The ArgusDevelopers plough £6 million into i360 on Brighton and Hove seafront (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Developers plough £6 million into i360 on Brighton and Hove seafront

The Argus: Developers plough £6 million into i360 on Brighton and Hove seafront Developers plough £6 million into i360 on Brighton and Hove seafront

Developers of the i360 tower will back the project with millions of pounds of their own money, according to official council papers.

Controversy has surrounded the project in recent weeks after the Green Party, later followed by some Conservatives, decided to back a £36 million Government loan to Brighton and Hove City Council, which will be handed straight to developers.

Councillors on the policy and resource committee will next week debate the plans for the project that has nearly doubled in cost to £46.2 million from when it was initially proposed in July 2012.

Coast to Capital LEP, a partnership between public authorities and a private company which promotes economic growth, will provide £4 million, but the revelation that developers Marks Barfield will provide the final £6 million to the project has increased confidence in the project.

According to the loan and equity distribution agreement, Marks Barfield will see a financial benefit from the plan only once the council’s major debt has been repaid and Coast to Capital has also been reimbursed.

If the final deal is agreed at the committee meeting on Thursday the council will receive £985,000 a year for 25 years – thought to be worth about £21.2 million in total – £60,000 in business rates and £70,000 in Section 106 payments, which will benefit the local community.

The council is expected to also get an extra £300,000 income from Regency Square car park, and council-owned seafront properties are expected to increase in price.

And in an added bonus the council would receive 50% of any extra cash created if the attraction does better than expected, to repay the loan early.

Geoffrey Theobald, leader of the Conservative Group in Brighton and Hove, whose members are split on the plans, said the latest financial revelations provided a good omen for the project’s future.

He said: “The fact that the developers have put a significant amount of their own money and time into the scheme over a considerable period makes me even more confident that the i360 is going to be a success.

“The top experts and advisers they have been using over this time would also involve substantial expenditure.

“Let’s not forget that this is the same team of developers that delivered the hugely successful London Eye.”

Green convenor Jason Kitcat said: “This is a unique opportunity to help create a world class landmark for our city, and we ask other councillors to join local businesses and residents in supporting the proposal.”

But Labour’s Warren Morgan remained steadfast in his party’s opposition to the project, an opinion shared by many in the Conservative Party including MP Simon Kirby, adding that he thought it was wrong for the council to commit taxpayers to nearly £40 million of debt.

Comments (138)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:10am Sat 1 Mar 14

pwlr1966 says...

This will be a great boost to a declining and under invested area.
This will be a great boost to a declining and under invested area. pwlr1966
  • Score: -32

10:38am Sat 1 Mar 14

upsidedowntuctuc says...

a fraction of what our hapless Council will be pouring down the drain on it.
I'd love a power boat in my driveway but need to pay the mortgage first so it'll never happen
Pity Kitcrap and his hapless bunch can't budget the same as ordinary people
14 months to go...
a fraction of what our hapless Council will be pouring down the drain on it. I'd love a power boat in my driveway but need to pay the mortgage first so it'll never happen Pity Kitcrap and his hapless bunch can't budget the same as ordinary people 14 months to go... upsidedowntuctuc
  • Score: 33

11:38am Sat 1 Mar 14

Lady Smith says...

This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd.
This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd. Lady Smith
  • Score: 33

1:01pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

pwlr1966 wrote:
This will be a great boost to a declining and under invested area.
This will destroy the amenity of Regency Square residents and the value of their and other seafont properties. It will compromise the dignity and high end credentials of the Metropole and Grand hotels. If the visitor figures materialise it will destroy the ability of the Kings Rd to cope with already excessive traffic levels. But of course they won't materialise.
[quote][p][bold]pwlr1966[/bold] wrote: This will be a great boost to a declining and under invested area.[/p][/quote]This will destroy the amenity of Regency Square residents and the value of their and other seafont properties. It will compromise the dignity and high end credentials of the Metropole and Grand hotels. If the visitor figures materialise it will destroy the ability of the Kings Rd to cope with already excessive traffic levels. But of course they won't materialise. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 13

1:04pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Lady Smith wrote:
This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd.
What is the position and role of Marks Barfield withing Brighton i360 Ltd.? A Limited company protects personal fortunes and liability.

Interestingly, The Trustees of The West Pier Trust are personally liable for losses because a registered Charity. This of course incentivises them to push for all they are worth to get his built - otherwise they have to cough up to pay for fallen pier debris to be removed from the sea. Personally, each, jointly and severally.
[quote][p][bold]Lady Smith[/bold] wrote: This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd.[/p][/quote]What is the position and role of Marks Barfield withing Brighton i360 Ltd.? A Limited company protects personal fortunes and liability. Interestingly, The Trustees of The West Pier Trust are personally liable for losses because a registered Charity. This of course incentivises them to push for all they are worth to get his built - otherwise they have to cough up to pay for fallen pier debris to be removed from the sea. Personally, each, jointly and severally. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 18

1:12pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Roundbill says...

Poor Jason: he's so desperately eager to have this massive edifice standing proud on Brighton's seafront, one would almost imagine he must be compensating for something.
Poor Jason: he's so desperately eager to have this massive edifice standing proud on Brighton's seafront, one would almost imagine he must be compensating for something. Roundbill
  • Score: 34

1:19pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Goldenwight says...

And I am the Queen of Tonga, too. Just call me 'Kitcat' in informal conversations...

iSore is too weak a noun.
And I am the Queen of Tonga, too. Just call me 'Kitcat' in informal conversations... iSore is too weak a noun. Goldenwight
  • Score: 20

1:26pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Ania Green says...

This will look fantastic when it's completed. It will really help to increase Brighton's stature and will increase the amount of tourists coming to visit.
This will look fantastic when it's completed. It will really help to increase Brighton's stature and will increase the amount of tourists coming to visit. Ania Green
  • Score: -45

1:52pm Sat 1 Mar 14

rayellerton says...

It will look like a giant buttplug...
It will look like a giant buttplug... rayellerton
  • Score: 30

2:13pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Mr chock says...

Ania Green wrote:
This will look fantastic when it's completed. It will really help to increase Brighton's stature and will increase the amount of tourists coming to visit.
i think this will be a marvelous structure it will be a lovely visual feature of the coast its rusting superstructure is i believe already constructed and waiting to be shipped over .
http://www.marksbarf
ield.com/#/projects/
brighton-i360/?filte
r=date&layout=galler
y&gallery=constructi
on&image=4
it will provide some lovely part time / seasonal jobs AND it will apparently have a wind turbine on the top " that makes it so very green " Jason Kitkat and the green party have really got to make sure this is not like the fabled mono rail of the simpsons story . i have not seen the cartoon BTW its just become legend .. cant Brighton have a mono rail Valerie that will ease the traffic problems
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: This will look fantastic when it's completed. It will really help to increase Brighton's stature and will increase the amount of tourists coming to visit.[/p][/quote]i think this will be a marvelous structure it will be a lovely visual feature of the coast its rusting superstructure is i believe already constructed and waiting to be shipped over . http://www.marksbarf ield.com/#/projects/ brighton-i360/?filte r=date&layout=galler y&gallery=constructi on&image=4 it will provide some lovely part time / seasonal jobs AND it will apparently have a wind turbine on the top " that makes it so very green " Jason Kitkat and the green party have really got to make sure this is not like the fabled mono rail of the simpsons story . i have not seen the cartoon BTW its just become legend .. cant Brighton have a mono rail Valerie that will ease the traffic problems Mr chock
  • Score: 8

2:24pm Sat 1 Mar 14

rolivan says...

Ania Green wrote:
This will look fantastic when it's completed. It will really help to increase Brighton's stature and will increase the amount of tourists coming to visit.
As you enjoy name calling I think it is time to reply and You will now be known as Ania Jaws.I am sure anyone who knew you by your maiden name will will understand.
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: This will look fantastic when it's completed. It will really help to increase Brighton's stature and will increase the amount of tourists coming to visit.[/p][/quote]As you enjoy name calling I think it is time to reply and You will now be known as Ania Jaws.I am sure anyone who knew you by your maiden name will will understand. rolivan
  • Score: 9

2:26pm Sat 1 Mar 14

rolivan says...

Lady Smith wrote:
This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd.
Seeing that you are so well informed please let us know who the Diectors of i360 Ltd are?
[quote][p][bold]Lady Smith[/bold] wrote: This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd.[/p][/quote]Seeing that you are so well informed please let us know who the Diectors of i360 Ltd are? rolivan
  • Score: 14

3:34pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Just trying to earn a crust says...

Ania Green wrote:
This will look fantastic when it's completed. It will really help to increase Brighton's stature and will increase the amount of tourists coming to visit.
No, it won't. It is a waste of money that will be wrecked when we get any of the storms like we've had this year. It is totally out of character with the area. There are so many better things the council could do with the money
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: This will look fantastic when it's completed. It will really help to increase Brighton's stature and will increase the amount of tourists coming to visit.[/p][/quote]No, it won't. It is a waste of money that will be wrecked when we get any of the storms like we've had this year. It is totally out of character with the area. There are so many better things the council could do with the money Just trying to earn a crust
  • Score: 22

3:59pm Sat 1 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Lady Smith wrote:
This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd.
Mr David Joseph Marks and Ms Julia Barbara Barfield are the current directors of Brighton I360. Ms Leigh Jostins is the company secretary. All three were appointed on 20th June 2012.

There were no previous directors or secretaries.

The registered address is 50 Bromells Road, London, SW4 0BG. They have as of yet filed no accounts. Marks and Barfield are the sole shareholders each holding a 50% share at the prohibitive cost of £1.- per share.
[quote][p][bold]Lady Smith[/bold] wrote: This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd.[/p][/quote]Mr David Joseph Marks and Ms Julia Barbara Barfield are the current directors of Brighton I360. Ms Leigh Jostins is the company secretary. All three were appointed on 20th June 2012. There were no previous directors or secretaries. The registered address is 50 Bromells Road, London, SW4 0BG. They have as of yet filed no accounts. Marks and Barfield are the sole shareholders each holding a 50% share at the prohibitive cost of £1.- per share. mimseycal
  • Score: 8

5:00pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Lady Smith says...

rolivan wrote:
Lady Smith wrote:
This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd.
Seeing that you are so well informed please let us know who the Diectors of i360 Ltd are?
I don't know who they are. But this project is listed on the website of Marks Barfield, architects, and the client is listed as 'Brighton i360 Ltd'.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lady Smith[/bold] wrote: This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd.[/p][/quote]Seeing that you are so well informed please let us know who the Diectors of i360 Ltd are?[/p][/quote]I don't know who they are. But this project is listed on the website of Marks Barfield, architects, and the client is listed as 'Brighton i360 Ltd'. Lady Smith
  • Score: -4

5:01pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Lady Smith says...

Lady Smith wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Lady Smith wrote:
This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd.
Seeing that you are so well informed please let us know who the Diectors of i360 Ltd are?
I don't know who they are. But this project is listed on the website of Marks Barfield, architects, and the client is listed as 'Brighton i360 Ltd'.
Here you go: http://www.brightoni
360.co.uk/the-team.h
tml
[quote][p][bold]Lady Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lady Smith[/bold] wrote: This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd.[/p][/quote]Seeing that you are so well informed please let us know who the Diectors of i360 Ltd are?[/p][/quote]I don't know who they are. But this project is listed on the website of Marks Barfield, architects, and the client is listed as 'Brighton i360 Ltd'.[/p][/quote]Here you go: http://www.brightoni 360.co.uk/the-team.h tml Lady Smith
  • Score: -3

5:26pm Sat 1 Mar 14

rolivan says...

Lady Smith wrote:
Lady Smith wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Lady Smith wrote:
This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd.
Seeing that you are so well informed please let us know who the Diectors of i360 Ltd are?
I don't know who they are. But this project is listed on the website of Marks Barfield, architects, and the client is listed as 'Brighton i360 Ltd'.
Here you go: http://www.brightoni

360.co.uk/the-team.h

tml
If as reported by Mimseycal the Directors of i360 Ltd are Messrs Marks and Barfield which doesn't surprise me then what they are effectively doing is buying a Project with other Peoples money.I wonder what their Fees are for Drawing up the plans and Project management.I bet it is more than the "£6m they are putting in".It seems like another paper shuffling exercise to me.I think Cllrs Kitcat and Theobald owe it to the Council Taxpayers who could be bailing this project out if it goes pearshaped an explanation and that Cllr Warren Morgan should seek the truth.Is it just coincidence that the costs have risen the amount that Marks Barfield are "Putting Up"?
[quote][p][bold]Lady Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lady Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lady Smith[/bold] wrote: This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd.[/p][/quote]Seeing that you are so well informed please let us know who the Diectors of i360 Ltd are?[/p][/quote]I don't know who they are. But this project is listed on the website of Marks Barfield, architects, and the client is listed as 'Brighton i360 Ltd'.[/p][/quote]Here you go: http://www.brightoni 360.co.uk/the-team.h tml[/p][/quote]If as reported by Mimseycal the Directors of i360 Ltd are Messrs Marks and Barfield which doesn't surprise me then what they are effectively doing is buying a Project with other Peoples money.I wonder what their Fees are for Drawing up the plans and Project management.I bet it is more than the "£6m they are putting in".It seems like another paper shuffling exercise to me.I think Cllrs Kitcat and Theobald owe it to the Council Taxpayers who could be bailing this project out if it goes pearshaped an explanation and that Cllr Warren Morgan should seek the truth.Is it just coincidence that the costs have risen the amount that Marks Barfield are "Putting Up"? rolivan
  • Score: 26

5:34pm Sat 1 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

rolivan wrote:Rollivan, it is Brighton I360 ltd. Don't forget the Brighton part as the I360 ltd is a different company ....
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote:Rollivan, it is Brighton I360 ltd. Don't forget the Brighton part as the I360 ltd is a different company .... mimseycal
  • Score: 8

5:51pm Sat 1 Mar 14

rolivan says...

Thanks for that Mimseycal.
Does that clarify things Ladysmith?
Thanks for that Mimseycal. Does that clarify things Ladysmith? rolivan
  • Score: 5

6:00pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Man of steel says...

Interesting to see the difference of opinion as to how many people the pod can hold, in the video,which can be seen at http://www.marksbarf
ield.com/#/projects/
brighton-i360/?filte
r=date&layout=galler
y&gallery=video, it clearly states that the pod is four times larger than the pods on The London Eye, and can hold 100 people, and not the 200 as claimed by the greens.
This will of course mean that all of the claimed timings for profit etc will have to be doubled.
And yes, looking at the pipes gathering rust would never pursuade me to go on the thing.
Interesting to see the difference of opinion as to how many people the pod can hold, in the video,which can be seen at http://www.marksbarf ield.com/#/projects/ brighton-i360/?filte r=date&layout=galler y&gallery=video, it clearly states that the pod is four times larger than the pods on The London Eye, and can hold 100 people, and not the 200 as claimed by the greens. This will of course mean that all of the claimed timings for profit etc will have to be doubled. And yes, looking at the pipes gathering rust would never pursuade me to go on the thing. Man of steel
  • Score: 20

6:03pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Ania Green wrote:
This will look fantastic when it's completed. It will really help to increase Brighton's stature and will increase the amount of tourists coming to visit.
I'm sorry you are so gullible and easily led. Dazzled even.
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: This will look fantastic when it's completed. It will really help to increase Brighton's stature and will increase the amount of tourists coming to visit.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry you are so gullible and easily led. Dazzled even. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 18

6:16pm Sat 1 Mar 14

A Watcher says...

Whether or not it looks fantastic is irrelevant. Staring at it from ground level doesn't pay any bills. Question is why on earth would anyone go up it (and pay) to see the sea in one direction and the Brighton landmark in the other.
Whether or not it looks fantastic is irrelevant. Staring at it from ground level doesn't pay any bills. Question is why on earth would anyone go up it (and pay) to see the sea in one direction and the Brighton landmark in the other. A Watcher
  • Score: 19

6:55pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Man of steel says...

The other news given out is that the price of a "ride" has risen to £15 per adult, half for a child, for 20 minutes in the thing, that's loading, going up and down, and getting out, all in 20 minutes.
Take a bus ride up onto the downs instead, far cheaper, even on a Brighton bus, there would be better views, and you can stay as long as you wanted.
The other news given out is that the price of a "ride" has risen to £15 per adult, half for a child, for 20 minutes in the thing, that's loading, going up and down, and getting out, all in 20 minutes. Take a bus ride up onto the downs instead, far cheaper, even on a Brighton bus, there would be better views, and you can stay as long as you wanted. Man of steel
  • Score: 23

7:17pm Sat 1 Mar 14

A Watcher says...

Man of steel wrote:
The other news given out is that the price of a "ride" has risen to £15 per adult, half for a child, for 20 minutes in the thing, that's loading, going up and down, and getting out, all in 20 minutes.
Take a bus ride up onto the downs instead, far cheaper, even on a Brighton bus, there would be better views, and you can stay as long as you wanted.
So £45 for a 20 minute ride that is basically an overblown lift, for a family of 4. Hmmm.... can't see how it can possibly fail.
[quote][p][bold]Man of steel[/bold] wrote: The other news given out is that the price of a "ride" has risen to £15 per adult, half for a child, for 20 minutes in the thing, that's loading, going up and down, and getting out, all in 20 minutes. Take a bus ride up onto the downs instead, far cheaper, even on a Brighton bus, there would be better views, and you can stay as long as you wanted.[/p][/quote]So £45 for a 20 minute ride that is basically an overblown lift, for a family of 4. Hmmm.... can't see how it can possibly fail. A Watcher
  • Score: 27

7:47pm Sat 1 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

careful a watcher ... not everybody recognises irony
careful a watcher ... not everybody recognises irony mimseycal
  • Score: 8

8:20pm Sat 1 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Lady Smith wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Lady Smith wrote:
This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd.
Seeing that you are so well informed please let us know who the Diectors of i360 Ltd are?
I don't know who they are. But this project is listed on the website of Marks Barfield, architects, and the client is listed as 'Brighton i360 Ltd'.
In effect taking self employment to a totally new level ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Lady Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lady Smith[/bold] wrote: This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd.[/p][/quote]Seeing that you are so well informed please let us know who the Diectors of i360 Ltd are?[/p][/quote]I don't know who they are. But this project is listed on the website of Marks Barfield, architects, and the client is listed as 'Brighton i360 Ltd'.[/p][/quote]In effect taking self employment to a totally new level ;-) mimseycal
  • Score: 7

10:01pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Perfectly normal people become councillors and then some brainwashing thing happens to them (training) and all reason is then extruded, as though something from robots, operated by officers.

A kind of Stepford thing....
Perfectly normal people become councillors and then some brainwashing thing happens to them (training) and all reason is then extruded, as though something from robots, operated by officers. A kind of Stepford thing.... Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 15

10:19pm Sat 1 Mar 14

76robmac says...

Let's this useless council put money into repairing our pavements, in Langley crescent we have to paddle through mud and water when It rains. I know there are many areas in the city that also have poor pavements. So instead of spending money on the i360 spend the money on basic maintenance.
Let's this useless council put money into repairing our pavements, in Langley crescent we have to paddle through mud and water when It rains. I know there are many areas in the city that also have poor pavements. So instead of spending money on the i360 spend the money on basic maintenance. 76robmac
  • Score: 18

11:18pm Sat 1 Mar 14

brightonpip says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
pwlr1966 wrote:
This will be a great boost to a declining and under invested area.
This will destroy the amenity of Regency Square residents and the value of their and other seafont properties. It will compromise the dignity and high end credentials of the Metropole and Grand hotels. If the visitor figures materialise it will destroy the ability of the Kings Rd to cope with already excessive traffic levels. But of course they won't materialise.
Traffic levels? What a load of crap it's not a drive in attraction. I'd willingly pay to get a view above the **** being spouted on here.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pwlr1966[/bold] wrote: This will be a great boost to a declining and under invested area.[/p][/quote]This will destroy the amenity of Regency Square residents and the value of their and other seafont properties. It will compromise the dignity and high end credentials of the Metropole and Grand hotels. If the visitor figures materialise it will destroy the ability of the Kings Rd to cope with already excessive traffic levels. But of course they won't materialise.[/p][/quote]Traffic levels? What a load of crap it's not a drive in attraction. I'd willingly pay to get a view above the **** being spouted on here. brightonpip
  • Score: -13

11:23pm Sat 1 Mar 14

davedebrax says...

So disappointed with the green administration... A city as rich as B&H can't seem to afford a decent public transport system ("iTrams" ?), can't get recycling and air pollution right, but will be remembered as the bunch immature politicians who financed a ridiculous structure called the i360 (FFS!).
I thought I voted for people who cared for future generations.
So disappointed with the green administration... A city as rich as B&H can't seem to afford a decent public transport system ("iTrams" ?), can't get recycling and air pollution right, but will be remembered as the bunch immature politicians who financed a ridiculous structure called the i360 (FFS!). I thought I voted for people who cared for future generations. davedebrax
  • Score: 22

12:06am Sun 2 Mar 14

rolivan says...

brightonpip wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
pwlr1966 wrote:
This will be a great boost to a declining and under invested area.
This will destroy the amenity of Regency Square residents and the value of their and other seafont properties. It will compromise the dignity and high end credentials of the Metropole and Grand hotels. If the visitor figures materialise it will destroy the ability of the Kings Rd to cope with already excessive traffic levels. But of course they won't materialise.
Traffic levels? What a load of crap it's not a drive in attraction. I'd willingly pay to get a view above the **** being spouted on here.
So how are the 2.000 plus visitors per day going to get to the i360? Perhaps they will have a continual Conga from Brighton Station.
[quote][p][bold]brightonpip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pwlr1966[/bold] wrote: This will be a great boost to a declining and under invested area.[/p][/quote]This will destroy the amenity of Regency Square residents and the value of their and other seafont properties. It will compromise the dignity and high end credentials of the Metropole and Grand hotels. If the visitor figures materialise it will destroy the ability of the Kings Rd to cope with already excessive traffic levels. But of course they won't materialise.[/p][/quote]Traffic levels? What a load of crap it's not a drive in attraction. I'd willingly pay to get a view above the **** being spouted on here.[/p][/quote]So how are the 2.000 plus visitors per day going to get to the i360? Perhaps they will have a continual Conga from Brighton Station. rolivan
  • Score: 13

12:16am Sun 2 Mar 14

greeg2 says...

rayellerton wrote:
It will look like a giant buttplug...
Thanks for informing the readers you're gay !On the article,do you really want to live in a place on a par with Blackpool?
[quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: It will look like a giant buttplug...[/p][/quote]Thanks for informing the readers you're gay !On the article,do you really want to live in a place on a par with Blackpool? greeg2
  • Score: -18

12:31am Sun 2 Mar 14

power_ranger says...

£985,000 a year payed back to the council every year until the debt is repaid?

Even assuming this thing runs 7 days a week, it would need to bring in £2700 per day, 365 days per year.

I really can't see that happening. Maybe in the summer months, with it running at capacity for 12 hours a day, perhaps, I wouldn't mind a go on it myself when the sun is shining... But who in their right mind is gonna go up in that thing between October - March?
£985,000 a year payed back to the council every year until the debt is repaid? Even assuming this thing runs 7 days a week, it would need to bring in £2700 per day, 365 days per year. I really can't see that happening. Maybe in the summer months, with it running at capacity for 12 hours a day, perhaps, I wouldn't mind a go on it myself when the sun is shining... But who in their right mind is gonna go up in that thing between October - March? power_ranger
  • Score: 11

12:35am Sun 2 Mar 14

power_ranger says...

greeg2 wrote:
rayellerton wrote:
It will look like a giant buttplug...
Thanks for informing the readers you're gay !On the article,do you really want to live in a place on a par with Blackpool?
£985,000 a year payed back to the council every year until the debt is repaid?

Even assuming this thing runs 7 days a week, it would need to bring in £2700 per day, 365 days per year.

I really can't see that happening.

What's a buttplug got to do with gay people? I would think anyone could purchase one...
[quote][p][bold]greeg2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: It will look like a giant buttplug...[/p][/quote]Thanks for informing the readers you're gay !On the article,do you really want to live in a place on a par with Blackpool?[/p][/quote]£985,000 a year payed back to the council every year until the debt is repaid? Even assuming this thing runs 7 days a week, it would need to bring in £2700 per day, 365 days per year. I really can't see that happening. What's a buttplug got to do with gay people? I would think anyone could purchase one... power_ranger
  • Score: 8

1:01am Sun 2 Mar 14

Dave At Home says...

It was always going to go ahead anyway, the entire structure is sitting on the dockside in Holland waiting to be floated over on a barge. As for the Section 106 payment, these are totally worthless now, The Council and the public do not have a say in how the money is spent as the developer is the one who now decides where it is spent, and does not have to show any records of spending all the money either. The contract was badly drawn up and as usual there is no one in the Council who can argue the toss about it and we the living public in B&H will have to pay for Kitkat's follies for a long time into the future.
It was always going to go ahead anyway, the entire structure is sitting on the dockside in Holland waiting to be floated over on a barge. As for the Section 106 payment, these are totally worthless now, The Council and the public do not have a say in how the money is spent as the developer is the one who now decides where it is spent, and does not have to show any records of spending all the money either. The contract was badly drawn up and as usual there is no one in the Council who can argue the toss about it and we the living public in B&H will have to pay for Kitkat's follies for a long time into the future. Dave At Home
  • Score: 10

1:02am Sun 2 Mar 14

greeg2 says...

power_ranger wrote:
£985,000 a year payed back to the council every year until the debt is repaid?

Even assuming this thing runs 7 days a week, it would need to bring in £2700 per day, 365 days per year.

I really can't see that happening. Maybe in the summer months, with it running at capacity for 12 hours a day, perhaps, I wouldn't mind a go on it myself when the sun is shining... But who in their right mind is gonna go up in that thing between October - March?
You're talking "mince,"but I'll excuse you as you don't realise it.Tourists will come specifically to see it,whether they actually use it or not.They'll spend ££££££££££
£ in the area,just in the same way they'll go to Blackpool to see "The Illuminations," and spend.Not difficult to understand what I've said.
[quote][p][bold]power_ranger[/bold] wrote: £985,000 a year payed back to the council every year until the debt is repaid? Even assuming this thing runs 7 days a week, it would need to bring in £2700 per day, 365 days per year. I really can't see that happening. Maybe in the summer months, with it running at capacity for 12 hours a day, perhaps, I wouldn't mind a go on it myself when the sun is shining... But who in their right mind is gonna go up in that thing between October - March?[/p][/quote]You're talking "mince,"but I'll excuse you as you don't realise it.Tourists will come specifically to see it,whether they actually use it or not.They'll spend ££££££££££ £ in the area,just in the same way they'll go to Blackpool to see "The Illuminations," and spend.Not difficult to understand what I've said. greeg2
  • Score: -21

1:16am Sun 2 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

greeg2 wrote:
power_ranger wrote:
£985,000 a year payed back to the council every year until the debt is repaid?

Even assuming this thing runs 7 days a week, it would need to bring in £2700 per day, 365 days per year.

I really can't see that happening. Maybe in the summer months, with it running at capacity for 12 hours a day, perhaps, I wouldn't mind a go on it myself when the sun is shining... But who in their right mind is gonna go up in that thing between October - March?
You're talking "mince,"but I'll excuse you as you don't realise it.Tourists will come specifically to see it,whether they actually use it or not.They'll spend ££££££££££

£ in the area,just in the same way they'll go to Blackpool to see "The Illuminations," and spend.Not difficult to understand what I've said.
No, it isn't difficult to understand what you said. It is however difficult to see your reasoning.

Why on earth would people come to purely view the thing? It's a flippin glorified lift! How is people viewing the dratted donut on a stick. as opposed to viewing from the dratted donut on a stick, going to make up the ticket sales necessary to repay the loan?
[quote][p][bold]greeg2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]power_ranger[/bold] wrote: £985,000 a year payed back to the council every year until the debt is repaid? Even assuming this thing runs 7 days a week, it would need to bring in £2700 per day, 365 days per year. I really can't see that happening. Maybe in the summer months, with it running at capacity for 12 hours a day, perhaps, I wouldn't mind a go on it myself when the sun is shining... But who in their right mind is gonna go up in that thing between October - March?[/p][/quote]You're talking "mince,"but I'll excuse you as you don't realise it.Tourists will come specifically to see it,whether they actually use it or not.They'll spend ££££££££££ £ in the area,just in the same way they'll go to Blackpool to see "The Illuminations," and spend.Not difficult to understand what I've said.[/p][/quote]No, it isn't difficult to understand what you said. It is however difficult to see your reasoning. Why on earth would people come to purely view the thing? It's a flippin glorified lift! How is people viewing the dratted donut on a stick. as opposed to viewing from the dratted donut on a stick, going to make up the ticket sales necessary to repay the loan? mimseycal
  • Score: 18

1:57am Sun 2 Mar 14

Jam1001 says...

I have lived in Brighton now for 20 years. Over that time i have witnessed the decline of the city and the derecliction of some parts of the seafront. Its about time we had some regeneration and some great new things for the city. All the time the city is building its pubs, clubs and highstreet stores it has neglected the fundamental priniciples of a great seaside tourist destination. People come for the beaches, the pier, the fish and chips and investment in our seafront ands its facilities is paramout to the economy of the city. You can get pubs, clubs and highstreet stoes in every UK town and city but you will not get Brighton beach anywhere but Brighton. They should have fixed the west pier though. Next, the conference centre, lets get a new one and attract all the great shows, conferences and exhibitions like we once did.
I have lived in Brighton now for 20 years. Over that time i have witnessed the decline of the city and the derecliction of some parts of the seafront. Its about time we had some regeneration and some great new things for the city. All the time the city is building its pubs, clubs and highstreet stores it has neglected the fundamental priniciples of a great seaside tourist destination. People come for the beaches, the pier, the fish and chips and investment in our seafront ands its facilities is paramout to the economy of the city. You can get pubs, clubs and highstreet stoes in every UK town and city but you will not get Brighton beach anywhere but Brighton. They should have fixed the west pier though. Next, the conference centre, lets get a new one and attract all the great shows, conferences and exhibitions like we once did. Jam1001
  • Score: 24

4:41am Sun 2 Mar 14

brightonpip says...

rayellerton wrote:
It will look like a giant buttplug...
Well you should know
[quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: It will look like a giant buttplug...[/p][/quote]Well you should know brightonpip
  • Score: -9

5:34am Sun 2 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

Lady Smith wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Lady Smith wrote:
This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd.
Seeing that you are so well informed please let us know who the Diectors of i360 Ltd are?
I don't know who they are. But this project is listed on the website of Marks Barfield, architects, and the client is listed as 'Brighton i360 Ltd'.
If you're attempting to dis-associate Marks Barfield from the funding side of this folly you should as least know who the shareholders of Brighton i360 Ltd and Brighton i360 Holdings Ltd are !!!!

Looks suspiciously corrupt to me.
[quote][p][bold]Lady Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lady Smith[/bold] wrote: This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd.[/p][/quote]Seeing that you are so well informed please let us know who the Diectors of i360 Ltd are?[/p][/quote]I don't know who they are. But this project is listed on the website of Marks Barfield, architects, and the client is listed as 'Brighton i360 Ltd'.[/p][/quote]If you're attempting to dis-associate Marks Barfield from the funding side of this folly you should as least know who the shareholders of Brighton i360 Ltd and Brighton i360 Holdings Ltd are !!!! Looks suspiciously corrupt to me. Fight_Back
  • Score: 6

7:10am Sun 2 Mar 14

the red head says...

King Alfred leisure centre is teeming with cockroaches as well as being a crumbling concrete monstrosity. A leisure centre with an extended design of flumes, etc., would be used all year round and a perfect distraction for tourists on a rainy day. It's far enough out of the core centre of town to offset traffic concerns... It would aid hove businesses in taking more of the tourist pound... And it would solve the never ending problem of this council embarrassment. Yet they spend time, resources and money on something that any reasonable (sane?) person knows will be an unmitigated disaster for this town. It would be funny if we weren't the ones paying their wages. I can't believe we're being so blatantly robbed by these idiots.
King Alfred leisure centre is teeming with cockroaches as well as being a crumbling concrete monstrosity. A leisure centre with an extended design of flumes, etc., would be used all year round and a perfect distraction for tourists on a rainy day. It's far enough out of the core centre of town to offset traffic concerns... It would aid hove businesses in taking more of the tourist pound... And it would solve the never ending problem of this council embarrassment. Yet they spend time, resources and money on something that any reasonable (sane?) person knows will be an unmitigated disaster for this town. It would be funny if we weren't the ones paying their wages. I can't believe we're being so blatantly robbed by these idiots. the red head
  • Score: 8

8:18am Sun 2 Mar 14

Plantpot says...

A quick look at the Experian site shows that Marks Barfield and Brighton i360 share the same directors. Recommended credit limits are very low.

It worries me totally that the private sector has basically not wanted to be involved with this project. I would feel much happier if the councillors that vote for this scheme had a stake in it as if they themselves were taking responsibility for the loan and secured all their assets against the loan. What are the sanctions for the councillors if we the residents end up paying back the loan?
A quick look at the Experian site shows that Marks Barfield and Brighton i360 share the same directors. Recommended credit limits are very low. It worries me totally that the private sector has basically not wanted to be involved with this project. I would feel much happier if the councillors that vote for this scheme had a stake in it as if they themselves were taking responsibility for the loan and secured all their assets against the loan. What are the sanctions for the councillors if we the residents end up paying back the loan? Plantpot
  • Score: 7

8:26am Sun 2 Mar 14

Plantpot says...

It should also be remembered that the much vaunted stadium business plan was considered highly optimistic by the planning inspectors. Of course, I may be wrong, but reading the pages of the Argus I get the impression that the stadium failed to secure private funding, and has instead been bankrolled by one individual on non-commercial terms. And it has lost a small fortune since opening (£14m last season), again subsidised by one wealthy person. And on these pages its considered a success.....

The i360 has no promised land, such as reaching the premiership, to inflate its income. BTW, the Blackpool Tower attracts about 650,000 visitors per year.
It should also be remembered that the much vaunted stadium business plan was considered highly optimistic by the planning inspectors. Of course, I may be wrong, but reading the pages of the Argus I get the impression that the stadium failed to secure private funding, and has instead been bankrolled by one individual on non-commercial terms. And it has lost a small fortune since opening (£14m last season), again subsidised by one wealthy person. And on these pages its considered a success..... The i360 has no promised land, such as reaching the premiership, to inflate its income. BTW, the Blackpool Tower attracts about 650,000 visitors per year. Plantpot
  • Score: -2

8:46am Sun 2 Mar 14

wexler53 says...

Wonderful. Kit Kat is lumbering 40 years and more of major debt on the real, and actual tax payers of Brighton.

And he and his acolytes will walk away without a care in the world to well paid jobs on the taxpayer funded gravy train somewhere else.

The only thing remotely good I can think about this individual is that unlike Blair, he hasn't managed to take us into an illegal war.

He doesn't have blood on his hands yet, but he certainly has wrecked our city.
Wonderful. Kit Kat is lumbering 40 years and more of major debt on the real, and actual tax payers of Brighton. And he and his acolytes will walk away without a care in the world to well paid jobs on the taxpayer funded gravy train somewhere else. The only thing remotely good I can think about this individual is that unlike Blair, he hasn't managed to take us into an illegal war. He doesn't have blood on his hands yet, but he certainly has wrecked our city. wexler53
  • Score: 7

9:16am Sun 2 Mar 14

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

HJ says a fundamental outcome for the Greens is to leave the city in a much worse position for longer term residents than when we took office.

We are well on the way to this, our legacy is travel chaos, anti social behaviour from the groups we have encouraged to move into Brighton. In addition we have caused havoc with refuse collection and will leave behind vanity developments which will ultimately bring further misery to residents.

HJ says we have done a great job against our primary objectives
HJ says a fundamental outcome for the Greens is to leave the city in a much worse position for longer term residents than when we took office. We are well on the way to this, our legacy is travel chaos, anti social behaviour from the groups we have encouraged to move into Brighton. In addition we have caused havoc with refuse collection and will leave behind vanity developments which will ultimately bring further misery to residents. HJ says we have done a great job against our primary objectives I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!
  • Score: 1

9:34am Sun 2 Mar 14

Morpheus says...

Developers backing their own project. And the alarm bells are still not ringing in the Town Hall.
Developers backing their own project. And the alarm bells are still not ringing in the Town Hall. Morpheus
  • Score: 7

10:11am Sun 2 Mar 14

Dantanian says...

I just hope they paint this ridiculous phallic symbol pink , to keep it very 'Brighton'
I just hope they paint this ridiculous phallic symbol pink , to keep it very 'Brighton' Dantanian
  • Score: 4

10:54am Sun 2 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

rayellerton wrote:
It will look like a giant buttplug...
.....and it will feel like one if it fails financially!!
[quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: It will look like a giant buttplug...[/p][/quote].....and it will feel like one if it fails financially!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 5

10:56am Sun 2 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

Why cant the councillors ETC who are committing £36M not see what we see,investers are only committing £6M,WHY? because its not viable,when investors pull out the council will be left to run it.At the moment the council don't even open up council run tourist attractions like the mini golf course on hove seafront ETC.The people making these decisions to throw £36M of public money away cant be very well experienced on financial issues the sums DONT add up.B&H is now a summer season tourist city the pier closes early,the wheel goes round with one booth occupied.
Why cant the councillors ETC who are committing £36M not see what we see,investers are only committing £6M,WHY? because its not viable,when investors pull out the council will be left to run it.At the moment the council don't even open up council run tourist attractions like the mini golf course on hove seafront ETC.The people making these decisions to throw £36M of public money away cant be very well experienced on financial issues the sums DONT add up.B&H is now a summer season tourist city the pier closes early,the wheel goes round with one booth occupied. clubrob6
  • Score: 4

11:03am Sun 2 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

Jam1001 wrote:
I have lived in Brighton now for 20 years. Over that time i have witnessed the decline of the city and the derecliction of some parts of the seafront. Its about time we had some regeneration and some great new things for the city. All the time the city is building its pubs, clubs and highstreet stores it has neglected the fundamental priniciples of a great seaside tourist destination. People come for the beaches, the pier, the fish and chips and investment in our seafront ands its facilities is paramout to the economy of the city. You can get pubs, clubs and highstreet stoes in every UK town and city but you will not get Brighton beach anywhere but Brighton. They should have fixed the west pier though. Next, the conference centre, lets get a new one and attract all the great shows, conferences and exhibitions like we once did.
Perhaps you last visited the seafront twenty years ago as otherwise you would have seen how its changed for the better due to investment!
[quote][p][bold]Jam1001[/bold] wrote: I have lived in Brighton now for 20 years. Over that time i have witnessed the decline of the city and the derecliction of some parts of the seafront. Its about time we had some regeneration and some great new things for the city. All the time the city is building its pubs, clubs and highstreet stores it has neglected the fundamental priniciples of a great seaside tourist destination. People come for the beaches, the pier, the fish and chips and investment in our seafront ands its facilities is paramout to the economy of the city. You can get pubs, clubs and highstreet stoes in every UK town and city but you will not get Brighton beach anywhere but Brighton. They should have fixed the west pier though. Next, the conference centre, lets get a new one and attract all the great shows, conferences and exhibitions like we once did.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you last visited the seafront twenty years ago as otherwise you would have seen how its changed for the better due to investment! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -4

11:13am Sun 2 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

Morpheus wrote:
Developers backing their own project. And the alarm bells are still not ringing in the Town Hall.
Especially as the £6m they are allegedly putting in equates to the alleged increase in cost from £36m to £42m - I smell a VERY large rat!!
[quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: Developers backing their own project. And the alarm bells are still not ringing in the Town Hall.[/p][/quote]Especially as the £6m they are allegedly putting in equates to the alleged increase in cost from £36m to £42m - I smell a VERY large rat!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 9

11:14am Sun 2 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Plantpot wrote:
A quick look at the Experian site shows that Marks Barfield and Brighton i360 share the same directors. Recommended credit limits are very low.

It worries me totally that the private sector has basically not wanted to be involved with this project. I would feel much happier if the councillors that vote for this scheme had a stake in it as if they themselves were taking responsibility for the loan and secured all their assets against the loan. What are the sanctions for the councillors if we the residents end up paying back the loan?
I don't think there are any but there certainly should be.

There is that rather wooly part in the model code of conduct which states that they must "Make sure they don’t misuse the authority’s resources, ..." I am not sure though that selling local residents down the river by lumbering them with a highly dubious loan agreement will be included in that.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: A quick look at the Experian site shows that Marks Barfield and Brighton i360 share the same directors. Recommended credit limits are very low. It worries me totally that the private sector has basically not wanted to be involved with this project. I would feel much happier if the councillors that vote for this scheme had a stake in it as if they themselves were taking responsibility for the loan and secured all their assets against the loan. What are the sanctions for the councillors if we the residents end up paying back the loan?[/p][/quote]I don't think there are any but there certainly should be. There is that rather wooly part in the model code of conduct which states that they must "Make sure they don’t misuse the authority’s resources, ..." I am not sure though that selling local residents down the river by lumbering them with a highly dubious loan agreement will be included in that. mimseycal
  • Score: 5

11:44am Sun 2 Mar 14

J Hill says...

I couldn't care less if they paid for the whole **** thing and built it themselves by hand. It's an eyesore, not in keeping with the area of Regency Square and is going to end up as nothing more than yet another overpriced touristic white elephant. They should instead use the money to help restore the arches and terrace along Madeira Drive. Kitcat & crew have taken their money grabbing schemes too far at the cost of Brighton. They are riding roughshod over its heritage in order to fill their own pockets and big themselves up. I thought the green party were names such due to their views on the environment but now realise the green refers to the money and the fact they haven;'t got a clue.
I couldn't care less if they paid for the whole **** thing and built it themselves by hand. It's an eyesore, not in keeping with the area of Regency Square and is going to end up as nothing more than yet another overpriced touristic white elephant. They should instead use the money to help restore the arches and terrace along Madeira Drive. Kitcat & crew have taken their money grabbing schemes too far at the cost of Brighton. They are riding roughshod over its heritage in order to fill their own pockets and big themselves up. I thought the green party were names such due to their views on the environment but now realise the green refers to the money and the fact they haven;'t got a clue. J Hill
  • Score: 2

11:44am Sun 2 Mar 14

Thay Qon U says...

Let's hope that BHCC's attempted entry into the entreprenurial world with our money has been undertaken with greater due diligence & business acumen than the "sale and lease-back" deal for Priory House back in 1987.

That entreprenurial deal was looking a real winner until Brighton Council discovered (too late to back out) that they had over-looked the fact that VAT (at 15%) needed to be paid on the transactions.

I would have more confidence in the viability of this i360 deal and security of our public funds if Jason Kitcat & the Green Party & Geoffey Theobad & The Conservative Party, as well as the LEP Board, each agreed to act as 'personal' guarantors for this proposed deal.

As for the 50%:50% sharing of profits, the normal sharing of profits is in relation to the risk and financial exposure in these types of Design,Build, Fund & Operate projects. The headine figures above of £6m private:£36m public funding suggests a 14%:86% public (is it LEP or BHCC who will get any profits??) sharing of the profits.
Let's hope that BHCC's attempted entry into the entreprenurial world with our money has been undertaken with greater due diligence & business acumen than the "sale and lease-back" deal for Priory House back in 1987. That entreprenurial deal was looking a real winner until Brighton Council discovered (too late to back out) that they had over-looked the fact that VAT (at 15%) needed to be paid on the transactions. I would have more confidence in the viability of this i360 deal and security of our public funds if Jason Kitcat & the Green Party & Geoffey Theobad & The Conservative Party, as well as the LEP Board, each agreed to act as 'personal' guarantors for this proposed deal. As for the 50%:50% sharing of profits, the normal sharing of profits is in relation to the risk and financial exposure in these types of Design,Build, Fund & Operate projects. The headine figures above of £6m private:£36m public funding suggests a 14%:86% public (is it LEP or BHCC who will get any profits??) sharing of the profits. Thay Qon U
  • Score: 7

12:14pm Sun 2 Mar 14

John60 says...

God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine! John60
  • Score: -11

12:36pm Sun 2 Mar 14

A Watcher says...

The issue here is that residents are being asked to share the risk of the development, a risk no private finance company will stomach. Agree that the profit share of 50:50 looks out of kilter when the total investment risk is 1:6.
The issue here is that residents are being asked to share the risk of the development, a risk no private finance company will stomach. Agree that the profit share of 50:50 looks out of kilter when the total investment risk is 1:6. A Watcher
  • Score: 7

1:14pm Sun 2 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

A Watcher wrote:
The issue here is that residents are being asked to share the risk of the development, a risk no private finance company will stomach. Agree that the profit share of 50:50 looks out of kilter when the total investment risk is 1:6.
We are not being asked though ... if this goes ahead it will be because we are being told.
[quote][p][bold]A Watcher[/bold] wrote: The issue here is that residents are being asked to share the risk of the development, a risk no private finance company will stomach. Agree that the profit share of 50:50 looks out of kilter when the total investment risk is 1:6.[/p][/quote]We are not being asked though ... if this goes ahead it will be because we are being told. mimseycal
  • Score: 10

1:23pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Man of steel says...

John60 says...
I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned.

Check out your facts before making stupid statements please.
The Blackpool Tower, ballroom, circus etc were all built in 1894 for £290,000, (£17.3 million in todays prices) one third of which were £1 shares sold to the public. (£60 in todays prices).
The building in Blackpool had, and still, has much more to offer, entrance fee to each of the 3 main attractions was 6D, 6 old pennies, (£1.50 in todays prices)
So no, there was no negativity, but as you seem to want the lift, are you willing to offer any of your money to help out?
John60 says... I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Check out your facts before making stupid statements please. The Blackpool Tower, ballroom, circus etc were all built in 1894 for £290,000, (£17.3 million in todays prices) one third of which were £1 shares sold to the public. (£60 in todays prices). The building in Blackpool had, and still, has much more to offer, entrance fee to each of the 3 main attractions was 6D, 6 old pennies, (£1.50 in todays prices) So no, there was no negativity, but as you seem to want the lift, are you willing to offer any of your money to help out? Man of steel
  • Score: 7

1:32pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Quiterie says...

A Watcher wrote:
Man of steel wrote:
The other news given out is that the price of a "ride" has risen to £15 per adult, half for a child, for 20 minutes in the thing, that's loading, going up and down, and getting out, all in 20 minutes.
Take a bus ride up onto the downs instead, far cheaper, even on a Brighton bus, there would be better views, and you can stay as long as you wanted.
So £45 for a 20 minute ride that is basically an overblown lift, for a family of 4. Hmmm.... can't see how it can possibly fail.
Blimey, that is a lot! I'd quite like to take a ride on it, but can't afford it. I wonder if the Council will give me a loan?
[quote][p][bold]A Watcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Man of steel[/bold] wrote: The other news given out is that the price of a "ride" has risen to £15 per adult, half for a child, for 20 minutes in the thing, that's loading, going up and down, and getting out, all in 20 minutes. Take a bus ride up onto the downs instead, far cheaper, even on a Brighton bus, there would be better views, and you can stay as long as you wanted.[/p][/quote]So £45 for a 20 minute ride that is basically an overblown lift, for a family of 4. Hmmm.... can't see how it can possibly fail.[/p][/quote]Blimey, that is a lot! I'd quite like to take a ride on it, but can't afford it. I wonder if the Council will give me a loan? Quiterie
  • Score: 7

1:34pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

If it's so good why are we waiting on private funding, especially when it's only £6m. The moron greens should be ousted before they can inflict any further damage on the present and future of Brighton

Laughable idiot wasters, just like the scum outside sodastream on western road yesterday
If it's so good why are we waiting on private funding, especially when it's only £6m. The moron greens should be ousted before they can inflict any further damage on the present and future of Brighton Laughable idiot wasters, just like the scum outside sodastream on western road yesterday Somethingsarejustwrong
  • Score: 3

1:40pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

J Hill wrote:
I couldn't care less if they paid for the whole **** thing and built it themselves by hand. It's an eyesore, not in keeping with the area of Regency Square and is going to end up as nothing more than yet another overpriced touristic white elephant. They should instead use the money to help restore the arches and terrace along Madeira Drive. Kitcat & crew have taken their money grabbing schemes too far at the cost of Brighton. They are riding roughshod over its heritage in order to fill their own pockets and big themselves up. I thought the green party were names such due to their views on the environment but now realise the green refers to the money and the fact they haven;'t got a clue.
You may be dismayed to learn that the Regency Square Area Society back in 2006 backed the planning application. Alas. Wonder how they feel now.
[quote][p][bold]J Hill[/bold] wrote: I couldn't care less if they paid for the whole **** thing and built it themselves by hand. It's an eyesore, not in keeping with the area of Regency Square and is going to end up as nothing more than yet another overpriced touristic white elephant. They should instead use the money to help restore the arches and terrace along Madeira Drive. Kitcat & crew have taken their money grabbing schemes too far at the cost of Brighton. They are riding roughshod over its heritage in order to fill their own pockets and big themselves up. I thought the green party were names such due to their views on the environment but now realise the green refers to the money and the fact they haven;'t got a clue.[/p][/quote]You may be dismayed to learn that the Regency Square Area Society back in 2006 backed the planning application. Alas. Wonder how they feel now. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 5

1:42pm Sun 2 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Somethingsarejustwro
ng
wrote:
If it's so good why are we waiting on private funding, especially when it's only £6m. The moron greens should be ousted before they can inflict any further damage on the present and future of Brighton

Laughable idiot wasters, just like the scum outside sodastream on western road yesterday
Well Somethingsarejustwro
ng, if you can come up with a way for them to be ousted before this thing gets the go ahead ... here's your chance!
[quote][p][bold]Somethingsarejustwro ng[/bold] wrote: If it's so good why are we waiting on private funding, especially when it's only £6m. The moron greens should be ousted before they can inflict any further damage on the present and future of Brighton Laughable idiot wasters, just like the scum outside sodastream on western road yesterday[/p][/quote]Well Somethingsarejustwro ng, if you can come up with a way for them to be ousted before this thing gets the go ahead ... here's your chance! mimseycal
  • Score: 5

2:34pm Sun 2 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

Somethingsarejustwro
ng
wrote:
If it's so good why are we waiting on private funding, especially when it's only £6m. The moron greens should be ousted before they can inflict any further damage on the present and future of Brighton

Laughable idiot wasters, just like the scum outside sodastream on western road yesterday
Its no suprise that a total **** like you supports the illegal zionist occupation!!
[quote][p][bold]Somethingsarejustwro ng[/bold] wrote: If it's so good why are we waiting on private funding, especially when it's only £6m. The moron greens should be ousted before they can inflict any further damage on the present and future of Brighton Laughable idiot wasters, just like the scum outside sodastream on western road yesterday[/p][/quote]Its no suprise that a total **** like you supports the illegal zionist occupation!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -6

3:20pm Sun 2 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

John60 wrote:
God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted.

The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit.

Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time.

It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000.

Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even.

You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree).

If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.
[quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine![/p][/quote]Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360. HJarrs
  • Score: -16

3:34pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Somethingsarejustwro

ng
wrote:
If it's so good why are we waiting on private funding, especially when it's only £6m. The moron greens should be ousted before they can inflict any further damage on the present and future of Brighton

Laughable idiot wasters, just like the scum outside sodastream on western road yesterday
Its no suprise that a total **** like you supports the illegal zionist occupation!!
Brownnose.

You are clearly an A1 t(w)at and with the brains of a restricted flatfish I am surprised that you even manage to log into this site, never mind post on it.

Complete waster...Brighton and the world will be a better place when you have gone
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Somethingsarejustwro ng[/bold] wrote: If it's so good why are we waiting on private funding, especially when it's only £6m. The moron greens should be ousted before they can inflict any further damage on the present and future of Brighton Laughable idiot wasters, just like the scum outside sodastream on western road yesterday[/p][/quote]Its no suprise that a total **** like you supports the illegal zionist occupation!![/p][/quote]Brownnose. You are clearly an A1 t(w)at and with the brains of a restricted flatfish I am surprised that you even manage to log into this site, never mind post on it. Complete waster...Brighton and the world will be a better place when you have gone Somethingsarejustwrong
  • Score: 3

3:35pm Sun 2 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

HJarrs wrote:
John60 wrote:
God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted.

The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit.

Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time.

It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000.

Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even.

You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree).

If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.
There is nothing self funding about this though is there HJarrs ... it is being funded by a loan we, the local taxpayers, are going to be held accountable for.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine![/p][/quote]Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.[/p][/quote]There is nothing self funding about this though is there HJarrs ... it is being funded by a loan we, the local taxpayers, are going to be held accountable for. mimseycal
  • Score: 12

3:45pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Man of steel says...

HJarrs, do you honestly expect people to use the lift at £15 per person for a total of 20 minutes?
How on earth can you compare The Sea Life Centre at £20 for two people, or £11 for one parent and toddler, or The Royal Pavilion at £26.90 for two adults and two children, both of which you can more or less stay in as long as you want.
HJarrs, do you honestly expect people to use the lift at £15 per person for a total of 20 minutes? How on earth can you compare The Sea Life Centre at £20 for two people, or £11 for one parent and toddler, or The Royal Pavilion at £26.90 for two adults and two children, both of which you can more or less stay in as long as you want. Man of steel
  • Score: 14

3:52pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

HJarrs wrote:
John60 wrote:
God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted.

The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit.

Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time.

It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000.

Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even.

You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree).

If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.
Hilarious

We can always rely on HJarrs to tell us the alternative story

It is clearly a complete waste of money like the cycle paths

HJarrs - please explain what will happen if repair is not carried out to Madeira Drive? When it all collapses that will be a game changer.

Idiot!

Laughable waster

Ps are you intending to come to Brighton this year, or should we send some photos?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine![/p][/quote]Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.[/p][/quote]Hilarious We can always rely on HJarrs to tell us the alternative story It is clearly a complete waste of money like the cycle paths HJarrs - please explain what will happen if repair is not carried out to Madeira Drive? When it all collapses that will be a game changer. Idiot! Laughable waster Ps are you intending to come to Brighton this year, or should we send some photos? Somethingsarejustwrong
  • Score: 9

3:52pm Sun 2 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

Somethingsarejustwro
ng
wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Somethingsarejustwro


ng
wrote:
If it's so good why are we waiting on private funding, especially when it's only £6m. The moron greens should be ousted before they can inflict any further damage on the present and future of Brighton

Laughable idiot wasters, just like the scum outside sodastream on western road yesterday
Its no suprise that a total **** like you supports the illegal zionist occupation!!
Brownnose.

You are clearly an A1 t(w)at and with the brains of a restricted flatfish I am surprised that you even manage to log into this site, never mind post on it.

Complete waster...Brighton and the world will be a better place when you have gone
LOL - get back to your lonely Sunday Pot Noodle and onanism!!
[quote][p][bold]Somethingsarejustwro ng[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Somethingsarejustwro ng[/bold] wrote: If it's so good why are we waiting on private funding, especially when it's only £6m. The moron greens should be ousted before they can inflict any further damage on the present and future of Brighton Laughable idiot wasters, just like the scum outside sodastream on western road yesterday[/p][/quote]Its no suprise that a total **** like you supports the illegal zionist occupation!![/p][/quote]Brownnose. You are clearly an A1 t(w)at and with the brains of a restricted flatfish I am surprised that you even manage to log into this site, never mind post on it. Complete waster...Brighton and the world will be a better place when you have gone[/p][/quote]LOL - get back to your lonely Sunday Pot Noodle and onanism!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 0

4:28pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Kedge says...

Is there anything our philistine councillors won’t do to despoil Brighton’s seafront? They cleared away the wonderful gardens by the bandstand, to be replaced by a wasteland redolent of an inner city. The stupendously expensive folly, the i360, will very quickly show the ravages of wind and salt. The artist impression - always the flattering ideal, but far from the reality - looks like an architectural willy. While it may resonate with the City’s saucy reputation, the i360 could hardly be described as an elegant structure complementing Kingsway.
Is there anything our philistine councillors won’t do to despoil Brighton’s seafront? They cleared away the wonderful gardens by the bandstand, to be replaced by a wasteland redolent of an inner city. The stupendously expensive folly, the i360, will very quickly show the ravages of wind and salt. The artist impression - always the flattering ideal, but far from the reality - looks like an architectural willy. While it may resonate with the City’s saucy reputation, the i360 could hardly be described as an elegant structure complementing Kingsway. Kedge
  • Score: 11

4:32pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Richada says...

Man of steel wrote:
HJarrs, do you honestly expect people to use the lift at £15 per person for a total of 20 minutes?
How on earth can you compare The Sea Life Centre at £20 for two people, or £11 for one parent and toddler, or The Royal Pavilion at £26.90 for two adults and two children, both of which you can more or less stay in as long as you want.
Because HJ is a clueless spin-doctor who very obviously is not in the habit of visiting such attractions and has no idea what the average family expects in terms of value for money from an attractions ticket.
[quote][p][bold]Man of steel[/bold] wrote: HJarrs, do you honestly expect people to use the lift at £15 per person for a total of 20 minutes? How on earth can you compare The Sea Life Centre at £20 for two people, or £11 for one parent and toddler, or The Royal Pavilion at £26.90 for two adults and two children, both of which you can more or less stay in as long as you want.[/p][/quote]Because HJ is a clueless spin-doctor who very obviously is not in the habit of visiting such attractions and has no idea what the average family expects in terms of value for money from an attractions ticket. Richada
  • Score: 9

4:41pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

HJarrs wrote:
John60 wrote:
God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted.

The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit.

Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time.

It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000.

Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even.

You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree).

If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.
Only YOU call people that highlight the pathetic performance of the Greens as moanarti - but then you're part of the Green Thickeri. Let's face it YOU aren't a Brightonian nor a Hovite exactly as the imported Kitcats, Davey, West, Hawtree and co aren't. Yet you are still not getting the message from true locals - YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE !!!!!!!!!!

As for your figures - they miss the real fact that the Brighton Wheel has only made £130k in THREE years. That is with not borrowing millions either.

So on to Brighton i360 Ltd - owned by ? The same two people who own the architects. That architects company is millions in debt. So now we're "lending" £36m to two people who have already run up millions in debts - that's how good they are at business !

I wonder how much was in the brown envelopes the Green and Tory councillors got from Brighton i360 Ltd ?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine![/p][/quote]Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.[/p][/quote]Only YOU call people that highlight the pathetic performance of the Greens as moanarti - but then you're part of the Green Thickeri. Let's face it YOU aren't a Brightonian nor a Hovite exactly as the imported Kitcats, Davey, West, Hawtree and co aren't. Yet you are still not getting the message from true locals - YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE !!!!!!!!!! As for your figures - they miss the real fact that the Brighton Wheel has only made £130k in THREE years. That is with not borrowing millions either. So on to Brighton i360 Ltd - owned by ? The same two people who own the architects. That architects company is millions in debt. So now we're "lending" £36m to two people who have already run up millions in debts - that's how good they are at business ! I wonder how much was in the brown envelopes the Green and Tory councillors got from Brighton i360 Ltd ? Fight_Back
  • Score: 14

4:49pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Richada says...

HJarrs wrote:
John60 wrote:
God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted.

The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit.

Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time.

It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000.

Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even.

You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree).

If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.
YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here.

We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here.

Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking.

Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush.

The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine![/p][/quote]Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.[/p][/quote]YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here. We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here. Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking. Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush. The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia. Richada
  • Score: 12

4:52pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Richada says...

Fight_Back wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
John60 wrote:
God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted.

The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit.

Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time.

It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000.

Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even.

You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree).

If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.
Only YOU call people that highlight the pathetic performance of the Greens as moanarti - but then you're part of the Green Thickeri. Let's face it YOU aren't a Brightonian nor a Hovite exactly as the imported Kitcats, Davey, West, Hawtree and co aren't. Yet you are still not getting the message from true locals - YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE !!!!!!!!!!

As for your figures - they miss the real fact that the Brighton Wheel has only made £130k in THREE years. That is with not borrowing millions either.

So on to Brighton i360 Ltd - owned by ? The same two people who own the architects. That architects company is millions in debt. So now we're "lending" £36m to two people who have already run up millions in debts - that's how good they are at business !

I wonder how much was in the brown envelopes the Green and Tory councillors got from Brighton i360 Ltd ?
Not the first I've heard asking that question over the weekend!
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine![/p][/quote]Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.[/p][/quote]Only YOU call people that highlight the pathetic performance of the Greens as moanarti - but then you're part of the Green Thickeri. Let's face it YOU aren't a Brightonian nor a Hovite exactly as the imported Kitcats, Davey, West, Hawtree and co aren't. Yet you are still not getting the message from true locals - YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE !!!!!!!!!! As for your figures - they miss the real fact that the Brighton Wheel has only made £130k in THREE years. That is with not borrowing millions either. So on to Brighton i360 Ltd - owned by ? The same two people who own the architects. That architects company is millions in debt. So now we're "lending" £36m to two people who have already run up millions in debts - that's how good they are at business ! I wonder how much was in the brown envelopes the Green and Tory councillors got from Brighton i360 Ltd ?[/p][/quote]Not the first I've heard asking that question over the weekend! Richada
  • Score: 7

5:03pm Sun 2 Mar 14

u.k.i.p. says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Ania Green wrote:
This will look fantastic when it's completed. It will really help to increase Brighton's stature and will increase the amount of tourists coming to visit.
I'm sorry you are so gullible and easily led. Dazzled even.
Madeira drive is a no go area,Money would be better spent on repairing the old victorian structure,to get it ready for the summer season,Or have the greens got money for this????
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: This will look fantastic when it's completed. It will really help to increase Brighton's stature and will increase the amount of tourists coming to visit.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry you are so gullible and easily led. Dazzled even.[/p][/quote]Madeira drive is a no go area,Money would be better spent on repairing the old victorian structure,to get it ready for the summer season,Or have the greens got money for this???? u.k.i.p.
  • Score: 4

5:05pm Sun 2 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

Richada wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
John60 wrote:
God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted.

The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit.

Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time.

It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000.

Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even.

You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree).

If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.
YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here.

We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here.

Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking.

Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush.

The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.
Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!!
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine![/p][/quote]Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.[/p][/quote]YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here. We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here. Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking. Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush. The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.[/p][/quote]Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -4

5:11pm Sun 2 Mar 14

rolivan says...

HJarrs wrote:
John60 wrote:
God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted.

The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit.

Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time.

It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000.

Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even.

You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree).

If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.
H Jarrs let us start at the Top and work down.
You are the only Person I know that uses the term Moanerati in reference to Argus readers and in this instance of the Greens and some of the Cons agreeing to Finance this project totally even though Marks Barfield would have us believe they are stumping up £6M of their own money I think it is their right to do so.
As for Madeira Dve and The Arches which are used on 3 Occasions at least for Iconic Events namely the Marathon Speed Trials and Veteran Car Rally which on their own must bring a huge amount of revenue to The City.
As for the i360well I have already commented at length on this however if you think it will be more of an attraction than the Pavilion I am afraid you willbe proved wrong.
Even your figure of 480.000 will be hard to achieve which equates to approx 1.300 customers every day throughout the year.
If you think that many people will want to use it to see the Rampion and very little else that cannot be seen on their way into the City then Heaven help them.
Last but not least if the Council want to invest this sort of money it should be on a Leisure Centre which would include an Ice Rink which would bring people from far and wide on a regular basis not just an annual
Jaunt to the Seaside.
As for Your last sentence please read it again and then tell us that whether it will be owned by The City or Brightoni360 Ltd?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine![/p][/quote]Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.[/p][/quote]H Jarrs let us start at the Top and work down. You are the only Person I know that uses the term Moanerati in reference to Argus readers and in this instance of the Greens and some of the Cons agreeing to Finance this project totally even though Marks Barfield would have us believe they are stumping up £6M of their own money I think it is their right to do so. As for Madeira Dve and The Arches which are used on 3 Occasions at least for Iconic Events namely the Marathon Speed Trials and Veteran Car Rally which on their own must bring a huge amount of revenue to The City. As for the i360well I have already commented at length on this however if you think it will be more of an attraction than the Pavilion I am afraid you willbe proved wrong. Even your figure of 480.000 will be hard to achieve which equates to approx 1.300 customers every day throughout the year. If you think that many people will want to use it to see the Rampion and very little else that cannot be seen on their way into the City then Heaven help them. Last but not least if the Council want to invest this sort of money it should be on a Leisure Centre which would include an Ice Rink which would bring people from far and wide on a regular basis not just an annual Jaunt to the Seaside. As for Your last sentence please read it again and then tell us that whether it will be owned by The City or Brightoni360 Ltd? rolivan
  • Score: 8

5:16pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Richada says...

Man of steel wrote:
John60 says...
I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned.

Check out your facts before making stupid statements please.
The Blackpool Tower, ballroom, circus etc were all built in 1894 for £290,000, (£17.3 million in todays prices) one third of which were £1 shares sold to the public. (£60 in todays prices).
The building in Blackpool had, and still, has much more to offer, entrance fee to each of the 3 main attractions was 6D, 6 old pennies, (£1.50 in todays prices)
So no, there was no negativity, but as you seem to want the lift, are you willing to offer any of your money to help out?
It would be interesting to know just how many of the councillors who voted for this loan have actiually visited Blackpool's Tower and experienced its many attractions?

It is just what this town needs, a multi-faceted visitor attraction, with enough to offer to keep a family entertained over a couple of days - the ideal long weekend draw in fact.

Meanwhile the i360 will remain, a one trick pony. It will be a new,. added attraction, but there simply will not be enough on offer to bring visitors here as a first and foremost attraction.
[quote][p][bold]Man of steel[/bold] wrote: John60 says... I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Check out your facts before making stupid statements please. The Blackpool Tower, ballroom, circus etc were all built in 1894 for £290,000, (£17.3 million in todays prices) one third of which were £1 shares sold to the public. (£60 in todays prices). The building in Blackpool had, and still, has much more to offer, entrance fee to each of the 3 main attractions was 6D, 6 old pennies, (£1.50 in todays prices) So no, there was no negativity, but as you seem to want the lift, are you willing to offer any of your money to help out?[/p][/quote]It would be interesting to know just how many of the councillors who voted for this loan have actiually visited Blackpool's Tower and experienced its many attractions? It is just what this town needs, a multi-faceted visitor attraction, with enough to offer to keep a family entertained over a couple of days - the ideal long weekend draw in fact. Meanwhile the i360 will remain, a one trick pony. It will be a new,. added attraction, but there simply will not be enough on offer to bring visitors here as a first and foremost attraction. Richada
  • Score: 9

5:17pm Sun 2 Mar 14

rolivan says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Richada wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
John60 wrote:
God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted.

The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit.

Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time.

It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000.

Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even.

You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree).

If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.
YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here.

We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here.

Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking.

Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush.

The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.
Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!!
I think people would prefer Independent Councillors that would look out for and listen to Constuency needs.All one has now are Councillors promising the world and then once getting voted in finding out that they have to toe the Party Line.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine![/p][/quote]Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.[/p][/quote]YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here. We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here. Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking. Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush. The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.[/p][/quote]Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!![/p][/quote]I think people would prefer Independent Councillors that would look out for and listen to Constuency needs.All one has now are Councillors promising the world and then once getting voted in finding out that they have to toe the Party Line. rolivan
  • Score: 7

5:18pm Sun 2 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

And now a green administration in Brighton & Hove that is suggesting increasing the local council tax by almost 5% (is that to decrease homelessness or maybe it is to fight child poverty?)
How about the failure to collect refuse - well at least they are consistent with that ... the failure that is.
the killing of fish, the landscaping of the bowling areas (more expensive then merely maintaining them but hey hop ... who's counting a few thousand here or there ... certainly not the Greens eh)
And now ... they are, along with a few Conservative die hards, suggesting that it is alright to put us in hock to the government to the tune of 36 million ... and for what? Some phallic symbol that will, at best, stand out like a sore thumb on a Victorian seafront? But is far more likely to become a millstone around the necks of all tax payers in this city ...
And now a green administration in Brighton & Hove that is suggesting increasing the local council tax by almost 5% (is that to decrease homelessness or maybe it is to fight child poverty?) How about the failure to collect refuse - well at least they are consistent with that ... the failure that is. the killing of fish, the landscaping of the bowling areas (more expensive then merely maintaining them but hey hop ... who's counting a few thousand here or there ... certainly not the Greens eh) And now ... they are, along with a few Conservative die hards, suggesting that it is alright to put us in hock to the government to the tune of 36 million ... and for what? Some phallic symbol that will, at best, stand out like a sore thumb on a Victorian seafront? But is far more likely to become a millstone around the necks of all tax payers in this city ... mimseycal
  • Score: 8

5:22pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Richada wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
John60 wrote:
God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted.

The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit.

Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time.

It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000.

Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even.

You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree).

If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.
YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here.

We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here.

Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking.

Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush.

The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.
Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!!
I find it strange that anyone thinks the Greens are the answer to the main two parties. Unable to run even the most basic of services, wanting inflation busting increases in tax and putting local tax payers at risk with the i360 - tell me how they are better than the main two parties ? I agree Labour and Tories are prefect but they are less bad than the current bunch.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine![/p][/quote]Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.[/p][/quote]YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here. We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here. Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking. Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush. The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.[/p][/quote]Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!![/p][/quote]I find it strange that anyone thinks the Greens are the answer to the main two parties. Unable to run even the most basic of services, wanting inflation busting increases in tax and putting local tax payers at risk with the i360 - tell me how they are better than the main two parties ? I agree Labour and Tories are prefect but they are less bad than the current bunch. Fight_Back
  • Score: 7

5:32pm Sun 2 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

Fight_Back wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Richada wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
John60 wrote:
God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted.

The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit.

Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time.

It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000.

Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even.

You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree).

If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.
YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here.

We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here.

Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking.

Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush.

The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.
Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!!
I find it strange that anyone thinks the Greens are the answer to the main two parties. Unable to run even the most basic of services, wanting inflation busting increases in tax and putting local tax payers at risk with the i360 - tell me how they are better than the main two parties ? I agree Labour and Tories are prefect but they are less bad than the current bunch.
They want an inflating-busting increase to preserve jobs and services that are being cut as a DIRECT result of Tory/ Labour government failures - that is a fact and personally I would be happy to pay that increase though I appreciate many might struggle. With regard to refuse service failures these are down to a) having to reduce the number of dustcarts by five due to the above cuts and eight vehicles recently being off the road due to breakdowns as the fleet is old and many of the trucks need replacing - it could possibly be argued that this should have been done earlier!!
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine![/p][/quote]Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.[/p][/quote]YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here. We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here. Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking. Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush. The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.[/p][/quote]Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!![/p][/quote]I find it strange that anyone thinks the Greens are the answer to the main two parties. Unable to run even the most basic of services, wanting inflation busting increases in tax and putting local tax payers at risk with the i360 - tell me how they are better than the main two parties ? I agree Labour and Tories are prefect but they are less bad than the current bunch.[/p][/quote]They want an inflating-busting increase to preserve jobs and services that are being cut as a DIRECT result of Tory/ Labour government failures - that is a fact and personally I would be happy to pay that increase though I appreciate many might struggle. With regard to refuse service failures these are down to a) having to reduce the number of dustcarts by five due to the above cuts and eight vehicles recently being off the road due to breakdowns as the fleet is old and many of the trucks need replacing - it could possibly be argued that this should have been done earlier!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -7

5:32pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Richada says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Richada wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
John60 wrote:
God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted.

The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit.

Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time.

It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000.

Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even.

You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree).

If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.
YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here.

We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here.

Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking.

Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush.

The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.
Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!!
Oh I'm SO sorry, I forget, we all live in Utopia now.

Apologies for removing my green tinted spectacles for a few minutes.

HJarrs is a great man, I'm going to email Mr Kitcat to see if we can get him some sort of honour in the Queen's Brithday list.

Oh and to bring this thread back on topic......your last comment had just what to do with the i360 please? How is a risky loan for the i360 going to solve poverty and homelessness in this city?

You also conveniently forget that without the support of Cllr Theobold (surely the most experienced of your hated old party system - going right back to Margaret Thatcher's time!) the i360 loan would have been dead in the water right now.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine![/p][/quote]Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.[/p][/quote]YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here. We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here. Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking. Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush. The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.[/p][/quote]Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!![/p][/quote]Oh I'm SO sorry, I forget, we all live in Utopia now. Apologies for removing my green tinted spectacles for a few minutes. HJarrs is a great man, I'm going to email Mr Kitcat to see if we can get him some sort of honour in the Queen's Brithday list. Oh and to bring this thread back on topic......your last comment had just what to do with the i360 please? How is a risky loan for the i360 going to solve poverty and homelessness in this city? You also conveniently forget that without the support of Cllr Theobold (surely the most experienced of your hated old party system - going right back to Margaret Thatcher's time!) the i360 loan would have been dead in the water right now. Richada
  • Score: 6

5:38pm Sun 2 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Richada wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
John60 wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.
YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here. We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here. Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking. Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush. The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.
Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!!
Thats because the small number of moanerati are Labour, Tory and UKIP voters and supporters. Goodness help us if they get power!
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine![/p][/quote]Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.[/p][/quote]YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here. We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here. Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking. Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush. The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.[/p][/quote]Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!![/p][/quote]Thats because the small number of moanerati are Labour, Tory and UKIP voters and supporters. Goodness help us if they get power! HJarrs
  • Score: -5

5:50pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Richada says...

Dantanian wrote:
I just hope they paint this ridiculous phallic symbol pink , to keep it very 'Brighton'
No, it'll be green with a wobbly blue stripe underpinning it.
[quote][p][bold]Dantanian[/bold] wrote: I just hope they paint this ridiculous phallic symbol pink , to keep it very 'Brighton'[/p][/quote]No, it'll be green with a wobbly blue stripe underpinning it. Richada
  • Score: 3

6:00pm Sun 2 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

@ HJarrs 5:38pm Sun 2 Mar 14

"Thats because the small number of moanerati are Labour, Tory and UKIP voters and supporters. ..."

Actually m'dear, I am not one of any of the above. Care to make anymore generalisations?
@ HJarrs 5:38pm Sun 2 Mar 14 "Thats because the small number of moanerati are Labour, Tory and UKIP voters and supporters. ..." Actually m'dear, I am not one of any of the above. Care to make anymore generalisations? mimseycal
  • Score: 8

6:18pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Richada says...

HJarrs wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Richada wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
John60 wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.
YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here. We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here. Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking. Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush. The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.
Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!!
Thats because the small number of moanerati are Labour, Tory and UKIP voters and supporters. Goodness help us if they get power!
Small number of moanerati?

You don't live round here do you? Or if you do, you're not hearing what your neighbours, relatives, friends and work colleagues are all saying.

Collectively they don't want to bear the financial risk of the i360. Neither do they trust the propaganda fed to them by yourself and your party, not over the i360, not over the finances of this city.

It has now got to the stage that the vast majority of residents no longer care less which party run B&H, providing that it isn't Green, or now, thanks to i360, blue either.

It didn't start this way though, so many of us had great hopes of a new beginning for B & H under a fresh, new administration - you attracted voters from all of the old parties, dissatisfied with how things were. Whilst inevitably the "protest voters" have been alienated, meanwhile the "true" Greens have watched their heart-held beliefs trampled on - falling recycling rates, Speed Trials.......

......oh yes, your "power" has been exercised well indded.

Where does the i360 fit in here? As a huge PR stunt, in order to divert attention from the mess that this administration has and is making of running this city......

.....but then, the last laugh will be on all of us - left footing the bill not only for the failed Green experiment, but for i360 diversionary spin scheme too. Such a pity that the Tories who prop you up, yet you loathe so much, couldn't see it.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine![/p][/quote]Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.[/p][/quote]YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here. We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here. Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking. Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush. The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.[/p][/quote]Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!![/p][/quote]Thats because the small number of moanerati are Labour, Tory and UKIP voters and supporters. Goodness help us if they get power![/p][/quote]Small number of moanerati? You don't live round here do you? Or if you do, you're not hearing what your neighbours, relatives, friends and work colleagues are all saying. Collectively they don't want to bear the financial risk of the i360. Neither do they trust the propaganda fed to them by yourself and your party, not over the i360, not over the finances of this city. It has now got to the stage that the vast majority of residents no longer care less which party run B&H, providing that it isn't Green, or now, thanks to i360, blue either. It didn't start this way though, so many of us had great hopes of a new beginning for B & H under a fresh, new administration - you attracted voters from all of the old parties, dissatisfied with how things were. Whilst inevitably the "protest voters" have been alienated, meanwhile the "true" Greens have watched their heart-held beliefs trampled on - falling recycling rates, Speed Trials....... ......oh yes, your "power" has been exercised well indded. Where does the i360 fit in here? As a huge PR stunt, in order to divert attention from the mess that this administration has and is making of running this city...... .....but then, the last laugh will be on all of us - left footing the bill not only for the failed Green experiment, but for i360 diversionary spin scheme too. Such a pity that the Tories who prop you up, yet you loathe so much, couldn't see it. Richada
  • Score: 10

6:31pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Richada says...

Plantpot wrote:
A quick look at the Experian site shows that Marks Barfield and Brighton i360 share the same directors. Recommended credit limits are very low.

It worries me totally that the private sector has basically not wanted to be involved with this project. I would feel much happier if the councillors that vote for this scheme had a stake in it as if they themselves were taking responsibility for the loan and secured all their assets against the loan. What are the sanctions for the councillors if we the residents end up paying back the loan?
Doesn't it make you wonder at the "developer's intent to put £6M into this - wonder where they are getting that from?

This makes the finances look all the more shaky as the likelyhoof of them declaring bankruptcy at an early stage (leaving B&H to pick up both the loan repayments and operating costs) all the more likely.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: A quick look at the Experian site shows that Marks Barfield and Brighton i360 share the same directors. Recommended credit limits are very low. It worries me totally that the private sector has basically not wanted to be involved with this project. I would feel much happier if the councillors that vote for this scheme had a stake in it as if they themselves were taking responsibility for the loan and secured all their assets against the loan. What are the sanctions for the councillors if we the residents end up paying back the loan?[/p][/quote]Doesn't it make you wonder at the "developer's intent to put £6M into this - wonder where they are getting that from? This makes the finances look all the more shaky as the likelyhoof of them declaring bankruptcy at an early stage (leaving B&H to pick up both the loan repayments and operating costs) all the more likely. Richada
  • Score: 5

7:05pm Sun 2 Mar 14

the red head says...

Hjarrs... Would you please address my point about king Alfred leisure centre? I used to drive up to Blackpool... It was actually cheaper to give the kids an intensive run of the pleasure beach than the extortion of the pier, and on rainy days eye went swimming in their fab leisure complex. The cockroach ridden abomination that the council owns is being left to rot. This facility is used by residents all year round and would certainly bring in intensive revenue to cover any loan with the right design.
Or are they waiting for it to be condemned so that they can sell it to a private landowner.
The facts are, this i360 is another vanity project. And like all the others it will fail. And like everything else the greens have done, we residents will be picking up the pieces for decades.

*proud member of the moanerati*... Or as I like to call it *commion sense*
Hjarrs... Would you please address my point about king Alfred leisure centre? I used to drive up to Blackpool... It was actually cheaper to give the kids an intensive run of the pleasure beach than the extortion of the pier, and on rainy days eye went swimming in their fab leisure complex. The cockroach ridden abomination that the council owns is being left to rot. This facility is used by residents all year round and would certainly bring in intensive revenue to cover any loan with the right design. Or are they waiting for it to be condemned so that they can sell it to a private landowner. The facts are, this i360 is another vanity project. And like all the others it will fail. And like everything else the greens have done, we residents will be picking up the pieces for decades. *proud member of the moanerati*... Or as I like to call it *commion sense* the red head
  • Score: 8

7:22pm Sun 2 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

the red head wrote:
Hjarrs... Would you please address my point about king Alfred leisure centre? I used to drive up to Blackpool... It was actually cheaper to give the kids an intensive run of the pleasure beach than the extortion of the pier, and on rainy days eye went swimming in their fab leisure complex. The cockroach ridden abomination that the council owns is being left to rot. This facility is used by residents all year round and would certainly bring in intensive revenue to cover any loan with the right design.
Or are they waiting for it to be condemned so that they can sell it to a private landowner.
The facts are, this i360 is another vanity project. And like all the others it will fail. And like everything else the greens have done, we residents will be picking up the pieces for decades.

*proud member of the moanerati*... Or as I like to call it *commion sense*
Of course the KA has been on a downward spiral for a number of years and as local government finances are being squeezed it's unlikely that money will be found in the short term to remedy this - but only someone who doesn't understand this would blame the Greens!.
In the meantime exactly what have the Greens already done to ensure we will be 'picking up the pieces for decades'?! Pure hyperbole of course!
[quote][p][bold]the red head[/bold] wrote: Hjarrs... Would you please address my point about king Alfred leisure centre? I used to drive up to Blackpool... It was actually cheaper to give the kids an intensive run of the pleasure beach than the extortion of the pier, and on rainy days eye went swimming in their fab leisure complex. The cockroach ridden abomination that the council owns is being left to rot. This facility is used by residents all year round and would certainly bring in intensive revenue to cover any loan with the right design. Or are they waiting for it to be condemned so that they can sell it to a private landowner. The facts are, this i360 is another vanity project. And like all the others it will fail. And like everything else the greens have done, we residents will be picking up the pieces for decades. *proud member of the moanerati*... Or as I like to call it *commion sense*[/p][/quote]Of course the KA has been on a downward spiral for a number of years and as local government finances are being squeezed it's unlikely that money will be found in the short term to remedy this - but only someone who doesn't understand this would blame the Greens!. In the meantime exactly what have the Greens already done to ensure we will be 'picking up the pieces for decades'?! Pure hyperbole of course! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -6

7:39pm Sun 2 Mar 14

rolivan says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
the red head wrote:
Hjarrs... Would you please address my point about king Alfred leisure centre? I used to drive up to Blackpool... It was actually cheaper to give the kids an intensive run of the pleasure beach than the extortion of the pier, and on rainy days eye went swimming in their fab leisure complex. The cockroach ridden abomination that the council owns is being left to rot. This facility is used by residents all year round and would certainly bring in intensive revenue to cover any loan with the right design.
Or are they waiting for it to be condemned so that they can sell it to a private landowner.
The facts are, this i360 is another vanity project. And like all the others it will fail. And like everything else the greens have done, we residents will be picking up the pieces for decades.

*proud member of the moanerati*... Or as I like to call it *commion sense*
Of course the KA has been on a downward spiral for a number of years and as local government finances are being squeezed it's unlikely that money will be found in the short term to remedy this - but only someone who doesn't understand this would blame the Greens!.
In the meantime exactly what have the Greens already done to ensure we will be 'picking up the pieces for decades'?! Pure hyperbole of course!
So If Funding is so hard to obtain how did they manage to get it for the i360?Surely a Leisure Centre that would improve the Health and Fitness of many should replace a Glorified Lift
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the red head[/bold] wrote: Hjarrs... Would you please address my point about king Alfred leisure centre? I used to drive up to Blackpool... It was actually cheaper to give the kids an intensive run of the pleasure beach than the extortion of the pier, and on rainy days eye went swimming in their fab leisure complex. The cockroach ridden abomination that the council owns is being left to rot. This facility is used by residents all year round and would certainly bring in intensive revenue to cover any loan with the right design. Or are they waiting for it to be condemned so that they can sell it to a private landowner. The facts are, this i360 is another vanity project. And like all the others it will fail. And like everything else the greens have done, we residents will be picking up the pieces for decades. *proud member of the moanerati*... Or as I like to call it *commion sense*[/p][/quote]Of course the KA has been on a downward spiral for a number of years and as local government finances are being squeezed it's unlikely that money will be found in the short term to remedy this - but only someone who doesn't understand this would blame the Greens!. In the meantime exactly what have the Greens already done to ensure we will be 'picking up the pieces for decades'?! Pure hyperbole of course![/p][/quote]So If Funding is so hard to obtain how did they manage to get it for the i360?Surely a Leisure Centre that would improve the Health and Fitness of many should replace a Glorified Lift rolivan
  • Score: 7

7:42pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Ania Green says...

Good post by HJarrs.

People here seem to be very against any kind of momentum and progress for the city. The i360 is a definite step forward for Brighton and will really put us on the map and increase our standing in the country.

It's just a shame that so many people here are so blinkered that they seem unable to see this.
Good post by HJarrs. People here seem to be very against any kind of momentum and progress for the city. The i360 is a definite step forward for Brighton and will really put us on the map and increase our standing in the country. It's just a shame that so many people here are so blinkered that they seem unable to see this. Ania Green
  • Score: -16

7:52pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Falmer Wizard says...

I am amazed that thousands of people who have never visited Brighton before are now waiting to desend on us when this Lift has been completed, and then spend a large amount to use it.
Think of the many places that do not attract you and then if a Lift was introduced would you give the town a try,NO me neither!
I am amazed that thousands of people who have never visited Brighton before are now waiting to desend on us when this Lift has been completed, and then spend a large amount to use it. Think of the many places that do not attract you and then if a Lift was introduced would you give the town a try,NO me neither! Falmer Wizard
  • Score: 8

7:58pm Sun 2 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

rolivan wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
the red head wrote:
Hjarrs... Would you please address my point about king Alfred leisure centre? I used to drive up to Blackpool... It was actually cheaper to give the kids an intensive run of the pleasure beach than the extortion of the pier, and on rainy days eye went swimming in their fab leisure complex. The cockroach ridden abomination that the council owns is being left to rot. This facility is used by residents all year round and would certainly bring in intensive revenue to cover any loan with the right design.
Or are they waiting for it to be condemned so that they can sell it to a private landowner.
The facts are, this i360 is another vanity project. And like all the others it will fail. And like everything else the greens have done, we residents will be picking up the pieces for decades.

*proud member of the moanerati*... Or as I like to call it *commion sense*
Of course the KA has been on a downward spiral for a number of years and as local government finances are being squeezed it's unlikely that money will be found in the short term to remedy this - but only someone who doesn't understand this would blame the Greens!.
In the meantime exactly what have the Greens already done to ensure we will be 'picking up the pieces for decades'?! Pure hyperbole of course!
So If Funding is so hard to obtain how did they manage to get it for the i360?Surely a Leisure Centre that would improve the Health and Fitness of many should replace a Glorified Lift
Because that funding is from a specific government fund for assisting regeneration. For clarity though I am against the i360.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the red head[/bold] wrote: Hjarrs... Would you please address my point about king Alfred leisure centre? I used to drive up to Blackpool... It was actually cheaper to give the kids an intensive run of the pleasure beach than the extortion of the pier, and on rainy days eye went swimming in their fab leisure complex. The cockroach ridden abomination that the council owns is being left to rot. This facility is used by residents all year round and would certainly bring in intensive revenue to cover any loan with the right design. Or are they waiting for it to be condemned so that they can sell it to a private landowner. The facts are, this i360 is another vanity project. And like all the others it will fail. And like everything else the greens have done, we residents will be picking up the pieces for decades. *proud member of the moanerati*... Or as I like to call it *commion sense*[/p][/quote]Of course the KA has been on a downward spiral for a number of years and as local government finances are being squeezed it's unlikely that money will be found in the short term to remedy this - but only someone who doesn't understand this would blame the Greens!. In the meantime exactly what have the Greens already done to ensure we will be 'picking up the pieces for decades'?! Pure hyperbole of course![/p][/quote]So If Funding is so hard to obtain how did they manage to get it for the i360?Surely a Leisure Centre that would improve the Health and Fitness of many should replace a Glorified Lift[/p][/quote]Because that funding is from a specific government fund for assisting regeneration. For clarity though I am against the i360. brighton bluenose
  • Score: 0

8:02pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

Ania Green wrote:
Good post by HJarrs.

People here seem to be very against any kind of momentum and progress for the city. The i360 is a definite step forward for Brighton and will really put us on the map and increase our standing in the country.

It's just a shame that so many people here are so blinkered that they seem unable to see this.
I doubt anyone is going to listen to someone like you Ania that calls locals "inbreds". - you need to go back to Poland - I'm sure they'll pay you to take your clothes off there as well !!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: Good post by HJarrs. People here seem to be very against any kind of momentum and progress for the city. The i360 is a definite step forward for Brighton and will really put us on the map and increase our standing in the country. It's just a shame that so many people here are so blinkered that they seem unable to see this.[/p][/quote]I doubt anyone is going to listen to someone like you Ania that calls locals "inbreds". - you need to go back to Poland - I'm sure they'll pay you to take your clothes off there as well !!!!! Fight_Back
  • Score: 8

8:10pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

I wonder how much MORE than £6m Marks Barfield stand to lose, Brightoni360Ltd or not, should they fail to secure the £36m. This £6m is a way of pushing it so they can show conviction. At the very least the loan should now be reduced BY that £6m. If the cllrs are stupid enough to make the loan at all.
I wonder how much MORE than £6m Marks Barfield stand to lose, Brightoni360Ltd or not, should they fail to secure the £36m. This £6m is a way of pushing it so they can show conviction. At the very least the loan should now be reduced BY that £6m. If the cllrs are stupid enough to make the loan at all. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 4

8:13pm Sun 2 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Just as a matter of interest ... has anyone seen the colour of the 6 million for as far as I know the 'developers' have not filed any accounts yet with company house.
Just as a matter of interest ... has anyone seen the colour of the 6 million for as far as I know the 'developers' have not filed any accounts yet with company house. mimseycal
  • Score: 5

8:14pm Sun 2 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

Ania Green wrote:
Good post by HJarrs.

People here seem to be very against any kind of momentum and progress for the city. The i360 is a definite step forward for Brighton and will really put us on the map and increase our standing in the country.

It's just a shame that so many people here are so blinkered that they seem unable to see this.
Oh dear. Here goes the troll again. Stick to Green_Girl 1990.
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: Good post by HJarrs. People here seem to be very against any kind of momentum and progress for the city. The i360 is a definite step forward for Brighton and will really put us on the map and increase our standing in the country. It's just a shame that so many people here are so blinkered that they seem unable to see this.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Here goes the troll again. Stick to Green_Girl 1990. HJarrs
  • Score: -3

8:21pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Kedge wrote:
Is there anything our philistine councillors won’t do to despoil Brighton’s seafront? They cleared away the wonderful gardens by the bandstand, to be replaced by a wasteland redolent of an inner city. The stupendously expensive folly, the i360, will very quickly show the ravages of wind and salt. The artist impression - always the flattering ideal, but far from the reality - looks like an architectural willy. While it may resonate with the City’s saucy reputation, the i360 could hardly be described as an elegant structure complementing Kingsway.
A willy with some action on it.....
[quote][p][bold]Kedge[/bold] wrote: Is there anything our philistine councillors won’t do to despoil Brighton’s seafront? They cleared away the wonderful gardens by the bandstand, to be replaced by a wasteland redolent of an inner city. The stupendously expensive folly, the i360, will very quickly show the ravages of wind and salt. The artist impression - always the flattering ideal, but far from the reality - looks like an architectural willy. While it may resonate with the City’s saucy reputation, the i360 could hardly be described as an elegant structure complementing Kingsway.[/p][/quote]A willy with some action on it..... Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 6

8:21pm Sun 2 Mar 14

rolivan says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
rolivan wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
the red head wrote:
Hjarrs... Would you please address my point about king Alfred leisure centre? I used to drive up to Blackpool... It was actually cheaper to give the kids an intensive run of the pleasure beach than the extortion of the pier, and on rainy days eye went swimming in their fab leisure complex. The cockroach ridden abomination that the council owns is being left to rot. This facility is used by residents all year round and would certainly bring in intensive revenue to cover any loan with the right design.
Or are they waiting for it to be condemned so that they can sell it to a private landowner.
The facts are, this i360 is another vanity project. And like all the others it will fail. And like everything else the greens have done, we residents will be picking up the pieces for decades.

*proud member of the moanerati*... Or as I like to call it *commion sense*
Of course the KA has been on a downward spiral for a number of years and as local government finances are being squeezed it's unlikely that money will be found in the short term to remedy this - but only someone who doesn't understand this would blame the Greens!.
In the meantime exactly what have the Greens already done to ensure we will be 'picking up the pieces for decades'?! Pure hyperbole of course!
So If Funding is so hard to obtain how did they manage to get it for the i360?Surely a Leisure Centre that would improve the Health and Fitness of many should replace a Glorified Lift
Because that funding is from a specific government fund for assisting regeneration. For clarity though I am against the i360.
Well anyone that has been anywhere near the King Alfred would say that it could do with some Regeneration
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the red head[/bold] wrote: Hjarrs... Would you please address my point about king Alfred leisure centre? I used to drive up to Blackpool... It was actually cheaper to give the kids an intensive run of the pleasure beach than the extortion of the pier, and on rainy days eye went swimming in their fab leisure complex. The cockroach ridden abomination that the council owns is being left to rot. This facility is used by residents all year round and would certainly bring in intensive revenue to cover any loan with the right design. Or are they waiting for it to be condemned so that they can sell it to a private landowner. The facts are, this i360 is another vanity project. And like all the others it will fail. And like everything else the greens have done, we residents will be picking up the pieces for decades. *proud member of the moanerati*... Or as I like to call it *commion sense*[/p][/quote]Of course the KA has been on a downward spiral for a number of years and as local government finances are being squeezed it's unlikely that money will be found in the short term to remedy this - but only someone who doesn't understand this would blame the Greens!. In the meantime exactly what have the Greens already done to ensure we will be 'picking up the pieces for decades'?! Pure hyperbole of course![/p][/quote]So If Funding is so hard to obtain how did they manage to get it for the i360?Surely a Leisure Centre that would improve the Health and Fitness of many should replace a Glorified Lift[/p][/quote]Because that funding is from a specific government fund for assisting regeneration. For clarity though I am against the i360.[/p][/quote]Well anyone that has been anywhere near the King Alfred would say that it could do with some Regeneration rolivan
  • Score: 5

8:31pm Sun 2 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

mimseycal wrote:
Just as a matter of interest ... has anyone seen the colour of the 6 million for as far as I know the 'developers' have not filed any accounts yet with company house.
Having just checked Marks Barfields account to 31 December 2012 they had current assets of £604,000 although this included over £2million of 'intangible' assets!
Though not an expert I would suggest this indicates they've hardly got a pot to p!ss in!!
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Just as a matter of interest ... has anyone seen the colour of the 6 million for as far as I know the 'developers' have not filed any accounts yet with company house.[/p][/quote]Having just checked Marks Barfields account to 31 December 2012 they had current assets of £604,000 although this included over £2million of 'intangible' assets! Though not an expert I would suggest this indicates they've hardly got a pot to p!ss in!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 5

8:33pm Sun 2 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

rolivan wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
rolivan wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
the red head wrote:
Hjarrs... Would you please address my point about king Alfred leisure centre? I used to drive up to Blackpool... It was actually cheaper to give the kids an intensive run of the pleasure beach than the extortion of the pier, and on rainy days eye went swimming in their fab leisure complex. The cockroach ridden abomination that the council owns is being left to rot. This facility is used by residents all year round and would certainly bring in intensive revenue to cover any loan with the right design.
Or are they waiting for it to be condemned so that they can sell it to a private landowner.
The facts are, this i360 is another vanity project. And like all the others it will fail. And like everything else the greens have done, we residents will be picking up the pieces for decades.

*proud member of the moanerati*... Or as I like to call it *commion sense*
Of course the KA has been on a downward spiral for a number of years and as local government finances are being squeezed it's unlikely that money will be found in the short term to remedy this - but only someone who doesn't understand this would blame the Greens!.
In the meantime exactly what have the Greens already done to ensure we will be 'picking up the pieces for decades'?! Pure hyperbole of course!
So If Funding is so hard to obtain how did they manage to get it for the i360?Surely a Leisure Centre that would improve the Health and Fitness of many should replace a Glorified Lift
Because that funding is from a specific government fund for assisting regeneration. For clarity though I am against the i360.
Well anyone that has been anywhere near the King Alfred would say that it could do with some Regeneration
As I live opposite I am hardly in a position to disagree!
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the red head[/bold] wrote: Hjarrs... Would you please address my point about king Alfred leisure centre? I used to drive up to Blackpool... It was actually cheaper to give the kids an intensive run of the pleasure beach than the extortion of the pier, and on rainy days eye went swimming in their fab leisure complex. The cockroach ridden abomination that the council owns is being left to rot. This facility is used by residents all year round and would certainly bring in intensive revenue to cover any loan with the right design. Or are they waiting for it to be condemned so that they can sell it to a private landowner. The facts are, this i360 is another vanity project. And like all the others it will fail. And like everything else the greens have done, we residents will be picking up the pieces for decades. *proud member of the moanerati*... Or as I like to call it *commion sense*[/p][/quote]Of course the KA has been on a downward spiral for a number of years and as local government finances are being squeezed it's unlikely that money will be found in the short term to remedy this - but only someone who doesn't understand this would blame the Greens!. In the meantime exactly what have the Greens already done to ensure we will be 'picking up the pieces for decades'?! Pure hyperbole of course![/p][/quote]So If Funding is so hard to obtain how did they manage to get it for the i360?Surely a Leisure Centre that would improve the Health and Fitness of many should replace a Glorified Lift[/p][/quote]Because that funding is from a specific government fund for assisting regeneration. For clarity though I am against the i360.[/p][/quote]Well anyone that has been anywhere near the King Alfred would say that it could do with some Regeneration[/p][/quote]As I live opposite I am hardly in a position to disagree! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 0

8:33pm Sun 2 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

rolivan wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
rolivan wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
the red head wrote:
Hjarrs... Would you please address my point about king Alfred leisure centre? I used to drive up to Blackpool... It was actually cheaper to give the kids an intensive run of the pleasure beach than the extortion of the pier, and on rainy days eye went swimming in their fab leisure complex. The cockroach ridden abomination that the council owns is being left to rot. This facility is used by residents all year round and would certainly bring in intensive revenue to cover any loan with the right design.
Or are they waiting for it to be condemned so that they can sell it to a private landowner.
The facts are, this i360 is another vanity project. And like all the others it will fail. And like everything else the greens have done, we residents will be picking up the pieces for decades.

*proud member of the moanerati*... Or as I like to call it *commion sense*
Of course the KA has been on a downward spiral for a number of years and as local government finances are being squeezed it's unlikely that money will be found in the short term to remedy this - but only someone who doesn't understand this would blame the Greens!.
In the meantime exactly what have the Greens already done to ensure we will be 'picking up the pieces for decades'?! Pure hyperbole of course!
So If Funding is so hard to obtain how did they manage to get it for the i360?Surely a Leisure Centre that would improve the Health and Fitness of many should replace a Glorified Lift
Because that funding is from a specific government fund for assisting regeneration. For clarity though I am against the i360.
Well anyone that has been anywhere near the King Alfred would say that it could do with some Regeneration
As I live opposite I am hardly in a position to disagree!
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the red head[/bold] wrote: Hjarrs... Would you please address my point about king Alfred leisure centre? I used to drive up to Blackpool... It was actually cheaper to give the kids an intensive run of the pleasure beach than the extortion of the pier, and on rainy days eye went swimming in their fab leisure complex. The cockroach ridden abomination that the council owns is being left to rot. This facility is used by residents all year round and would certainly bring in intensive revenue to cover any loan with the right design. Or are they waiting for it to be condemned so that they can sell it to a private landowner. The facts are, this i360 is another vanity project. And like all the others it will fail. And like everything else the greens have done, we residents will be picking up the pieces for decades. *proud member of the moanerati*... Or as I like to call it *commion sense*[/p][/quote]Of course the KA has been on a downward spiral for a number of years and as local government finances are being squeezed it's unlikely that money will be found in the short term to remedy this - but only someone who doesn't understand this would blame the Greens!. In the meantime exactly what have the Greens already done to ensure we will be 'picking up the pieces for decades'?! Pure hyperbole of course![/p][/quote]So If Funding is so hard to obtain how did they manage to get it for the i360?Surely a Leisure Centre that would improve the Health and Fitness of many should replace a Glorified Lift[/p][/quote]Because that funding is from a specific government fund for assisting regeneration. For clarity though I am against the i360.[/p][/quote]Well anyone that has been anywhere near the King Alfred would say that it could do with some Regeneration[/p][/quote]As I live opposite I am hardly in a position to disagree! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 1

8:38pm Sun 2 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

rolivan wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
the red head wrote:
Hjarrs... Would you please address my point about king Alfred leisure centre? I used to drive up to Blackpool... It was actually cheaper to give the kids an intensive run of the pleasure beach than the extortion of the pier, and on rainy days eye went swimming in their fab leisure complex. The cockroach ridden abomination that the council owns is being left to rot. This facility is used by residents all year round and would certainly bring in intensive revenue to cover any loan with the right design.
Or are they waiting for it to be condemned so that they can sell it to a private landowner.
The facts are, this i360 is another vanity project. And like all the others it will fail. And like everything else the greens have done, we residents will be picking up the pieces for decades.

*proud member of the moanerati*... Or as I like to call it *commion sense*
Of course the KA has been on a downward spiral for a number of years and as local government finances are being squeezed it's unlikely that money will be found in the short term to remedy this - but only someone who doesn't understand this would blame the Greens!.
In the meantime exactly what have the Greens already done to ensure we will be 'picking up the pieces for decades'?! Pure hyperbole of course!
So If Funding is so hard to obtain how did they manage to get it for the i360?Surely a Leisure Centre that would improve the Health and Fitness of many should replace a Glorified Lift
The i360 has been around since at least 2006. At that time it was quite popular. It seems that the only thing that has really changed is that it is now a green administration delivering on the project rather than Labour or Conservatives.

The reason they got funding for the i360 is that, as far as the funders are concerned, the business case stacks up. You may agree or disagree, but the business case says that the project will pay for itself and provide extra revenue for the council as well as bringing in more business for the city, the funders have agreed with the business case. Personally, I think it will only cover its costs, but more importantly, it will be part of a portfolio of attractions that continue to attract people to our city.

I would quite agree that it would be great to build a really great leisure complex, say on the king Alfred site. But despite some rather smelly goings on by the then Labour administration to get planning for the Karis development, even that limited leisure complex didn't happen. I can't blame Labour locally for the recession that led to a withdrawl of funds for that development (Labour nationally is another matter!). However, without external grant funding, or the complex being funded as part of a development, a I don't think a financial case can be made, as a leisure complex can barely cover the running costs let alone cover the building costs.

Sadly, when council budgets are being slashed, if it requires significant additional funding of tens of millions of pounds, no matter how worthy a cause, it will not happen. This is a great shame as a leisure complex is badly needed in the city and we should support our council in seeking funding.

Knowing the people that post on this site, if the council was proposing to build a leisure centre instead of the i360, they would be complaining that the council should be building an attraction like the i360 to attract visitors!
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the red head[/bold] wrote: Hjarrs... Would you please address my point about king Alfred leisure centre? I used to drive up to Blackpool... It was actually cheaper to give the kids an intensive run of the pleasure beach than the extortion of the pier, and on rainy days eye went swimming in their fab leisure complex. The cockroach ridden abomination that the council owns is being left to rot. This facility is used by residents all year round and would certainly bring in intensive revenue to cover any loan with the right design. Or are they waiting for it to be condemned so that they can sell it to a private landowner. The facts are, this i360 is another vanity project. And like all the others it will fail. And like everything else the greens have done, we residents will be picking up the pieces for decades. *proud member of the moanerati*... Or as I like to call it *commion sense*[/p][/quote]Of course the KA has been on a downward spiral for a number of years and as local government finances are being squeezed it's unlikely that money will be found in the short term to remedy this - but only someone who doesn't understand this would blame the Greens!. In the meantime exactly what have the Greens already done to ensure we will be 'picking up the pieces for decades'?! Pure hyperbole of course![/p][/quote]So If Funding is so hard to obtain how did they manage to get it for the i360?Surely a Leisure Centre that would improve the Health and Fitness of many should replace a Glorified Lift[/p][/quote]The i360 has been around since at least 2006. At that time it was quite popular. It seems that the only thing that has really changed is that it is now a green administration delivering on the project rather than Labour or Conservatives. The reason they got funding for the i360 is that, as far as the funders are concerned, the business case stacks up. You may agree or disagree, but the business case says that the project will pay for itself and provide extra revenue for the council as well as bringing in more business for the city, the funders have agreed with the business case. Personally, I think it will only cover its costs, but more importantly, it will be part of a portfolio of attractions that continue to attract people to our city. I would quite agree that it would be great to build a really great leisure complex, say on the king Alfred site. But despite some rather smelly goings on by the then Labour administration to get planning for the Karis development, even that limited leisure complex didn't happen. I can't blame Labour locally for the recession that led to a withdrawl of funds for that development (Labour nationally is another matter!). However, without external grant funding, or the complex being funded as part of a development, a I don't think a financial case can be made, as a leisure complex can barely cover the running costs let alone cover the building costs. Sadly, when council budgets are being slashed, if it requires significant additional funding of tens of millions of pounds, no matter how worthy a cause, it will not happen. This is a great shame as a leisure complex is badly needed in the city and we should support our council in seeking funding. Knowing the people that post on this site, if the council was proposing to build a leisure centre instead of the i360, they would be complaining that the council should be building an attraction like the i360 to attract visitors! HJarrs
  • Score: -9

8:42pm Sun 2 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Just as a matter of interest ... has anyone seen the colour of the 6 million for as far as I know the 'developers' have not filed any accounts yet with company house.
Having just checked Marks Barfields account to 31 December 2012 they had current assets of £604,000 although this included over £2million of 'intangible' assets!
Though not an expert I would suggest this indicates they've hardly got a pot to p!ss in!!
That is them in their guise as architects ... I was wondering about them in their 'developer' guise ... the famed Brighton I360 ltd. ... Last time I looked, they had two 50% shares at the exorbitant total cost of £2.00 (no pennies) in the business, a secretary and not much else.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Just as a matter of interest ... has anyone seen the colour of the 6 million for as far as I know the 'developers' have not filed any accounts yet with company house.[/p][/quote]Having just checked Marks Barfields account to 31 December 2012 they had current assets of £604,000 although this included over £2million of 'intangible' assets! Though not an expert I would suggest this indicates they've hardly got a pot to p!ss in!![/p][/quote]That is them in their guise as architects ... I was wondering about them in their 'developer' guise ... the famed Brighton I360 ltd. ... Last time I looked, they had two 50% shares at the exorbitant total cost of £2.00 (no pennies) in the business, a secretary and not much else. mimseycal
  • Score: 3

8:43pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

They will of course now want to borrow more money to loan to even more developers after this - the only one worth a look-in is King Alfred. But then it will be King Alfred with 3-400 dwelling so maybe not.

How about the stalled Brighton Centre/Churchill Square plans?
They will of course now want to borrow more money to loan to even more developers after this - the only one worth a look-in is King Alfred. But then it will be King Alfred with 3-400 dwelling so maybe not. How about the stalled Brighton Centre/Churchill Square plans? Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 1

8:46pm Sun 2 Mar 14

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Richada wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
John60 wrote:
God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted.

The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit.

Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time.

It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000.

Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even.

You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree).

If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.
YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here.

We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here.

Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking.

Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush.

The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.
Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!!
I find it strange that anyone thinks the Greens are the answer to the main two parties. Unable to run even the most basic of services, wanting inflation busting increases in tax and putting local tax payers at risk with the i360 - tell me how they are better than the main two parties ? I agree Labour and Tories are prefect but they are less bad than the current bunch.
They want an inflating-busting increase to preserve jobs and services that are being cut as a DIRECT result of Tory/ Labour government failures - that is a fact and personally I would be happy to pay that increase though I appreciate many might struggle. With regard to refuse service failures these are down to a) having to reduce the number of dustcarts by five due to the above cuts and eight vehicles recently being off the road due to breakdowns as the fleet is old and many of the trucks need replacing - it could possibly be argued that this should have been done earlier!!
HJ admires your desire to spin answers to challenges, but also thinks you are too thick to put together a compelling argument. HJ also asks that you consider using spell-check if you must carry on posting.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine![/p][/quote]Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.[/p][/quote]YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here. We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here. Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking. Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush. The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.[/p][/quote]Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!![/p][/quote]I find it strange that anyone thinks the Greens are the answer to the main two parties. Unable to run even the most basic of services, wanting inflation busting increases in tax and putting local tax payers at risk with the i360 - tell me how they are better than the main two parties ? I agree Labour and Tories are prefect but they are less bad than the current bunch.[/p][/quote]They want an inflating-busting increase to preserve jobs and services that are being cut as a DIRECT result of Tory/ Labour government failures - that is a fact and personally I would be happy to pay that increase though I appreciate many might struggle. With regard to refuse service failures these are down to a) having to reduce the number of dustcarts by five due to the above cuts and eight vehicles recently being off the road due to breakdowns as the fleet is old and many of the trucks need replacing - it could possibly be argued that this should have been done earlier!![/p][/quote]HJ admires your desire to spin answers to challenges, but also thinks you are too thick to put together a compelling argument. HJ also asks that you consider using spell-check if you must carry on posting. I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!
  • Score: 2

9:00pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Richada says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
the red head wrote:
Hjarrs... Would you please address my point about king Alfred leisure centre? I used to drive up to Blackpool... It was actually cheaper to give the kids an intensive run of the pleasure beach than the extortion of the pier, and on rainy days eye went swimming in their fab leisure complex. The cockroach ridden abomination that the council owns is being left to rot. This facility is used by residents all year round and would certainly bring in intensive revenue to cover any loan with the right design.
Or are they waiting for it to be condemned so that they can sell it to a private landowner.
The facts are, this i360 is another vanity project. And like all the others it will fail. And like everything else the greens have done, we residents will be picking up the pieces for decades.

*proud member of the moanerati*... Or as I like to call it *commion sense*
Of course the KA has been on a downward spiral for a number of years and as local government finances are being squeezed it's unlikely that money will be found in the short term to remedy this - but only someone who doesn't understand this would blame the Greens!.
In the meantime exactly what have the Greens already done to ensure we will be 'picking up the pieces for decades'?! Pure hyperbole of course!
We really DO live in Utopia here with the current administration.

They treat us like dirt then slap us on the wrist when we fail to be impressed by their spin.

I'm going off this particular utopian breed.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the red head[/bold] wrote: Hjarrs... Would you please address my point about king Alfred leisure centre? I used to drive up to Blackpool... It was actually cheaper to give the kids an intensive run of the pleasure beach than the extortion of the pier, and on rainy days eye went swimming in their fab leisure complex. The cockroach ridden abomination that the council owns is being left to rot. This facility is used by residents all year round and would certainly bring in intensive revenue to cover any loan with the right design. Or are they waiting for it to be condemned so that they can sell it to a private landowner. The facts are, this i360 is another vanity project. And like all the others it will fail. And like everything else the greens have done, we residents will be picking up the pieces for decades. *proud member of the moanerati*... Or as I like to call it *commion sense*[/p][/quote]Of course the KA has been on a downward spiral for a number of years and as local government finances are being squeezed it's unlikely that money will be found in the short term to remedy this - but only someone who doesn't understand this would blame the Greens!. In the meantime exactly what have the Greens already done to ensure we will be 'picking up the pieces for decades'?! Pure hyperbole of course![/p][/quote]We really DO live in Utopia here with the current administration. They treat us like dirt then slap us on the wrist when we fail to be impressed by their spin. I'm going off this particular utopian breed. Richada
  • Score: 4

9:00pm Sun 2 Mar 14

rolivan says...

Towering ambition | Art and design | The Guardian
www.theguardian.com › ... › Architecture‎Tradu
ire cette page
26 mars 2006 - Steve Rose finds out about David Marks and Julia Barfield's big, bold ... on the Guardian website at 03.21 EST on Monday 27 March 2006
This article makes interesting reading and makes one wonder why it has taken 9 years to get this far.
Towering ambition | Art and design | The Guardian www.theguardian.com › ... › Architecture‎Tradu ire cette page 26 mars 2006 - Steve Rose finds out about David Marks and Julia Barfield's big, bold ... on the Guardian website at 03.21 EST on Monday 27 March 2006 This article makes interesting reading and makes one wonder why it has taken 9 years to get this far. rolivan
  • Score: 3

9:05pm Sun 2 Mar 14

the red head says...

Hjarrs, thanks for replying. However, I disagree that we are just blaming the greens. The spinnaker in Portsmouth is losing money, the pier in Brighton cannot afford to stay open until midnight anymore, the wheel did not prove popular on the seafront... We now have the evidence that this is not a good idea. Sometimes people need to just say times have changed, let's think again with the news information and resources we have to hand. A good leisure centre could pay. If it had outdoor flumes such as center parks and attracted sponsorship for regenerating the now defunct bowling greens alongside, this could become an excellent secondary tourist area, spreading tourist trade on a wider band and easing congestion of all types in the town centre. With the amount of clubs, parties and maybe even a good show hall (as nick cave demonstrated) it could become a hub of the community with several uses. I do not believe that the funding could not be proven far more easily than the i360.

I really don't want to answer the commenter who suggested hyperbole and that I don't understand. I don't go in for slagging people off and simply want a reasonable debate. Yet again, things become reduced to others suggesting that those with an opinion have no right to voice it or are stupid. No matter how much I disagree with hjarrs, i respect that he debates... I don't want to be drawn into idiotic flame wars with those who come on merely to slag anyone off who doesn't agree with green policy.
Hjarrs, thanks for replying. However, I disagree that we are just blaming the greens. The spinnaker in Portsmouth is losing money, the pier in Brighton cannot afford to stay open until midnight anymore, the wheel did not prove popular on the seafront... We now have the evidence that this is not a good idea. Sometimes people need to just say times have changed, let's think again with the news information and resources we have to hand. A good leisure centre could pay. If it had outdoor flumes such as center parks and attracted sponsorship for regenerating the now defunct bowling greens alongside, this could become an excellent secondary tourist area, spreading tourist trade on a wider band and easing congestion of all types in the town centre. With the amount of clubs, parties and maybe even a good show hall (as nick cave demonstrated) it could become a hub of the community with several uses. I do not believe that the funding could not be proven far more easily than the i360. I really don't want to answer the commenter who suggested hyperbole and that I don't understand. I don't go in for slagging people off and simply want a reasonable debate. Yet again, things become reduced to others suggesting that those with an opinion have no right to voice it or are stupid. No matter how much I disagree with hjarrs, i respect that he debates... I don't want to be drawn into idiotic flame wars with those who come on merely to slag anyone off who doesn't agree with green policy. the red head
  • Score: 5

9:06pm Sun 2 Mar 14

rolivan says...

mimseycal wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Just as a matter of interest ... has anyone seen the colour of the 6 million for as far as I know the 'developers' have not filed any accounts yet with company house.
Having just checked Marks Barfields account to 31 December 2012 they had current assets of £604,000 although this included over £2million of 'intangible' assets!
Though not an expert I would suggest this indicates they've hardly got a pot to p!ss in!!
That is them in their guise as architects ... I was wondering about them in their 'developer' guise ... the famed Brighton I360 ltd. ... Last time I looked, they had two 50% shares at the exorbitant total cost of £2.00 (no pennies) in the business, a secretary and not much else.
The Article in The Guardian makes interesting reading.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Just as a matter of interest ... has anyone seen the colour of the 6 million for as far as I know the 'developers' have not filed any accounts yet with company house.[/p][/quote]Having just checked Marks Barfields account to 31 December 2012 they had current assets of £604,000 although this included over £2million of 'intangible' assets! Though not an expert I would suggest this indicates they've hardly got a pot to p!ss in!![/p][/quote]That is them in their guise as architects ... I was wondering about them in their 'developer' guise ... the famed Brighton I360 ltd. ... Last time I looked, they had two 50% shares at the exorbitant total cost of £2.00 (no pennies) in the business, a secretary and not much else.[/p][/quote]The Article in The Guardian makes interesting reading. rolivan
  • Score: 4

9:14pm Sun 2 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Richada wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
John60 wrote:
God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted.

The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit.

Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time.

It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000.

Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even.

You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree).

If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.
YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here.

We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here.

Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking.

Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush.

The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.
Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!!
I find it strange that anyone thinks the Greens are the answer to the main two parties. Unable to run even the most basic of services, wanting inflation busting increases in tax and putting local tax payers at risk with the i360 - tell me how they are better than the main two parties ? I agree Labour and Tories are prefect but they are less bad than the current bunch.
They want an inflating-busting increase to preserve jobs and services that are being cut as a DIRECT result of Tory/ Labour government failures - that is a fact and personally I would be happy to pay that increase though I appreciate many might struggle. With regard to refuse service failures these are down to a) having to reduce the number of dustcarts by five due to the above cuts and eight vehicles recently being off the road due to breakdowns as the fleet is old and many of the trucks need replacing - it could possibly be argued that this should have been done earlier!!
HJ admires your desire to spin answers to challenges, but also thinks you are too thick to put together a compelling argument. HJ also asks that you consider using spell-check if you must carry on posting.
Not quite sure that you can cope with some facts - and there were no spelling errors either but then, as we've just stated, facts are clearly not your forte!
[quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine![/p][/quote]Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.[/p][/quote]YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here. We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here. Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking. Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush. The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.[/p][/quote]Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!![/p][/quote]I find it strange that anyone thinks the Greens are the answer to the main two parties. Unable to run even the most basic of services, wanting inflation busting increases in tax and putting local tax payers at risk with the i360 - tell me how they are better than the main two parties ? I agree Labour and Tories are prefect but they are less bad than the current bunch.[/p][/quote]They want an inflating-busting increase to preserve jobs and services that are being cut as a DIRECT result of Tory/ Labour government failures - that is a fact and personally I would be happy to pay that increase though I appreciate many might struggle. With regard to refuse service failures these are down to a) having to reduce the number of dustcarts by five due to the above cuts and eight vehicles recently being off the road due to breakdowns as the fleet is old and many of the trucks need replacing - it could possibly be argued that this should have been done earlier!![/p][/quote]HJ admires your desire to spin answers to challenges, but also thinks you are too thick to put together a compelling argument. HJ also asks that you consider using spell-check if you must carry on posting.[/p][/quote]Not quite sure that you can cope with some facts - and there were no spelling errors either but then, as we've just stated, facts are clearly not your forte! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -1

9:15pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Richada says...

HJarrs wrote:
Ania Green wrote:
Good post by HJarrs.

People here seem to be very against any kind of momentum and progress for the city. The i360 is a definite step forward for Brighton and will really put us on the map and increase our standing in the country.

It's just a shame that so many people here are so blinkered that they seem unable to see this.
Oh dear. Here goes the troll again. Stick to Green_Girl 1990.
Yes, I agree with you HJ, Green Girl was rather more amusing - we inbread moanerati do like a good laugh you know.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: Good post by HJarrs. People here seem to be very against any kind of momentum and progress for the city. The i360 is a definite step forward for Brighton and will really put us on the map and increase our standing in the country. It's just a shame that so many people here are so blinkered that they seem unable to see this.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Here goes the troll again. Stick to Green_Girl 1990.[/p][/quote]Yes, I agree with you HJ, Green Girl was rather more amusing - we inbread moanerati do like a good laugh you know. Richada
  • Score: 4

9:22pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Richada says...

mimseycal wrote:
Just as a matter of interest ... has anyone seen the colour of the 6 million for as far as I know the 'developers' have not filed any accounts yet with company house.
Maybe our wonderful Green administration and the developers share the same financial advisors........

......that or the blinkers fit both parties.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Just as a matter of interest ... has anyone seen the colour of the 6 million for as far as I know the 'developers' have not filed any accounts yet with company house.[/p][/quote]Maybe our wonderful Green administration and the developers share the same financial advisors........ ......that or the blinkers fit both parties. Richada
  • Score: 3

9:25pm Sun 2 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

Richada wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Richada wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
John60 wrote:
God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted.

The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit.

Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time.

It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000.

Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even.

You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree).

If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.
YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here.

We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here.

Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking.

Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush.

The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.
Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!!
Oh I'm SO sorry, I forget, we all live in Utopia now.

Apologies for removing my green tinted spectacles for a few minutes.

HJarrs is a great man, I'm going to email Mr Kitcat to see if we can get him some sort of honour in the Queen's Brithday list.

Oh and to bring this thread back on topic......your last comment had just what to do with the i360 please? How is a risky loan for the i360 going to solve poverty and homelessness in this city?

You also conveniently forget that without the support of Cllr Theobold (surely the most experienced of your hated old party system - going right back to Margaret Thatcher's time!) the i360 loan would have been dead in the water right now.
I will state it clearly ONCE more as you are obviously not keeping up - I am opposed to the i360 (got it now?!).
As for not living in Utopia - your point is basically that the 'old' parties don't always get it right but 'hey ho - lets just take it on the chin and let them get on with it' but if the Greens have a few issues then let's get them out immediately!
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine![/p][/quote]Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.[/p][/quote]YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here. We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here. Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking. Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush. The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.[/p][/quote]Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!![/p][/quote]Oh I'm SO sorry, I forget, we all live in Utopia now. Apologies for removing my green tinted spectacles for a few minutes. HJarrs is a great man, I'm going to email Mr Kitcat to see if we can get him some sort of honour in the Queen's Brithday list. Oh and to bring this thread back on topic......your last comment had just what to do with the i360 please? How is a risky loan for the i360 going to solve poverty and homelessness in this city? You also conveniently forget that without the support of Cllr Theobold (surely the most experienced of your hated old party system - going right back to Margaret Thatcher's time!) the i360 loan would have been dead in the water right now.[/p][/quote]I will state it clearly ONCE more as you are obviously not keeping up - I am opposed to the i360 (got it now?!). As for not living in Utopia - your point is basically that the 'old' parties don't always get it right but 'hey ho - lets just take it on the chin and let them get on with it' but if the Greens have a few issues then let's get them out immediately! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -2

9:37pm Sun 2 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

the red head wrote:
Hjarrs, thanks for replying. However, I disagree that we are just blaming the greens. The spinnaker in Portsmouth is losing money, the pier in Brighton cannot afford to stay open until midnight anymore, the wheel did not prove popular on the seafront... We now have the evidence that this is not a good idea. Sometimes people need to just say times have changed, let's think again with the news information and resources we have to hand. A good leisure centre could pay. If it had outdoor flumes such as center parks and attracted sponsorship for regenerating the now defunct bowling greens alongside, this could become an excellent secondary tourist area, spreading tourist trade on a wider band and easing congestion of all types in the town centre. With the amount of clubs, parties and maybe even a good show hall (as nick cave demonstrated) it could become a hub of the community with several uses. I do not believe that the funding could not be proven far more easily than the i360.

I really don't want to answer the commenter who suggested hyperbole and that I don't understand. I don't go in for slagging people off and simply want a reasonable debate. Yet again, things become reduced to others suggesting that those with an opinion have no right to voice it or are stupid. No matter how much I disagree with hjarrs, i respect that he debates... I don't want to be drawn into idiotic flame wars with those who come on merely to slag anyone off who doesn't agree with green policy.
I don't think I was slagging you off, merely making a not unreasonable observation on your post. I then asked you to explain what the Greens have already done that we would be having to live with 'for decades' as you had suggested - again this was not slagging you off, so, unless you can provide a credible answer it is not unreasonable to say that your suggestion was 'hyperbole'!
THAT is what debate is about after all!
[quote][p][bold]the red head[/bold] wrote: Hjarrs, thanks for replying. However, I disagree that we are just blaming the greens. The spinnaker in Portsmouth is losing money, the pier in Brighton cannot afford to stay open until midnight anymore, the wheel did not prove popular on the seafront... We now have the evidence that this is not a good idea. Sometimes people need to just say times have changed, let's think again with the news information and resources we have to hand. A good leisure centre could pay. If it had outdoor flumes such as center parks and attracted sponsorship for regenerating the now defunct bowling greens alongside, this could become an excellent secondary tourist area, spreading tourist trade on a wider band and easing congestion of all types in the town centre. With the amount of clubs, parties and maybe even a good show hall (as nick cave demonstrated) it could become a hub of the community with several uses. I do not believe that the funding could not be proven far more easily than the i360. I really don't want to answer the commenter who suggested hyperbole and that I don't understand. I don't go in for slagging people off and simply want a reasonable debate. Yet again, things become reduced to others suggesting that those with an opinion have no right to voice it or are stupid. No matter how much I disagree with hjarrs, i respect that he debates... I don't want to be drawn into idiotic flame wars with those who come on merely to slag anyone off who doesn't agree with green policy.[/p][/quote]I don't think I was slagging you off, merely making a not unreasonable observation on your post. I then asked you to explain what the Greens have already done that we would be having to live with 'for decades' as you had suggested - again this was not slagging you off, so, unless you can provide a credible answer it is not unreasonable to say that your suggestion was 'hyperbole'! THAT is what debate is about after all! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 0

9:45pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Richada says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Richada wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Richada wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
John60 wrote:
God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted.

The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit.

Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time.

It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000.

Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even.

You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree).

If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.
YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here.

We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here.

Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking.

Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush.

The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.
Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!!
Oh I'm SO sorry, I forget, we all live in Utopia now.

Apologies for removing my green tinted spectacles for a few minutes.

HJarrs is a great man, I'm going to email Mr Kitcat to see if we can get him some sort of honour in the Queen's Brithday list.

Oh and to bring this thread back on topic......your last comment had just what to do with the i360 please? How is a risky loan for the i360 going to solve poverty and homelessness in this city?

You also conveniently forget that without the support of Cllr Theobold (surely the most experienced of your hated old party system - going right back to Margaret Thatcher's time!) the i360 loan would have been dead in the water right now.
I will state it clearly ONCE more as you are obviously not keeping up - I am opposed to the i360 (got it now?!).
As for not living in Utopia - your point is basically that the 'old' parties don't always get it right but 'hey ho - lets just take it on the chin and let them get on with it' but if the Greens have a few issues then let's get them out immediately!
"A few issues"? I've lived in this city for over 50 years - paid council tax - or the equivalent - for the last 30 and business rates for more years than I can remember too.

In all of those years, never have so many areas of council provided services been so consistently poor. As time goes by it gets worse, not better - the Green council simply look more inept by each passing week.

It really isn't me that is unable to keep up........emptying the bins, collecting the recycling, filling the potholes, repairing the pavements.......

Until we are convinced that the council is capable of at least offering an acceptable service, we're not going to swallow yet more spin, especially when, let's face it, we are the ones paying for it.

As for the i360, smokescreen or white elephant, the publicity that it is attracting is awfully well timed bearing in mind the current wrangling over the council tax increase - which, before being "spun" is hardly throwing a good light on our city or those who run it - of any political persuasion.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine![/p][/quote]Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.[/p][/quote]YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here. We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here. Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking. Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush. The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.[/p][/quote]Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!![/p][/quote]Oh I'm SO sorry, I forget, we all live in Utopia now. Apologies for removing my green tinted spectacles for a few minutes. HJarrs is a great man, I'm going to email Mr Kitcat to see if we can get him some sort of honour in the Queen's Brithday list. Oh and to bring this thread back on topic......your last comment had just what to do with the i360 please? How is a risky loan for the i360 going to solve poverty and homelessness in this city? You also conveniently forget that without the support of Cllr Theobold (surely the most experienced of your hated old party system - going right back to Margaret Thatcher's time!) the i360 loan would have been dead in the water right now.[/p][/quote]I will state it clearly ONCE more as you are obviously not keeping up - I am opposed to the i360 (got it now?!). As for not living in Utopia - your point is basically that the 'old' parties don't always get it right but 'hey ho - lets just take it on the chin and let them get on with it' but if the Greens have a few issues then let's get them out immediately![/p][/quote]"A few issues"? I've lived in this city for over 50 years - paid council tax - or the equivalent - for the last 30 and business rates for more years than I can remember too. In all of those years, never have so many areas of council provided services been so consistently poor. As time goes by it gets worse, not better - the Green council simply look more inept by each passing week. It really isn't me that is unable to keep up........emptying the bins, collecting the recycling, filling the potholes, repairing the pavements....... Until we are convinced that the council is capable of at least offering an acceptable service, we're not going to swallow yet more spin, especially when, let's face it, we are the ones paying for it. As for the i360, smokescreen or white elephant, the publicity that it is attracting is awfully well timed bearing in mind the current wrangling over the council tax increase - which, before being "spun" is hardly throwing a good light on our city or those who run it - of any political persuasion. Richada
  • Score: 6

9:49pm Sun 2 Mar 14

the red head says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
the red head wrote:
Hjarrs, thanks for replying. However, I disagree that we are just blaming the greens. The spinnaker in Portsmouth is losing money, the pier in Brighton cannot afford to stay open until midnight anymore, the wheel did not prove popular on the seafront... We now have the evidence that this is not a good idea. Sometimes people need to just say times have changed, let's think again with the news information and resources we have to hand. A good leisure centre could pay. If it had outdoor flumes such as center parks and attracted sponsorship for regenerating the now defunct bowling greens alongside, this could become an excellent secondary tourist area, spreading tourist trade on a wider band and easing congestion of all types in the town centre. With the amount of clubs, parties and maybe even a good show hall (as nick cave demonstrated) it could become a hub of the community with several uses. I do not believe that the funding could not be proven far more easily than the i360.

I really don't want to answer the commenter who suggested hyperbole and that I don't understand. I don't go in for slagging people off and simply want a reasonable debate. Yet again, things become reduced to others suggesting that those with an opinion have no right to voice it or are stupid. No matter how much I disagree with hjarrs, i respect that he debates... I don't want to be drawn into idiotic flame wars with those who come on merely to slag anyone off who doesn't agree with green policy.
I don't think I was slagging you off, merely making a not unreasonable observation on your post. I then asked you to explain what the Greens have already done that we would be having to live with 'for decades' as you had suggested - again this was not slagging you off, so, unless you can provide a credible answer it is not unreasonable to say that your suggestion was 'hyperbole'!
THAT is what debate is about after all!
The fact is if you lived here, you know what we are having to pay for, for decades. The road systems have proven overly ambitious without the backup of police... The 20mph zones are not adhered to, cyclists are not using the hugely expensive cycle routes, the parking costs are being widely slammed on visitors sites, the removal of the bowling green was, frankly, totally spiteful and non sensical. The widely lauded card system for parking has proven totally unreliable, bus routes are being cut while bus charges are increasing beyond the cost of living because the council has failed to negotiate. The refuse system has been juggled to the point where investment has been withdrawn to the point where Brighton and hove has one of the worst recycling rates in Britain as residents give up. All the street bins, parking meters and signage are being added to instead of replaced. The street lighting replacement program is slow and stripping the classical appeal of our street furniture. None of this is likely to be put back to how it was no matter who comes in now because the money is not there. But somehow the greens (you?) found the money. I see it every day. So do my friends family and business colleagues. For you to have to ask the question, in itself, seems a means to you trying to make a political point rather than a realistic point... For the sake of argument rather than debate. Perhaps now you understand?
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the red head[/bold] wrote: Hjarrs, thanks for replying. However, I disagree that we are just blaming the greens. The spinnaker in Portsmouth is losing money, the pier in Brighton cannot afford to stay open until midnight anymore, the wheel did not prove popular on the seafront... We now have the evidence that this is not a good idea. Sometimes people need to just say times have changed, let's think again with the news information and resources we have to hand. A good leisure centre could pay. If it had outdoor flumes such as center parks and attracted sponsorship for regenerating the now defunct bowling greens alongside, this could become an excellent secondary tourist area, spreading tourist trade on a wider band and easing congestion of all types in the town centre. With the amount of clubs, parties and maybe even a good show hall (as nick cave demonstrated) it could become a hub of the community with several uses. I do not believe that the funding could not be proven far more easily than the i360. I really don't want to answer the commenter who suggested hyperbole and that I don't understand. I don't go in for slagging people off and simply want a reasonable debate. Yet again, things become reduced to others suggesting that those with an opinion have no right to voice it or are stupid. No matter how much I disagree with hjarrs, i respect that he debates... I don't want to be drawn into idiotic flame wars with those who come on merely to slag anyone off who doesn't agree with green policy.[/p][/quote]I don't think I was slagging you off, merely making a not unreasonable observation on your post. I then asked you to explain what the Greens have already done that we would be having to live with 'for decades' as you had suggested - again this was not slagging you off, so, unless you can provide a credible answer it is not unreasonable to say that your suggestion was 'hyperbole'! THAT is what debate is about after all![/p][/quote]The fact is if you lived here, you know what we are having to pay for, for decades. The road systems have proven overly ambitious without the backup of police... The 20mph zones are not adhered to, cyclists are not using the hugely expensive cycle routes, the parking costs are being widely slammed on visitors sites, the removal of the bowling green was, frankly, totally spiteful and non sensical. The widely lauded card system for parking has proven totally unreliable, bus routes are being cut while bus charges are increasing beyond the cost of living because the council has failed to negotiate. The refuse system has been juggled to the point where investment has been withdrawn to the point where Brighton and hove has one of the worst recycling rates in Britain as residents give up. All the street bins, parking meters and signage are being added to instead of replaced. The street lighting replacement program is slow and stripping the classical appeal of our street furniture. None of this is likely to be put back to how it was no matter who comes in now because the money is not there. But somehow the greens (you?) found the money. I see it every day. So do my friends family and business colleagues. For you to have to ask the question, in itself, seems a means to you trying to make a political point rather than a realistic point... For the sake of argument rather than debate. Perhaps now you understand? the red head
  • Score: 7

10:00pm Sun 2 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

Richada wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Richada wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Richada wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
John60 wrote:
God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted.

The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit.

Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time.

It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000.

Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even.

You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree).

If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.
YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here.

We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here.

Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking.

Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush.

The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.
Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!!
Oh I'm SO sorry, I forget, we all live in Utopia now.

Apologies for removing my green tinted spectacles for a few minutes.

HJarrs is a great man, I'm going to email Mr Kitcat to see if we can get him some sort of honour in the Queen's Brithday list.

Oh and to bring this thread back on topic......your last comment had just what to do with the i360 please? How is a risky loan for the i360 going to solve poverty and homelessness in this city?

You also conveniently forget that without the support of Cllr Theobold (surely the most experienced of your hated old party system - going right back to Margaret Thatcher's time!) the i360 loan would have been dead in the water right now.
I will state it clearly ONCE more as you are obviously not keeping up - I am opposed to the i360 (got it now?!).
As for not living in Utopia - your point is basically that the 'old' parties don't always get it right but 'hey ho - lets just take it on the chin and let them get on with it' but if the Greens have a few issues then let's get them out immediately!
"A few issues"? I've lived in this city for over 50 years - paid council tax - or the equivalent - for the last 30 and business rates for more years than I can remember too.

In all of those years, never have so many areas of council provided services been so consistently poor. As time goes by it gets worse, not better - the Green council simply look more inept by each passing week.

It really isn't me that is unable to keep up........emptying the bins, collecting the recycling, filling the potholes, repairing the pavements.......

Until we are convinced that the council is capable of at least offering an acceptable service, we're not going to swallow yet more spin, especially when, let's face it, we are the ones paying for it.

As for the i360, smokescreen or white elephant, the publicity that it is attracting is awfully well timed bearing in mind the current wrangling over the council tax increase - which, before being "spun" is hardly throwing a good light on our city or those who run it - of any political persuasion.
You've listed four items so one by one
1. As stated above 5no refuse trucks have been taken out of service due to financial cuts, 8no further vehicles have had mechanical failures recently and THAT is partially why the service has struggled recently - any administration, whatever its political hue, would have problems in those circumstances. This Green administration is in the process of buying 10 or so new vehicles by the end of this year!
2. Recycling - I am at a loss on this one!!
3.Filling potholes - squeezed finances are playing their part in these not being done and this is across the country not just B&H;
4. Mending pavements - ditto.
And whether you like it or can admit it 1, 3 and 4 are a direct result of the CONTINUING government cuts to local authority funding - it's a helluva lot easier to get things done if there's money to spend!
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine![/p][/quote]Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.[/p][/quote]YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here. We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here. Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking. Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush. The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.[/p][/quote]Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!![/p][/quote]Oh I'm SO sorry, I forget, we all live in Utopia now. Apologies for removing my green tinted spectacles for a few minutes. HJarrs is a great man, I'm going to email Mr Kitcat to see if we can get him some sort of honour in the Queen's Brithday list. Oh and to bring this thread back on topic......your last comment had just what to do with the i360 please? How is a risky loan for the i360 going to solve poverty and homelessness in this city? You also conveniently forget that without the support of Cllr Theobold (surely the most experienced of your hated old party system - going right back to Margaret Thatcher's time!) the i360 loan would have been dead in the water right now.[/p][/quote]I will state it clearly ONCE more as you are obviously not keeping up - I am opposed to the i360 (got it now?!). As for not living in Utopia - your point is basically that the 'old' parties don't always get it right but 'hey ho - lets just take it on the chin and let them get on with it' but if the Greens have a few issues then let's get them out immediately![/p][/quote]"A few issues"? I've lived in this city for over 50 years - paid council tax - or the equivalent - for the last 30 and business rates for more years than I can remember too. In all of those years, never have so many areas of council provided services been so consistently poor. As time goes by it gets worse, not better - the Green council simply look more inept by each passing week. It really isn't me that is unable to keep up........emptying the bins, collecting the recycling, filling the potholes, repairing the pavements....... Until we are convinced that the council is capable of at least offering an acceptable service, we're not going to swallow yet more spin, especially when, let's face it, we are the ones paying for it. As for the i360, smokescreen or white elephant, the publicity that it is attracting is awfully well timed bearing in mind the current wrangling over the council tax increase - which, before being "spun" is hardly throwing a good light on our city or those who run it - of any political persuasion.[/p][/quote]You've listed four items so one by one 1. As stated above 5no refuse trucks have been taken out of service due to financial cuts, 8no further vehicles have had mechanical failures recently and THAT is partially why the service has struggled recently - any administration, whatever its political hue, would have problems in those circumstances. This Green administration is in the process of buying 10 or so new vehicles by the end of this year! 2. Recycling - I am at a loss on this one!! 3.Filling potholes - squeezed finances are playing their part in these not being done and this is across the country not just B&H; 4. Mending pavements - ditto. And whether you like it or can admit it 1, 3 and 4 are a direct result of the CONTINUING government cuts to local authority funding - it's a helluva lot easier to get things done if there's money to spend! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -3

10:08pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Those voting to use public money to finance this should shoulder some personal financial risk.
I suggest Theobald and the rest should put their homes on the line to demonstrate their support.
I would personally rather see the roads repaired, the graffiti removed, the arches repaired, a new top end sports centre where we can start tackling obesity and get kids into sport rather than more weak entertainment which involves shoving an ice cream down the kids throats and sticking them up a tower.
If you take a look at the comments about the Brighton wheel on Tripadvisor, they focus on the trip being poor value for the view from the trip.
You may also want to check out the disappointing numbers attending the shard in London.
I actually think it's really boring and way behind people's expectation of entrainment in the 21st century.
Give people a top end leisure centre with a water park or ice rink, not a boring tower looking at graffiti and junkies and the sea.
The wheel is nice to look at but it's always spinning empty and gives the seafront a lost and lonely feel.
Those voting to use public money to finance this should shoulder some personal financial risk. I suggest Theobald and the rest should put their homes on the line to demonstrate their support. I would personally rather see the roads repaired, the graffiti removed, the arches repaired, a new top end sports centre where we can start tackling obesity and get kids into sport rather than more weak entertainment which involves shoving an ice cream down the kids throats and sticking them up a tower. If you take a look at the comments about the Brighton wheel on Tripadvisor, they focus on the trip being poor value for the view from the trip. You may also want to check out the disappointing numbers attending the shard in London. I actually think it's really boring and way behind people's expectation of entrainment in the 21st century. Give people a top end leisure centre with a water park or ice rink, not a boring tower looking at graffiti and junkies and the sea. The wheel is nice to look at but it's always spinning empty and gives the seafront a lost and lonely feel. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 10

10:24pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Richada says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Richada wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Richada wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Richada wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
John60 wrote:
God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted.

The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit.

Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time.

It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000.

Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even.

You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree).

If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.
YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here.

We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here.

Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking.

Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush.

The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.
Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!!
Oh I'm SO sorry, I forget, we all live in Utopia now.

Apologies for removing my green tinted spectacles for a few minutes.

HJarrs is a great man, I'm going to email Mr Kitcat to see if we can get him some sort of honour in the Queen's Brithday list.

Oh and to bring this thread back on topic......your last comment had just what to do with the i360 please? How is a risky loan for the i360 going to solve poverty and homelessness in this city?

You also conveniently forget that without the support of Cllr Theobold (surely the most experienced of your hated old party system - going right back to Margaret Thatcher's time!) the i360 loan would have been dead in the water right now.
I will state it clearly ONCE more as you are obviously not keeping up - I am opposed to the i360 (got it now?!).
As for not living in Utopia - your point is basically that the 'old' parties don't always get it right but 'hey ho - lets just take it on the chin and let them get on with it' but if the Greens have a few issues then let's get them out immediately!
"A few issues"? I've lived in this city for over 50 years - paid council tax - or the equivalent - for the last 30 and business rates for more years than I can remember too.

In all of those years, never have so many areas of council provided services been so consistently poor. As time goes by it gets worse, not better - the Green council simply look more inept by each passing week.

It really isn't me that is unable to keep up........emptying the bins, collecting the recycling, filling the potholes, repairing the pavements.......

Until we are convinced that the council is capable of at least offering an acceptable service, we're not going to swallow yet more spin, especially when, let's face it, we are the ones paying for it.

As for the i360, smokescreen or white elephant, the publicity that it is attracting is awfully well timed bearing in mind the current wrangling over the council tax increase - which, before being "spun" is hardly throwing a good light on our city or those who run it - of any political persuasion.
You've listed four items so one by one
1. As stated above 5no refuse trucks have been taken out of service due to financial cuts, 8no further vehicles have had mechanical failures recently and THAT is partially why the service has struggled recently - any administration, whatever its political hue, would have problems in those circumstances. This Green administration is in the process of buying 10 or so new vehicles by the end of this year!
2. Recycling - I am at a loss on this one!!
3.Filling potholes - squeezed finances are playing their part in these not being done and this is across the country not just B&H;
4. Mending pavements - ditto.
And whether you like it or can admit it 1, 3 and 4 are a direct result of the CONTINUING government cuts to local authority funding - it's a helluva lot easier to get things done if there's money to spend!
OK, you've beatren me into submission - none of that has anything to do with the i360 loan or the developer putting £6M of their own money (which incidentally they don't appear to have) into the project i.e the subject of this thread.

The Green council, as usual, are totally blameless for the state the city now finds itself, they bear no responsibility for that or indeed the i360, which, ultimately is a government funded method of wasting huge sums of our money.

Sweet dreams of Utopia.........
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine![/p][/quote]Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.[/p][/quote]YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here. We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here. Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking. Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush. The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.[/p][/quote]Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!![/p][/quote]Oh I'm SO sorry, I forget, we all live in Utopia now. Apologies for removing my green tinted spectacles for a few minutes. HJarrs is a great man, I'm going to email Mr Kitcat to see if we can get him some sort of honour in the Queen's Brithday list. Oh and to bring this thread back on topic......your last comment had just what to do with the i360 please? How is a risky loan for the i360 going to solve poverty and homelessness in this city? You also conveniently forget that without the support of Cllr Theobold (surely the most experienced of your hated old party system - going right back to Margaret Thatcher's time!) the i360 loan would have been dead in the water right now.[/p][/quote]I will state it clearly ONCE more as you are obviously not keeping up - I am opposed to the i360 (got it now?!). As for not living in Utopia - your point is basically that the 'old' parties don't always get it right but 'hey ho - lets just take it on the chin and let them get on with it' but if the Greens have a few issues then let's get them out immediately![/p][/quote]"A few issues"? I've lived in this city for over 50 years - paid council tax - or the equivalent - for the last 30 and business rates for more years than I can remember too. In all of those years, never have so many areas of council provided services been so consistently poor. As time goes by it gets worse, not better - the Green council simply look more inept by each passing week. It really isn't me that is unable to keep up........emptying the bins, collecting the recycling, filling the potholes, repairing the pavements....... Until we are convinced that the council is capable of at least offering an acceptable service, we're not going to swallow yet more spin, especially when, let's face it, we are the ones paying for it. As for the i360, smokescreen or white elephant, the publicity that it is attracting is awfully well timed bearing in mind the current wrangling over the council tax increase - which, before being "spun" is hardly throwing a good light on our city or those who run it - of any political persuasion.[/p][/quote]You've listed four items so one by one 1. As stated above 5no refuse trucks have been taken out of service due to financial cuts, 8no further vehicles have had mechanical failures recently and THAT is partially why the service has struggled recently - any administration, whatever its political hue, would have problems in those circumstances. This Green administration is in the process of buying 10 or so new vehicles by the end of this year! 2. Recycling - I am at a loss on this one!! 3.Filling potholes - squeezed finances are playing their part in these not being done and this is across the country not just B&H; 4. Mending pavements - ditto. And whether you like it or can admit it 1, 3 and 4 are a direct result of the CONTINUING government cuts to local authority funding - it's a helluva lot easier to get things done if there's money to spend![/p][/quote]OK, you've beatren me into submission - none of that has anything to do with the i360 loan or the developer putting £6M of their own money (which incidentally they don't appear to have) into the project i.e the subject of this thread. The Green council, as usual, are totally blameless for the state the city now finds itself, they bear no responsibility for that or indeed the i360, which, ultimately is a government funded method of wasting huge sums of our money. Sweet dreams of Utopia......... Richada
  • Score: 5

11:26pm Sun 2 Mar 14

PorkyChopper says...

Rhyl's got a tower as well. Looks familiar?

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-wales-north
-east-wales-13012757
Rhyl's got a tower as well. Looks familiar? http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-wales-north -east-wales-13012757 PorkyChopper
  • Score: 5

11:46pm Sun 2 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

PorkyChopper wrote:Poor thing isn't doing very well is it ... £400,000 repairs needed due to weather damage and no, that is not just due to the recent storms apparently ...
[quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote:Poor thing isn't doing very well is it ... £400,000 repairs needed due to weather damage and no, that is not just due to the recent storms apparently ... mimseycal
  • Score: 3

8:24am Mon 3 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

the red head wrote:
Hjarrs, thanks for replying. However, I disagree that we are just blaming the greens. The spinnaker in Portsmouth is losing money, the pier in Brighton cannot afford to stay open until midnight anymore, the wheel did not prove popular on the seafront... We now have the evidence that this is not a good idea. Sometimes people need to just say times have changed, let's think again with the news information and resources we have to hand. A good leisure centre could pay. If it had outdoor flumes such as center parks and attracted sponsorship for regenerating the now defunct bowling greens alongside, this could become an excellent secondary tourist area, spreading tourist trade on a wider band and easing congestion of all types in the town centre. With the amount of clubs, parties and maybe even a good show hall (as nick cave demonstrated) it could become a hub of the community with several uses. I do not believe that the funding could not be proven far more easily than the i360.

I really don't want to answer the commenter who suggested hyperbole and that I don't understand. I don't go in for slagging people off and simply want a reasonable debate. Yet again, things become reduced to others suggesting that those with an opinion have no right to voice it or are stupid. No matter how much I disagree with hjarrs, i respect that he debates... I don't want to be drawn into idiotic flame wars with those who come on merely to slag anyone off who doesn't agree with green policy.
I think you make a fair point about a leisure centre. I am very much in favour, who wouldn't be (hmmm, I could name some commentors!). However, I don't share your optimism about finances. I think it would need millions for the capital costs. We can't get a council tax rise even to protect basic services, so it is unlikely the council will have the money as government cuts bite deeper.

Unless external grant funding becomes available, I think we will be waiting for a residential redevelopment of the King Alfred site for a new leisure centre. As property prices are going through the roof, we may not be waiting much longer.
[quote][p][bold]the red head[/bold] wrote: Hjarrs, thanks for replying. However, I disagree that we are just blaming the greens. The spinnaker in Portsmouth is losing money, the pier in Brighton cannot afford to stay open until midnight anymore, the wheel did not prove popular on the seafront... We now have the evidence that this is not a good idea. Sometimes people need to just say times have changed, let's think again with the news information and resources we have to hand. A good leisure centre could pay. If it had outdoor flumes such as center parks and attracted sponsorship for regenerating the now defunct bowling greens alongside, this could become an excellent secondary tourist area, spreading tourist trade on a wider band and easing congestion of all types in the town centre. With the amount of clubs, parties and maybe even a good show hall (as nick cave demonstrated) it could become a hub of the community with several uses. I do not believe that the funding could not be proven far more easily than the i360. I really don't want to answer the commenter who suggested hyperbole and that I don't understand. I don't go in for slagging people off and simply want a reasonable debate. Yet again, things become reduced to others suggesting that those with an opinion have no right to voice it or are stupid. No matter how much I disagree with hjarrs, i respect that he debates... I don't want to be drawn into idiotic flame wars with those who come on merely to slag anyone off who doesn't agree with green policy.[/p][/quote]I think you make a fair point about a leisure centre. I am very much in favour, who wouldn't be (hmmm, I could name some commentors!). However, I don't share your optimism about finances. I think it would need millions for the capital costs. We can't get a council tax rise even to protect basic services, so it is unlikely the council will have the money as government cuts bite deeper. Unless external grant funding becomes available, I think we will be waiting for a residential redevelopment of the King Alfred site for a new leisure centre. As property prices are going through the roof, we may not be waiting much longer. HJarrs
  • Score: -3

9:06am Mon 3 Mar 14

ThinkBrighton says...

Lady Smith wrote:
This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd.
"The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd" a company that could go broke at the shake of a hat and leave Marks Barfield without an interest in the debt, I believe. This would leave BCC responsible for the £36 million loan.
[quote][p][bold]Lady Smith[/bold] wrote: This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd.[/p][/quote]"The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd" a company that could go broke at the shake of a hat and leave Marks Barfield without an interest in the debt, I believe. This would leave BCC responsible for the £36 million loan. ThinkBrighton
  • Score: 3

9:16am Mon 3 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

ThinkBrighton wrote:
Lady Smith wrote:
This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd.
"The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd" a company that could go broke at the shake of a hat and leave Marks Barfield without an interest in the debt, I believe. This would leave BCC responsible for the £36 million loan.
Further, Brighton I360 Ltd., the developers, is set up and headed by the same people that head up Marks Barfield, the architects. So in effect, what we have here is a mirror and its reflection.

The first is headed by the husband and wife team, the second is headed by the wife and husband team ;-)
[quote][p][bold]ThinkBrighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lady Smith[/bold] wrote: This is factually incorrect: Marks Barfield are NOT the developers, they are the architects. The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd.[/p][/quote]"The developers are Brighton i360 Ltd" a company that could go broke at the shake of a hat and leave Marks Barfield without an interest in the debt, I believe. This would leave BCC responsible for the £36 million loan.[/p][/quote]Further, Brighton I360 Ltd., the developers, is set up and headed by the same people that head up Marks Barfield, the architects. So in effect, what we have here is a mirror and its reflection. The first is headed by the husband and wife team, the second is headed by the wife and husband team ;-) mimseycal
  • Score: 3

9:28am Mon 3 Mar 14

Richada says...

HJarrs wrote:
the red head wrote:
Hjarrs, thanks for replying. However, I disagree that we are just blaming the greens. The spinnaker in Portsmouth is losing money, the pier in Brighton cannot afford to stay open until midnight anymore, the wheel did not prove popular on the seafront... We now have the evidence that this is not a good idea. Sometimes people need to just say times have changed, let's think again with the news information and resources we have to hand. A good leisure centre could pay. If it had outdoor flumes such as center parks and attracted sponsorship for regenerating the now defunct bowling greens alongside, this could become an excellent secondary tourist area, spreading tourist trade on a wider band and easing congestion of all types in the town centre. With the amount of clubs, parties and maybe even a good show hall (as nick cave demonstrated) it could become a hub of the community with several uses. I do not believe that the funding could not be proven far more easily than the i360.

I really don't want to answer the commenter who suggested hyperbole and that I don't understand. I don't go in for slagging people off and simply want a reasonable debate. Yet again, things become reduced to others suggesting that those with an opinion have no right to voice it or are stupid. No matter how much I disagree with hjarrs, i respect that he debates... I don't want to be drawn into idiotic flame wars with those who come on merely to slag anyone off who doesn't agree with green policy.
I think you make a fair point about a leisure centre. I am very much in favour, who wouldn't be (hmmm, I could name some commentors!). However, I don't share your optimism about finances. I think it would need millions for the capital costs. We can't get a council tax rise even to protect basic services, so it is unlikely the council will have the money as government cuts bite deeper.

Unless external grant funding becomes available, I think we will be waiting for a residential redevelopment of the King Alfred site for a new leisure centre. As property prices are going through the roof, we may not be waiting much longer.
I wonder where it is written in stone that such a government loan is ONLY available to fund the highly risky i360?

Why should not such a loan be spent on a much broader appeal facility - such as a leisure centre - which would be of far more benefit to all?

If the council tax payers of B&H are to take such a huge financial risk,. then it might just as well be on a development that we ourselves can obtain use from week in week out - the i360 is hardly that is it?

One more question HJ, how come this £6M investment on the part of the developers has only just NOW come to light "according to official council papers"?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the red head[/bold] wrote: Hjarrs, thanks for replying. However, I disagree that we are just blaming the greens. The spinnaker in Portsmouth is losing money, the pier in Brighton cannot afford to stay open until midnight anymore, the wheel did not prove popular on the seafront... We now have the evidence that this is not a good idea. Sometimes people need to just say times have changed, let's think again with the news information and resources we have to hand. A good leisure centre could pay. If it had outdoor flumes such as center parks and attracted sponsorship for regenerating the now defunct bowling greens alongside, this could become an excellent secondary tourist area, spreading tourist trade on a wider band and easing congestion of all types in the town centre. With the amount of clubs, parties and maybe even a good show hall (as nick cave demonstrated) it could become a hub of the community with several uses. I do not believe that the funding could not be proven far more easily than the i360. I really don't want to answer the commenter who suggested hyperbole and that I don't understand. I don't go in for slagging people off and simply want a reasonable debate. Yet again, things become reduced to others suggesting that those with an opinion have no right to voice it or are stupid. No matter how much I disagree with hjarrs, i respect that he debates... I don't want to be drawn into idiotic flame wars with those who come on merely to slag anyone off who doesn't agree with green policy.[/p][/quote]I think you make a fair point about a leisure centre. I am very much in favour, who wouldn't be (hmmm, I could name some commentors!). However, I don't share your optimism about finances. I think it would need millions for the capital costs. We can't get a council tax rise even to protect basic services, so it is unlikely the council will have the money as government cuts bite deeper. Unless external grant funding becomes available, I think we will be waiting for a residential redevelopment of the King Alfred site for a new leisure centre. As property prices are going through the roof, we may not be waiting much longer.[/p][/quote]I wonder where it is written in stone that such a government loan is ONLY available to fund the highly risky i360? Why should not such a loan be spent on a much broader appeal facility - such as a leisure centre - which would be of far more benefit to all? If the council tax payers of B&H are to take such a huge financial risk,. then it might just as well be on a development that we ourselves can obtain use from week in week out - the i360 is hardly that is it? One more question HJ, how come this £6M investment on the part of the developers has only just NOW come to light "according to official council papers"? Richada
  • Score: 3

9:36am Mon 3 Mar 14

Richada says...

PorkyChopper wrote:
Rhyl's got a tower as well. Looks familiar?

http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/uk-wales-north

-east-wales-13012757
Many thanks for that!

It's 10 years old, it looks, and apparently IS kn@ckered and it was obviously a far less ambitious scheme than the i360.

There were several prophetic 'warnings' prior to the Titanic sinking - this looks very much a similar warning about the i360 to me.

Oh, and to save others looking it up - the admission charge was £2 a ride!
[quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote: Rhyl's got a tower as well. Looks familiar? http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-wales-north -east-wales-13012757[/p][/quote]Many thanks for that! It's 10 years old, it looks, and apparently IS kn@ckered and it was obviously a far less ambitious scheme than the i360. There were several prophetic 'warnings' prior to the Titanic sinking - this looks very much a similar warning about the i360 to me. Oh, and to save others looking it up - the admission charge was £2 a ride! Richada
  • Score: 5

2:53pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Don't know if it is relevant to council calculations for profitability, but the planning application stated capacity of 100 in the i360 pod which somehow got inflated to 200 in a Policy & Resources Agenda a year or so ago.

It is 100.
Don't know if it is relevant to council calculations for profitability, but the planning application stated capacity of 100 in the i360 pod which somehow got inflated to 200 in a Policy & Resources Agenda a year or so ago. It is 100. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 7

3:12pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Monkeymoo1 says...

HJarrs wrote:
Ania Green wrote:
Good post by HJarrs.

People here seem to be very against any kind of momentum and progress for the city. The i360 is a definite step forward for Brighton and will really put us on the map and increase our standing in the country.

It's just a shame that so many people here are so blinkered that they seem unable to see this.
Oh dear. Here goes the troll again. Stick to Green_Girl 1990.
Or Kitcat and co
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: Good post by HJarrs. People here seem to be very against any kind of momentum and progress for the city. The i360 is a definite step forward for Brighton and will really put us on the map and increase our standing in the country. It's just a shame that so many people here are so blinkered that they seem unable to see this.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Here goes the troll again. Stick to Green_Girl 1990.[/p][/quote]Or Kitcat and co Monkeymoo1
  • Score: 0

5:51pm Mon 3 Mar 14

fredflintstone1 says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Richada wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Richada wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Richada wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
John60 wrote:
God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine!
Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted.

The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit.

Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time.

It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000.

Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even.

You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree).

If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.
YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here.

We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here.

Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking.

Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush.

The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.
Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!!
Oh I'm SO sorry, I forget, we all live in Utopia now.

Apologies for removing my green tinted spectacles for a few minutes.

HJarrs is a great man, I'm going to email Mr Kitcat to see if we can get him some sort of honour in the Queen's Brithday list.

Oh and to bring this thread back on topic......your last comment had just what to do with the i360 please? How is a risky loan for the i360 going to solve poverty and homelessness in this city?

You also conveniently forget that without the support of Cllr Theobold (surely the most experienced of your hated old party system - going right back to Margaret Thatcher's time!) the i360 loan would have been dead in the water right now.
I will state it clearly ONCE more as you are obviously not keeping up - I am opposed to the i360 (got it now?!).
As for not living in Utopia - your point is basically that the 'old' parties don't always get it right but 'hey ho - lets just take it on the chin and let them get on with it' but if the Greens have a few issues then let's get them out immediately!
"A few issues"? I've lived in this city for over 50 years - paid council tax - or the equivalent - for the last 30 and business rates for more years than I can remember too.

In all of those years, never have so many areas of council provided services been so consistently poor. As time goes by it gets worse, not better - the Green council simply look more inept by each passing week.

It really isn't me that is unable to keep up........emptying the bins, collecting the recycling, filling the potholes, repairing the pavements.......

Until we are convinced that the council is capable of at least offering an acceptable service, we're not going to swallow yet more spin, especially when, let's face it, we are the ones paying for it.

As for the i360, smokescreen or white elephant, the publicity that it is attracting is awfully well timed bearing in mind the current wrangling over the council tax increase - which, before being "spun" is hardly throwing a good light on our city or those who run it - of any political persuasion.
You've listed four items so one by one
1. As stated above 5no refuse trucks have been taken out of service due to financial cuts, 8no further vehicles have had mechanical failures recently and THAT is partially why the service has struggled recently - any administration, whatever its political hue, would have problems in those circumstances. This Green administration is in the process of buying 10 or so new vehicles by the end of this year!
2. Recycling - I am at a loss on this one!!
3.Filling potholes - squeezed finances are playing their part in these not being done and this is across the country not just B&H;
4. Mending pavements - ditto.
And whether you like it or can admit it 1, 3 and 4 are a direct result of the CONTINUING government cuts to local authority funding - it's a helluva lot easier to get things done if there's money to spend!
It's about time that you stopped blaming cuts, and starting admitting the Green's priorities are completely skewed. You'd rather pay for sheep than fill pot-holes, spend huge amounts on communications when you can't keep dustcarts on the road, waste what - £250,000? - on a biosphere bid etc. etc. .
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: God, this city likes a moan and always seems to be critical of progress, Just get on with it, I'm sure that the Blackpool tower was met with the same kind of negativity when it was being planned. Brighton needs to stop living in the Regency and Hippie days and embrace progress. What other options are there for the West Pier site if this doesn't go ahead? NothingI would imagine![/p][/quote]Yep, that is why many of the Argus posters are called the moanerati. Its all they do! Nothing positive ever posted. The same people would no doubt happily support the vast amount of money being spent on the Arches and promonade along Madera Drive (£10 million next year? I may be wrong on the exact figures, but the Argus quoted £100 million over coming decades) . Gill Mitchell, Labour's former leader was even quoted as saying the council should put this project ahead of other important schemes. Now, I think restoring the arches is worthwhile, yet nobody has suggested that it turn a profit. The refurbished arches will improve the seafront a little, perhaps encourage a few extra visitors, but they will always be a money pit. Lets turn to the i360. It is controversial in the tradition of much of our great city. A game changer, just like the piers, arches, Volk's daddy long legs and volk's railway and the marina, the construction of our whole seafront. From the response of many, it is clearly marmite, much as the other developments must have been in their time. It is a shame that the article above is not the complete story as published in the paper copy of the Argus. I agree that getting 800000 visitors is difficult to envisage, mind you B&H apparently gets 10 million visitors a year! It also seems that in order to repay the loan, the i360 will actually require 480000. Would I expect the i360 to get more visitors than the Sea Life Centre? Yes. More than the Pavillions? Of course. Well, they get 250000+ and 340000+ visitors per year respectively. So, I am confident that the attraction will at least break even. You also have to factor in that Brighton will be on the end of a revolutionised Thameslink rail route stretching all the way to Cambridge by 2018, which will make train travel much easier for day trippers and the Rampion wind farm development may also be being built at this time and people will want to go up a tower and see it (ok, some of you moaners may disagree). If we want even to maintain our visitor numbers we need to continually invest in new attractions. The financial straight jacket that local government finds itself means that only self-funding attractions are viable and for B&H that is the i360.[/p][/quote]YOU call us the moanerati, and many of us are actually proud to be termed thus as you offer us pleanty to moan about - both personally, and, in the wider sense through your Green administration and its totally failed experiment here. We do not enjoy seeing money hard earned by ourselves and our businesses being so badly mismanaged and squandered and exercise a right to free speech about it here. Ironically, many of us would be far more inclined to support the i360, even as a publically funded venture if, and only if, the administration ran this city well. As it is we just KNOW that this is a risk not worth taking. Having seen what we have over the last three years or so, we don't believe what you or your party have to say on ANY subject, in joining you over the i360, the Tories are now tarred with the same brush. The fact that you believe we moan about everything is just sheer paranoia.[/p][/quote]Perhaps its just me but I find it strange that you moan about the failed Green 'experiment' but under successive Labour and Tory administrations we have a housing waiting list extending to 12,000 or so families,soaring homelessness, increased child poverty, the Madeira Terraces crumbling, the area around the West Pier now requiring regeneration along with many other problems such as excessive traffic, pollution etc etc all in times of relative economic success yet you want a return to these old parties that have obviously been oh so successful especially as these established parties have f***** up the national economy - very clever!![/p][/quote]Oh I'm SO sorry, I forget, we all live in Utopia now. Apologies for removing my green tinted spectacles for a few minutes. HJarrs is a great man, I'm going to email Mr Kitcat to see if we can get him some sort of honour in the Queen's Brithday list. Oh and to bring this thread back on topic......your last comment had just what to do with the i360 please? How is a risky loan for the i360 going to solve poverty and homelessness in this city? You also conveniently forget that without the support of Cllr Theobold (surely the most experienced of your hated old party system - going right back to Margaret Thatcher's time!) the i360 loan would have been dead in the water right now.[/p][/quote]I will state it clearly ONCE more as you are obviously not keeping up - I am opposed to the i360 (got it now?!). As for not living in Utopia - your point is basically that the 'old' parties don't always get it right but 'hey ho - lets just take it on the chin and let them get on with it' but if the Greens have a few issues then let's get them out immediately![/p][/quote]"A few issues"? I've lived in this city for over 50 years - paid council tax - or the equivalent - for the last 30 and business rates for more years than I can remember too. In all of those years, never have so many areas of council provided services been so consistently poor. As time goes by it gets worse, not better - the Green council simply look more inept by each passing week. It really isn't me that is unable to keep up........emptying the bins, collecting the recycling, filling the potholes, repairing the pavements....... Until we are convinced that the council is capable of at least offering an acceptable service, we're not going to swallow yet more spin, especially when, let's face it, we are the ones paying for it. As for the i360, smokescreen or white elephant, the publicity that it is attracting is awfully well timed bearing in mind the current wrangling over the council tax increase - which, before being "spun" is hardly throwing a good light on our city or those who run it - of any political persuasion.[/p][/quote]You've listed four items so one by one 1. As stated above 5no refuse trucks have been taken out of service due to financial cuts, 8no further vehicles have had mechanical failures recently and THAT is partially why the service has struggled recently - any administration, whatever its political hue, would have problems in those circumstances. This Green administration is in the process of buying 10 or so new vehicles by the end of this year! 2. Recycling - I am at a loss on this one!! 3.Filling potholes - squeezed finances are playing their part in these not being done and this is across the country not just B&H; 4. Mending pavements - ditto. And whether you like it or can admit it 1, 3 and 4 are a direct result of the CONTINUING government cuts to local authority funding - it's a helluva lot easier to get things done if there's money to spend![/p][/quote]It's about time that you stopped blaming cuts, and starting admitting the Green's priorities are completely skewed. You'd rather pay for sheep than fill pot-holes, spend huge amounts on communications when you can't keep dustcarts on the road, waste what - £250,000? - on a biosphere bid etc. etc. . fredflintstone1
  • Score: 4

7:42pm Mon 3 Mar 14

rayellerton says...

I have a strong suspicion that developers, bankers, councillors and officers who are so for this project may have something else in common... Freemasonry
I have a strong suspicion that developers, bankers, councillors and officers who are so for this project may have something else in common... Freemasonry rayellerton
  • Score: 3

9:32pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Hovite says...

rayellerton wrote:
I have a strong suspicion that developers, bankers, councillors and officers who are so for this project may have something else in common... Freemasonry
Sadly I have to agree with you. They try and give the illusion of being in touch with the common residents, but in reality they look down on them until they need a vote.

I know of one very hard working councillor who himself is frustrated by the way our council works. But the most truthful word of the day is: Freemasonry
[quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: I have a strong suspicion that developers, bankers, councillors and officers who are so for this project may have something else in common... Freemasonry[/p][/quote]Sadly I have to agree with you. They try and give the illusion of being in touch with the common residents, but in reality they look down on them until they need a vote. I know of one very hard working councillor who himself is frustrated by the way our council works. But the most truthful word of the day is: Freemasonry Hovite
  • Score: 3

10:46am Tue 4 Mar 14

Fairfax Aches says...

anyone else here there's a shortage of brown envelopes at the Brighton council post office?
anyone else here there's a shortage of brown envelopes at the Brighton council post office? Fairfax Aches
  • Score: 2

3:52pm Tue 4 Mar 14

pumpkineater23 says...

As this is clearly such a risky project it seems essential that there is some kind of legal document that would make the council fully responsible. It would be a comfort to know that *they* are fully insured if the i360 becomes a failure, and that they have a plan in case it has to be dismantled.
As this is clearly such a risky project it seems essential that there is some kind of legal document that would make the council fully responsible. It would be a comfort to know that *they* are fully insured if the i360 becomes a failure, and that they have a plan in case it has to be dismantled. pumpkineater23
  • Score: 1

4:27pm Tue 4 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

pumpkineater23 wrote:
As this is clearly such a risky project it seems essential that there is some kind of legal document that would make the council fully responsible. It would be a comfort to know that *they* are fully insured if the i360 becomes a failure, and that they have a plan in case it has to be dismantled.
The Council is ... They are our representatives and work for us ... allegedly. Which means we are responsible.
[quote][p][bold]pumpkineater23[/bold] wrote: As this is clearly such a risky project it seems essential that there is some kind of legal document that would make the council fully responsible. It would be a comfort to know that *they* are fully insured if the i360 becomes a failure, and that they have a plan in case it has to be dismantled.[/p][/quote]The Council is ... They are our representatives and work for us ... allegedly. Which means we are responsible. mimseycal
  • Score: -1

7:41pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Idontbelieveit1948 says...

A Watcher wrote:
Man of steel wrote:
The other news given out is that the price of a "ride" has risen to £15 per adult, half for a child, for 20 minutes in the thing, that's loading, going up and down, and getting out, all in 20 minutes.
Take a bus ride up onto the downs instead, far cheaper, even on a Brighton bus, there would be better views, and you can stay as long as you wanted.
So £45 for a 20 minute ride that is basically an overblown lift, for a family of 4. Hmmm.... can't see how it can possibly fail.
Yes , but it's still not much more than parking on the seafront !!!!
[quote][p][bold]A Watcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Man of steel[/bold] wrote: The other news given out is that the price of a "ride" has risen to £15 per adult, half for a child, for 20 minutes in the thing, that's loading, going up and down, and getting out, all in 20 minutes. Take a bus ride up onto the downs instead, far cheaper, even on a Brighton bus, there would be better views, and you can stay as long as you wanted.[/p][/quote]So £45 for a 20 minute ride that is basically an overblown lift, for a family of 4. Hmmm.... can't see how it can possibly fail.[/p][/quote]Yes , but it's still not much more than parking on the seafront !!!! Idontbelieveit1948
  • Score: 0

7:53pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Richada says...

Idontbelieveit1948 wrote:
A Watcher wrote:
Man of steel wrote:
The other news given out is that the price of a "ride" has risen to £15 per adult, half for a child, for 20 minutes in the thing, that's loading, going up and down, and getting out, all in 20 minutes.
Take a bus ride up onto the downs instead, far cheaper, even on a Brighton bus, there would be better views, and you can stay as long as you wanted.
So £45 for a 20 minute ride that is basically an overblown lift, for a family of 4. Hmmm.... can't see how it can possibly fail.
Yes , but it's still not much more than parking on the seafront !!!!
OK, so double the cost of a visit then, that makes it half as attractive as it already appeared to be.......

.......beyond the development finances this looks all the less viable by the day.
[quote][p][bold]Idontbelieveit1948[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Watcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Man of steel[/bold] wrote: The other news given out is that the price of a "ride" has risen to £15 per adult, half for a child, for 20 minutes in the thing, that's loading, going up and down, and getting out, all in 20 minutes. Take a bus ride up onto the downs instead, far cheaper, even on a Brighton bus, there would be better views, and you can stay as long as you wanted.[/p][/quote]So £45 for a 20 minute ride that is basically an overblown lift, for a family of 4. Hmmm.... can't see how it can possibly fail.[/p][/quote]Yes , but it's still not much more than parking on the seafront !!!![/p][/quote]OK, so double the cost of a visit then, that makes it half as attractive as it already appeared to be....... .......beyond the development finances this looks all the less viable by the day. Richada
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree