming and it is indeed good news, it's more in mockery of certain people's view of new stores.
No matter what news is on this site , some people will always see a negative side :(
Although you're half right, there are a lot of negative people on a lot of stories, just not this one! :)
Garrowby Turnoff
says...
2:13pm Wed 8 Feb 12
The Great Buda wrote:I thought Castleford was a suburb of Featherstone...
Some one should tell them the bad news. York City Centre is going to end up like Castleford. They'd be best off moving there.
Mr Anderson
says...
2:23pm Wed 8 Feb 12
Mike Oxuge
says...
2:38pm Wed 8 Feb 12
Mr Anderson wrote:They closed due to the competition from Sports Direct on Monks Cross.
I've just noticed the Vivienne Westwood store has closed. When did that happen?
The Great Buda
says...
2:51pm Wed 8 Feb 12
Very poor of them.
yorkonafork
says...
2:55pm Wed 8 Feb 12
Free speech? Not around here. We'll do and think whatever you tell us to oh mighty ones.
Disgraceful.
heworth.28
says...
3:08pm Wed 8 Feb 12
TerryYork
says...
3:09pm Wed 8 Feb 12
johnabostock
says...
3:16pm Wed 8 Feb 12
c.com/.
magicadey
says...
3:23pm Wed 8 Feb 12
:P
sb72
says...
3:37pm Wed 8 Feb 12
Tim Cronin
says...
3:39pm Wed 8 Feb 12
PG Haxby
says...
4:04pm Wed 8 Feb 12
JamesHinch
says...
4:45pm Wed 8 Feb 12
Please put the comments back in - they reflect the views of your readers.
speaks99
says...
6:09pm Wed 8 Feb 12
sb72 wrote:especially since its not working at the moment!!
johnabostock - for those of us who cant see Red & Blue please could you add the reply here ?
speaks99
says...
6:15pm Wed 8 Feb 12
The Great Buda wrote:Its disgusting that they can post a story about a very incendiary topic and:
I see the Press has removed the comments from the other story today.
Very poor of them.
1) Delete comments already made
and
2) Prevent further comments being posted regardless of content. It now means that this story appears to be protected from any sort of redress what-so-ever, despite the 15 plus comments who were making points about the content of the article.
If they have problems with some comments pointing fingers at the ethics of the Yorkpress website, then they should remove those comments, and print a disclaimer why. There is no reason, other than to pander to Bettys and Barnitts, to remove the other comments.
The press are firmly nailing their colours to the mast regarding this issue, lets not expect any unbiased reporting from now on.
DylanYork
says...
8:09pm Wed 8 Feb 12
McArthur Crown
says...
8:26pm Wed 8 Feb 12
OLD - HEAD
says...
8:32pm Wed 8 Feb 12
Sarah York
says...
9:16pm Wed 8 Feb 12
DylanYork wrote:Sorry, do you want to run by everyone why people, in a free society, can't have an opinion on a news story. Not only that would you like to specifically quote what you deem to be an insult to their staff? If you're someone who runs and hide from people's opinions that aren't the same and runs away like the Press have done then I suggest you're the one that needs to do the growing up, sweetie.
I think it's great York is attracting new retail names not only to give local people something different but also to prevent empty shops blighting the high street. Can't say I understand all the fuss and name calling over a decision to suspend comments on another story when some people were blatantly just using it to have a go at existing shops and their staff in York who don't deserve it. Grow up.
speaks99
says...
9:47pm Wed 8 Feb 12
DylanYork wrote:If there were abusive or threatening posts then I understand removing them. Fact was that 90% of the comments were aimed at the article and were neither of the above. Remove those posts that were unfair/unwelcome (-by the press - for want of a better word) but leave the others to show that there are a lot of people who object to Bettys/Barnitts stand.
I think it's great York is attracting new retail names not only to give local people something different but also to prevent empty shops blighting the high street. Can't say I understand all the fuss and name calling over a decision to suspend comments on another story when some people were blatantly just using it to have a go at existing shops and their staff in York who don't deserve it. Grow up.
Now the article is closed to comments meaning we are unable to object or comment to the points in the article.
No longer a free society?!?!
LFrith
says...
8:49am Thu 9 Feb 12
York-10
says...
10:28am Thu 9 Feb 12
I personally think this store will be good for York city centre although it isn't everyones 'cup of tea' it is a shop that will appeal to alot of students and such like. Yes it isnt going to fit in with bettys but does everything have to revolve around that?
I personally used to go to manchester and leeds to shop in primark and urban outfitters. Get both and it will create a lot more jobs and create a lot more money for York.
johnabostock
says...
11:05am Thu 9 Feb 12
sb72 wrote:In reply to sb72:
johnabostock - for those of us who cant see Red & Blue please could you add the reply here ?
"Thanks for your e-mail. I would, however, refute any suggestion that our coverage is biased towards either side of this argument. We are planning to run a sizeable feature giving Oakgate (Monks Cross) Ltd’s side of the argument within the next two weeks and explaining in fuller terms than we have allowed city-centre traders how they believe their scheme will benefit the city, as soon as they have sent the information I requested from them. I am also in the process of putting together a piece outlining how many people have submitted comments to the council in favour of the scheme and how many are against.
We have covered both sides of the issue since the planning application was submitted and before and have, at every turn, given ample opportunity for all parties to comment. We cannot ignore the level of opposition and concern to the scheme, and when established city-centre businesses such as those mentioned in today’s article air concerns, we feel it is entirely justifiable and in the public interest to report them. I will address the point you mention regarding Adam Sinclair as I believe that is also entirely justifiable and worthy of a story in itself, but when I have quoted him, it is in his capacity with the Chamber of Trade rather than an individual business-owner. The claims city-centre traders have made have been run alongside professional advice they have sought, but I also published an article outlining the professional retail assessment of Oakgate at about the same time.
I do not agree that any of our articles have made the Oakgate scheme out to be any larger than it actually is – it is huge and it is a retail complex. The possible expansion of the Monks Cross Shopping Park also comes into the equation. At the end of the day, it is a debate, the biggest in the city at present, and we do not have a foot in either camp. I am a York City fan of 26 years’ standing myself and I want the club to survive, but in my professional capacity, I am entirely impartial, as is The Press. And, as a journalist for the last 13 years on local newspapers, I am well aware of the need to keep to the truth and to the facts. I maintain that is what both I and The Press do.
All the best and please get in touch if there is anything surrounding this issue which you want to raise or believe I should be concentrating on.
Mark "
johnabostock
says...
11:15am Thu 9 Feb 12
"Thanks John. I’d be happy to hear from anybody who sees it and wants to comment. They might also be interested in a story I’m doing for tomorrow, but can’t say any more as it stands. All the best. Mark "
ReginaldBiscuit
says...
1:01pm Thu 9 Feb 12
As regards removal of comments - What on earth did you expect after 13 years of spin, mind-control and political correctness? Many of us live in fear of expressing our true feelings because in the first instance on comments sections like this, they are removed and in the second instance, you can be prosecuted in our litigiously swamped culture. Free speech is exactly that and we live in a corrupt mind-controlled & watered down version of democracy where free-speech and opinion is monitored and persecuted.
only human
says...
1:01pm Thu 9 Feb 12
sb72
says...
2:18pm Thu 9 Feb 12
It seems a reasonably fair email to be honest and good that he took the time to reply.
Also its a shame that no mention was made as to why the comments were removed from the original article - an act which is at odds with the balanced nature of Mark's response. Is anyone from the Press able to enlighten us on why the comments were removed. As has been mentioned above they were not abusive and were entirely relevant to the article. No response on this suggests either a bias, or more likely not wanting to upset potential advertising revenue from Barnetts/Bettys etc in the future.
city_view
says...
2:32pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Seems people take a bit too much for granted on the web. Then to suggest, as some comments did, that we should 'boycott the paper' is a little misguided, as without the paper there would be no website for the airing of views to such a large and varied audience.
The deleted comments also included one which was rather personal and insulting about the journalist. Not surprised it got removed.
How about one of you set up a discussion forum? Then you could moderate it as you like.
Local papers are really struggling in this internet age. How about appreciating what they do instead of moaning?
And no, I don't work for them or know anyone who does. Just sick of the short-sighted attacks I've been reading of late by the increasingly hysterical 'pro' lobby, which is now as alienating as the Campaign4York was a month or two back.
again
says...
3:33pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Some of the comments on here in times gone by were far, far worse; I happen to think we get some quite sensible and informed remarks even if I don't agree with some of 'em.
GoodDoc
says...
5:50pm Thu 9 Feb 12
.
There is no god-given right to use someone else's website to broadcast your opinion - nor a right to be as abusive or libellous as you want simply under 'freedom of speech'. Learn what it means before you throw the dolly out of the pram.
ouseswimmer
says...
7:20pm Thu 9 Feb 12
yorkonafork
says...
9:18pm Thu 9 Feb 12
GoodDoc wrote:You're not wrong and the way the term 'freedom of speech' is branded about nowadays is indeed ridiculous nor is there a divine right to be allowed to comment here BUT you must see that if someone does provide a facility and it's open and open and then for no reason it's just stopped on a small part of a site, you have to expect the 'Why?' question. There were indeed a couple of comments close to the bone, but most were fair enough and simply opinion so it would be interesting to know why they all had to go. It would have taken 10 seconds to delete the few they didn't approve of (because they were insult/swearing etc).
Re. comment removal, I have to agree with Cityview. This talk of 'freedom of speech' is utterly pathetic and shows how sheltered people can be in this country. Many websites don't allow comments at all, others vet each comment before publishing them. Yet for some reason people assume that The Press, a private newspaper, does not have the right to remove comments on its own site? And if they do, we're suddenly being oppressed? Some people on here need to travel a little more if you think that is in ANY way linked to freedom of speech. . There is no god-given right to use someone else's website to broadcast your opinion - nor a right to be as abusive or libellous as you want simply under 'freedom of speech'. Learn what it means before you throw the dolly out of the pram.
tonyonethatmatters
says...
9:25pm Thu 9 Feb 12
GoodDoc
says...
6:29pm Fri 10 Feb 12
yorkonafork wrote:Well a 'why' isn't too extreme, so long as we accept they have no obligation to answer. I would doubt very much if there was 'no reason' as you suggest. What's more likely is that there is a reason that either you're unaware of, or that you wouldn't approve. But that's their perk in having their own website. I don't know you, but I'd hope that someone at The Press checks the comments more regularly than you, so it's also highly plausible that you didn't see the message that tipped the balance. Secondly, yes the site may be 'open', but nowhere does it state that the comments facility is entirely impartial. I would naturally expect a site like this to vet and broadcast comments to suit its own agenda, like any news site. Surely that's just the deal?
GoodDoc wrote:You're not wrong and the way the term 'freedom of speech' is branded about nowadays is indeed ridiculous nor is there a divine right to be allowed to comment here BUT you must see that if someone does provide a facility and it's open and open and then for no reason it's just stopped on a small part of a site, you have to expect the 'Why?' question. There were indeed a couple of comments close to the bone, but most were fair enough and simply opinion so it would be interesting to know why they all had to go. It would have taken 10 seconds to delete the few they didn't approve of (because they were insult/swearing etc).
Re. comment removal, I have to agree with Cityview. This talk of 'freedom of speech' is utterly pathetic and shows how sheltered people can be in this country. Many websites don't allow comments at all, others vet each comment before publishing them. Yet for some reason people assume that The Press, a private newspaper, does not have the right to remove comments on its own site? And if they do, we're suddenly being oppressed? Some people on here need to travel a little more if you think that is in ANY way linked to freedom of speech. . There is no god-given right to use someone else's website to broadcast your opinion - nor a right to be as abusive or libellous as you want simply under 'freedom of speech'. Learn what it means before you throw the dolly out of the pram.
.
If people are wanting unbridled freedom of speech, they'd do better getting their own blog, and even then they may be disappointed about what a provider may deem acceptable. I dislike The Press - their journalism is shoddy and increasingly tabloid - but criticising them for moderating message boards is daft.
rogue84
says...
7:03pm Fri 10 Feb 12
..can you just explain if i'm an idiot or a pessimist???
a shame that you feel the need to get personal on purely some posts that are meant to be amusing, nothing more.
The Great Buda says...
1:05pm Wed 8 Feb 12
York City Centre is going to end up like Castleford. They'd be best off moving there.