The ArgusTalking Point: Would £36m be money well spent on the i360? (From The Argus)

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

Talking Point: Would £36m be money well spent on the i360?

The Argus: Talking Point: Would £36m be money well spent on the i360? Talking Point: Would £36m be money well spent on the i360?

Yesterday The Argus revealed the i360 tower is set to receive the financial backing it needs to get off the ground.

The news came as Brighton and Hove Conservative councillors confirmed they would join the Greens in supporting the ambitious project.

As well as a £36 million loan from the council, which will be funded with central government money, the developers have also secured a £3 million loan from Coast to Capital, the area’s Government-funded local enterprise partnership

What do you think? Will the investment be money well spent? Or is the project pie in the sky?

Read the full story here and have your say by commenting below.

 

Comments (96)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:50am Thu 27 Feb 14

randomthoughts says...

This project will be a financial disaster. As far as I am aware it will never produce sufficient revenue to make money and repay the loan. If it was to be built why not buy an eye design which has already been built at a third of the cost. Reinventing the wheel ( pardon the pun ) on such a grossly overpriced project that won't make money is ludicrous. It should be cancelled immediately, the seafront tidied up ( it's a complete mess in this area ) and fresh thinking looking at other projects re investment to attract visitors needed.
This project will be a financial disaster. As far as I am aware it will never produce sufficient revenue to make money and repay the loan. If it was to be built why not buy an eye design which has already been built at a third of the cost. Reinventing the wheel ( pardon the pun ) on such a grossly overpriced project that won't make money is ludicrous. It should be cancelled immediately, the seafront tidied up ( it's a complete mess in this area ) and fresh thinking looking at other projects re investment to attract visitors needed. randomthoughts
  • Score: 39

8:29am Thu 27 Feb 14

KempyLocals says...

What a daft idea - no banks interested after 10 years of asking! Are the Council just in awe of some guy that did a wheel 15 years ago? Gobsmacked that Councillors can be so blind to see what's going on here. Who would have gone on it in recent 80mph winds? Surely they will see sense before they vote won't they? Can The Argus tell us which Councillors these are so we know who to blame please?
What a daft idea - no banks interested after 10 years of asking! Are the Council just in awe of some guy that did a wheel 15 years ago? Gobsmacked that Councillors can be so blind to see what's going on here. Who would have gone on it in recent 80mph winds? Surely they will see sense before they vote won't they? Can The Argus tell us which Councillors these are so we know who to blame please? KempyLocals
  • Score: 27

8:32am Thu 27 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help.

It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area.

Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever.

Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.
Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help. It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area. Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever. Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need. Eugenius
  • Score: -36

8:50am Thu 27 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Eugenius wrote:
Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help.

It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area.

Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever.

Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.
I note you don't mention that when the developer goes bust the loan becomes repayable by us the taxpayer. Would you be kind enough to tell us which budgets will be cut to cover the loan costs ? If proper planning has taken place you will have plans for success and failure of the project ( although proper contingency planning appears to be beyond the council currently ).

You openly admitted that the council haven't even looked at the accounts of the Brighton Wheel ( despite them being downloadable from Companies House ). Well, it's taken them THREE years to make £130k and it didn't cost them £36m to build.

The figures just don't add up !!!!!! If it's such a great scheme maybe those councillors voting for it might like to put their homes up as security ? If a success then they get a bonus - if a failure then they lose their homes.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help. It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area. Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever. Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.[/p][/quote]I note you don't mention that when the developer goes bust the loan becomes repayable by us the taxpayer. Would you be kind enough to tell us which budgets will be cut to cover the loan costs ? If proper planning has taken place you will have plans for success and failure of the project ( although proper contingency planning appears to be beyond the council currently ). You openly admitted that the council haven't even looked at the accounts of the Brighton Wheel ( despite them being downloadable from Companies House ). Well, it's taken them THREE years to make £130k and it didn't cost them £36m to build. The figures just don't add up !!!!!! If it's such a great scheme maybe those councillors voting for it might like to put their homes up as security ? If a success then they get a bonus - if a failure then they lose their homes. Fight_Back
  • Score: 29

9:02am Thu 27 Feb 14

PetertheGrate says...

Eugenius wrote:
Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help.

It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area.

Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever.

Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.
Cloud cuckoo land: The problem is that there is little to see from the top. Half the view is sea and the other half is grass with the small city of Brighton in the foreground. It will attract visitors the first year aand then gradually fade away.
This money could be better spent.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help. It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area. Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever. Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.[/p][/quote]Cloud cuckoo land: The problem is that there is little to see from the top. Half the view is sea and the other half is grass with the small city of Brighton in the foreground. It will attract visitors the first year aand then gradually fade away. This money could be better spent. PetertheGrate
  • Score: 20

9:18am Thu 27 Feb 14

s_james says...

PetertheGrate wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help.

It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area.

Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever.

Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.
Cloud cuckoo land: The problem is that there is little to see from the top. Half the view is sea and the other half is grass with the small city of Brighton in the foreground. It will attract visitors the first year aand then gradually fade away.
This money could be better spent.
Could say the same about Blackpool Tower, half the view there is sea and the other half a grotty town – did that make money in the first year then fade away? No. A century later it still pulls in way more visitors than the i360 needs to make money.
[quote][p][bold]PetertheGrate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help. It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area. Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever. Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.[/p][/quote]Cloud cuckoo land: The problem is that there is little to see from the top. Half the view is sea and the other half is grass with the small city of Brighton in the foreground. It will attract visitors the first year aand then gradually fade away. This money could be better spent.[/p][/quote]Could say the same about Blackpool Tower, half the view there is sea and the other half a grotty town – did that make money in the first year then fade away? No. A century later it still pulls in way more visitors than the i360 needs to make money. s_james
  • Score: -17

9:19am Thu 27 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

PetertheGrate wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help.

It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area.

Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever.

Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.
Cloud cuckoo land: The problem is that there is little to see from the top. Half the view is sea and the other half is grass with the small city of Brighton in the foreground. It will attract visitors the first year aand then gradually fade away.
This money could be better spent.
Yes, the revenue projections take into account a drop in visitor numbers after year one. "818k in the opening year stabilising at between 700k and 725k visitors a year five years after opening". The visitor projections were calculated by AECOM Economics, who have a very good track record, having correctly forecast numbers for the London Eye, Universal Studios and the Getty Centre among others. It's Appendix 5 in this 2012 committee report tinyurl.com/npjwxw9

I understand the Local Economic Partnership carried out their own independent assessment and came back with very similar figures.
[quote][p][bold]PetertheGrate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help. It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area. Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever. Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.[/p][/quote]Cloud cuckoo land: The problem is that there is little to see from the top. Half the view is sea and the other half is grass with the small city of Brighton in the foreground. It will attract visitors the first year aand then gradually fade away. This money could be better spent.[/p][/quote]Yes, the revenue projections take into account a drop in visitor numbers after year one. "818k in the opening year stabilising at between 700k and 725k visitors a year five years after opening". The visitor projections were calculated by AECOM Economics, who have a very good track record, having correctly forecast numbers for the London Eye, Universal Studios and the Getty Centre among others. It's Appendix 5 in this 2012 committee report tinyurl.com/npjwxw9 I understand the Local Economic Partnership carried out their own independent assessment and came back with very similar figures. Eugenius
  • Score: -13

9:19am Thu 27 Feb 14

maria m says...

Its a waste of good money that could be put to other uses.
What do people hope to see from the top, just sea and roof tops,it is not like the Solent with lots of ships and yachts, it will be very boring.
Its a waste of good money that could be put to other uses. What do people hope to see from the top, just sea and roof tops,it is not like the Solent with lots of ships and yachts, it will be very boring. maria m
  • Score: 21

9:23am Thu 27 Feb 14

wexler53 says...

Councillors and council staff couldn't run a boozy party in the proverbial brewery.

Private investors dealing with their own money can't see any benefit and won't invest.

Ah, but no matter, it's only taxpayers money so these idiots feel no sense of responsibility and are not accountable.

How does that lead to sound financial planning and sensible decisions?

The i360 was and should remain a dead duck. There must be better ways to spend this hard earned money, if only our servants understood their roles correctly. Fat chance....
Councillors and council staff couldn't run a boozy party in the proverbial brewery. Private investors dealing with their own money can't see any benefit and won't invest. Ah, but no matter, it's only taxpayers money so these idiots feel no sense of responsibility and are not accountable. How does that lead to sound financial planning and sensible decisions? The i360 was and should remain a dead duck. There must be better ways to spend this hard earned money, if only our servants understood their roles correctly. Fat chance.... wexler53
  • Score: 14

9:32am Thu 27 Feb 14

scoobysnax says...

Money well spent on who?

Who cares? Brighton is built on Bribes, Kickbacks and Backhanders.

The dodgy councillors have made millions on this, do you honestly think they give a stuff if this money is well spent on you?

Bring on the forensic accountants. Marks and Barfield are actually bankrupt, their accounts show £1.8 million in the red, why don't you ask them where the money goes?
Money well spent on who? Who cares? Brighton is built on Bribes, Kickbacks and Backhanders. The dodgy councillors have made millions on this, do you honestly think they give a stuff if this money is well spent on you? Bring on the forensic accountants. Marks and Barfield are actually bankrupt, their accounts show £1.8 million in the red, why don't you ask them where the money goes? scoobysnax
  • Score: 19

9:34am Thu 27 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Eugenius wrote:
PetertheGrate wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help.

It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area.

Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever.

Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.
Cloud cuckoo land: The problem is that there is little to see from the top. Half the view is sea and the other half is grass with the small city of Brighton in the foreground. It will attract visitors the first year aand then gradually fade away.
This money could be better spent.
Yes, the revenue projections take into account a drop in visitor numbers after year one. "818k in the opening year stabilising at between 700k and 725k visitors a year five years after opening". The visitor projections were calculated by AECOM Economics, who have a very good track record, having correctly forecast numbers for the London Eye, Universal Studios and the Getty Centre among others. It's Appendix 5 in this 2012 committee report tinyurl.com/npjwxw9

I understand the Local Economic Partnership carried out their own independent assessment and came back with very similar figures.
And for the sake of balance, does that appendix also show predictions by AECOM Economics that were incorrect ? Or does the council only deal in the possibility of success and not plan for failure ?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PetertheGrate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help. It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area. Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever. Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.[/p][/quote]Cloud cuckoo land: The problem is that there is little to see from the top. Half the view is sea and the other half is grass with the small city of Brighton in the foreground. It will attract visitors the first year aand then gradually fade away. This money could be better spent.[/p][/quote]Yes, the revenue projections take into account a drop in visitor numbers after year one. "818k in the opening year stabilising at between 700k and 725k visitors a year five years after opening". The visitor projections were calculated by AECOM Economics, who have a very good track record, having correctly forecast numbers for the London Eye, Universal Studios and the Getty Centre among others. It's Appendix 5 in this 2012 committee report tinyurl.com/npjwxw9 I understand the Local Economic Partnership carried out their own independent assessment and came back with very similar figures.[/p][/quote]And for the sake of balance, does that appendix also show predictions by AECOM Economics that were incorrect ? Or does the council only deal in the possibility of success and not plan for failure ? Fight_Back
  • Score: 9

9:35am Thu 27 Feb 14

cynic_the says...

Eugenius wrote:
PetertheGrate wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help.

It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area.

Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever.

Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.
Cloud cuckoo land: The problem is that there is little to see from the top. Half the view is sea and the other half is grass with the small city of Brighton in the foreground. It will attract visitors the first year aand then gradually fade away.
This money could be better spent.
Yes, the revenue projections take into account a drop in visitor numbers after year one. "818k in the opening year stabilising at between 700k and 725k visitors a year five years after opening". The visitor projections were calculated by AECOM Economics, who have a very good track record, having correctly forecast numbers for the London Eye, Universal Studios and the Getty Centre among others. It's Appendix 5 in this 2012 committee report tinyurl.com/npjwxw9

I understand the Local Economic Partnership carried out their own independent assessment and came back with very similar figures.
The i360 Brighton website also claims "Brighton is just 49 minutes from the capital by train".

I get the Brighton-Victoria train 8 times a week. Whilst it's theoretically possible to get a very fast train (on a weekend with no engineering works and no delays perhaps) it actually takes a quoted 62 - 73 minutes depending on the service, and in reality, you can expect a delay of 5-10 minutes. On a good day.

Irrelevant?

What happens when we find all the other quoted figures (800k visitors per year, 160 jobs etc etc) are 'absolute best case scenario' as well?

As Fight_Back suggested above - would you bet your house on it?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PetertheGrate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help. It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area. Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever. Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.[/p][/quote]Cloud cuckoo land: The problem is that there is little to see from the top. Half the view is sea and the other half is grass with the small city of Brighton in the foreground. It will attract visitors the first year aand then gradually fade away. This money could be better spent.[/p][/quote]Yes, the revenue projections take into account a drop in visitor numbers after year one. "818k in the opening year stabilising at between 700k and 725k visitors a year five years after opening". The visitor projections were calculated by AECOM Economics, who have a very good track record, having correctly forecast numbers for the London Eye, Universal Studios and the Getty Centre among others. It's Appendix 5 in this 2012 committee report tinyurl.com/npjwxw9 I understand the Local Economic Partnership carried out their own independent assessment and came back with very similar figures.[/p][/quote]The i360 Brighton website also claims "Brighton is just 49 minutes from the capital by train". I get the Brighton-Victoria train 8 times a week. Whilst it's theoretically possible to get a very fast train (on a weekend with no engineering works and no delays perhaps) it actually takes a quoted 62 - 73 minutes depending on the service, and in reality, you can expect a delay of 5-10 minutes. On a good day. Irrelevant? What happens when we find all the other quoted figures (800k visitors per year, 160 jobs etc etc) are 'absolute best case scenario' as well? As Fight_Back suggested above - would you bet your house on it? cynic_the
  • Score: 16

9:41am Thu 27 Feb 14

RottingdeanRant says...

No it won’t be well spent. Otherwise, private investment could have been found. Furthermore, I am confused by the statements that either the £36m loan is not a risk to the council tax payers, but at the same time the council will make a profit from the load! I would be very surprised if there is a no risk investment that pays interest.
No it won’t be well spent. Otherwise, private investment could have been found. Furthermore, I am confused by the statements that either the £36m loan is not a risk to the council tax payers, but at the same time the council will make a profit from the load! I would be very surprised if there is a no risk investment that pays interest. RottingdeanRant
  • Score: 13

9:43am Thu 27 Feb 14

Morpheus says...

I am very disappointed in the Brighton Tories. When are they going to defect to the Green Party? The sooner the better and then we can have some real Conservatives standing for office.
I am very disappointed in the Brighton Tories. When are they going to defect to the Green Party? The sooner the better and then we can have some real Conservatives standing for office. Morpheus
  • Score: 8

9:45am Thu 27 Feb 14

cynic_the says...

scoobysnax wrote:
Money well spent on who?

Who cares? Brighton is built on Bribes, Kickbacks and Backhanders.

The dodgy councillors have made millions on this, do you honestly think they give a stuff if this money is well spent on you?

Bring on the forensic accountants. Marks and Barfield are actually bankrupt, their accounts show £1.8 million in the red, why don't you ask them where the money goes?
The above is probably the best comment here.

Whilst we all bicker about numbers and the design itself, whether or not it will be successful and who picks up the bill, the reality is that this project is just a clever way of making a huge amount of public money disappear.
[quote][p][bold]scoobysnax[/bold] wrote: Money well spent on who? Who cares? Brighton is built on Bribes, Kickbacks and Backhanders. The dodgy councillors have made millions on this, do you honestly think they give a stuff if this money is well spent on you? Bring on the forensic accountants. Marks and Barfield are actually bankrupt, their accounts show £1.8 million in the red, why don't you ask them where the money goes?[/p][/quote]The above is probably the best comment here. Whilst we all bicker about numbers and the design itself, whether or not it will be successful and who picks up the bill, the reality is that this project is just a clever way of making a huge amount of public money disappear. cynic_the
  • Score: 15

9:56am Thu 27 Feb 14

Terry K says...

I predict the thing will be a novelty that will turn sour once it keeps breaking down, the repair costs will be horrendous and it will be sold to a coompany like KFC as a novelty resturant. lack of interest, high running costs will mean total closure within 6 years i reckon.
I predict the thing will be a novelty that will turn sour once it keeps breaking down, the repair costs will be horrendous and it will be sold to a coompany like KFC as a novelty resturant. lack of interest, high running costs will mean total closure within 6 years i reckon. Terry K
  • Score: 8

10:06am Thu 27 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

RottingdeanRant wrote:
No it won’t be well spent. Otherwise, private investment could have been found. Furthermore, I am confused by the statements that either the £36m loan is not a risk to the council tax payers, but at the same time the council will make a profit from the load! I would be very surprised if there is a no risk investment that pays interest.
It hinges on the fact that councils can borrow money for capital investment at a low rate from the national government Public Works Loan Board. At the same time, if the council wants to lend money it is required to do so at commercial rates.

Figures quoted by Cllr Cox are that the loan from PWLB (that the council would be borrowing from) will be fixed at 4% while the loan to the i360 company is fixed at 7.8% so the council accrues interest on that 3.8% differential. There is also a share of ticket sales and an administration fee - in total the council will gain £1.1m per year for the 25 years of the term.

The council stands to gain more than a private investor because of this profit but also because of the incentive from regeneration of that area of the seafront and Preston Street and the boost to business rates from greater tourism.
[quote][p][bold]RottingdeanRant[/bold] wrote: No it won’t be well spent. Otherwise, private investment could have been found. Furthermore, I am confused by the statements that either the £36m loan is not a risk to the council tax payers, but at the same time the council will make a profit from the load! I would be very surprised if there is a no risk investment that pays interest.[/p][/quote]It hinges on the fact that councils can borrow money for capital investment at a low rate from the national government Public Works Loan Board. At the same time, if the council wants to lend money it is required to do so at commercial rates. Figures quoted by Cllr Cox are that the loan from PWLB (that the council would be borrowing from) will be fixed at 4% while the loan to the i360 company is fixed at 7.8% so the council accrues interest on that 3.8% differential. There is also a share of ticket sales and an administration fee - in total the council will gain £1.1m per year for the 25 years of the term. The council stands to gain more than a private investor because of this profit but also because of the incentive from regeneration of that area of the seafront and Preston Street and the boost to business rates from greater tourism. Eugenius
  • Score: -6

10:09am Thu 27 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Eugenius wrote:
RottingdeanRant wrote:
No it won’t be well spent. Otherwise, private investment could have been found. Furthermore, I am confused by the statements that either the £36m loan is not a risk to the council tax payers, but at the same time the council will make a profit from the load! I would be very surprised if there is a no risk investment that pays interest.
It hinges on the fact that councils can borrow money for capital investment at a low rate from the national government Public Works Loan Board. At the same time, if the council wants to lend money it is required to do so at commercial rates.

Figures quoted by Cllr Cox are that the loan from PWLB (that the council would be borrowing from) will be fixed at 4% while the loan to the i360 company is fixed at 7.8% so the council accrues interest on that 3.8% differential. There is also a share of ticket sales and an administration fee - in total the council will gain £1.1m per year for the 25 years of the term.

The council stands to gain more than a private investor because of this profit but also because of the incentive from regeneration of that area of the seafront and Preston Street and the boost to business rates from greater tourism.
And once again you assume success. The council will only gain if the project is a success. If it fails then the taxpayer picks up the bill - all £36m + 4% a year of it.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RottingdeanRant[/bold] wrote: No it won’t be well spent. Otherwise, private investment could have been found. Furthermore, I am confused by the statements that either the £36m loan is not a risk to the council tax payers, but at the same time the council will make a profit from the load! I would be very surprised if there is a no risk investment that pays interest.[/p][/quote]It hinges on the fact that councils can borrow money for capital investment at a low rate from the national government Public Works Loan Board. At the same time, if the council wants to lend money it is required to do so at commercial rates. Figures quoted by Cllr Cox are that the loan from PWLB (that the council would be borrowing from) will be fixed at 4% while the loan to the i360 company is fixed at 7.8% so the council accrues interest on that 3.8% differential. There is also a share of ticket sales and an administration fee - in total the council will gain £1.1m per year for the 25 years of the term. The council stands to gain more than a private investor because of this profit but also because of the incentive from regeneration of that area of the seafront and Preston Street and the boost to business rates from greater tourism.[/p][/quote]And once again you assume success. The council will only gain if the project is a success. If it fails then the taxpayer picks up the bill - all £36m + 4% a year of it. Fight_Back
  • Score: 10

10:15am Thu 27 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Terry K wrote:
I predict the thing will be a novelty that will turn sour once it keeps breaking down, the repair costs will be horrendous and it will be sold to a coompany like KFC as a novelty resturant. lack of interest, high running costs will mean total closure within 6 years i reckon.
It's essentially cable car technology so pretty tried and tested. And the fact that Marks Barfield were also the lead architects for the successful London Eye should give confidence.
[quote][p][bold]Terry K[/bold] wrote: I predict the thing will be a novelty that will turn sour once it keeps breaking down, the repair costs will be horrendous and it will be sold to a coompany like KFC as a novelty resturant. lack of interest, high running costs will mean total closure within 6 years i reckon.[/p][/quote]It's essentially cable car technology so pretty tried and tested. And the fact that Marks Barfield were also the lead architects for the successful London Eye should give confidence. Eugenius
  • Score: -8

10:17am Thu 27 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
RottingdeanRant wrote:
No it won’t be well spent. Otherwise, private investment could have been found. Furthermore, I am confused by the statements that either the £36m loan is not a risk to the council tax payers, but at the same time the council will make a profit from the load! I would be very surprised if there is a no risk investment that pays interest.
It hinges on the fact that councils can borrow money for capital investment at a low rate from the national government Public Works Loan Board. At the same time, if the council wants to lend money it is required to do so at commercial rates.

Figures quoted by Cllr Cox are that the loan from PWLB (that the council would be borrowing from) will be fixed at 4% while the loan to the i360 company is fixed at 7.8% so the council accrues interest on that 3.8% differential. There is also a share of ticket sales and an administration fee - in total the council will gain £1.1m per year for the 25 years of the term.

The council stands to gain more than a private investor because of this profit but also because of the incentive from regeneration of that area of the seafront and Preston Street and the boost to business rates from greater tourism.
And once again you assume success. The council will only gain if the project is a success. If it fails then the taxpayer picks up the bill - all £36m + 4% a year of it.
It will be a success if the visitor numbers are half those predicted by AECOM. That's why council officers are recommending it as a low risk, high profit investment.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RottingdeanRant[/bold] wrote: No it won’t be well spent. Otherwise, private investment could have been found. Furthermore, I am confused by the statements that either the £36m loan is not a risk to the council tax payers, but at the same time the council will make a profit from the load! I would be very surprised if there is a no risk investment that pays interest.[/p][/quote]It hinges on the fact that councils can borrow money for capital investment at a low rate from the national government Public Works Loan Board. At the same time, if the council wants to lend money it is required to do so at commercial rates. Figures quoted by Cllr Cox are that the loan from PWLB (that the council would be borrowing from) will be fixed at 4% while the loan to the i360 company is fixed at 7.8% so the council accrues interest on that 3.8% differential. There is also a share of ticket sales and an administration fee - in total the council will gain £1.1m per year for the 25 years of the term. The council stands to gain more than a private investor because of this profit but also because of the incentive from regeneration of that area of the seafront and Preston Street and the boost to business rates from greater tourism.[/p][/quote]And once again you assume success. The council will only gain if the project is a success. If it fails then the taxpayer picks up the bill - all £36m + 4% a year of it.[/p][/quote]It will be a success if the visitor numbers are half those predicted by AECOM. That's why council officers are recommending it as a low risk, high profit investment. Eugenius
  • Score: -8

10:19am Thu 27 Feb 14

clubrob6 says...

Well I have been out and about all over winter the seafront is deserted from tourists,even the pier closes early.It simply would NOT be financially viable and when it fails the tax payer will have to bail it out and run it.I myself would like to see the volks railway extended to the marina and hove lagoon and the west pier area could be a station with cafes restaurants,pubs,sho
ps etc.It could open all year round with all weather carriages and would boost the marina shopping area.The i360 would be here for a short period of time decades not hundreds of years.Our money should be spent on something viable,the high parking charges have made it unviable for business to open on the seafront area out of season and even in season when the weather is bad.
Well I have been out and about all over winter the seafront is deserted from tourists,even the pier closes early.It simply would NOT be financially viable and when it fails the tax payer will have to bail it out and run it.I myself would like to see the volks railway extended to the marina and hove lagoon and the west pier area could be a station with cafes restaurants,pubs,sho ps etc.It could open all year round with all weather carriages and would boost the marina shopping area.The i360 would be here for a short period of time decades not hundreds of years.Our money should be spent on something viable,the high parking charges have made it unviable for business to open on the seafront area out of season and even in season when the weather is bad. clubrob6
  • Score: 19

10:29am Thu 27 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

clubrob6 wrote:
Well I have been out and about all over winter the seafront is deserted from tourists,even the pier closes early.It simply would NOT be financially viable and when it fails the tax payer will have to bail it out and run it.I myself would like to see the volks railway extended to the marina and hove lagoon and the west pier area could be a station with cafes restaurants,pubs,sho

ps etc.It could open all year round with all weather carriages and would boost the marina shopping area.The i360 would be here for a short period of time decades not hundreds of years.Our money should be spent on something viable,the high parking charges have made it unviable for business to open on the seafront area out of season and even in season when the weather is bad.
I predict we will see more investment in the seafront following the construction of the i360. Including a new conference centre, an arena at Black Rock and leisure centre at King Alfred. Agree with you that the i360 is not likely to still be around in hundreds of years' time but I believe it will help kick start regeneration and give business confidence a boost to get other major projects off the ground.
[quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: Well I have been out and about all over winter the seafront is deserted from tourists,even the pier closes early.It simply would NOT be financially viable and when it fails the tax payer will have to bail it out and run it.I myself would like to see the volks railway extended to the marina and hove lagoon and the west pier area could be a station with cafes restaurants,pubs,sho ps etc.It could open all year round with all weather carriages and would boost the marina shopping area.The i360 would be here for a short period of time decades not hundreds of years.Our money should be spent on something viable,the high parking charges have made it unviable for business to open on the seafront area out of season and even in season when the weather is bad.[/p][/quote]I predict we will see more investment in the seafront following the construction of the i360. Including a new conference centre, an arena at Black Rock and leisure centre at King Alfred. Agree with you that the i360 is not likely to still be around in hundreds of years' time but I believe it will help kick start regeneration and give business confidence a boost to get other major projects off the ground. Eugenius
  • Score: -12

10:40am Thu 27 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

It will be a success if my dear Eugenius? That is a maybe by anyones' reckoning. What is sure though is that it will be the ratepayers that will be left to pick up the tab if these developers, who have been hauling this scheme around for the past 6 or more years, fail.
It will be a success if my dear Eugenius? That is a maybe by anyones' reckoning. What is sure though is that it will be the ratepayers that will be left to pick up the tab if these developers, who have been hauling this scheme around for the past 6 or more years, fail. mimseycal
  • Score: 6

10:44am Thu 27 Feb 14

Can this be says...

I cannot see the attraction of the i360, but above all else I cannot see how the visitor numbers stack up. Have I misunderstood?

My very rough and admittedly not well researched rounded numbers would be:-
1) 800,000 visitors per year
2) that is 2,200 every day of the year - sunny days, cloudy days, wet days, misty days, windy days etc
3) if it operates from 10 am to 6 pm on average through the year that is 275 people each and every hour
4) if it takes 30 minutes for each load, up, down, and unload that is 140 per trip - how many can board?

Is that realistic? On this assessment it makes no sense at all, so what have I got wrong?
I cannot see the attraction of the i360, but above all else I cannot see how the visitor numbers stack up. Have I misunderstood? My very rough and admittedly not well researched rounded numbers would be:- 1) 800,000 visitors per year 2) that is 2,200 every day of the year - sunny days, cloudy days, wet days, misty days, windy days etc 3) if it operates from 10 am to 6 pm on average through the year that is 275 people each and every hour 4) if it takes 30 minutes for each load, up, down, and unload that is 140 per trip - how many can board? Is that realistic? On this assessment it makes no sense at all, so what have I got wrong? Can this be
  • Score: 15

10:51am Thu 27 Feb 14

scoobysnax says...

Eugenius wrote:
clubrob6 wrote:
Well I have been out and about all over winter the seafront is deserted from tourists,even the pier closes early.It simply would NOT be financially viable and when it fails the tax payer will have to bail it out and run it.I myself would like to see the volks railway extended to the marina and hove lagoon and the west pier area could be a station with cafes restaurants,pubs,sho


ps etc.It could open all year round with all weather carriages and would boost the marina shopping area.The i360 would be here for a short period of time decades not hundreds of years.Our money should be spent on something viable,the high parking charges have made it unviable for business to open on the seafront area out of season and even in season when the weather is bad.
I predict we will see more investment in the seafront following the construction of the i360. Including a new conference centre, an arena at Black Rock and leisure centre at King Alfred. Agree with you that the i360 is not likely to still be around in hundreds of years' time but I believe it will help kick start regeneration and give business confidence a boost to get other major projects off the ground.
I live next to this crap and I predict there will be thousands more kids screaming in the early hours of the morning beating each other up high on legal highs at 3am every morning and not a police officer to be found anywhere. Homeless people living permanently in the shop fronts of Preston Street and 3 more hostels in Regency Square who couldn't afford £20 quid to get that high on an iSore but would rather spend it on their next legal.

Help kick start regeneration, are you on legal highs or something.
Oh I forgot QE3 and money falls off trees.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: Well I have been out and about all over winter the seafront is deserted from tourists,even the pier closes early.It simply would NOT be financially viable and when it fails the tax payer will have to bail it out and run it.I myself would like to see the volks railway extended to the marina and hove lagoon and the west pier area could be a station with cafes restaurants,pubs,sho ps etc.It could open all year round with all weather carriages and would boost the marina shopping area.The i360 would be here for a short period of time decades not hundreds of years.Our money should be spent on something viable,the high parking charges have made it unviable for business to open on the seafront area out of season and even in season when the weather is bad.[/p][/quote]I predict we will see more investment in the seafront following the construction of the i360. Including a new conference centre, an arena at Black Rock and leisure centre at King Alfred. Agree with you that the i360 is not likely to still be around in hundreds of years' time but I believe it will help kick start regeneration and give business confidence a boost to get other major projects off the ground.[/p][/quote]I live next to this crap and I predict there will be thousands more kids screaming in the early hours of the morning beating each other up high on legal highs at 3am every morning and not a police officer to be found anywhere. Homeless people living permanently in the shop fronts of Preston Street and 3 more hostels in Regency Square who couldn't afford £20 quid to get that high on an iSore but would rather spend it on their next legal. Help kick start regeneration, are you on legal highs or something. Oh I forgot QE3 and money falls off trees. scoobysnax
  • Score: 7

10:54am Thu 27 Feb 14

scoobysnax says...

Homeless people living permanently in the shop fronts of Preston Street and 3 more hostels in Regency Square who couldn't afford £20 quid to get that high on an iSore but would rather spend it on their next legal high!!

That's life on the streets at the moment in front of this crap.
Is the iSore some bloody magic wand that will make it all go away???
Homeless people living permanently in the shop fronts of Preston Street and 3 more hostels in Regency Square who couldn't afford £20 quid to get that high on an iSore but would rather spend it on their next legal high!! That's life on the streets at the moment in front of this crap. Is the iSore some bloody magic wand that will make it all go away??? scoobysnax
  • Score: 9

10:57am Thu 27 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Can this be wrote:
I cannot see the attraction of the i360, but above all else I cannot see how the visitor numbers stack up. Have I misunderstood?

My very rough and admittedly not well researched rounded numbers would be:-
1) 800,000 visitors per year
2) that is 2,200 every day of the year - sunny days, cloudy days, wet days, misty days, windy days etc
3) if it operates from 10 am to 6 pm on average through the year that is 275 people each and every hour
4) if it takes 30 minutes for each load, up, down, and unload that is 140 per trip - how many can board?

Is that realistic? On this assessment it makes no sense at all, so what have I got wrong?
Peak hours of operation in Summer are 12 hours a day
20 minute ride time during the day, 30 minutes at night
200 capacity in the pod
Maximum annual capacity is 1,890,000 visitors
Projection is for 42% of capacity
[quote][p][bold]Can this be[/bold] wrote: I cannot see the attraction of the i360, but above all else I cannot see how the visitor numbers stack up. Have I misunderstood? My very rough and admittedly not well researched rounded numbers would be:- 1) 800,000 visitors per year 2) that is 2,200 every day of the year - sunny days, cloudy days, wet days, misty days, windy days etc 3) if it operates from 10 am to 6 pm on average through the year that is 275 people each and every hour 4) if it takes 30 minutes for each load, up, down, and unload that is 140 per trip - how many can board? Is that realistic? On this assessment it makes no sense at all, so what have I got wrong?[/p][/quote]Peak hours of operation in Summer are 12 hours a day 20 minute ride time during the day, 30 minutes at night 200 capacity in the pod Maximum annual capacity is 1,890,000 visitors Projection is for 42% of capacity Eugenius
  • Score: -7

11:11am Thu 27 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

As a life long Tory I am massively disappointed by the decision of the Conservative party to support any loan for the i360 where there is no commercial interest in financing the tower. I would feel happier if councillors voting for the scheme took personal responsibility for the loan, i.e. losing everything if it fails just like running a real business. Instead, councillors can take a punt using public money with absolutely no fear of any personal consequences. In the event that the visitor numbers fail to materialise in sufficient numbers, there is no chance of Marks Barfield paying back the loan. This means it will fall to the good old B&H taxpayer to cover the debt.

This scheme may prove popular at the start. Once it gets onto Trip Advisor and other websites that there's very little to see, watch out.....
As a life long Tory I am massively disappointed by the decision of the Conservative party to support any loan for the i360 where there is no commercial interest in financing the tower. I would feel happier if councillors voting for the scheme took personal responsibility for the loan, i.e. losing everything if it fails just like running a real business. Instead, councillors can take a punt using public money with absolutely no fear of any personal consequences. In the event that the visitor numbers fail to materialise in sufficient numbers, there is no chance of Marks Barfield paying back the loan. This means it will fall to the good old B&H taxpayer to cover the debt. This scheme may prove popular at the start. Once it gets onto Trip Advisor and other websites that there's very little to see, watch out..... Plantpot
  • Score: 16

11:14am Thu 27 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

Eugenius wrote:
Can this be wrote:
I cannot see the attraction of the i360, but above all else I cannot see how the visitor numbers stack up. Have I misunderstood?

My very rough and admittedly not well researched rounded numbers would be:-
1) 800,000 visitors per year
2) that is 2,200 every day of the year - sunny days, cloudy days, wet days, misty days, windy days etc
3) if it operates from 10 am to 6 pm on average through the year that is 275 people each and every hour
4) if it takes 30 minutes for each load, up, down, and unload that is 140 per trip - how many can board?

Is that realistic? On this assessment it makes no sense at all, so what have I got wrong?
Peak hours of operation in Summer are 12 hours a day
20 minute ride time during the day, 30 minutes at night
200 capacity in the pod
Maximum annual capacity is 1,890,000 visitors
Projection is for 42% of capacity
Projection is projection. It isn't a concrete fact. Ifs butter no bread but a loan undersigned will be due for repayment ...
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Can this be[/bold] wrote: I cannot see the attraction of the i360, but above all else I cannot see how the visitor numbers stack up. Have I misunderstood? My very rough and admittedly not well researched rounded numbers would be:- 1) 800,000 visitors per year 2) that is 2,200 every day of the year - sunny days, cloudy days, wet days, misty days, windy days etc 3) if it operates from 10 am to 6 pm on average through the year that is 275 people each and every hour 4) if it takes 30 minutes for each load, up, down, and unload that is 140 per trip - how many can board? Is that realistic? On this assessment it makes no sense at all, so what have I got wrong?[/p][/quote]Peak hours of operation in Summer are 12 hours a day 20 minute ride time during the day, 30 minutes at night 200 capacity in the pod Maximum annual capacity is 1,890,000 visitors Projection is for 42% of capacity[/p][/quote]Projection is projection. It isn't a concrete fact. Ifs butter no bread but a loan undersigned will be due for repayment ... mimseycal
  • Score: 5

11:30am Thu 27 Feb 14

KempyLocals says...

Eugenius wrote:
PetertheGrate wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help.

It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area.

Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever.

Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.
Cloud cuckoo land: The problem is that there is little to see from the top. Half the view is sea and the other half is grass with the small city of Brighton in the foreground. It will attract visitors the first year aand then gradually fade away.
This money could be better spent.
Yes, the revenue projections take into account a drop in visitor numbers after year one. "818k in the opening year stabilising at between 700k and 725k visitors a year five years after opening". The visitor projections were calculated by AECOM Economics, who have a very good track record, having correctly forecast numbers for the London Eye, Universal Studios and the Getty Centre among others. It's Appendix 5 in this 2012 committee report tinyurl.com/npjwxw9

I understand the Local Economic Partnership carried out their own independent assessment and came back with very similar figures.
Funny - because the report on the planning application 'estimates up to 550.000 in the first year' i360 projections then and now appear to have gone up - I guess punch in the right figures you get the right answer
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PetertheGrate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help. It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area. Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever. Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.[/p][/quote]Cloud cuckoo land: The problem is that there is little to see from the top. Half the view is sea and the other half is grass with the small city of Brighton in the foreground. It will attract visitors the first year aand then gradually fade away. This money could be better spent.[/p][/quote]Yes, the revenue projections take into account a drop in visitor numbers after year one. "818k in the opening year stabilising at between 700k and 725k visitors a year five years after opening". The visitor projections were calculated by AECOM Economics, who have a very good track record, having correctly forecast numbers for the London Eye, Universal Studios and the Getty Centre among others. It's Appendix 5 in this 2012 committee report tinyurl.com/npjwxw9 I understand the Local Economic Partnership carried out their own independent assessment and came back with very similar figures.[/p][/quote]Funny - because the report on the planning application 'estimates up to 550.000 in the first year' i360 projections then and now appear to have gone up - I guess punch in the right figures you get the right answer KempyLocals
  • Score: 2

11:38am Thu 27 Feb 14

KempyLocals says...

Eugenious you take your name from the West Pier Engineer - shame i360 will prevent us ever seeing a new pier eh? Also the figures don't add up. It will never be as successful as the guesswork suggests. Great to see so many Councillors backing betting - shame it's our money. Guess you can take risks is the stake is not your own. These projections are no better than bookies odds! Trouble is they are created by the owner of the horse!!!!
Eugenious you take your name from the West Pier Engineer - shame i360 will prevent us ever seeing a new pier eh? Also the figures don't add up. It will never be as successful as the guesswork suggests. Great to see so many Councillors backing betting - shame it's our money. Guess you can take risks is the stake is not your own. These projections are no better than bookies odds! Trouble is they are created by the owner of the horse!!!! KempyLocals
  • Score: 11

11:55am Thu 27 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

KempyLocals wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
PetertheGrate wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help.

It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area.

Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever.

Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.
Cloud cuckoo land: The problem is that there is little to see from the top. Half the view is sea and the other half is grass with the small city of Brighton in the foreground. It will attract visitors the first year aand then gradually fade away.
This money could be better spent.
Yes, the revenue projections take into account a drop in visitor numbers after year one. "818k in the opening year stabilising at between 700k and 725k visitors a year five years after opening". The visitor projections were calculated by AECOM Economics, who have a very good track record, having correctly forecast numbers for the London Eye, Universal Studios and the Getty Centre among others. It's Appendix 5 in this 2012 committee report tinyurl.com/npjwxw9

I understand the Local Economic Partnership carried out their own independent assessment and came back with very similar figures.
Funny - because the report on the planning application 'estimates up to 550.000 in the first year' i360 projections then and now appear to have gone up - I guess punch in the right figures you get the right answer
Or increase the pod capacity - it was 125 in the original proposal, now 200.
[quote][p][bold]KempyLocals[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PetertheGrate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help. It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area. Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever. Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.[/p][/quote]Cloud cuckoo land: The problem is that there is little to see from the top. Half the view is sea and the other half is grass with the small city of Brighton in the foreground. It will attract visitors the first year aand then gradually fade away. This money could be better spent.[/p][/quote]Yes, the revenue projections take into account a drop in visitor numbers after year one. "818k in the opening year stabilising at between 700k and 725k visitors a year five years after opening". The visitor projections were calculated by AECOM Economics, who have a very good track record, having correctly forecast numbers for the London Eye, Universal Studios and the Getty Centre among others. It's Appendix 5 in this 2012 committee report tinyurl.com/npjwxw9 I understand the Local Economic Partnership carried out their own independent assessment and came back with very similar figures.[/p][/quote]Funny - because the report on the planning application 'estimates up to 550.000 in the first year' i360 projections then and now appear to have gone up - I guess punch in the right figures you get the right answer[/p][/quote]Or increase the pod capacity - it was 125 in the original proposal, now 200. Eugenius
  • Score: -4

11:58am Thu 27 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

A Model Code of Conduct came into force in November 2001. This Model Code must form part of any local Code of Conduct. One of the provisions within that Model Code states that (I am not quoting BTW) that councillors have a positive obligation not to misuse the Authority's resources.

If all these figures that the Green and Conservative councillors are using to base their decision to support this financial gamble on prove to be ill conceived and we, the tax-payers of Brighton & Hove do end up having to foot the bill for this gamble surely we should be able to hold Kitkat and Theobald to account ... Okay we may still have to pay it but as long as I know that Kitkat, Theobald and their cronies will end up being held to account and possibly be told to liquidate their own resources, I could live with that ...
A Model Code of Conduct came into force in November 2001. This Model Code must form part of any local Code of Conduct. One of the provisions within that Model Code states that (I am not quoting BTW) that councillors have a positive obligation not to misuse the Authority's resources. If all these figures that the Green and Conservative councillors are using to base their decision to support this financial gamble on prove to be ill conceived and we, the tax-payers of Brighton & Hove do end up having to foot the bill for this gamble surely we should be able to hold Kitkat and Theobald to account ... Okay we may still have to pay it but as long as I know that Kitkat, Theobald and their cronies will end up being held to account and possibly be told to liquidate their own resources, I could live with that ... mimseycal
  • Score: 7

12:01pm Thu 27 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Pie in the sky. I'm just picturing what people will see from the tower at night. It's hardly comparable to the London Eye where the view is magnificent. One side will be totally dark, the other side is a relatively small 'city' surrounded by the downs.

As others have pointed out - the visitor projections are hugely optimistic and the costs are huge. What about maintenance costs? Look at how few visitors the wheel gets, particularly in the winter. This should raise alarm bells.

181 people per hour - rain, snow, fog or shine. Or 2174 visitors per day, every single day of the year. Is that realistic?
Pie in the sky. I'm just picturing what people will see from the tower at night. It's hardly comparable to the London Eye where the view is magnificent. One side will be totally dark, the other side is a relatively small 'city' surrounded by the downs. As others have pointed out - the visitor projections are hugely optimistic and the costs are huge. What about maintenance costs? Look at how few visitors the wheel gets, particularly in the winter. This should raise alarm bells. 181 people per hour - rain, snow, fog or shine. Or 2174 visitors per day, every single day of the year. Is that realistic? thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 10

12:31pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Eugenius wrote:
KempyLocals wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
PetertheGrate wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help.

It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area.

Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever.

Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.
Cloud cuckoo land: The problem is that there is little to see from the top. Half the view is sea and the other half is grass with the small city of Brighton in the foreground. It will attract visitors the first year aand then gradually fade away.
This money could be better spent.
Yes, the revenue projections take into account a drop in visitor numbers after year one. "818k in the opening year stabilising at between 700k and 725k visitors a year five years after opening". The visitor projections were calculated by AECOM Economics, who have a very good track record, having correctly forecast numbers for the London Eye, Universal Studios and the Getty Centre among others. It's Appendix 5 in this 2012 committee report tinyurl.com/npjwxw9

I understand the Local Economic Partnership carried out their own independent assessment and came back with very similar figures.
Funny - because the report on the planning application 'estimates up to 550.000 in the first year' i360 projections then and now appear to have gone up - I guess punch in the right figures you get the right answer
Or increase the pod capacity - it was 125 in the original proposal, now 200.
Increasing the pod capacity doesn't suddenly magic new customers up. The Brighton Wheel has plenty of capacity ..... most of it never used.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KempyLocals[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PetertheGrate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help. It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area. Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever. Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.[/p][/quote]Cloud cuckoo land: The problem is that there is little to see from the top. Half the view is sea and the other half is grass with the small city of Brighton in the foreground. It will attract visitors the first year aand then gradually fade away. This money could be better spent.[/p][/quote]Yes, the revenue projections take into account a drop in visitor numbers after year one. "818k in the opening year stabilising at between 700k and 725k visitors a year five years after opening". The visitor projections were calculated by AECOM Economics, who have a very good track record, having correctly forecast numbers for the London Eye, Universal Studios and the Getty Centre among others. It's Appendix 5 in this 2012 committee report tinyurl.com/npjwxw9 I understand the Local Economic Partnership carried out their own independent assessment and came back with very similar figures.[/p][/quote]Funny - because the report on the planning application 'estimates up to 550.000 in the first year' i360 projections then and now appear to have gone up - I guess punch in the right figures you get the right answer[/p][/quote]Or increase the pod capacity - it was 125 in the original proposal, now 200.[/p][/quote]Increasing the pod capacity doesn't suddenly magic new customers up. The Brighton Wheel has plenty of capacity ..... most of it never used. Fight_Back
  • Score: 7

12:38pm Thu 27 Feb 14

s_james says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Pie in the sky. I'm just picturing what people will see from the tower at night. It's hardly comparable to the London Eye where the view is magnificent. One side will be totally dark, the other side is a relatively small 'city' surrounded by the downs.

As others have pointed out - the visitor projections are hugely optimistic and the costs are huge. What about maintenance costs? Look at how few visitors the wheel gets, particularly in the winter. This should raise alarm bells.

181 people per hour - rain, snow, fog or shine. Or 2174 visitors per day, every single day of the year. Is that realistic?
There’ll be a nice view of the Rampion wind farm!
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: Pie in the sky. I'm just picturing what people will see from the tower at night. It's hardly comparable to the London Eye where the view is magnificent. One side will be totally dark, the other side is a relatively small 'city' surrounded by the downs. As others have pointed out - the visitor projections are hugely optimistic and the costs are huge. What about maintenance costs? Look at how few visitors the wheel gets, particularly in the winter. This should raise alarm bells. 181 people per hour - rain, snow, fog or shine. Or 2174 visitors per day, every single day of the year. Is that realistic?[/p][/quote]There’ll be a nice view of the Rampion wind farm! s_james
  • Score: 3

1:23pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Durango_Splubb says...

Total stupidity! It'll cost more than double the initial estimates, never recoup the funding & will become another very unwelcome drain on local taxes. Spend on housing not vanity projects. B&H needs housing not more tax-extorting eye-sores!
Total stupidity! It'll cost more than double the initial estimates, never recoup the funding & will become another very unwelcome drain on local taxes. Spend on housing not vanity projects. B&H needs housing not more tax-extorting eye-sores! Durango_Splubb
  • Score: 3

2:40pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Richada says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
PetertheGrate wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help.

It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area.

Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever.

Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.
Cloud cuckoo land: The problem is that there is little to see from the top. Half the view is sea and the other half is grass with the small city of Brighton in the foreground. It will attract visitors the first year aand then gradually fade away.
This money could be better spent.
Yes, the revenue projections take into account a drop in visitor numbers after year one. "818k in the opening year stabilising at between 700k and 725k visitors a year five years after opening". The visitor projections were calculated by AECOM Economics, who have a very good track record, having correctly forecast numbers for the London Eye, Universal Studios and the Getty Centre among others. It's Appendix 5 in this 2012 committee report tinyurl.com/npjwxw9

I understand the Local Economic Partnership carried out their own independent assessment and came back with very similar figures.
And for the sake of balance, does that appendix also show predictions by AECOM Economics that were incorrect ? Or does the council only deal in the possibility of success and not plan for failure ?
That is the Green Utopia model, success, only total success.

This project is a waste of £36M of taxpayers money. If funded privately THEN there may be a case for it on economic grounds, but certainly not aesthetic ones.

The more sensible ways of spending £36 million at the current time in Brighton and Hove are almost endless, SO much needs doing here that expenditure on this would be laughable were it not so tragic.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PetertheGrate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help. It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area. Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever. Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.[/p][/quote]Cloud cuckoo land: The problem is that there is little to see from the top. Half the view is sea and the other half is grass with the small city of Brighton in the foreground. It will attract visitors the first year aand then gradually fade away. This money could be better spent.[/p][/quote]Yes, the revenue projections take into account a drop in visitor numbers after year one. "818k in the opening year stabilising at between 700k and 725k visitors a year five years after opening". The visitor projections were calculated by AECOM Economics, who have a very good track record, having correctly forecast numbers for the London Eye, Universal Studios and the Getty Centre among others. It's Appendix 5 in this 2012 committee report tinyurl.com/npjwxw9 I understand the Local Economic Partnership carried out their own independent assessment and came back with very similar figures.[/p][/quote]And for the sake of balance, does that appendix also show predictions by AECOM Economics that were incorrect ? Or does the council only deal in the possibility of success and not plan for failure ?[/p][/quote]That is the Green Utopia model, success, only total success. This project is a waste of £36M of taxpayers money. If funded privately THEN there may be a case for it on economic grounds, but certainly not aesthetic ones. The more sensible ways of spending £36 million at the current time in Brighton and Hove are almost endless, SO much needs doing here that expenditure on this would be laughable were it not so tragic. Richada
  • Score: 6

2:46pm Thu 27 Feb 14

PETE OF QUEENS PARK says...

Total waste of money it would get more interest from the public if it was spent providing the city with a decent sports centre, swimming pool and the ice rink we have been promised for at least 40 years instead of something the locals know will be a burden to the local tax payers and will never make money the quicker we get rid of the clowns running this city including a few Tories who back the stupid idea.
Total waste of money it would get more interest from the public if it was spent providing the city with a decent sports centre, swimming pool and the ice rink we have been promised for at least 40 years instead of something the locals know will be a burden to the local tax payers and will never make money the quicker we get rid of the clowns running this city including a few Tories who back the stupid idea. PETE OF QUEENS PARK
  • Score: 10

2:57pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Renlimgerald says...

What a waste of public money. What about spending some of the cash raised from the sale of Council homes? We desperately need more social housing.
Gerald Milner.
What a waste of public money. What about spending some of the cash raised from the sale of Council homes? We desperately need more social housing. Gerald Milner. Renlimgerald
  • Score: 4

4:08pm Thu 27 Feb 14

tinker111 says...

Renlimgerald wrote:
What a waste of public money. What about spending some of the cash raised from the sale of Council homes? We desperately need more social housing.
Gerald Milner.
total tosh yes both WOULD BE A WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY lets get real budgets are tight and what we need is 0% council tax raise it is far to high and gets spent very poorly NOW THE " CONS" ARE BACKING THIS SCATER BRAINED IDEA,MAY IT FALL DOWN???? OH AND DONT VOTE GREEN OR CON'S NEXT TIME THEY ARE BOTH MONEY MAD SPENDERS ,YES IT SAID " LOAN "NEVER TO GET PAID BACK. vote with feet get them out.
[quote][p][bold]Renlimgerald[/bold] wrote: What a waste of public money. What about spending some of the cash raised from the sale of Council homes? We desperately need more social housing. Gerald Milner.[/p][/quote]total tosh yes both WOULD BE A WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY lets get real budgets are tight and what we need is 0% council tax raise it is far to high and gets spent very poorly NOW THE " CONS" ARE BACKING THIS SCATER BRAINED IDEA,MAY IT FALL DOWN???? OH AND DONT VOTE GREEN OR CON'S NEXT TIME THEY ARE BOTH MONEY MAD SPENDERS ,YES IT SAID " LOAN "NEVER TO GET PAID BACK. vote with feet get them out. tinker111
  • Score: 0

4:10pm Thu 27 Feb 14

tinker111 says...

Eugenius wrote:
Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help.

It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area.

Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever.

Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.
WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON ???? jobs for the boys/girls and money in pocket ???? for some
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help. It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area. Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever. Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.[/p][/quote]WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON ???? jobs for the boys/girls and money in pocket ???? for some tinker111
  • Score: 0

4:23pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Monkeymoo1 says...

Terry K wrote:
I predict the thing will be a novelty that will turn sour once it keeps breaking down, the repair costs will be horrendous and it will be sold to a coompany like KFC as a novelty resturant. lack of interest, high running costs will mean total closure within 6 years i reckon.
If That
[quote][p][bold]Terry K[/bold] wrote: I predict the thing will be a novelty that will turn sour once it keeps breaking down, the repair costs will be horrendous and it will be sold to a coompany like KFC as a novelty resturant. lack of interest, high running costs will mean total closure within 6 years i reckon.[/p][/quote]If That Monkeymoo1
  • Score: 3

4:25pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Monkeymoo1 says...

Eugenius wrote:
Terry K wrote:
I predict the thing will be a novelty that will turn sour once it keeps breaking down, the repair costs will be horrendous and it will be sold to a coompany like KFC as a novelty resturant. lack of interest, high running costs will mean total closure within 6 years i reckon.
It's essentially cable car technology so pretty tried and tested. And the fact that Marks Barfield were also the lead architects for the successful London Eye should give confidence.
They said that about the lift in the spinnaker tower and that still does not work
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Terry K[/bold] wrote: I predict the thing will be a novelty that will turn sour once it keeps breaking down, the repair costs will be horrendous and it will be sold to a coompany like KFC as a novelty resturant. lack of interest, high running costs will mean total closure within 6 years i reckon.[/p][/quote]It's essentially cable car technology so pretty tried and tested. And the fact that Marks Barfield were also the lead architects for the successful London Eye should give confidence.[/p][/quote]They said that about the lift in the spinnaker tower and that still does not work Monkeymoo1
  • Score: 5

4:46pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Hovite says...

As a guide to it's possible usage, is there any info on how many people use the Brighton Wheel each year?
As a guide to it's possible usage, is there any info on how many people use the Brighton Wheel each year? Hovite
  • Score: 4

5:13pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Durango_Splubb says...

Remember the Marina! -That was supposed to cost next to nothing and benefit the whole of B&H. Instead, as all residents knew only too well, it cost more than 5 x the original estimate & benefitted only a few! This blob-on-a-stick will do the same! Ignore all the twaddle about 'loans-from-the-coun
cil' & interest repayments covering anything it's all rubbish. This is a farce funded by local tax payers!
Remember the Marina! -That was supposed to cost next to nothing and benefit the whole of B&H. Instead, as all residents knew only too well, it cost more than 5 x the original estimate & benefitted only a few! This blob-on-a-stick will do the same! Ignore all the twaddle about 'loans-from-the-coun cil' & interest repayments covering anything it's all rubbish. This is a farce funded by local tax payers! Durango_Splubb
  • Score: 8

5:15pm Thu 27 Feb 14

melee says...

I can't see it bringing business to the hotels, I really can't. Who on earth would pay out for an overnight stay just to go up a pole and look at the sea for half an hour?
If you want a nice view out across Brighton towards the pier and the sea may I recommend the maternity dept of the Royal Sussex County? There are some nice views from Brighton General as well. If there's so much profit to be had maybe the NHS has been missing a trick all these years!
I can't see it bringing business to the hotels, I really can't. Who on earth would pay out for an overnight stay just to go up a pole and look at the sea for half an hour? If you want a nice view out across Brighton towards the pier and the sea may I recommend the maternity dept of the Royal Sussex County? There are some nice views from Brighton General as well. If there's so much profit to be had maybe the NHS has been missing a trick all these years! melee
  • Score: 8

6:01pm Thu 27 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

Interesting that over the months and years, after all the moaning about the i360 (which in my view is a financial risk, but that will undoubtably draw thousands to our city) I have yet to see the faintest idea of what could replace it.

Moaning is very easy, but if not the i360 then what? By the way, the alternative has to pay its way and project to provide the council with £1 million a year or more to be comparible. I have yet to here of an alternative that will do this. Come on moanerati, what is the solution?
Interesting that over the months and years, after all the moaning about the i360 (which in my view is a financial risk, but that will undoubtably draw thousands to our city) I have yet to see the faintest idea of what could replace it. Moaning is very easy, but if not the i360 then what? By the way, the alternative has to pay its way and project to provide the council with £1 million a year or more to be comparible. I have yet to here of an alternative that will do this. Come on moanerati, what is the solution? HJarrs
  • Score: -10

6:39pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Durango_Splubb says...

What about a "West Pier"? That was a real work of art! If it hadn't been vandalised & trashed by insurance fiddlers it would be the people's biggest tourist attraction and a grand match for the Pavilion!
Who needs a blob-on-a-stick with views of water?
What about a "West Pier"? That was a real work of art! If it hadn't been vandalised & trashed by insurance fiddlers it would be the people's biggest tourist attraction and a grand match for the Pavilion! Who needs a blob-on-a-stick with views of water? Durango_Splubb
  • Score: 7

6:42pm Thu 27 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

HJarrs wrote:
Interesting that over the months and years, after all the moaning about the i360 (which in my view is a financial risk, but that will undoubtably draw thousands to our city) I have yet to see the faintest idea of what could replace it.

Moaning is very easy, but if not the i360 then what? By the way, the alternative has to pay its way and project to provide the council with £1 million a year or more to be comparible. I have yet to here of an alternative that will do this. Come on moanerati, what is the solution?
The donut on a stick will not regenerate the seafront no matter how many millions are thrown at it.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Interesting that over the months and years, after all the moaning about the i360 (which in my view is a financial risk, but that will undoubtably draw thousands to our city) I have yet to see the faintest idea of what could replace it. Moaning is very easy, but if not the i360 then what? By the way, the alternative has to pay its way and project to provide the council with £1 million a year or more to be comparible. I have yet to here of an alternative that will do this. Come on moanerati, what is the solution?[/p][/quote]The donut on a stick will not regenerate the seafront no matter how many millions are thrown at it. mimseycal
  • Score: 8

6:48pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Durango_Splubb says...

AND I SAID;
What about a "West Pier"? That was a real work of art!
If it hadn't been vandalised & trashed by insurance fiddlers it would be the people's biggest tourist attraction and a grand match for the Pavilion!
Who needs a blob-on-a-stick with views of water?
AND I SAID; What about a "West Pier"? That was a real work of art! If it hadn't been vandalised & trashed by insurance fiddlers it would be the people's biggest tourist attraction and a grand match for the Pavilion! Who needs a blob-on-a-stick with views of water? Durango_Splubb
  • Score: 6

6:50pm Thu 27 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

HJarrs wrote:
Interesting that over the months and years, after all the moaning about the i360 (which in my view is a financial risk, but that will undoubtably draw thousands to our city) I have yet to see the faintest idea of what could replace it.

Moaning is very easy, but if not the i360 then what? By the way, the alternative has to pay its way and project to provide the council with £1 million a year or more to be comparible. I have yet to here of an alternative that will do this. Come on moanerati, what is the solution?
People are just pointing out the fact that the financials don't stack up - which you admit yourself! Why should residents sit back in silence while the council gambles with millions of pounds of their money? Oh of course, because anyone that doesn't agree with the green dream is a moaner. You won't be living here by the time it is built, if that day ever comes, so what do you care?

I have an idea which costs nothing and will attract 99.9% of the residents of Brighton and Hove. Stick HughJarrs in the stocks and I'm sure people will pay good money to lob eggs at him. In fact, you could line them all up - Jason Kitcat, Ian Davey etc. Now that would be satisfying entertainment and people would definitely come back again and again!
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Interesting that over the months and years, after all the moaning about the i360 (which in my view is a financial risk, but that will undoubtably draw thousands to our city) I have yet to see the faintest idea of what could replace it. Moaning is very easy, but if not the i360 then what? By the way, the alternative has to pay its way and project to provide the council with £1 million a year or more to be comparible. I have yet to here of an alternative that will do this. Come on moanerati, what is the solution?[/p][/quote]People are just pointing out the fact that the financials don't stack up - which you admit yourself! Why should residents sit back in silence while the council gambles with millions of pounds of their money? Oh of course, because anyone that doesn't agree with the green dream is a moaner. You won't be living here by the time it is built, if that day ever comes, so what do you care? I have an idea which costs nothing and will attract 99.9% of the residents of Brighton and Hove. Stick HughJarrs in the stocks and I'm sure people will pay good money to lob eggs at him. In fact, you could line them all up - Jason Kitcat, Ian Davey etc. Now that would be satisfying entertainment and people would definitely come back again and again! thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 9

6:54pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Hovite says...

Apparently there is an exclusive on the Latest website saying that the end cost of the project will be more than £46m.

http://thelatest.co.
uk/brighton/2014/02/
27/exclusive-i360-co
sts-doubled-with-fin
al-bill-now-more-tha
n-46-million/
Apparently there is an exclusive on the Latest website saying that the end cost of the project will be more than £46m. http://thelatest.co. uk/brighton/2014/02/ 27/exclusive-i360-co sts-doubled-with-fin al-bill-now-more-tha n-46-million/ Hovite
  • Score: 0

7:56pm Thu 27 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
HJarrs wrote: Interesting that over the months and years, after all the moaning about the i360 (which in my view is a financial risk, but that will undoubtably draw thousands to our city) I have yet to see the faintest idea of what could replace it. Moaning is very easy, but if not the i360 then what? By the way, the alternative has to pay its way and project to provide the council with £1 million a year or more to be comparible. I have yet to here of an alternative that will do this. Come on moanerati, what is the solution?
People are just pointing out the fact that the financials don't stack up - which you admit yourself! Why should residents sit back in silence while the council gambles with millions of pounds of their money? Oh of course, because anyone that doesn't agree with the green dream is a moaner. You won't be living here by the time it is built, if that day ever comes, so what do you care? I have an idea which costs nothing and will attract 99.9% of the residents of Brighton and Hove. Stick HughJarrs in the stocks and I'm sure people will pay good money to lob eggs at him. In fact, you could line them all up - Jason Kitcat, Ian Davey etc. Now that would be satisfying entertainment and people would definitely come back again and again!
I don't admit anything, I merely agree that there is financial risk for the project itself. It may be a money spinner, it may not. However, it will be popular and draw people to the city.

Whether you like it or not, for B&H to maintain its tourist business (let alone increase it) it needs to continually invest in the seafront and provide new attractions.
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Interesting that over the months and years, after all the moaning about the i360 (which in my view is a financial risk, but that will undoubtably draw thousands to our city) I have yet to see the faintest idea of what could replace it. Moaning is very easy, but if not the i360 then what? By the way, the alternative has to pay its way and project to provide the council with £1 million a year or more to be comparible. I have yet to here of an alternative that will do this. Come on moanerati, what is the solution?[/p][/quote]People are just pointing out the fact that the financials don't stack up - which you admit yourself! Why should residents sit back in silence while the council gambles with millions of pounds of their money? Oh of course, because anyone that doesn't agree with the green dream is a moaner. You won't be living here by the time it is built, if that day ever comes, so what do you care? I have an idea which costs nothing and will attract 99.9% of the residents of Brighton and Hove. Stick HughJarrs in the stocks and I'm sure people will pay good money to lob eggs at him. In fact, you could line them all up - Jason Kitcat, Ian Davey etc. Now that would be satisfying entertainment and people would definitely come back again and again![/p][/quote]I don't admit anything, I merely agree that there is financial risk for the project itself. It may be a money spinner, it may not. However, it will be popular and draw people to the city. Whether you like it or not, for B&H to maintain its tourist business (let alone increase it) it needs to continually invest in the seafront and provide new attractions. HJarrs
  • Score: -3

8:57pm Thu 27 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

HJarrs wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
HJarrs wrote: Interesting that over the months and years, after all the moaning about the i360 (which in my view is a financial risk, but that will undoubtably draw thousands to our city) I have yet to see the faintest idea of what could replace it. Moaning is very easy, but if not the i360 then what? By the way, the alternative has to pay its way and project to provide the council with £1 million a year or more to be comparible. I have yet to here of an alternative that will do this. Come on moanerati, what is the solution?
People are just pointing out the fact that the financials don't stack up - which you admit yourself! Why should residents sit back in silence while the council gambles with millions of pounds of their money? Oh of course, because anyone that doesn't agree with the green dream is a moaner. You won't be living here by the time it is built, if that day ever comes, so what do you care? I have an idea which costs nothing and will attract 99.9% of the residents of Brighton and Hove. Stick HughJarrs in the stocks and I'm sure people will pay good money to lob eggs at him. In fact, you could line them all up - Jason Kitcat, Ian Davey etc. Now that would be satisfying entertainment and people would definitely come back again and again!
I don't admit anything, I merely agree that there is financial risk for the project itself. It may be a money spinner, it may not. However, it will be popular and draw people to the city.

Whether you like it or not, for B&H to maintain its tourist business (let alone increase it) it needs to continually invest in the seafront and provide new attractions.
Well that's strange because on previous discussions about the i360 I recall you saying you didn't support it at all but here you are changing your tune. If the green party told you to jump off a cliff, I do actually think you might take the leap. Perhaps you should join the scientologists.

I do support new initiatives and developments and I would like something brought to the table that isn't nearly 10 years old, has no involvement from the West Pier Trust and doesn't involve gambling £36 million of council money. I would prefer nothing, to something disastrous.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Interesting that over the months and years, after all the moaning about the i360 (which in my view is a financial risk, but that will undoubtably draw thousands to our city) I have yet to see the faintest idea of what could replace it. Moaning is very easy, but if not the i360 then what? By the way, the alternative has to pay its way and project to provide the council with £1 million a year or more to be comparible. I have yet to here of an alternative that will do this. Come on moanerati, what is the solution?[/p][/quote]People are just pointing out the fact that the financials don't stack up - which you admit yourself! Why should residents sit back in silence while the council gambles with millions of pounds of their money? Oh of course, because anyone that doesn't agree with the green dream is a moaner. You won't be living here by the time it is built, if that day ever comes, so what do you care? I have an idea which costs nothing and will attract 99.9% of the residents of Brighton and Hove. Stick HughJarrs in the stocks and I'm sure people will pay good money to lob eggs at him. In fact, you could line them all up - Jason Kitcat, Ian Davey etc. Now that would be satisfying entertainment and people would definitely come back again and again![/p][/quote]I don't admit anything, I merely agree that there is financial risk for the project itself. It may be a money spinner, it may not. However, it will be popular and draw people to the city. Whether you like it or not, for B&H to maintain its tourist business (let alone increase it) it needs to continually invest in the seafront and provide new attractions.[/p][/quote]Well that's strange because on previous discussions about the i360 I recall you saying you didn't support it at all but here you are changing your tune. If the green party told you to jump off a cliff, I do actually think you might take the leap. Perhaps you should join the scientologists. I do support new initiatives and developments and I would like something brought to the table that isn't nearly 10 years old, has no involvement from the West Pier Trust and doesn't involve gambling £36 million of council money. I would prefer nothing, to something disastrous. thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 3

9:06pm Thu 27 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Hovite wrote:
Apparently there is an exclusive on the Latest website saying that the end cost of the project will be more than £46m.

http://thelatest.co.

uk/brighton/2014/02/

27/exclusive-i360-co

sts-doubled-with-fin

al-bill-now-more-tha

n-46-million/
By the time the darn thing is shipped over and constructed, it will probably be 100m. I would have liked your comment but it might have looked like people were supporting this madness! Thanks for sharing!
[quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: Apparently there is an exclusive on the Latest website saying that the end cost of the project will be more than £46m. http://thelatest.co. uk/brighton/2014/02/ 27/exclusive-i360-co sts-doubled-with-fin al-bill-now-more-tha n-46-million/[/p][/quote]By the time the darn thing is shipped over and constructed, it will probably be 100m. I would have liked your comment but it might have looked like people were supporting this madness! Thanks for sharing! thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 3

10:51pm Thu 27 Feb 14

ken standing says...

What exactly is this thing for?
What exactly is this thing for? ken standing
  • Score: 3

11:11pm Thu 27 Feb 14

ken standing says...

"stabilising at between 700k and 725k visitors a year "

If it is open 365 days a year that means 1950 visitors per day .... all year long wind, rain and shine ..... summer and freezing winter. How many hours will it be open during the winter? How many will want to go up it in time of storms and low cloud? How long will people stay up each time? If it is crowded at peak times how many will get a good view or be able to move around to see the other views? How much will it cost for a trip? .... for a family? What will happen with the queues at ground level as occurs
with the London Eye?

It is a cloud cuckoo project ..... the Council seduced by the architects and their self-indulgent a fantasy of a big attraction (They'll get their fee) ..... an expensive to maintain white elephants to add to the other embarrassments along Brighton seafront.

At a time of terrible financial squeeze it is beyond crazy to commit to this 'Lift to Nowhere' costly unknown quantity. Who will pay for it in the end? Us - for ever.
"stabilising at between 700k and 725k visitors a year " If it is open 365 days a year that means 1950 visitors per day .... all year long wind, rain and shine ..... summer and freezing winter. How many hours will it be open during the winter? How many will want to go up it in time of storms and low cloud? How long will people stay up each time? If it is crowded at peak times how many will get a good view or be able to move around to see the other views? How much will it cost for a trip? .... for a family? What will happen with the queues at ground level as occurs with the London Eye? It is a cloud cuckoo project ..... the Council seduced by the architects and their self-indulgent a fantasy of a big attraction (They'll get their fee) ..... an expensive to maintain white elephants to add to the other embarrassments along Brighton seafront. At a time of terrible financial squeeze it is beyond crazy to commit to this 'Lift to Nowhere' costly unknown quantity. Who will pay for it in the end? Us - for ever. ken standing
  • Score: 5

11:52pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Telscombe Cliffy says...

There's a massive block of flats across the road, the tallest one that side of the pier. Put a fast lift in that - deck out the roof and put a café in - 2million max, same view. Bish bash bosh.
There's a massive block of flats across the road, the tallest one that side of the pier. Put a fast lift in that - deck out the roof and put a café in - 2million max, same view. Bish bash bosh. Telscombe Cliffy
  • Score: 2

11:54pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Telscombe Cliffy says...

Telscombe Cliffy wrote:
There's a massive block of flats across the road, the tallest one that side of the pier. Put a fast lift in that - deck out the roof and put a café in - 2million max, same view. Bish bash bosh.
Or compulsorily purchase the top floor, still cheaper.
[quote][p][bold]Telscombe Cliffy[/bold] wrote: There's a massive block of flats across the road, the tallest one that side of the pier. Put a fast lift in that - deck out the roof and put a café in - 2million max, same view. Bish bash bosh.[/p][/quote]Or compulsorily purchase the top floor, still cheaper. Telscombe Cliffy
  • Score: 4

7:57am Fri 28 Feb 14

KempyLocals says...

Reading the above with the exeption of one or two most (by far) are against this. So why are our politicians in favour? Beyond belief...
Reading the above with the exeption of one or two most (by far) are against this. So why are our politicians in favour? Beyond belief... KempyLocals
  • Score: 5

8:44am Fri 28 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

KempyLocals wrote:
Reading the above with the exeption of one or two most (by far) are against this. So why are our politicians in favour? Beyond belief...
I think the answer is in which politicians. You have the kitkat who was under the delusion that we would all worship at his greatness as he and his fellow eco-warrior, new age puritans show us all the error of our ways. You have Theobald who has been Mayor of Brighton (1982-1983), leader of East Sussex County Council (1989-1993) followed by being the leader of the Conservative Opposition Groups on the County Council and then Brighton and Hove City Council until 2001. He then decided to try and stand as candidate in the general election for the Brighton Kemptown. He's been representing Patcham, along with his wife, for years ... His dreams of being a political big gun are well and truly dead in the water. Being a local councillor is the best he will ever be able to aspire to.

Both of them, for similar reasons, have to believe in this folly. They have to as it is the only way they can see their names ever being worth the paper they are written on. They know it is a gamble but when all is said and done, they aren't gambling with their own money so if it ends up a failure, which it almost certainly will, they will just end up no better off then they are now.

In short, we, the taxpayers, will be underwriting this multi million pound loan because of a greedy developer who cannot let go of his donut on a stick, despite years of private finance turning him down, and a couple of desparate for acknowledgement and renown politicos.
[quote][p][bold]KempyLocals[/bold] wrote: Reading the above with the exeption of one or two most (by far) are against this. So why are our politicians in favour? Beyond belief...[/p][/quote]I think the answer is in which politicians. You have the kitkat who was under the delusion that we would all worship at his greatness as he and his fellow eco-warrior, new age puritans show us all the error of our ways. You have Theobald who has been Mayor of Brighton (1982-1983), leader of East Sussex County Council (1989-1993) followed by being the leader of the Conservative Opposition Groups on the County Council and then Brighton and Hove City Council until 2001. He then decided to try and stand as candidate in the general election for the Brighton Kemptown. He's been representing Patcham, along with his wife, for years ... His dreams of being a political big gun are well and truly dead in the water. Being a local councillor is the best he will ever be able to aspire to. Both of them, for similar reasons, have to believe in this folly. They have to as it is the only way they can see their names ever being worth the paper they are written on. They know it is a gamble but when all is said and done, they aren't gambling with their own money so if it ends up a failure, which it almost certainly will, they will just end up no better off then they are now. In short, we, the taxpayers, will be underwriting this multi million pound loan because of a greedy developer who cannot let go of his donut on a stick, despite years of private finance turning him down, and a couple of desparate for acknowledgement and renown politicos. mimseycal
  • Score: 6

8:55am Fri 28 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
HJarrs wrote: Interesting that over the months and years, after all the moaning about the i360 (which in my view is a financial risk, but that will undoubtably draw thousands to our city) I have yet to see the faintest idea of what could replace it. Moaning is very easy, but if not the i360 then what? By the way, the alternative has to pay its way and project to provide the council with £1 million a year or more to be comparible. I have yet to here of an alternative that will do this. Come on moanerati, what is the solution?
People are just pointing out the fact that the financials don't stack up - which you admit yourself! Why should residents sit back in silence while the council gambles with millions of pounds of their money? Oh of course, because anyone that doesn't agree with the green dream is a moaner. You won't be living here by the time it is built, if that day ever comes, so what do you care? I have an idea which costs nothing and will attract 99.9% of the residents of Brighton and Hove. Stick HughJarrs in the stocks and I'm sure people will pay good money to lob eggs at him. In fact, you could line them all up - Jason Kitcat, Ian Davey etc. Now that would be satisfying entertainment and people would definitely come back again and again!
I don't admit anything, I merely agree that there is financial risk for the project itself. It may be a money spinner, it may not. However, it will be popular and draw people to the city.

Whether you like it or not, for B&H to maintain its tourist business (let alone increase it) it needs to continually invest in the seafront and provide new attractions.
Well that's strange because on previous discussions about the i360 I recall you saying you didn't support it at all but here you are changing your tune. If the green party told you to jump off a cliff, I do actually think you might take the leap. Perhaps you should join the scientologists.

I do support new initiatives and developments and I would like something brought to the table that isn't nearly 10 years old, has no involvement from the West Pier Trust and doesn't involve gambling £36 million of council money. I would prefer nothing, to something disastrous.
What a bizarre post! I think you will find the Scientologists most likely to be working their way into the Tories. They are ripe for takeover.

I think I have been reasonably consistent and your recall poor. If it stacks up financially, build it, if it looks too risky then scrap it. However, I have come to realise that the financial case is much wider than whether the attraction makes money in itself. I can see that it will help secure and bring more business to the seafront and Preston St area.

The cost to the council and local economy of not building the i360 is greater than building it. I would be open to other ideas for this site, but nobody has yet come up with an alternative that would in any way match the i360.
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Interesting that over the months and years, after all the moaning about the i360 (which in my view is a financial risk, but that will undoubtably draw thousands to our city) I have yet to see the faintest idea of what could replace it. Moaning is very easy, but if not the i360 then what? By the way, the alternative has to pay its way and project to provide the council with £1 million a year or more to be comparible. I have yet to here of an alternative that will do this. Come on moanerati, what is the solution?[/p][/quote]People are just pointing out the fact that the financials don't stack up - which you admit yourself! Why should residents sit back in silence while the council gambles with millions of pounds of their money? Oh of course, because anyone that doesn't agree with the green dream is a moaner. You won't be living here by the time it is built, if that day ever comes, so what do you care? I have an idea which costs nothing and will attract 99.9% of the residents of Brighton and Hove. Stick HughJarrs in the stocks and I'm sure people will pay good money to lob eggs at him. In fact, you could line them all up - Jason Kitcat, Ian Davey etc. Now that would be satisfying entertainment and people would definitely come back again and again![/p][/quote]I don't admit anything, I merely agree that there is financial risk for the project itself. It may be a money spinner, it may not. However, it will be popular and draw people to the city. Whether you like it or not, for B&H to maintain its tourist business (let alone increase it) it needs to continually invest in the seafront and provide new attractions.[/p][/quote]Well that's strange because on previous discussions about the i360 I recall you saying you didn't support it at all but here you are changing your tune. If the green party told you to jump off a cliff, I do actually think you might take the leap. Perhaps you should join the scientologists. I do support new initiatives and developments and I would like something brought to the table that isn't nearly 10 years old, has no involvement from the West Pier Trust and doesn't involve gambling £36 million of council money. I would prefer nothing, to something disastrous.[/p][/quote]What a bizarre post! I think you will find the Scientologists most likely to be working their way into the Tories. They are ripe for takeover. I think I have been reasonably consistent and your recall poor. If it stacks up financially, build it, if it looks too risky then scrap it. However, I have come to realise that the financial case is much wider than whether the attraction makes money in itself. I can see that it will help secure and bring more business to the seafront and Preston St area. The cost to the council and local economy of not building the i360 is greater than building it. I would be open to other ideas for this site, but nobody has yet come up with an alternative that would in any way match the i360. HJarrs
  • Score: -3

9:00am Fri 28 Feb 14

Finknottle says...

How about this for an idea? Establish a restaurant at the top of the tower specialising in pastry based cooking and we could call it "Pie in the Sky" that would double the number of visitors!
How about this for an idea? Establish a restaurant at the top of the tower specialising in pastry based cooking and we could call it "Pie in the Sky" that would double the number of visitors! Finknottle
  • Score: 3

9:19am Fri 28 Feb 14

Richada says...

mimseycal wrote:
KempyLocals wrote:
Reading the above with the exeption of one or two most (by far) are against this. So why are our politicians in favour? Beyond belief...
I think the answer is in which politicians. You have the kitkat who was under the delusion that we would all worship at his greatness as he and his fellow eco-warrior, new age puritans show us all the error of our ways. You have Theobald who has been Mayor of Brighton (1982-1983), leader of East Sussex County Council (1989-1993) followed by being the leader of the Conservative Opposition Groups on the County Council and then Brighton and Hove City Council until 2001. He then decided to try and stand as candidate in the general election for the Brighton Kemptown. He's been representing Patcham, along with his wife, for years ... His dreams of being a political big gun are well and truly dead in the water. Being a local councillor is the best he will ever be able to aspire to.

Both of them, for similar reasons, have to believe in this folly. They have to as it is the only way they can see their names ever being worth the paper they are written on. They know it is a gamble but when all is said and done, they aren't gambling with their own money so if it ends up a failure, which it almost certainly will, they will just end up no better off then they are now.

In short, we, the taxpayers, will be underwriting this multi million pound loan because of a greedy developer who cannot let go of his donut on a stick, despite years of private finance turning him down, and a couple of desparate for acknowledgement and renown politicos.
In a nutshell then; the very definition of a vanity project.

Another spot on post.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KempyLocals[/bold] wrote: Reading the above with the exeption of one or two most (by far) are against this. So why are our politicians in favour? Beyond belief...[/p][/quote]I think the answer is in which politicians. You have the kitkat who was under the delusion that we would all worship at his greatness as he and his fellow eco-warrior, new age puritans show us all the error of our ways. You have Theobald who has been Mayor of Brighton (1982-1983), leader of East Sussex County Council (1989-1993) followed by being the leader of the Conservative Opposition Groups on the County Council and then Brighton and Hove City Council until 2001. He then decided to try and stand as candidate in the general election for the Brighton Kemptown. He's been representing Patcham, along with his wife, for years ... His dreams of being a political big gun are well and truly dead in the water. Being a local councillor is the best he will ever be able to aspire to. Both of them, for similar reasons, have to believe in this folly. They have to as it is the only way they can see their names ever being worth the paper they are written on. They know it is a gamble but when all is said and done, they aren't gambling with their own money so if it ends up a failure, which it almost certainly will, they will just end up no better off then they are now. In short, we, the taxpayers, will be underwriting this multi million pound loan because of a greedy developer who cannot let go of his donut on a stick, despite years of private finance turning him down, and a couple of desparate for acknowledgement and renown politicos.[/p][/quote]In a nutshell then; the very definition of a vanity project. Another spot on post. Richada
  • Score: 4

9:29am Fri 28 Feb 14

Richada says...

KempyLocals wrote:
Reading the above with the exeption of one or two most (by far) are against this. So why are our politicians in favour? Beyond belief...
Because they are not half as sensible as the majority of people who live and work here and who sadly elected them.

If you watched, as we did, last night the council tax debate, I'm sure you'd know exactly where I'm coming from here.
[quote][p][bold]KempyLocals[/bold] wrote: Reading the above with the exeption of one or two most (by far) are against this. So why are our politicians in favour? Beyond belief...[/p][/quote]Because they are not half as sensible as the majority of people who live and work here and who sadly elected them. If you watched, as we did, last night the council tax debate, I'm sure you'd know exactly where I'm coming from here. Richada
  • Score: 6

9:33am Fri 28 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".
In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know". Gribbet
  • Score: -3

9:41am Fri 28 Feb 14

Richada says...

Gribbet wrote:
In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".
Isn't £36M+ (it is bound to run over-budget) rather a lot of taxpayers money to risk if 'you don't know' if a project is financially viable or not?

This statement just about sums up the Greens attitude towards financial responsibility.
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".[/p][/quote]Isn't £36M+ (it is bound to run over-budget) rather a lot of taxpayers money to risk if 'you don't know' if a project is financially viable or not? This statement just about sums up the Greens attitude towards financial responsibility. Richada
  • Score: 3

9:54am Fri 28 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

Gribbet wrote:
In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".
Which question? Are you really saying that we are in no position to determine whether we want to accept being held accountable for a 34 million pound loan being underwritten in our name?
Are you saying that we cannot determine for ourselves whether in the current economic climate it is reasonable to take out such a huge loan on a single one purpose erection that has been begging and failing to raise private finance for years?
Are you saying that we cannot decide whether or not a single erection is going to regenerate a whole seafront that has been neglected for years?
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".[/p][/quote]Which question? Are you really saying that we are in no position to determine whether we want to accept being held accountable for a 34 million pound loan being underwritten in our name? Are you saying that we cannot determine for ourselves whether in the current economic climate it is reasonable to take out such a huge loan on a single one purpose erection that has been begging and failing to raise private finance for years? Are you saying that we cannot decide whether or not a single erection is going to regenerate a whole seafront that has been neglected for years? mimseycal
  • Score: 1

9:57am Fri 28 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

mimseycal wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".
Which question? Are you really saying that we are in no position to determine whether we want to accept being held accountable for a 34 million pound loan being underwritten in our name?
Are you saying that we cannot determine for ourselves whether in the current economic climate it is reasonable to take out such a huge loan on a single one purpose erection that has been begging and failing to raise private finance for years?
Are you saying that we cannot decide whether or not a single erection is going to regenerate a whole seafront that has been neglected for years?
oops that should read 36 million
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".[/p][/quote]Which question? Are you really saying that we are in no position to determine whether we want to accept being held accountable for a 34 million pound loan being underwritten in our name? Are you saying that we cannot determine for ourselves whether in the current economic climate it is reasonable to take out such a huge loan on a single one purpose erection that has been begging and failing to raise private finance for years? Are you saying that we cannot decide whether or not a single erection is going to regenerate a whole seafront that has been neglected for years?[/p][/quote]oops that should read 36 million mimseycal
  • Score: 1

10:43am Fri 28 Feb 14

Richada says...

HJarrs wrote:
Interesting that over the months and years, after all the moaning about the i360 (which in my view is a financial risk, but that will undoubtably draw thousands to our city) I have yet to see the faintest idea of what could replace it.

Moaning is very easy, but if not the i360 then what? By the way, the alternative has to pay its way and project to provide the council with £1 million a year or more to be comparible. I have yet to here of an alternative that will do this. Come on moanerati, what is the solution?
Quite why does anything have to replace the i360, a structure that has not been built?

We, as residents, probably would not like the idea on planning grounds, but £36M could (for the council at least) far more prudently invested in a new conference centre - this would attract a reliable business revenue to the city, its shops, hotels etc.

As far as sea front attractions are concerned, extending Volks Railway (Marina to West Pier site), at last developing Black Rock properly (ice rink, velodrome, swimming pool etc), there are plenty of better ways to spend this £37M "windfall" to the benefit of resident and tourist alike.

Unlike the West Pier before it (which struggled financially anyway) the i360 remains, and will for ever remain, a one trick pony which stands little chance of regenerating anything but the coffers of Marks Barfield in the (very) short term.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Interesting that over the months and years, after all the moaning about the i360 (which in my view is a financial risk, but that will undoubtably draw thousands to our city) I have yet to see the faintest idea of what could replace it. Moaning is very easy, but if not the i360 then what? By the way, the alternative has to pay its way and project to provide the council with £1 million a year or more to be comparible. I have yet to here of an alternative that will do this. Come on moanerati, what is the solution?[/p][/quote]Quite why does anything have to replace the i360, a structure that has not been built? We, as residents, probably would not like the idea on planning grounds, but £36M could (for the council at least) far more prudently invested in a new conference centre - this would attract a reliable business revenue to the city, its shops, hotels etc. As far as sea front attractions are concerned, extending Volks Railway (Marina to West Pier site), at last developing Black Rock properly (ice rink, velodrome, swimming pool etc), there are plenty of better ways to spend this £37M "windfall" to the benefit of resident and tourist alike. Unlike the West Pier before it (which struggled financially anyway) the i360 remains, and will for ever remain, a one trick pony which stands little chance of regenerating anything but the coffers of Marks Barfield in the (very) short term. Richada
  • Score: 8

10:46am Fri 28 Feb 14

Richada says...

Richada wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Interesting that over the months and years, after all the moaning about the i360 (which in my view is a financial risk, but that will undoubtably draw thousands to our city) I have yet to see the faintest idea of what could replace it.

Moaning is very easy, but if not the i360 then what? By the way, the alternative has to pay its way and project to provide the council with £1 million a year or more to be comparible. I have yet to here of an alternative that will do this. Come on moanerati, what is the solution?
Quite why does anything have to replace the i360, a structure that has not been built?

We, as residents, probably would not like the idea on planning grounds, but £36M could (for the council at least) far more prudently invested in a new conference centre - this would attract a reliable business revenue to the city, its shops, hotels etc.

As far as sea front attractions are concerned, extending Volks Railway (Marina to West Pier site), at last developing Black Rock properly (ice rink, velodrome, swimming pool etc), there are plenty of better ways to spend this £37M "windfall" to the benefit of resident and tourist alike.

Unlike the West Pier before it (which struggled financially anyway) the i360 remains, and will for ever remain, a one trick pony which stands little chance of regenerating anything but the coffers of Marks Barfield in the (very) short term.
Sorry I inflated that by a £ million, but then, the i360 is sure to run over budget anyway - others are already quoting figures £10m higher.
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Interesting that over the months and years, after all the moaning about the i360 (which in my view is a financial risk, but that will undoubtably draw thousands to our city) I have yet to see the faintest idea of what could replace it. Moaning is very easy, but if not the i360 then what? By the way, the alternative has to pay its way and project to provide the council with £1 million a year or more to be comparible. I have yet to here of an alternative that will do this. Come on moanerati, what is the solution?[/p][/quote]Quite why does anything have to replace the i360, a structure that has not been built? We, as residents, probably would not like the idea on planning grounds, but £36M could (for the council at least) far more prudently invested in a new conference centre - this would attract a reliable business revenue to the city, its shops, hotels etc. As far as sea front attractions are concerned, extending Volks Railway (Marina to West Pier site), at last developing Black Rock properly (ice rink, velodrome, swimming pool etc), there are plenty of better ways to spend this £37M "windfall" to the benefit of resident and tourist alike. Unlike the West Pier before it (which struggled financially anyway) the i360 remains, and will for ever remain, a one trick pony which stands little chance of regenerating anything but the coffers of Marks Barfield in the (very) short term.[/p][/quote]Sorry I inflated that by a £ million, but then, the i360 is sure to run over budget anyway - others are already quoting figures £10m higher. Richada
  • Score: 2

10:51am Fri 28 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

mimseycal wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".
Which question? Are you really saying that we are in no position to determine whether we want to accept being held accountable for a 34 million pound loan being underwritten in our name?
Are you saying that we cannot determine for ourselves whether in the current economic climate it is reasonable to take out such a huge loan on a single one purpose erection that has been begging and failing to raise private finance for years?
Are you saying that we cannot decide whether or not a single erection is going to regenerate a whole seafront that has been neglected for years?
No, those are all different questions.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".[/p][/quote]Which question? Are you really saying that we are in no position to determine whether we want to accept being held accountable for a 34 million pound loan being underwritten in our name? Are you saying that we cannot determine for ourselves whether in the current economic climate it is reasonable to take out such a huge loan on a single one purpose erection that has been begging and failing to raise private finance for years? Are you saying that we cannot decide whether or not a single erection is going to regenerate a whole seafront that has been neglected for years?[/p][/quote]No, those are all different questions. Gribbet
  • Score: -2

10:58am Fri 28 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

Gribbet wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".
Which question? Are you really saying that we are in no position to determine whether we want to accept being held accountable for a 34 million pound loan being underwritten in our name?
Are you saying that we cannot determine for ourselves whether in the current economic climate it is reasonable to take out such a huge loan on a single one purpose erection that has been begging and failing to raise private finance for years?
Are you saying that we cannot decide whether or not a single erection is going to regenerate a whole seafront that has been neglected for years?
No, those are all different questions.
So ... which question are we unqualified to answer?
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".[/p][/quote]Which question? Are you really saying that we are in no position to determine whether we want to accept being held accountable for a 34 million pound loan being underwritten in our name? Are you saying that we cannot determine for ourselves whether in the current economic climate it is reasonable to take out such a huge loan on a single one purpose erection that has been begging and failing to raise private finance for years? Are you saying that we cannot decide whether or not a single erection is going to regenerate a whole seafront that has been neglected for years?[/p][/quote]No, those are all different questions.[/p][/quote]So ... which question are we unqualified to answer? mimseycal
  • Score: 2

10:59am Fri 28 Feb 14

Richada says...

melee wrote:
I can't see it bringing business to the hotels, I really can't. Who on earth would pay out for an overnight stay just to go up a pole and look at the sea for half an hour?
If you want a nice view out across Brighton towards the pier and the sea may I recommend the maternity dept of the Royal Sussex County? There are some nice views from Brighton General as well. If there's so much profit to be had maybe the NHS has been missing a trick all these years!
Cracking idea!

Put a scenic lift up the side of the RSCH, an observation platform on the roof with a café, job done for a fraction of the price.
[quote][p][bold]melee[/bold] wrote: I can't see it bringing business to the hotels, I really can't. Who on earth would pay out for an overnight stay just to go up a pole and look at the sea for half an hour? If you want a nice view out across Brighton towards the pier and the sea may I recommend the maternity dept of the Royal Sussex County? There are some nice views from Brighton General as well. If there's so much profit to be had maybe the NHS has been missing a trick all these years![/p][/quote]Cracking idea! Put a scenic lift up the side of the RSCH, an observation platform on the roof with a café, job done for a fraction of the price. Richada
  • Score: 3

11:10am Fri 28 Feb 14

s_james says...

KempyLocals wrote:
Reading the above with the exeption of one or two most (by far) are against this. So why are our politicians in favour? Beyond belief...
Because they’ve seen the detailed evidence behind this, unlike anyone on here.
[quote][p][bold]KempyLocals[/bold] wrote: Reading the above with the exeption of one or two most (by far) are against this. So why are our politicians in favour? Beyond belief...[/p][/quote]Because they’ve seen the detailed evidence behind this, unlike anyone on here. s_james
  • Score: -6

11:16am Fri 28 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

Richada wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".
Isn't £36M+ (it is bound to run over-budget) rather a lot of taxpayers money to risk if 'you don't know' if a project is financially viable or not?

This statement just about sums up the Greens attitude towards financial responsibility.
There's risk involved in any commercial venture. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. People seem to want B&H to just stay exactly like is right now, but unfortunately that's an impossibility. Without bold new attractions (always with an element of risk) added to the mix, Brighton will eventually just become another Worthing. In this case it's a well calculated risk. Attractions like the i360 are part of Brighton's tradition and if the kind of risk-averse logic displayed in the comments above was applied throughout history, the pavilion, chain pier, volks railway, seashore railway, west pier, palace pier wouldn't have ever materialised.
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".[/p][/quote]Isn't £36M+ (it is bound to run over-budget) rather a lot of taxpayers money to risk if 'you don't know' if a project is financially viable or not? This statement just about sums up the Greens attitude towards financial responsibility.[/p][/quote]There's risk involved in any commercial venture. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. People seem to want B&H to just stay exactly like is right now, but unfortunately that's an impossibility. Without bold new attractions (always with an element of risk) added to the mix, Brighton will eventually just become another Worthing. In this case it's a well calculated risk. Attractions like the i360 are part of Brighton's tradition and if the kind of risk-averse logic displayed in the comments above was applied throughout history, the pavilion, chain pier, volks railway, seashore railway, west pier, palace pier wouldn't have ever materialised. Gribbet
  • Score: -6

11:19am Fri 28 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

mimseycal wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".
Which question? Are you really saying that we are in no position to determine whether we want to accept being held accountable for a 34 million pound loan being underwritten in our name?
Are you saying that we cannot determine for ourselves whether in the current economic climate it is reasonable to take out such a huge loan on a single one purpose erection that has been begging and failing to raise private finance for years?
Are you saying that we cannot decide whether or not a single erection is going to regenerate a whole seafront that has been neglected for years?
No, those are all different questions.
So ... which question are we unqualified to answer?
The one in the headline at the top of the page that The Argus has asked.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".[/p][/quote]Which question? Are you really saying that we are in no position to determine whether we want to accept being held accountable for a 34 million pound loan being underwritten in our name? Are you saying that we cannot determine for ourselves whether in the current economic climate it is reasonable to take out such a huge loan on a single one purpose erection that has been begging and failing to raise private finance for years? Are you saying that we cannot decide whether or not a single erection is going to regenerate a whole seafront that has been neglected for years?[/p][/quote]No, those are all different questions.[/p][/quote]So ... which question are we unqualified to answer?[/p][/quote]The one in the headline at the top of the page that The Argus has asked. Gribbet
  • Score: -2

11:26am Fri 28 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

Gribbet wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".
Which question? Are you really saying that we are in no position to determine whether we want to accept being held accountable for a 34 million pound loan being underwritten in our name?
Are you saying that we cannot determine for ourselves whether in the current economic climate it is reasonable to take out such a huge loan on a single one purpose erection that has been begging and failing to raise private finance for years?
Are you saying that we cannot decide whether or not a single erection is going to regenerate a whole seafront that has been neglected for years?
No, those are all different questions.
So ... which question are we unqualified to answer?
The one in the headline at the top of the page that The Argus has asked.
Which encompasses all those questions, and more, you claimed were not the question I have previously enumerated. Might I suggest that you are clearly not able to ask the question, never mind answering it?

Oh what the blazes ... I will suggest it whether you will allow me to or not!
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".[/p][/quote]Which question? Are you really saying that we are in no position to determine whether we want to accept being held accountable for a 34 million pound loan being underwritten in our name? Are you saying that we cannot determine for ourselves whether in the current economic climate it is reasonable to take out such a huge loan on a single one purpose erection that has been begging and failing to raise private finance for years? Are you saying that we cannot decide whether or not a single erection is going to regenerate a whole seafront that has been neglected for years?[/p][/quote]No, those are all different questions.[/p][/quote]So ... which question are we unqualified to answer?[/p][/quote]The one in the headline at the top of the page that The Argus has asked.[/p][/quote]Which encompasses all those questions, and more, you claimed were not the question I have previously enumerated. Might I suggest that you are clearly not able to ask the question, never mind answering it? Oh what the blazes ... I will suggest it whether you will allow me to or not! mimseycal
  • Score: 0

11:40am Fri 28 Feb 14

Richada says...

Gribbet wrote:
Richada wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".
Isn't £36M+ (it is bound to run over-budget) rather a lot of taxpayers money to risk if 'you don't know' if a project is financially viable or not?

This statement just about sums up the Greens attitude towards financial responsibility.
There's risk involved in any commercial venture. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. People seem to want B&H to just stay exactly like is right now, but unfortunately that's an impossibility. Without bold new attractions (always with an element of risk) added to the mix, Brighton will eventually just become another Worthing. In this case it's a well calculated risk. Attractions like the i360 are part of Brighton's tradition and if the kind of risk-averse logic displayed in the comments above was applied throughout history, the pavilion, chain pier, volks railway, seashore railway, west pier, palace pier wouldn't have ever materialised.
God forbid that Brighton & Hove should stay as it is right now!

Bins unemptied, recycling not collected, recycling rates falling through the floor, pot holed roads, pavements falling apart, road user "factions" at war, deliberate traffic mis-management schemes, pelican crossings being replaced with bicycle lanes outside schools, sheep to graze on main roads........

NO, Brighton can't stay exactly as it is now!

The i360 is merely a vain attempt to paper over these cracks in advance of local elections next year.
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".[/p][/quote]Isn't £36M+ (it is bound to run over-budget) rather a lot of taxpayers money to risk if 'you don't know' if a project is financially viable or not? This statement just about sums up the Greens attitude towards financial responsibility.[/p][/quote]There's risk involved in any commercial venture. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. People seem to want B&H to just stay exactly like is right now, but unfortunately that's an impossibility. Without bold new attractions (always with an element of risk) added to the mix, Brighton will eventually just become another Worthing. In this case it's a well calculated risk. Attractions like the i360 are part of Brighton's tradition and if the kind of risk-averse logic displayed in the comments above was applied throughout history, the pavilion, chain pier, volks railway, seashore railway, west pier, palace pier wouldn't have ever materialised.[/p][/quote]God forbid that Brighton & Hove should stay as it is right now! Bins unemptied, recycling not collected, recycling rates falling through the floor, pot holed roads, pavements falling apart, road user "factions" at war, deliberate traffic mis-management schemes, pelican crossings being replaced with bicycle lanes outside schools, sheep to graze on main roads........ NO, Brighton can't stay exactly as it is now! The i360 is merely a vain attempt to paper over these cracks in advance of local elections next year. Richada
  • Score: 5

11:51am Fri 28 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

mimseycal wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".
Which question? Are you really saying that we are in no position to determine whether we want to accept being held accountable for a 34 million pound loan being underwritten in our name?
Are you saying that we cannot determine for ourselves whether in the current economic climate it is reasonable to take out such a huge loan on a single one purpose erection that has been begging and failing to raise private finance for years?
Are you saying that we cannot decide whether or not a single erection is going to regenerate a whole seafront that has been neglected for years?
No, those are all different questions.
So ... which question are we unqualified to answer?
The one in the headline at the top of the page that The Argus has asked.
Which encompasses all those questions, and more, you claimed were not the question I have previously enumerated. Might I suggest that you are clearly not able to ask the question, never mind answering it?

Oh what the blazes ... I will suggest it whether you will allow me to or not!
"Would £36m be money well spent on the i360?"

Again, it's a question that nobody (including yourself) knows the answer to, but you'll all happily go ahead and provide an answer anyway. If you don't like, or trust the project that's a different matter.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".[/p][/quote]Which question? Are you really saying that we are in no position to determine whether we want to accept being held accountable for a 34 million pound loan being underwritten in our name? Are you saying that we cannot determine for ourselves whether in the current economic climate it is reasonable to take out such a huge loan on a single one purpose erection that has been begging and failing to raise private finance for years? Are you saying that we cannot decide whether or not a single erection is going to regenerate a whole seafront that has been neglected for years?[/p][/quote]No, those are all different questions.[/p][/quote]So ... which question are we unqualified to answer?[/p][/quote]The one in the headline at the top of the page that The Argus has asked.[/p][/quote]Which encompasses all those questions, and more, you claimed were not the question I have previously enumerated. Might I suggest that you are clearly not able to ask the question, never mind answering it? Oh what the blazes ... I will suggest it whether you will allow me to or not![/p][/quote]"Would £36m be money well spent on the i360?" Again, it's a question that nobody (including yourself) knows the answer to, but you'll all happily go ahead and provide an answer anyway. If you don't like, or trust the project that's a different matter. Gribbet
  • Score: -2

12:44pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Hovite says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Hovite wrote:
Apparently there is an exclusive on the Latest website saying that the end cost of the project will be more than £46m.

http://thelatest.co.


uk/brighton/2014/02/


27/exclusive-i360-co


sts-doubled-with-fin


al-bill-now-more-tha


n-46-million/
By the time the darn thing is shipped over and constructed, it will probably be 100m. I would have liked your comment but it might have looked like people were supporting this madness! Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for noticing my post, I think it has slipped most by.
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: Apparently there is an exclusive on the Latest website saying that the end cost of the project will be more than £46m. http://thelatest.co. uk/brighton/2014/02/ 27/exclusive-i360-co sts-doubled-with-fin al-bill-now-more-tha n-46-million/[/p][/quote]By the time the darn thing is shipped over and constructed, it will probably be 100m. I would have liked your comment but it might have looked like people were supporting this madness! Thanks for sharing![/p][/quote]Thanks for noticing my post, I think it has slipped most by. Hovite
  • Score: 4

1:20pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Durango_Splubb says...

"By the time the darn thing is shipped over and constructed, it will probably be 100m." -AT LEAST! And it's obviously going to be less of a tourist attraction than the decaying West pier! If built, this will be seen as a monumental political folly, a grossly exorbitant carbuncle requiring extortionate local tax increases from businesses thus achieving the opposite of it's intended purpose.

We all know politicians often get things wrong, but, seldom do we see such blatantly outrageous stupidity!
"By the time the darn thing is shipped over and constructed, it will probably be 100m." -AT LEAST! And it's obviously going to be less of a tourist attraction than the decaying West pier! If built, this will be seen as a monumental political folly, a grossly exorbitant carbuncle requiring extortionate local tax increases from businesses thus achieving the opposite of it's intended purpose. We all know politicians often get things wrong, but, seldom do we see such blatantly outrageous stupidity! Durango_Splubb
  • Score: 9

5:48pm Sun 2 Mar 14

fredflintstone1 says...

Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
RottingdeanRant wrote:
No it won’t be well spent. Otherwise, private investment could have been found. Furthermore, I am confused by the statements that either the £36m loan is not a risk to the council tax payers, but at the same time the council will make a profit from the load! I would be very surprised if there is a no risk investment that pays interest.
It hinges on the fact that councils can borrow money for capital investment at a low rate from the national government Public Works Loan Board. At the same time, if the council wants to lend money it is required to do so at commercial rates.

Figures quoted by Cllr Cox are that the loan from PWLB (that the council would be borrowing from) will be fixed at 4% while the loan to the i360 company is fixed at 7.8% so the council accrues interest on that 3.8% differential. There is also a share of ticket sales and an administration fee - in total the council will gain £1.1m per year for the 25 years of the term.

The council stands to gain more than a private investor because of this profit but also because of the incentive from regeneration of that area of the seafront and Preston Street and the boost to business rates from greater tourism.
And once again you assume success. The council will only gain if the project is a success. If it fails then the taxpayer picks up the bill - all £36m + 4% a year of it.
It will be a success if the visitor numbers are half those predicted by AECOM. That's why council officers are recommending it as a low risk, high profit investment.
And just how many council officers have ever set up and run a multi-million pound business? They can't even run dustcarts.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RottingdeanRant[/bold] wrote: No it won’t be well spent. Otherwise, private investment could have been found. Furthermore, I am confused by the statements that either the £36m loan is not a risk to the council tax payers, but at the same time the council will make a profit from the load! I would be very surprised if there is a no risk investment that pays interest.[/p][/quote]It hinges on the fact that councils can borrow money for capital investment at a low rate from the national government Public Works Loan Board. At the same time, if the council wants to lend money it is required to do so at commercial rates. Figures quoted by Cllr Cox are that the loan from PWLB (that the council would be borrowing from) will be fixed at 4% while the loan to the i360 company is fixed at 7.8% so the council accrues interest on that 3.8% differential. There is also a share of ticket sales and an administration fee - in total the council will gain £1.1m per year for the 25 years of the term. The council stands to gain more than a private investor because of this profit but also because of the incentive from regeneration of that area of the seafront and Preston Street and the boost to business rates from greater tourism.[/p][/quote]And once again you assume success. The council will only gain if the project is a success. If it fails then the taxpayer picks up the bill - all £36m + 4% a year of it.[/p][/quote]It will be a success if the visitor numbers are half those predicted by AECOM. That's why council officers are recommending it as a low risk, high profit investment.[/p][/quote]And just how many council officers have ever set up and run a multi-million pound business? They can't even run dustcarts. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 5

7:27pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Durango_Splubb says...

It won't be a success!

It's tourist value is being grossly over-stated!

There has never been a single person lobbying for a "Blob-on-a-stick!

The "Loan" arrangements will become another drain on the already over-stretched 'Poll Tax bill' so we, the voters & our children will pay about £100 millions for this wasteful eyesore! -Of course the "Investors" will have to get a profit on their stakes so that'll ensure the white elephant costs so much!
It won't be a success! It's tourist value is being grossly over-stated! There has never been a single person lobbying for a "Blob-on-a-stick! The "Loan" arrangements will become another drain on the already over-stretched 'Poll Tax bill' so we, the voters & our children will pay about £100 millions for this wasteful eyesore! -Of course the "Investors" will have to get a profit on their stakes so that'll ensure the white elephant costs so much! Durango_Splubb
  • Score: 4

4:49pm Mon 3 Mar 14

PorkyChopper says...

Eugenius wrote:
Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help.

It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area.

Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever.

Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.
I bet you even kept a straight face when you sat down and typed that out.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help. It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area. Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever. Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.[/p][/quote]I bet you even kept a straight face when you sat down and typed that out. PorkyChopper
  • Score: 5

4:56pm Mon 3 Mar 14

PorkyChopper says...

s_james wrote:
KempyLocals wrote:
Reading the above with the exeption of one or two most (by far) are against this. So why are our politicians in favour? Beyond belief...
Because they’ve seen the detailed evidence behind this, unlike anyone on here.
What detailed evidence? The fraudulent figures regarding the number of jobs that will be created, the number of visitors expected, and the income that it will bring in? Or the non existent market research that went into coming up with these figures? This scheme needs investigating by forensic accountants. The figures are complete ****, and those that stand to gain financially from them need to be put in prison.
[quote][p][bold]s_james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KempyLocals[/bold] wrote: Reading the above with the exeption of one or two most (by far) are against this. So why are our politicians in favour? Beyond belief...[/p][/quote]Because they’ve seen the detailed evidence behind this, unlike anyone on here.[/p][/quote]What detailed evidence? The fraudulent figures regarding the number of jobs that will be created, the number of visitors expected, and the income that it will bring in? Or the non existent market research that went into coming up with these figures? This scheme needs investigating by forensic accountants. The figures are complete ****, and those that stand to gain financially from them need to be put in prison. PorkyChopper
  • Score: 5

10:21pm Mon 3 Mar 14

ken standing says...

Eugenius wrote:
KempyLocals wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
PetertheGrate wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help.

It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area.

Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever.

Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.
Cloud cuckoo land: The problem is that there is little to see from the top. Half the view is sea and the other half is grass with the small city of Brighton in the foreground. It will attract visitors the first year aand then gradually fade away.
This money could be better spent.
Yes, the revenue projections take into account a drop in visitor numbers after year one. "818k in the opening year stabilising at between 700k and 725k visitors a year five years after opening". The visitor projections were calculated by AECOM Economics, who have a very good track record, having correctly forecast numbers for the London Eye, Universal Studios and the Getty Centre among others. It's Appendix 5 in this 2012 committee report tinyurl.com/npjwxw9

I understand the Local Economic Partnership carried out their own independent assessment and came back with very similar figures.
Funny - because the report on the planning application 'estimates up to 550.000 in the first year' i360 projections then and now appear to have gone up - I guess punch in the right figures you get the right answer
Or increase the pod capacity - it was 125 in the original proposal, now 200.
Ah .... then it will have all the fun and delight of the London Undergound in the rush hour.

"Excuse me .... could you just raise your arm a little so I can get a glimpse of the horizon please?"

This is like an Ealing comedy but it is real and so is the bill we'll be landed with.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KempyLocals[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PetertheGrate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help. It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area. Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever. Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.[/p][/quote]Cloud cuckoo land: The problem is that there is little to see from the top. Half the view is sea and the other half is grass with the small city of Brighton in the foreground. It will attract visitors the first year aand then gradually fade away. This money could be better spent.[/p][/quote]Yes, the revenue projections take into account a drop in visitor numbers after year one. "818k in the opening year stabilising at between 700k and 725k visitors a year five years after opening". The visitor projections were calculated by AECOM Economics, who have a very good track record, having correctly forecast numbers for the London Eye, Universal Studios and the Getty Centre among others. It's Appendix 5 in this 2012 committee report tinyurl.com/npjwxw9 I understand the Local Economic Partnership carried out their own independent assessment and came back with very similar figures.[/p][/quote]Funny - because the report on the planning application 'estimates up to 550.000 in the first year' i360 projections then and now appear to have gone up - I guess punch in the right figures you get the right answer[/p][/quote]Or increase the pod capacity - it was 125 in the original proposal, now 200.[/p][/quote]Ah .... then it will have all the fun and delight of the London Undergound in the rush hour. "Excuse me .... could you just raise your arm a little so I can get a glimpse of the horizon please?" This is like an Ealing comedy but it is real and so is the bill we'll be landed with. ken standing
  • Score: 6

10:23pm Mon 3 Mar 14

ken standing says...

PorkyChopper wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help.

It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area.

Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever.

Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.
I bet you even kept a straight face when you sat down and typed that out.
Quite ...... doughnut on a pole ..... Highly iconic!
[quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Yes, the i360 is a good investment for the city and by acting as the intermediary between the developer and the Public Works Loan Board the council will make a sizeable profit which can be reinvested in refurbishing other areas of the seafront. The developer will pay the council an arrangement fee, then £1m a year in interest on the loan for 25 years plus a percentage on the ticket sales. And this is exactly the sort of regeneration project which the Public Works Loan Board is designed to help. It will directly generate 170 new jobs plus as estimated 400 more in the local area. Businesses in the city will benefit from the increased tourist trade - more international tourists coming down from London and more visitors staying overnight. The council will in turn benefit from an improved business rate base which should help to limit future increases in council tax. The government is reducing the council's main funding, the Revenue Support Grant by £10m every year and it is set to disappear altogether by 2020 (Labour have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans so a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference) therefore a successful local economy becomes more important than ever. Brighton & Hove should be competing to be one of the top ten beach cities in the world and as an iconic, futuristic attraction the i360 will give us the lift we need.[/p][/quote]I bet you even kept a straight face when you sat down and typed that out.[/p][/quote]Quite ...... doughnut on a pole ..... Highly iconic! ken standing
  • Score: 4

10:31pm Mon 3 Mar 14

ken standing says...

"Hovite wrote:
Apparently there is an exclusive on the Latest website saying that the end cost of the project will be more than £46m."

You could buy an awful lot of paint, rust treatment, pot-hole repair materials, cleaning and repairing the sleazy, run-down areas, give funding to ailing social services and various environmental projects etc for that.

You could probably rebuild the West Pier in replica PLUS deckchairs.

What is it that turns councillors into reckless desperatre financial lemmings when they get elected. The voters are screaming "We don't want it !!! Don't build it !!!" but the Council carries on regardless of logic and sense.
"Hovite wrote: Apparently there is an exclusive on the Latest website saying that the end cost of the project will be more than £46m." You could buy an awful lot of paint, rust treatment, pot-hole repair materials, cleaning and repairing the sleazy, run-down areas, give funding to ailing social services and various environmental projects etc for that. You could probably rebuild the West Pier in replica PLUS deckchairs. What is it that turns councillors into reckless desperatre financial lemmings when they get elected. The voters are screaming "We don't want it !!! Don't build it !!!" but the Council carries on regardless of logic and sense. ken standing
  • Score: 6

10:38pm Mon 3 Mar 14

ken standing says...

Richada wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Richada wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".
Isn't £36M+ (it is bound to run over-budget) rather a lot of taxpayers money to risk if 'you don't know' if a project is financially viable or not?

This statement just about sums up the Greens attitude towards financial responsibility.
There's risk involved in any commercial venture. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. People seem to want B&H to just stay exactly like is right now, but unfortunately that's an impossibility. Without bold new attractions (always with an element of risk) added to the mix, Brighton will eventually just become another Worthing. In this case it's a well calculated risk. Attractions like the i360 are part of Brighton's tradition and if the kind of risk-averse logic displayed in the comments above was applied throughout history, the pavilion, chain pier, volks railway, seashore railway, west pier, palace pier wouldn't have ever materialised.
God forbid that Brighton & Hove should stay as it is right now!

Bins unemptied, recycling not collected, recycling rates falling through the floor, pot holed roads, pavements falling apart, road user "factions" at war, deliberate traffic mis-management schemes, pelican crossings being replaced with bicycle lanes outside schools, sheep to graze on main roads........

NO, Brighton can't stay exactly as it is now!

The i360 is merely a vain attempt to paper over these cracks in advance of local elections next year.
Exactly ..... bring back the Daddy Long Legs and regenerate Rottingdean.

Anyway Brighton's appeal is in its lively charm based on its history and heritage. That's what should be focused on ...... identify why people like Brighton and preserve what's left and provide more. of it. ..... not a vacuous sub-Disney ride costing, what £42m now?
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: In reality, no one above is actually in a position to be able to answer this question. People should really just say "don't know".[/p][/quote]Isn't £36M+ (it is bound to run over-budget) rather a lot of taxpayers money to risk if 'you don't know' if a project is financially viable or not? This statement just about sums up the Greens attitude towards financial responsibility.[/p][/quote]There's risk involved in any commercial venture. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. People seem to want B&H to just stay exactly like is right now, but unfortunately that's an impossibility. Without bold new attractions (always with an element of risk) added to the mix, Brighton will eventually just become another Worthing. In this case it's a well calculated risk. Attractions like the i360 are part of Brighton's tradition and if the kind of risk-averse logic displayed in the comments above was applied throughout history, the pavilion, chain pier, volks railway, seashore railway, west pier, palace pier wouldn't have ever materialised.[/p][/quote]God forbid that Brighton & Hove should stay as it is right now! Bins unemptied, recycling not collected, recycling rates falling through the floor, pot holed roads, pavements falling apart, road user "factions" at war, deliberate traffic mis-management schemes, pelican crossings being replaced with bicycle lanes outside schools, sheep to graze on main roads........ NO, Brighton can't stay exactly as it is now! The i360 is merely a vain attempt to paper over these cracks in advance of local elections next year.[/p][/quote]Exactly ..... bring back the Daddy Long Legs and regenerate Rottingdean. Anyway Brighton's appeal is in its lively charm based on its history and heritage. That's what should be focused on ...... identify why people like Brighton and preserve what's left and provide more. of it. ..... not a vacuous sub-Disney ride costing, what £42m now? ken standing
  • Score: 5

10:51pm Mon 3 Mar 14

ken standing says...

Richada wrote:
melee wrote:
I can't see it bringing business to the hotels, I really can't. Who on earth would pay out for an overnight stay just to go up a pole and look at the sea for half an hour?
If you want a nice view out across Brighton towards the pier and the sea may I recommend the maternity dept of the Royal Sussex County? There are some nice views from Brighton General as well. If there's so much profit to be had maybe the NHS has been missing a trick all these years!
Cracking idea!

Put a scenic lift up the side of the RSCH, an observation platform on the roof with a café, job done for a fraction of the price.
...... or lay on a special bus up the Race Hill and fix some telescopes there.
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]melee[/bold] wrote: I can't see it bringing business to the hotels, I really can't. Who on earth would pay out for an overnight stay just to go up a pole and look at the sea for half an hour? If you want a nice view out across Brighton towards the pier and the sea may I recommend the maternity dept of the Royal Sussex County? There are some nice views from Brighton General as well. If there's so much profit to be had maybe the NHS has been missing a trick all these years![/p][/quote]Cracking idea! Put a scenic lift up the side of the RSCH, an observation platform on the roof with a café, job done for a fraction of the price.[/p][/quote]...... or lay on a special bus up the Race Hill and fix some telescopes there. ken standing
  • Score: 5

12:22am Tue 4 Mar 14

KempyLocals says...

Has anyone got a scale drawing of a. 30M diameter doughnut minus the central circle then allowed for headroom and actually plotted 200 say standard size people on it (to scale) just to see what that would look like?

Surely someone, somewhere can show us this? Right? If not Cllrs should be far more cynical.....maybe Cllr Theobald has seen such a plan?
Has anyone got a scale drawing of a. 30M diameter doughnut minus the central circle then allowed for headroom and actually plotted 200 say standard size people on it (to scale) just to see what that would look like? Surely someone, somewhere can show us this? Right? If not Cllrs should be far more cynical.....maybe Cllr Theobald has seen such a plan? KempyLocals
  • Score: 5

11:32am Tue 4 Mar 14

ThinkBrighton says...

cynic_the wrote:
scoobysnax wrote:
Money well spent on who?

Who cares? Brighton is built on Bribes, Kickbacks and Backhanders.

The dodgy councillors have made millions on this, do you honestly think they give a stuff if this money is well spent on you?

Bring on the forensic accountants. Marks and Barfield are actually bankrupt, their accounts show £1.8 million in the red, why don't you ask them where the money goes?
The above is probably the best comment here.

Whilst we all bicker about numbers and the design itself, whether or not it will be successful and who picks up the bill, the reality is that this project is just a clever way of making a huge amount of public money disappear.
This weak council has been conned into this stupid scheme.
It's similar to the episode of the Simpsons that features the mono-rail, it will all end in tears (except for Marks and Barfield that is, who a 100 years ago would have probably been snake oil salesman)
[quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scoobysnax[/bold] wrote: Money well spent on who? Who cares? Brighton is built on Bribes, Kickbacks and Backhanders. The dodgy councillors have made millions on this, do you honestly think they give a stuff if this money is well spent on you? Bring on the forensic accountants. Marks and Barfield are actually bankrupt, their accounts show £1.8 million in the red, why don't you ask them where the money goes?[/p][/quote]The above is probably the best comment here. Whilst we all bicker about numbers and the design itself, whether or not it will be successful and who picks up the bill, the reality is that this project is just a clever way of making a huge amount of public money disappear.[/p][/quote]This weak council has been conned into this stupid scheme. It's similar to the episode of the Simpsons that features the mono-rail, it will all end in tears (except for Marks and Barfield that is, who a 100 years ago would have probably been snake oil salesman) ThinkBrighton
  • Score: 8

11:44am Tue 4 Mar 14

Durango_Splubb says...

Well said "cynic_the "!
Of course they're all fiddling, that's why they are in politics. Its one job where you don't need any qualifications just big pockets & the ability to keep yer gob shut until you're out of office!
Well said "cynic_the "! Of course they're all fiddling, that's why they are in politics. Its one job where you don't need any qualifications just big pockets & the ability to keep yer gob shut until you're out of office! Durango_Splubb
  • Score: 3

3:12pm Tue 4 Mar 14

KempyLocals says...

This poll was set up to gauge public opinion in that sense I think it has done that such a shame public opinion fails to influence elected representatives of the people! I'm with Russell Brand - don't vote - they can't be bothered to listen!!!
This poll was set up to gauge public opinion in that sense I think it has done that such a shame public opinion fails to influence elected representatives of the people! I'm with Russell Brand - don't vote - they can't be bothered to listen!!! KempyLocals
  • Score: 4

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