<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hudson Quarter (Hudson House site)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://yorkstories.co.uk/hudson-quarter-hudson-house-site/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://yorkstories.co.uk/hudson-quarter-hudson-house-site/</link>
	<description>A resident&#039;s record of York and its changes</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 17:45:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.38</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simon</title>
		<link>http://yorkstories.co.uk/hudson-quarter-hudson-house-site/#comment-690157</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Simon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:48:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yorkstories.co.uk/?p=15823#comment-690157</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Personally, whilst the new Hudson Quarter is an improvement on the old Hudson House, I still think the replacement is another missed opportunity.
This just looks like another bland, identikit design with the occasional &#039;flourish&#039; (like the strange angular design of the top floor) to disguise the fact it looks, well bland and anywhere-ville.
Seriously, does this quarter pay any kind of respect to the areas history, or to York itself? (other than the name). I see similar bland, boxy developments rising up on the lower part of Piccadilly, behind the Eye of York/Castle Museum and on Marlborough St (I think it was Marlborough St).
Please, architects, can we get over this phase of building boring, identikit boxes which look like what an unimaginative child might build out of Lego?

Aside from my rant about the paucity of creativity in architecture these days, I&#039;m not a fan of the buildings rising above the walls from Tea-room square - it feels like a compromise. Either have them hidden behind the walls completely or make them higher to have better contrast between the old walls and the new development.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Personally, whilst the new Hudson Quarter is an improvement on the old Hudson House, I still think the replacement is another missed opportunity.<br />
This just looks like another bland, identikit design with the occasional &#8216;flourish&#8217; (like the strange angular design of the top floor) to disguise the fact it looks, well bland and anywhere-ville.<br />
Seriously, does this quarter pay any kind of respect to the areas history, or to York itself? (other than the name). I see similar bland, boxy developments rising up on the lower part of Piccadilly, behind the Eye of York/Castle Museum and on Marlborough St (I think it was Marlborough St).<br />
Please, architects, can we get over this phase of building boring, identikit boxes which look like what an unimaginative child might build out of Lego?</p>
<p>Aside from my rant about the paucity of creativity in architecture these days, I&#8217;m not a fan of the buildings rising above the walls from Tea-room square &#8211; it feels like a compromise. Either have them hidden behind the walls completely or make them higher to have better contrast between the old walls and the new development.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
