Council gives i360 green light with £36m government loan

Council gives i360 green light with £36m government loan

Council gives i360 green light with £36m government loan

First published in News
Last updated

The controversial i360 project for Brighton seafront has been given the green light.

Councillors have voted to go ahead with a £36m government loan that will go straight to the developers.

Coast to Capital LEP, a partnership between public authorities and a private company which promotes economic growth, will provide £4 million while developers Marks Barfield will provide the final £6 million to the project.

The council will receive £985,000 a year for 25 years – thought to be worth about £21.2 million in total – £60,000 in business rates and £70,000 in Section 106 payments, which will benefit the local community.

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

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

For full coverage of the decision see tomorrow's The Argus.

Comments (114)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:52pm Thu 6 Mar 14

RottingdeanRant says...

Only mention the positive! What happens if they don’t repay the loan!!!!
Only mention the positive! What happens if they don’t repay the loan!!!! RottingdeanRant
  • Score: 27

5:55pm Thu 6 Mar 14

rolivan says...

Why is it being kept quiet that The West Pier Trust are the Landlords and will be receiving Rent from Brighton i360 Ltd?
Why is it being kept quiet that The West Pier Trust are the Landlords and will be receiving Rent from Brighton i360 Ltd? rolivan
  • Score: 36

5:56pm Thu 6 Mar 14

melee says...

Yes, what;s all this "the council WILL receive" business?
We don't know if the council WILL receive anything other than a big debt.
Yes, what;s all this "the council WILL receive" business? We don't know if the council WILL receive anything other than a big debt. melee
  • Score: 26

5:58pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Brighton Living says...

Love the graphics but we all know this will end-up being yet another neglected council project and within in years rusty . Good for the Hilton and Grand though as right on there door step. Could have rebuilt the West Pier for that much though....... :(
Love the graphics but we all know this will end-up being yet another neglected council project and within in years rusty . Good for the Hilton and Grand though as right on there door step. Could have rebuilt the West Pier for that much though....... :( Brighton Living
  • Score: 23

6:05pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Richada says...

FOOLS!

Did you see the break even visitor numbers?

The way I worked it out, at £14.00 per ride, this needs to average a fraction over 1200 visitors, 365 days a year merely to break even. (It is closed 2 weeks in January - presumably for maintenance so the 1200 figure has to go up).

The council's security? The assets of the i360 itself! By the time it bankrupts the developer it will already be a proven failure.

Never mind, it is all academic now - for our own sakes we have to pray for a miracle - that being that the i360 confounds all we moanerati and is a roaring success.
FOOLS! Did you see the break even visitor numbers? The way I worked it out, at £14.00 per ride, this needs to average a fraction over 1200 visitors, 365 days a year merely to break even. (It is closed 2 weeks in January - presumably for maintenance so the 1200 figure has to go up). The council's security? The assets of the i360 itself! By the time it bankrupts the developer it will already be a proven failure. Never mind, it is all academic now - for our own sakes we have to pray for a miracle - that being that the i360 confounds all we moanerati and is a roaring success. Richada
  • Score: 24

6:10pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Richada says...

rolivan wrote:
Why is it being kept quiet that The West Pier Trust are the Landlords and will be receiving Rent from Brighton i360 Ltd?
Because it is impossible to put any positive spin on the involvement of the West Pier "Trust" in this project.

Founded in 1978, what exactly have we got to show for their existence?

Over the same period of time, look at what the ss Great Britain Trust in Bristol have achieved with a far more niche attraction.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: Why is it being kept quiet that The West Pier Trust are the Landlords and will be receiving Rent from Brighton i360 Ltd?[/p][/quote]Because it is impossible to put any positive spin on the involvement of the West Pier "Trust" in this project. Founded in 1978, what exactly have we got to show for their existence? Over the same period of time, look at what the ss Great Britain Trust in Bristol have achieved with a far more niche attraction. Richada
  • Score: 26

6:22pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Jagmanmc says...

What a waste of money!
Build a new pier instead to replace the West pier.
This will be ok until it breaks down...
What a waste of money! Build a new pier instead to replace the West pier. This will be ok until it breaks down... Jagmanmc
  • Score: 12

6:25pm Thu 6 Mar 14

sound_man says...

And your council tax is increasing...
And services are being cut....
And the roads are full of holes...
And here is £36 million of public money to fund a private building that will be run for a profit (but I expect it will make losses) by a private company.
And your council tax is increasing... And services are being cut.... And the roads are full of holes... And here is £36 million of public money to fund a private building that will be run for a profit (but I expect it will make losses) by a private company. sound_man
  • Score: 49

6:31pm Thu 6 Mar 14

PorkyChopper says...

Please get the Fraud Squad in.
Please get the Fraud Squad in. PorkyChopper
  • Score: 33

6:36pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

So the architect firm responsible for the firm are millions in debt. The two shareholders of said architects firm happen to also be the two shareholders of ........ Brighton i360 Ltd !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This stinks to high heaven - I wonder how many brown envelopes were used ? The Greens supported putting the city taxpayers at risk because they are a little simple and don't really care about locals ( most of them being from other places ). But the Tories ? What planet were they on ?

Last local election two of my votes went to conservative candidates - Dawn Barnett and Tony Janio. I will seriously have to consider switching next year to Labour. Shame on the Tories.
So the architect firm responsible for the firm are millions in debt. The two shareholders of said architects firm happen to also be the two shareholders of ........ Brighton i360 Ltd !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This stinks to high heaven - I wonder how many brown envelopes were used ? The Greens supported putting the city taxpayers at risk because they are a little simple and don't really care about locals ( most of them being from other places ). But the Tories ? What planet were they on ? Last local election two of my votes went to conservative candidates - Dawn Barnett and Tony Janio. I will seriously have to consider switching next year to Labour. Shame on the Tories. Fight_Back
  • Score: 36

6:43pm Thu 6 Mar 14

wexler53 says...

How apt... A one fingered salute from Jason and the greens to the next 50 years of beleaguered Brighton tax payers.

We can't be shot of these idiots soon enough. I fear for what more lasting damage they're going to inflict on our city?
How apt... A one fingered salute from Jason and the greens to the next 50 years of beleaguered Brighton tax payers. We can't be shot of these idiots soon enough. I fear for what more lasting damage they're going to inflict on our city? wexler53
  • Score: 26

6:52pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Trust isn't a word anyone would use for the West Pier Trust. A group of middle class people who let the pier fall into the sea and still continued with their obsession despite leaving a load of scrap metal in the sea.
I hope they will be legally responsible for a share of the debt.
Please list the names of all councillors who voted for this so there is a public record of who we can pursue in a few years time for re payment.
Individuals must be accountable and not hide behind party politics.
Trust isn't a word anyone would use for the West Pier Trust. A group of middle class people who let the pier fall into the sea and still continued with their obsession despite leaving a load of scrap metal in the sea. I hope they will be legally responsible for a share of the debt. Please list the names of all councillors who voted for this so there is a public record of who we can pursue in a few years time for re payment. Individuals must be accountable and not hide behind party politics. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 22

7:02pm Thu 6 Mar 14

upsidedowntuctuc says...

total disgrace coming within 24 hours of a Council Tax hike they can support BIG business with a £36million loan!
total disgrace coming within 24 hours of a Council Tax hike they can support BIG business with a £36million loan! upsidedowntuctuc
  • Score: 27

7:05pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Old Ale Man says...

Fight_Back wrote:
So the architect firm responsible for the firm are millions in debt. The two shareholders of said architects firm happen to also be the two shareholders of ........ Brighton i360 Ltd !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This stinks to high heaven - I wonder how many brown envelopes were used ? The Greens supported putting the city taxpayers at risk because they are a little simple and don't really care about locals ( most of them being from other places ). But the Tories ? What planet were they on ? Last local election two of my votes went to conservative candidates - Dawn Barnett and Tony Janio. I will seriously have to consider switching next year to Labour. Shame on the Tories.
Dawn Barnett did not support the i360 and she told me that other Conservative councillors saw through this and are not suporting this scheme, they were named in the Argus a week or so back, but I can't remember which ones they are.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So the architect firm responsible for the firm are millions in debt. The two shareholders of said architects firm happen to also be the two shareholders of ........ Brighton i360 Ltd !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This stinks to high heaven - I wonder how many brown envelopes were used ? The Greens supported putting the city taxpayers at risk because they are a little simple and don't really care about locals ( most of them being from other places ). But the Tories ? What planet were they on ? Last local election two of my votes went to conservative candidates - Dawn Barnett and Tony Janio. I will seriously have to consider switching next year to Labour. Shame on the Tories.[/p][/quote]Dawn Barnett did not support the i360 and she told me that other Conservative councillors saw through this and are not suporting this scheme, they were named in the Argus a week or so back, but I can't remember which ones they are. Old Ale Man
  • Score: 16

7:17pm Thu 6 Mar 14

rolivan says...

I watched the live Webcast and was astounded by the lack of questions asked of The Developers.Anyone with a few minutes of spare time should google "London eye sold to Tussauds" and read what happened prior to the buying out B.A and Marks Barfield.I would be very worried if I was signing off £36.2m.Marks Barfield who designed the Eye and had a one third share in it couldn't come up with Funding for the i360 .British Airways sold their share for £95m I wonder what Marks Barfield did with their Share?
I watched the live Webcast and was astounded by the lack of questions asked of The Developers.Anyone with a few minutes of spare time should google "London eye sold to Tussauds" and read what happened prior to the buying out B.A and Marks Barfield.I would be very worried if I was signing off £36.2m.Marks Barfield who designed the Eye and had a one third share in it couldn't come up with Funding for the i360 .British Airways sold their share for £95m I wonder what Marks Barfield did with their Share? rolivan
  • Score: 23

7:19pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Herbertfarquarson says...

Fantastic! Great News. This development will be the cornerstone of the future success of Brighton as a visitor destination.
Fantastic! Great News. This development will be the cornerstone of the future success of Brighton as a visitor destination. Herbertfarquarson
  • Score: -30

8:21pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Ania Green says...

The i360 will look amazing when it's built and will inject much needed tourist money into the local economy.
The i360 will look amazing when it's built and will inject much needed tourist money into the local economy. Ania Green
  • Score: -42

8:23pm Thu 6 Mar 14

RJJM says...

As of 2005, however, the London Eye hadn't yet turned a profit, and British Airways and Marks Barfield were in debt. In 2006, the Tussauds, a company that owns other attractions, bought the wheel and dropped "British Airways" from its name.

http://adventure.how
stuffworks.com/londo
n-eye.htm
As of 2005, however, the London Eye hadn't yet turned a profit, and British Airways and Marks Barfield were in debt. In 2006, the Tussauds, a company that owns other attractions, bought the wheel and dropped "British Airways" from its name. http://adventure.how stuffworks.com/londo n-eye.htm RJJM
  • Score: 5

8:24pm Thu 6 Mar 14

John Steed says...

fools, but remember he who laughs last, laughs longest. soon available a birds eye veiw of the final death throws of the west pier
fools, but remember he who laughs last, laughs longest. soon available a birds eye veiw of the final death throws of the west pier John Steed
  • Score: 3

8:31pm Thu 6 Mar 14

rolivan says...

Ania Green wrote:
The i360 will look amazing when it's built and will inject much needed tourist money into the local economy.
Even if all of these extra visitors were to come to The City how would they arrive?The trains cannot cope with passenger numbers now.The Greens have done all they can to make it prohibitive to bring a Car.They should have built a Helipad ontop as that is about the only easy way to reach it.
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: The i360 will look amazing when it's built and will inject much needed tourist money into the local economy.[/p][/quote]Even if all of these extra visitors were to come to The City how would they arrive?The trains cannot cope with passenger numbers now.The Greens have done all they can to make it prohibitive to bring a Car.They should have built a Helipad ontop as that is about the only easy way to reach it. rolivan
  • Score: 22

8:47pm Thu 6 Mar 14

RJJM says...

http://notesbrokenso
ciety.wordpress.com/
2014/01/19/brightons
-i360-no-justificati
on-for-public-fundin
g/

Summary no i360 claim against bhcc for 10s millions including costs because of implied contract.

Yes we have been mugged.

How many years will it be until Pavilion sold. Less than 5 after new dev there approved.

Arseholes.
http://notesbrokenso ciety.wordpress.com/ 2014/01/19/brightons -i360-no-justificati on-for-public-fundin g/ Summary no i360 claim against bhcc for 10s millions including costs because of implied contract. Yes we have been mugged. How many years will it be until Pavilion sold. Less than 5 after new dev there approved. Arseholes. RJJM
  • Score: 13

8:48pm Thu 6 Mar 14

notaconspiracy says...

I wonder if the same online posters would have posted exactly the same comments when the Argus announced, via their steam-powered website, that Brighton was to have a pier, just for walking on?
I wonder if the same online posters would have posted exactly the same comments when the Argus announced, via their steam-powered website, that Brighton was to have a pier, just for walking on? notaconspiracy
  • Score: -7

9:17pm Thu 6 Mar 14

rolivan says...

notaconspiracy wrote:
I wonder if the same online posters would have posted exactly the same comments when the Argus announced, via their steam-powered website, that Brighton was to have a pier, just for walking on?
Only if it cost the then equivalent of £15 and you were only allowed to spend 20 minutes on it.
[quote][p][bold]notaconspiracy[/bold] wrote: I wonder if the same online posters would have posted exactly the same comments when the Argus announced, via their steam-powered website, that Brighton was to have a pier, just for walking on?[/p][/quote]Only if it cost the then equivalent of £15 and you were only allowed to spend 20 minutes on it. rolivan
  • Score: 9

9:18pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Richada says...

notaconspiracy wrote:
I wonder if the same online posters would have posted exactly the same comments when the Argus announced, via their steam-powered website, that Brighton was to have a pier, just for walking on?
No, we probably wouldn't.

Times were different then, we had civic pride, the "seaside trade" was entirely different, we didn't jet out of Gatwick to the Costa Cheapo, where, let's face it, it's much cheaper and much warmer and sunnier than here in Brighton.

Also we did not have a council leader holding a gun to our heads over caring for the vulnerable whilst gambling with our money in order to finance the building of the pier using......you've got, it OUR money in the form of a government loan.

Having said all of that, there were a group of moanerati in Regency Square who lodged objections to the building of the West Pier - and, ironically - specifically the square toll booths, the very same which feature as part of the i360 development.
[quote][p][bold]notaconspiracy[/bold] wrote: I wonder if the same online posters would have posted exactly the same comments when the Argus announced, via their steam-powered website, that Brighton was to have a pier, just for walking on?[/p][/quote]No, we probably wouldn't. Times were different then, we had civic pride, the "seaside trade" was entirely different, we didn't jet out of Gatwick to the Costa Cheapo, where, let's face it, it's much cheaper and much warmer and sunnier than here in Brighton. Also we did not have a council leader holding a gun to our heads over caring for the vulnerable whilst gambling with our money in order to finance the building of the pier using......you've got, it OUR money in the form of a government loan. Having said all of that, there were a group of moanerati in Regency Square who lodged objections to the building of the West Pier - and, ironically - specifically the square toll booths, the very same which feature as part of the i360 development. Richada
  • Score: 6

9:20pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Ania Green wrote:
The i360 will look amazing when it's built and will inject much needed tourist money into the local economy.
It will look like what it is: a seriously intrusive and annoying pole.
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: The i360 will look amazing when it's built and will inject much needed tourist money into the local economy.[/p][/quote]It will look like what it is: a seriously intrusive and annoying pole. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 24

9:22pm Thu 6 Mar 14

rolivan says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Ania Green wrote:
The i360 will look amazing when it's built and will inject much needed tourist money into the local economy.
It will look like what it is: a seriously intrusive and annoying pole.
Valerie are You talking about the i360 Pole?
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: The i360 will look amazing when it's built and will inject much needed tourist money into the local economy.[/p][/quote]It will look like what it is: a seriously intrusive and annoying pole.[/p][/quote]Valerie are You talking about the i360 Pole? rolivan
  • Score: 11

9:54pm Thu 6 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

Fight_Back wrote:
So the architect firm responsible for the firm are millions in debt. The two shareholders of said architects firm happen to also be the two shareholders of ........ Brighton i360 Ltd !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This stinks to high heaven - I wonder how many brown envelopes were used ? The Greens supported putting the city taxpayers at risk because they are a little simple and don't really care about locals ( most of them being from other places ). But the Tories ? What planet were they on ?

Last local election two of my votes went to conservative candidates - Dawn Barnett and Tony Janio. I will seriously have to consider switching next year to Labour. Shame on the Tories.
Wait a minute! For the last 3 years you have been telling us you voted Green!
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So the architect firm responsible for the firm are millions in debt. The two shareholders of said architects firm happen to also be the two shareholders of ........ Brighton i360 Ltd !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This stinks to high heaven - I wonder how many brown envelopes were used ? The Greens supported putting the city taxpayers at risk because they are a little simple and don't really care about locals ( most of them being from other places ). But the Tories ? What planet were they on ? Last local election two of my votes went to conservative candidates - Dawn Barnett and Tony Janio. I will seriously have to consider switching next year to Labour. Shame on the Tories.[/p][/quote]Wait a minute! For the last 3 years you have been telling us you voted Green! HJarrs
  • Score: -2

9:58pm Thu 6 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?
Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success? HJarrs
  • Score: -25

10:14pm Thu 6 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

HJarrs wrote:
Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?
How much further can we get behind this? A huge loan has been taken out in our name putting us in hock for 20+ years ... Do you expect us to buy prepaid tickets for trips up and down the pole?

I was against the ruddy thing when it was initially proposed and the economic climate was no where near as dire as it is today. I am not going to change my mind now just because some irresponsible councillors put me and my fellow residents in hock!
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?[/p][/quote]How much further can we get behind this? A huge loan has been taken out in our name putting us in hock for 20+ years ... Do you expect us to buy prepaid tickets for trips up and down the pole? I was against the ruddy thing when it was initially proposed and the economic climate was no where near as dire as it is today. I am not going to change my mind now just because some irresponsible councillors put me and my fellow residents in hock! mimseycal
  • Score: 15

10:23pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Hovite says...

HJarrs wrote:
Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?
Calm down they haven’t started building it yet, and when they do what are the chances of them needing an extra £10m to finish it?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?[/p][/quote]Calm down they haven’t started building it yet, and when they do what are the chances of them needing an extra £10m to finish it? Hovite
  • Score: 19

10:23pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Richada says...

HJarrs wrote:
Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?
The answer to that HJ is that we no longer have a choice.

Just a pity that those who voted for this this afternoon bear no financial responsibility towards it at all.

Being against the i360 as a publically funded venture is in no way talking the city down. You are now spinning the West Pier Trust's propaganda that the i360 is the only show in town.

If you truly believe that, then the Greens must be pretty bunkrupt of ideas as this was planned and given planning permission well before you all turned up here to teach us the error of our ways.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?[/p][/quote]The answer to that HJ is that we no longer have a choice. Just a pity that those who voted for this this afternoon bear no financial responsibility towards it at all. Being against the i360 as a publically funded venture is in no way talking the city down. You are now spinning the West Pier Trust's propaganda that the i360 is the only show in town. If you truly believe that, then the Greens must be pretty bunkrupt of ideas as this was planned and given planning permission well before you all turned up here to teach us the error of our ways. Richada
  • Score: 19

10:24pm Thu 6 Mar 14

missPgreen says...

Councillors are not representative of the electorate.
Only democratic then to hold a refferendum asking B&H taxpayers
if they want this monstrosity. It's not too late.
And who's underwriting the £36 million goverment loan?
Bet councillors are not putting their money where their mouth is.
Councillors are not representative of the electorate. Only democratic then to hold a refferendum asking B&H taxpayers if they want this monstrosity. It's not too late. And who's underwriting the £36 million goverment loan? Bet councillors are not putting their money where their mouth is. missPgreen
  • Score: 18

10:26pm Thu 6 Mar 14

mcdbrighton says...

Why can't the "yes" voters be honest. It will end up costing the tax payer money because it can't possibly make those figures. However, it will hopefully rejuvenate the area all around there & Preston Street & may encourage lots of private investment into the area..thus being money well spent perhaps. But let's be clear it will cost each tax payer extra money because the loan won't be repaid.
The attendance figures are nonsense. The parking/ roads/ routes into Brighton are completely inadequate to cope with the number of extra visitors they predict anyway.
Their "seasonality" comparisons were with the Sea Life Centre, Pavilion & Brighton Museum. All of those still operate in rain, fog & cold weather. How about comparing it with Brighton Wheel? Did their predicted figures come to fruition? Even their worst case scenario figures?
Private investors could see it was nonsense. The council can see it's nonsense but think there'll be wider benefits. Let's hope so.
822k visitors in Year 1 ??? It's more cringeworthy than a Dragons Den episode where people make a pooper scooper & say the business is worth £5 million because lots of people have dogs...
Why can't the "yes" voters be honest. It will end up costing the tax payer money because it can't possibly make those figures. However, it will hopefully rejuvenate the area all around there & Preston Street & may encourage lots of private investment into the area..thus being money well spent perhaps. But let's be clear it will cost each tax payer extra money because the loan won't be repaid. The attendance figures are nonsense. The parking/ roads/ routes into Brighton are completely inadequate to cope with the number of extra visitors they predict anyway. Their "seasonality" comparisons were with the Sea Life Centre, Pavilion & Brighton Museum. All of those still operate in rain, fog & cold weather. How about comparing it with Brighton Wheel? Did their predicted figures come to fruition? Even their worst case scenario figures? Private investors could see it was nonsense. The council can see it's nonsense but think there'll be wider benefits. Let's hope so. 822k visitors in Year 1 ??? It's more cringeworthy than a Dragons Den episode where people make a pooper scooper & say the business is worth £5 million because lots of people have dogs... mcdbrighton
  • Score: 11

10:26pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Richada says...

Hovite wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?
Calm down they haven’t started building it yet, and when they do what are the chances of them needing an extra £10m to finish it?
With the West Pier "Trust" involved there's still a very high likelyhood of it never being built at all - after all, over the years they have had millions in grants and donations to restore the West Pier - famously supposed to have been fully restored in time for the milennium celebrations - but then, the Greens have not been here long enough to know about the history of the West Pier.
[quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?[/p][/quote]Calm down they haven’t started building it yet, and when they do what are the chances of them needing an extra £10m to finish it?[/p][/quote]With the West Pier "Trust" involved there's still a very high likelyhood of it never being built at all - after all, over the years they have had millions in grants and donations to restore the West Pier - famously supposed to have been fully restored in time for the milennium celebrations - but then, the Greens have not been here long enough to know about the history of the West Pier. Richada
  • Score: 14

10:32pm Thu 6 Mar 14

whatevernext2013 says...

sound_man wrote:
And your council tax is increasing...
And services are being cut....
And the roads are full of holes...
And here is £36 million of public money to fund a private building that will be run for a profit (but I expect it will make losses) by a private company.
i really think we should go on a council tax strike ,
[quote][p][bold]sound_man[/bold] wrote: And your council tax is increasing... And services are being cut.... And the roads are full of holes... And here is £36 million of public money to fund a private building that will be run for a profit (but I expect it will make losses) by a private company.[/p][/quote]i really think we should go on a council tax strike , whatevernext2013
  • Score: 13

10:35pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Hovite says...

Richada wrote:
Hovite wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?
Calm down they haven’t started building it yet, and when they do what are the chances of them needing an extra £10m to finish it?
With the West Pier "Trust" involved there's still a very high likelyhood of it never being built at all - after all, over the years they have had millions in grants and donations to restore the West Pier - famously supposed to have been fully restored in time for the milennium celebrations - but then, the Greens have not been here long enough to know about the history of the West Pier.
Yep, Brighton is the Greens playground with a tourist only policy. Nothing for the tax payers and the kids in this city.

It won't bring money to the area, it will just divert money to itself.
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?[/p][/quote]Calm down they haven’t started building it yet, and when they do what are the chances of them needing an extra £10m to finish it?[/p][/quote]With the West Pier "Trust" involved there's still a very high likelyhood of it never being built at all - after all, over the years they have had millions in grants and donations to restore the West Pier - famously supposed to have been fully restored in time for the milennium celebrations - but then, the Greens have not been here long enough to know about the history of the West Pier.[/p][/quote]Yep, Brighton is the Greens playground with a tourist only policy. Nothing for the tax payers and the kids in this city. It won't bring money to the area, it will just divert money to itself. Hovite
  • Score: 7

10:39pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Richada says...

mcdbrighton wrote:
Why can't the "yes" voters be honest. It will end up costing the tax payer money because it can't possibly make those figures. However, it will hopefully rejuvenate the area all around there & Preston Street & may encourage lots of private investment into the area..thus being money well spent perhaps. But let's be clear it will cost each tax payer extra money because the loan won't be repaid.
The attendance figures are nonsense. The parking/ roads/ routes into Brighton are completely inadequate to cope with the number of extra visitors they predict anyway.
Their "seasonality" comparisons were with the Sea Life Centre, Pavilion & Brighton Museum. All of those still operate in rain, fog & cold weather. How about comparing it with Brighton Wheel? Did their predicted figures come to fruition? Even their worst case scenario figures?
Private investors could see it was nonsense. The council can see it's nonsense but think there'll be wider benefits. Let's hope so.
822k visitors in Year 1 ??? It's more cringeworthy than a Dragons Den episode where people make a pooper scooper & say the business is worth £5 million because lots of people have dogs...
VERY good post! Particularly in relation to the "seasonality" comparisons. The Museum, Pavilion and Sea Life Centre all offer indoor "refuge from the weather" attractions, they are also close enough to The Lanes and Western Road / Churchill Square & the station to act as bolt-holes when our ever changing climate takes a turn for the worse.

Where does that leave the i360? Out on a limb, away from the other attractions in the town, and, unlike even the West Pier that offered shelter for an extended period, £14.00 to spend a 30 minute ride into the clouds is unlikely to appeal on such a day.
[quote][p][bold]mcdbrighton[/bold] wrote: Why can't the "yes" voters be honest. It will end up costing the tax payer money because it can't possibly make those figures. However, it will hopefully rejuvenate the area all around there & Preston Street & may encourage lots of private investment into the area..thus being money well spent perhaps. But let's be clear it will cost each tax payer extra money because the loan won't be repaid. The attendance figures are nonsense. The parking/ roads/ routes into Brighton are completely inadequate to cope with the number of extra visitors they predict anyway. Their "seasonality" comparisons were with the Sea Life Centre, Pavilion & Brighton Museum. All of those still operate in rain, fog & cold weather. How about comparing it with Brighton Wheel? Did their predicted figures come to fruition? Even their worst case scenario figures? Private investors could see it was nonsense. The council can see it's nonsense but think there'll be wider benefits. Let's hope so. 822k visitors in Year 1 ??? It's more cringeworthy than a Dragons Den episode where people make a pooper scooper & say the business is worth £5 million because lots of people have dogs...[/p][/quote]VERY good post! Particularly in relation to the "seasonality" comparisons. The Museum, Pavilion and Sea Life Centre all offer indoor "refuge from the weather" attractions, they are also close enough to The Lanes and Western Road / Churchill Square & the station to act as bolt-holes when our ever changing climate takes a turn for the worse. Where does that leave the i360? Out on a limb, away from the other attractions in the town, and, unlike even the West Pier that offered shelter for an extended period, £14.00 to spend a 30 minute ride into the clouds is unlikely to appeal on such a day. Richada
  • Score: 11

10:40pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Ania Green says...

HJarrs wrote:
Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?
Quite right.

There's so much negativity towards any type of progress being shown here it's a wonder how anything has ever been achieved by this lot!
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?[/p][/quote]Quite right. There's so much negativity towards any type of progress being shown here it's a wonder how anything has ever been achieved by this lot! Ania Green
  • Score: -28

10:43pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Richada says...

Hovite wrote:
Richada wrote:
Hovite wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?
Calm down they haven’t started building it yet, and when they do what are the chances of them needing an extra £10m to finish it?
With the West Pier "Trust" involved there's still a very high likelyhood of it never being built at all - after all, over the years they have had millions in grants and donations to restore the West Pier - famously supposed to have been fully restored in time for the milennium celebrations - but then, the Greens have not been here long enough to know about the history of the West Pier.
Yep, Brighton is the Greens playground with a tourist only policy. Nothing for the tax payers and the kids in this city.

It won't bring money to the area, it will just divert money to itself.
I guess the Greens themselves are tourist politicians - here today, leave piles of rubbish - gone tomorrow......

.......woops, left their donut on a pole behind.
[quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?[/p][/quote]Calm down they haven’t started building it yet, and when they do what are the chances of them needing an extra £10m to finish it?[/p][/quote]With the West Pier "Trust" involved there's still a very high likelyhood of it never being built at all - after all, over the years they have had millions in grants and donations to restore the West Pier - famously supposed to have been fully restored in time for the milennium celebrations - but then, the Greens have not been here long enough to know about the history of the West Pier.[/p][/quote]Yep, Brighton is the Greens playground with a tourist only policy. Nothing for the tax payers and the kids in this city. It won't bring money to the area, it will just divert money to itself.[/p][/quote]I guess the Greens themselves are tourist politicians - here today, leave piles of rubbish - gone tomorrow...... .......woops, left their donut on a pole behind. Richada
  • Score: 13

10:48pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Richada says...

Ania Green wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?
Quite right.

There's so much negativity towards any type of progress being shown here it's a wonder how anything has ever been achieved by this lot!
Well "Ania" the Russians left you the Palace of Science & Justice......

........I guess it's only fair (as you see it) that you leave us the i360.

You may not see it, but the parallels are obvious.
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?[/p][/quote]Quite right. There's so much negativity towards any type of progress being shown here it's a wonder how anything has ever been achieved by this lot![/p][/quote]Well "Ania" the Russians left you the Palace of Science & Justice...... ........I guess it's only fair (as you see it) that you leave us the i360. You may not see it, but the parallels are obvious. Richada
  • Score: 9

11:03pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Dave At Home says...

I can't make head nor tail of how much money is involved now, talk of £36m, £4m and £10m... all seems to be a smoke screen and a lot of £15 rides needed to make this work before the rust starts to make the thing unusable. It was always going to happen, as I have said before, because it is sitting in a couple of warehouses in Holland waiting to be shipped over. I bet it will be up and running before the end of the year.
I can't make head nor tail of how much money is involved now, talk of £36m, £4m and £10m... all seems to be a smoke screen and a lot of £15 rides needed to make this work before the rust starts to make the thing unusable. It was always going to happen, as I have said before, because it is sitting in a couple of warehouses in Holland waiting to be shipped over. I bet it will be up and running before the end of the year. Dave At Home
  • Score: 5

11:04pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Martha Gunn says...

Hang on and calm down everyone.

We are a mile and a day from this erection finally getting its end up.

We will be revisiting this issue for years (decades?) to come.
Hang on and calm down everyone. We are a mile and a day from this erection finally getting its end up. We will be revisiting this issue for years (decades?) to come. Martha Gunn
  • Score: -1

11:15pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

HJarrs wrote:
Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?
WHAT a cheek you have. Cllrs today talked the city down, badmouthed the seafront to beat the band like it was acne on the face of a beauty and i360 some kind of miracle cure for ugly town syndrome.

Those against i360 and other dross developers use for their get rich quick schemes value the city so SHUT UP.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?[/p][/quote]WHAT a cheek you have. Cllrs today talked the city down, badmouthed the seafront to beat the band like it was acne on the face of a beauty and i360 some kind of miracle cure for ugly town syndrome. Those against i360 and other dross developers use for their get rich quick schemes value the city so SHUT UP. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 5

11:22pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Ania Green wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?
Quite right.

There's so much negativity towards any type of progress being shown here it's a wonder how anything has ever been achieved by this lot!
God I hate programmed robot-speak. This pole is not one bit progressive. It is absolute dross. So much so that very little private finance to back it was achieved and a massive £21m funding gap got BHCC being asked for it. Then what funding it DID have fell away and BHCC was asked for the whole lot bar £6m coughed up by Marks Barfield family members (already spent no doubt in any case and desperate to try to get it back (out of the £36m).

A chill goes up my spine that you judge being rolled by West Pier Trustees who don't want the personal liabiliy that goes with being a Registered Charity Trustee and their sitting tenants Marks Barfield for the cost of their trashy little pole ride as somehow 'progress'.
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?[/p][/quote]Quite right. There's so much negativity towards any type of progress being shown here it's a wonder how anything has ever been achieved by this lot![/p][/quote]God I hate programmed robot-speak. This pole is not one bit progressive. It is absolute dross. So much so that very little private finance to back it was achieved and a massive £21m funding gap got BHCC being asked for it. Then what funding it DID have fell away and BHCC was asked for the whole lot bar £6m coughed up by Marks Barfield family members (already spent no doubt in any case and desperate to try to get it back (out of the £36m). A chill goes up my spine that you judge being rolled by West Pier Trustees who don't want the personal liabiliy that goes with being a Registered Charity Trustee and their sitting tenants Marks Barfield for the cost of their trashy little pole ride as somehow 'progress'. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 13

11:41pm Thu 6 Mar 14

SirLancelot says...

The whole city is going through major change. Look at London Road, Circus Street and the shopping centre. My advice is to get behind it. The option of being a novelty seaside town does not exist anymore. Brighton & Hove need to continue to attract new money in the current economic climate. My overall opinion of the design - it's not exactly the Spinaker Tower now is it?
The whole city is going through major change. Look at London Road, Circus Street and the shopping centre. My advice is to get behind it. The option of being a novelty seaside town does not exist anymore. Brighton & Hove need to continue to attract new money in the current economic climate. My overall opinion of the design - it's not exactly the Spinaker Tower now is it? SirLancelot
  • Score: -2

12:36am Fri 7 Mar 14

PorkyChopper says...

Ania Green wrote:
The i360 will look amazing when it's built and will inject much needed tourist money into the local economy.
No it won't and you know full well it won't, Mrs Kitcat. When you and your smirking gimp of a husband, and the rest of the **** who are part of this massive fraud get your collars felt, I will be there sticking the boot in.
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: The i360 will look amazing when it's built and will inject much needed tourist money into the local economy.[/p][/quote]No it won't and you know full well it won't, Mrs Kitcat. When you and your smirking gimp of a husband, and the rest of the **** who are part of this massive fraud get your collars felt, I will be there sticking the boot in. PorkyChopper
  • Score: 15

12:38am Fri 7 Mar 14

PorkyChopper says...

Richada wrote:
Hovite wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?
Calm down they haven’t started building it yet, and when they do what are the chances of them needing an extra £10m to finish it?
With the West Pier "Trust" involved there's still a very high likelyhood of it never being built at all - after all, over the years they have had millions in grants and donations to restore the West Pier - famously supposed to have been fully restored in time for the milennium celebrations - but then, the Greens have not been here long enough to know about the history of the West Pier.
What seems to have been lost in all this is - as far as I can remember - the area around the West Pier was supposed to have been developed to raise money to build or restore the West Pier itself. Anyone else remember that, or has it disappeared down the memory hole?
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?[/p][/quote]Calm down they haven’t started building it yet, and when they do what are the chances of them needing an extra £10m to finish it?[/p][/quote]With the West Pier "Trust" involved there's still a very high likelyhood of it never being built at all - after all, over the years they have had millions in grants and donations to restore the West Pier - famously supposed to have been fully restored in time for the milennium celebrations - but then, the Greens have not been here long enough to know about the history of the West Pier.[/p][/quote]What seems to have been lost in all this is - as far as I can remember - the area around the West Pier was supposed to have been developed to raise money to build or restore the West Pier itself. Anyone else remember that, or has it disappeared down the memory hole? PorkyChopper
  • Score: 15

1:00am Fri 7 Mar 14

Wooders22 says...

How about spending some of that money to house all the homeless people living on the streets at the moment. I walk home every night and loads of shop doorways have homeless people with nowhere to go, it's a disgrace.
How about spending some of that money to house all the homeless people living on the streets at the moment. I walk home every night and loads of shop doorways have homeless people with nowhere to go, it's a disgrace. Wooders22
  • Score: 1

1:15am Fri 7 Mar 14

thelieshurts says...

SirLancelot wrote:
The whole city is going through major change. Look at London Road, Circus Street and the shopping centre. My advice is to get behind it. The option of being a novelty seaside town does not exist anymore. Brighton & Hove need to continue to attract new money in the current economic climate. My overall opinion of the design - it's not exactly the Spinaker Tower now is it?
I agree with you on some aspects of your views that we need change, that Brighton and Hove is changing
I myself think that parts of Brighton need to be redeveloped such as ie: London Road of which it is being done.
I would like to see from St Peters Church going north redeveloped, (It looks like an inner city anywhere.)
Was a shame about the Co-op, but now have to move on the same as the open market , what with the developments behind London Rd.
I would like to see London Rd designed like Jubilee St with whats there now and more for day and night time.
What I am saying is we need to sought out Brighton and Hove first. ie The arches Madeira Drive, and some of the old buildings which need a few coats of paint and something for the visitors to do when they come down again. I can not judge Hove haven't been there for a few months,
before we have the i360. (grand Parade needs to be looked at as well. ) I am Brightonian some of it has to go can not keep everything.
[quote][p][bold]SirLancelot[/bold] wrote: The whole city is going through major change. Look at London Road, Circus Street and the shopping centre. My advice is to get behind it. The option of being a novelty seaside town does not exist anymore. Brighton & Hove need to continue to attract new money in the current economic climate. My overall opinion of the design - it's not exactly the Spinaker Tower now is it?[/p][/quote]I agree with you on some aspects of your views that we need change, that Brighton and Hove is changing I myself think that parts of Brighton need to be redeveloped such as ie: London Road of which it is being done. I would like to see from St Peters Church going north redeveloped, (It looks like an inner city anywhere.) Was a shame about the Co-op, but now have to move on the same as the open market , what with the developments behind London Rd. I would like to see London Rd designed like Jubilee St with whats there now and more for day and night time. What I am saying is we need to sought out Brighton and Hove first. ie The arches Madeira Drive, and some of the old buildings which need a few coats of paint and something for the visitors to do when they come down again. I can not judge Hove haven't been there for a few months, before we have the i360. (grand Parade needs to be looked at as well. ) I am Brightonian some of it has to go can not keep everything. thelieshurts
  • Score: 2

4:08am Fri 7 Mar 14

peachesncream says...

Ania Green wrote:
The i360 will look amazing when it's built and will inject much needed tourist money into the local economy.
Go climb back in your Green hobbit hole and take your Green acolytes with you and never emerge again. No-one wants to hear your opinions.
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: The i360 will look amazing when it's built and will inject much needed tourist money into the local economy.[/p][/quote]Go climb back in your Green hobbit hole and take your Green acolytes with you and never emerge again. No-one wants to hear your opinions. peachesncream
  • Score: 2

5:46am Fri 7 Mar 14

MikeyA says...

Brighton Living wrote:
Love the graphics but we all know this will end-up being yet another neglected council project and within in years rusty . Good for the Hilton and Grand though as right on there door step. Could have rebuilt the West Pier for that much though....... :(
Exactly! While Hastings Pier is now beginning to be rebuilt, all we have left of the West Pier is rotting ironwork. The West Pier Trust proved to be completely ineffective.
[quote][p][bold]Brighton Living[/bold] wrote: Love the graphics but we all know this will end-up being yet another neglected council project and within in years rusty . Good for the Hilton and Grand though as right on there door step. Could have rebuilt the West Pier for that much though....... :([/p][/quote]Exactly! While Hastings Pier is now beginning to be rebuilt, all we have left of the West Pier is rotting ironwork. The West Pier Trust proved to be completely ineffective. MikeyA
  • Score: 13

7:11am Fri 7 Mar 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

I recall the council allowing Burger King to take one of the units at the seafront terraces as the dream of independent boutiques lining the seafront evaporated.
More recently the terraces bar and grill has closed and the prime site glass building lays closed with dusty decaying windows. That's what you see from the wheel, which spins empty most winter days.
Then you have the Mariner pub, formerly the Varsity, which also remains empty on the seafront.
If pubs can't make it in this town, a family entertainment pole, really doesn't stand much chance. I would have put my money on an ice rink. All year fun, for a good price and not another in the region.
To be honest, the all in ticket for Portsmouth's sites offers far better value than the pole here and there are far more family attractions in Portsmouth, including the various ships in have historic boatyard and the Action stations kids centre.
A lone pole is a bit outdated. Check out the comments on. Tripadvisor about the wheel in Brighton. Not very inspiring.
I recall the council allowing Burger King to take one of the units at the seafront terraces as the dream of independent boutiques lining the seafront evaporated. More recently the terraces bar and grill has closed and the prime site glass building lays closed with dusty decaying windows. That's what you see from the wheel, which spins empty most winter days. Then you have the Mariner pub, formerly the Varsity, which also remains empty on the seafront. If pubs can't make it in this town, a family entertainment pole, really doesn't stand much chance. I would have put my money on an ice rink. All year fun, for a good price and not another in the region. To be honest, the all in ticket for Portsmouth's sites offers far better value than the pole here and there are far more family attractions in Portsmouth, including the various ships in have historic boatyard and the Action stations kids centre. A lone pole is a bit outdated. Check out the comments on. Tripadvisor about the wheel in Brighton. Not very inspiring. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 14

7:27am Fri 7 Mar 14

monkeymoo says...

How about taking £7m of that loan and STOPPING the proposed cuts to the Fire and Rescue service?

This council seem to believe that just 16 firefighters are enough to protect the 250,000 residents of Brighton and Hove..... Not to mention during the summer when the population doubles.

It's YOUR life they are putting at risk.

As for the i360:
Who is going to rescue the tourists from this 'Over Priced Lift' when it breaks down?
There will be no firefighters available, and no dedicated aerial appliance to deal with the incident!
How about taking £7m of that loan and STOPPING the proposed cuts to the Fire and Rescue service? This council seem to believe that just 16 firefighters are enough to protect the 250,000 residents of Brighton and Hove..... Not to mention during the summer when the population doubles. It's YOUR life they are putting at risk. As for the i360: Who is going to rescue the tourists from this 'Over Priced Lift' when it breaks down? There will be no firefighters available, and no dedicated aerial appliance to deal with the incident! monkeymoo
  • Score: 9

7:29am Fri 7 Mar 14

Juleyanne says...

Tourists will have a birdseye view of our rocketing rough sleeping problem. What an appalling advertisement of how we treat our most vulnerable.
Tourists will have a birdseye view of our rocketing rough sleeping problem. What an appalling advertisement of how we treat our most vulnerable. Juleyanne
  • Score: 8

7:39am Fri 7 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

HJarrs wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
So the architect firm responsible for the firm are millions in debt. The two shareholders of said architects firm happen to also be the two shareholders of ........ Brighton i360 Ltd !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This stinks to high heaven - I wonder how many brown envelopes were used ? The Greens supported putting the city taxpayers at risk because they are a little simple and don't really care about locals ( most of them being from other places ). But the Tories ? What planet were they on ?

Last local election two of my votes went to conservative candidates - Dawn Barnett and Tony Janio. I will seriously have to consider switching next year to Labour. Shame on the Tories.
Wait a minute! For the last 3 years you have been telling us you voted Green!
Sign ..... if you had been local you would have known we had THREE votes at the last local election. Made youself look a little simple now haven't you ? It also backs up Maxwell Ghost's claim that you have only just moved to the area ( if you indeed have ).
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So the architect firm responsible for the firm are millions in debt. The two shareholders of said architects firm happen to also be the two shareholders of ........ Brighton i360 Ltd !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This stinks to high heaven - I wonder how many brown envelopes were used ? The Greens supported putting the city taxpayers at risk because they are a little simple and don't really care about locals ( most of them being from other places ). But the Tories ? What planet were they on ? Last local election two of my votes went to conservative candidates - Dawn Barnett and Tony Janio. I will seriously have to consider switching next year to Labour. Shame on the Tories.[/p][/quote]Wait a minute! For the last 3 years you have been telling us you voted Green![/p][/quote]Sign ..... if you had been local you would have known we had THREE votes at the last local election. Made youself look a little simple now haven't you ? It also backs up Maxwell Ghost's claim that you have only just moved to the area ( if you indeed have ). Fight_Back
  • Score: 9

7:53am Fri 7 Mar 14

davidbrianjones says...

OK - it does just look like an enormous erect willy -- but what's wrong with a willy? In fact, I used to have one myself.

Whether it is a vanity project or not - it is designed by the people who designed Britain's number one (yes!!!) paid-for attraction.

I can certainly think of less suitable people to develop an attraction for Brighton.

I certainly look forward to riding the big willy !!!)

Incidentally, the Eiffel Tower (often described a a big willy takes enormous amounts of money throught the year, but if we're honest, from the air, Paris is nothing special - just an enormous city. It's just being up there that's the thrill. (And I personally absolutely adore looking at the sea and the coast from the Brighton Wheel for example)
OK - it does just look like an enormous erect willy -- but what's wrong with a willy? In fact, I used to have one myself. Whether it is a vanity project or not - it is designed by the people who designed Britain's number one (yes!!!) paid-for attraction. I can certainly think of less suitable people to develop an attraction for Brighton. I certainly look forward to riding the big willy !!!) Incidentally, the Eiffel Tower (often described a a big willy takes enormous amounts of money throught the year, but if we're honest, from the air, Paris is nothing special - just an enormous city. It's just being up there that's the thrill. (And I personally absolutely adore looking at the sea and the coast from the Brighton Wheel for example) davidbrianjones
  • Score: -5

8:05am Fri 7 Mar 14

BornInBrighton1968 says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Ania Green wrote:
The i360 will look amazing when it's built and will inject much needed tourist money into the local economy.
It will look like what it is: a seriously intrusive and annoying pole.
It will look like a Butt-Plug
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: The i360 will look amazing when it's built and will inject much needed tourist money into the local economy.[/p][/quote]It will look like what it is: a seriously intrusive and annoying pole.[/p][/quote]It will look like a Butt-Plug BornInBrighton1968
  • Score: 5

8:29am Fri 7 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

Well as the loan and grant figures quoted above total £46m and it was only last September the Argus was telling us it was a £38m project we are well on the way to seeing that £10m cost increase already!
Well as the loan and grant figures quoted above total £46m and it was only last September the Argus was telling us it was a £38m project we are well on the way to seeing that £10m cost increase already! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 6

8:30am Fri 7 Mar 14

Kedge says...

Council-owned seafront properties expected to increase in price? Dream on. If I lived near there I wouldn't be able to get away fast enough from tomorrow's slum.
Council-owned seafront properties expected to increase in price? Dream on. If I lived near there I wouldn't be able to get away fast enough from tomorrow's slum. Kedge
  • Score: 6

8:36am Fri 7 Mar 14

Dealing with idiots says...

What a sad day in Brighton and Hove when two rich boys, Geoff and Jace club together to screw the city. Both know they are out of a job next election and they want to leave behind a time bomb for Labour. One more reason to leave the dirty inward looking bubble that B&H has become.
What a sad day in Brighton and Hove when two rich boys, Geoff and Jace club together to screw the city. Both know they are out of a job next election and they want to leave behind a time bomb for Labour. One more reason to leave the dirty inward looking bubble that B&H has become. Dealing with idiots
  • Score: 7

8:52am Fri 7 Mar 14

Mr P Brown says...

notaconspiracy wrote:
I wonder if the same online posters would have posted exactly the same comments when the Argus announced, via their steam-powered website, that Brighton was to have a pier, just for walking on?
I very much doubt it, the Victorians loved piers and could see the how they would benefit the town. They marvelled at the fact that they could walk out to sea with out being on a boat, they also used them as landing stages for boat trips along the coast and to the continent. I'm sure the Victorians would have been quite amazed at a stick with a large doughnut shaped viewing platform on it. However we are not Victorians and can see what a colossal waste of money it is, and know that eventually it will break and no one will be able to afford to repair it as it has made no money
[quote][p][bold]notaconspiracy[/bold] wrote: I wonder if the same online posters would have posted exactly the same comments when the Argus announced, via their steam-powered website, that Brighton was to have a pier, just for walking on?[/p][/quote]I very much doubt it, the Victorians loved piers and could see the how they would benefit the town. They marvelled at the fact that they could walk out to sea with out being on a boat, they also used them as landing stages for boat trips along the coast and to the continent. I'm sure the Victorians would have been quite amazed at a stick with a large doughnut shaped viewing platform on it. However we are not Victorians and can see what a colossal waste of money it is, and know that eventually it will break and no one will be able to afford to repair it as it has made no money Mr P Brown
  • Score: 8

8:54am Fri 7 Mar 14

s_james says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Ania Green wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?
Quite right.

There's so much negativity towards any type of progress being shown here it's a wonder how anything has ever been achieved by this lot!
God I hate programmed robot-speak. This pole is not one bit progressive. It is absolute dross. So much so that very little private finance to back it was achieved and a massive £21m funding gap got BHCC being asked for it. Then what funding it DID have fell away and BHCC was asked for the whole lot bar £6m coughed up by Marks Barfield family members (already spent no doubt in any case and desperate to try to get it back (out of the £36m).

A chill goes up my spine that you judge being rolled by West Pier Trustees who don't want the personal liabiliy that goes with being a Registered Charity Trustee and their sitting tenants Marks Barfield for the cost of their trashy little pole ride as somehow 'progress'.
Whatever people might think of the finance arrangements you are very much in the minority when it comes to disliking the design. 70% in favour in an Argus poll when it was announced in 2006 and unanimously granted planning permission from all parties (even Warren Morgan voted in favour).

It is too slender to be an eyesore.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?[/p][/quote]Quite right. There's so much negativity towards any type of progress being shown here it's a wonder how anything has ever been achieved by this lot![/p][/quote]God I hate programmed robot-speak. This pole is not one bit progressive. It is absolute dross. So much so that very little private finance to back it was achieved and a massive £21m funding gap got BHCC being asked for it. Then what funding it DID have fell away and BHCC was asked for the whole lot bar £6m coughed up by Marks Barfield family members (already spent no doubt in any case and desperate to try to get it back (out of the £36m). A chill goes up my spine that you judge being rolled by West Pier Trustees who don't want the personal liabiliy that goes with being a Registered Charity Trustee and their sitting tenants Marks Barfield for the cost of their trashy little pole ride as somehow 'progress'.[/p][/quote]Whatever people might think of the finance arrangements you are very much in the minority when it comes to disliking the design. 70% in favour in an Argus poll when it was announced in 2006 and unanimously granted planning permission from all parties (even Warren Morgan voted in favour). It is too slender to be an eyesore. s_james
  • Score: -10

10:08am Fri 7 Mar 14

davidbrianjones says...

I think the design looks great! I've shared the pictures with a lot of people in England and Germany in the last few years, and everyone really likes it.
I think the design looks great! I've shared the pictures with a lot of people in England and Germany in the last few years, and everyone really likes it. davidbrianjones
  • Score: 1

10:19am Fri 7 Mar 14

s_james says...

davidbrianjones wrote:
I think the design looks great! I've shared the pictures with a lot of people in England and Germany in the last few years, and everyone really likes it.
Agreed. Friends of mine who live elsewhere keep asking when its going to be built!
[quote][p][bold]davidbrianjones[/bold] wrote: I think the design looks great! I've shared the pictures with a lot of people in England and Germany in the last few years, and everyone really likes it.[/p][/quote]Agreed. Friends of mine who live elsewhere keep asking when its going to be built! s_james
  • Score: -3

10:29am Fri 7 Mar 14

Richada says...

davidbrianjones wrote:
I think the design looks great! I've shared the pictures with a lot of people in England and Germany in the last few years, and everyone really likes it.
We all have to hope that your German friends all flock here to take a ride on it and that it is a great success - otherwise, we B&H council tax payers will end up footing the bill for it.

At the council meeting yesterday the developer actually stated that they estimated that twice as many people would come to see it as would take a ride on it.
[quote][p][bold]davidbrianjones[/bold] wrote: I think the design looks great! I've shared the pictures with a lot of people in England and Germany in the last few years, and everyone really likes it.[/p][/quote]We all have to hope that your German friends all flock here to take a ride on it and that it is a great success - otherwise, we B&H council tax payers will end up footing the bill for it. At the council meeting yesterday the developer actually stated that they estimated that twice as many people would come to see it as would take a ride on it. Richada
  • Score: 6

10:39am Fri 7 Mar 14

Richada says...

monkeymoo wrote:
How about taking £7m of that loan and STOPPING the proposed cuts to the Fire and Rescue service?

This council seem to believe that just 16 firefighters are enough to protect the 250,000 residents of Brighton and Hove..... Not to mention during the summer when the population doubles.

It's YOUR life they are putting at risk.

As for the i360:
Who is going to rescue the tourists from this 'Over Priced Lift' when it breaks down?
There will be no firefighters available, and no dedicated aerial appliance to deal with the incident!
I agree with what you say here.....but, just a thought, is there ANY "dedicated aerial appliance" capable of reaching the height of this thing if it gets stuck at the top with 200 people crammed on board?
[quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: How about taking £7m of that loan and STOPPING the proposed cuts to the Fire and Rescue service? This council seem to believe that just 16 firefighters are enough to protect the 250,000 residents of Brighton and Hove..... Not to mention during the summer when the population doubles. It's YOUR life they are putting at risk. As for the i360: Who is going to rescue the tourists from this 'Over Priced Lift' when it breaks down? There will be no firefighters available, and no dedicated aerial appliance to deal with the incident![/p][/quote]I agree with what you say here.....but, just a thought, is there ANY "dedicated aerial appliance" capable of reaching the height of this thing if it gets stuck at the top with 200 people crammed on board? Richada
  • Score: 4

11:01am Fri 7 Mar 14

Automaton says...

HJarrs wrote:
Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?
The council claims this will attract 800,000 visitors per year.

That equates to 2191 visitors every day of the year. Considering that the weather is going to be problematic for say 65 days per year (high winds, rain etc) then this would require over 2500 visitors on ALL remaining days. Midweek and in winter the numbers are likely to be lower.

Call me a cynic but I just cannot imagine that this will happen.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?[/p][/quote]The council claims this will attract 800,000 visitors per year. That equates to 2191 visitors every day of the year. Considering that the weather is going to be problematic for say 65 days per year (high winds, rain etc) then this would require over 2500 visitors on ALL remaining days. Midweek and in winter the numbers are likely to be lower. Call me a cynic but I just cannot imagine that this will happen. Automaton
  • Score: 11

11:05am Fri 7 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

Automaton wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?
The council claims this will attract 800,000 visitors per year.

That equates to 2191 visitors every day of the year. Considering that the weather is going to be problematic for say 65 days per year (high winds, rain etc) then this would require over 2500 visitors on ALL remaining days. Midweek and in winter the numbers are likely to be lower.

Call me a cynic but I just cannot imagine that this will happen.
Don't worry - HJarrs can't even count to three let alone 800k !!!!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Automaton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?[/p][/quote]The council claims this will attract 800,000 visitors per year. That equates to 2191 visitors every day of the year. Considering that the weather is going to be problematic for say 65 days per year (high winds, rain etc) then this would require over 2500 visitors on ALL remaining days. Midweek and in winter the numbers are likely to be lower. Call me a cynic but I just cannot imagine that this will happen.[/p][/quote]Don't worry - HJarrs can't even count to three let alone 800k !!!!!!!!!! Fight_Back
  • Score: 5

11:29am Fri 7 Mar 14

Automaton says...

and what are the 169 people that are going to be employed by the i360 going to be doing?
and what are the 169 people that are going to be employed by the i360 going to be doing? Automaton
  • Score: 5

11:51am Fri 7 Mar 14

Richada says...

PorkyChopper wrote:
Richada wrote:
Hovite wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?
Calm down they haven’t started building it yet, and when they do what are the chances of them needing an extra £10m to finish it?
With the West Pier "Trust" involved there's still a very high likelyhood of it never being built at all - after all, over the years they have had millions in grants and donations to restore the West Pier - famously supposed to have been fully restored in time for the milennium celebrations - but then, the Greens have not been here long enough to know about the history of the West Pier.
What seems to have been lost in all this is - as far as I can remember - the area around the West Pier was supposed to have been developed to raise money to build or restore the West Pier itself. Anyone else remember that, or has it disappeared down the memory hole?
Exactly so - no, we've not forgotten - only many of those "in control" weren't here to remember anyway!
[quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?[/p][/quote]Calm down they haven’t started building it yet, and when they do what are the chances of them needing an extra £10m to finish it?[/p][/quote]With the West Pier "Trust" involved there's still a very high likelyhood of it never being built at all - after all, over the years they have had millions in grants and donations to restore the West Pier - famously supposed to have been fully restored in time for the milennium celebrations - but then, the Greens have not been here long enough to know about the history of the West Pier.[/p][/quote]What seems to have been lost in all this is - as far as I can remember - the area around the West Pier was supposed to have been developed to raise money to build or restore the West Pier itself. Anyone else remember that, or has it disappeared down the memory hole?[/p][/quote]Exactly so - no, we've not forgotten - only many of those "in control" weren't here to remember anyway! Richada
  • Score: 7

11:58am Fri 7 Mar 14

Richada says...

Automaton wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?
The council claims this will attract 800,000 visitors per year.

That equates to 2191 visitors every day of the year. Considering that the weather is going to be problematic for say 65 days per year (high winds, rain etc) then this would require over 2500 visitors on ALL remaining days. Midweek and in winter the numbers are likely to be lower.

Call me a cynic but I just cannot imagine that this will happen.
Make that 2286 visitors a day - it is closed for two weeks in January!

I honestly hope that they are right and that we are wrong - i.e. that this thing is a success - there will be no pleasure in saying "told you so" when, on the council tax bill, we're subsidising a loss making venture.
[quote][p][bold]Automaton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?[/p][/quote]The council claims this will attract 800,000 visitors per year. That equates to 2191 visitors every day of the year. Considering that the weather is going to be problematic for say 65 days per year (high winds, rain etc) then this would require over 2500 visitors on ALL remaining days. Midweek and in winter the numbers are likely to be lower. Call me a cynic but I just cannot imagine that this will happen.[/p][/quote]Make that 2286 visitors a day - it is closed for two weeks in January! I honestly hope that they are right and that we are wrong - i.e. that this thing is a success - there will be no pleasure in saying "told you so" when, on the council tax bill, we're subsidising a loss making venture. Richada
  • Score: 5

12:10pm Fri 7 Mar 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Richada wrote:
monkeymoo wrote:
How about taking £7m of that loan and STOPPING the proposed cuts to the Fire and Rescue service?

This council seem to believe that just 16 firefighters are enough to protect the 250,000 residents of Brighton and Hove..... Not to mention during the summer when the population doubles.

It's YOUR life they are putting at risk.

As for the i360:
Who is going to rescue the tourists from this 'Over Priced Lift' when it breaks down?
There will be no firefighters available, and no dedicated aerial appliance to deal with the incident!
I agree with what you say here.....but, just a thought, is there ANY "dedicated aerial appliance" capable of reaching the height of this thing if it gets stuck at the top with 200 people crammed on board?
That's a very good point. I presume if it breaks down there is no way off. Does it come with stairs? I suppose all 200 people may have to climb onto the roof and be rescued by helicopter!

I think the costs of this will go up and up as it is constructed. Ongoing maintenance will also cost a fortune. The visitor numbers do not add up and I can't see it ever turning a profit. It will never even pay for itself.

However, it is quite fitting that our lasting memory of the Green Party's experiment in Brighton will be that of a large, rusting penis.
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: How about taking £7m of that loan and STOPPING the proposed cuts to the Fire and Rescue service? This council seem to believe that just 16 firefighters are enough to protect the 250,000 residents of Brighton and Hove..... Not to mention during the summer when the population doubles. It's YOUR life they are putting at risk. As for the i360: Who is going to rescue the tourists from this 'Over Priced Lift' when it breaks down? There will be no firefighters available, and no dedicated aerial appliance to deal with the incident![/p][/quote]I agree with what you say here.....but, just a thought, is there ANY "dedicated aerial appliance" capable of reaching the height of this thing if it gets stuck at the top with 200 people crammed on board?[/p][/quote]That's a very good point. I presume if it breaks down there is no way off. Does it come with stairs? I suppose all 200 people may have to climb onto the roof and be rescued by helicopter! I think the costs of this will go up and up as it is constructed. Ongoing maintenance will also cost a fortune. The visitor numbers do not add up and I can't see it ever turning a profit. It will never even pay for itself. However, it is quite fitting that our lasting memory of the Green Party's experiment in Brighton will be that of a large, rusting penis. thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 6

12:23pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Richada says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Richada wrote:
monkeymoo wrote:
How about taking £7m of that loan and STOPPING the proposed cuts to the Fire and Rescue service?

This council seem to believe that just 16 firefighters are enough to protect the 250,000 residents of Brighton and Hove..... Not to mention during the summer when the population doubles.

It's YOUR life they are putting at risk.

As for the i360:
Who is going to rescue the tourists from this 'Over Priced Lift' when it breaks down?
There will be no firefighters available, and no dedicated aerial appliance to deal with the incident!
I agree with what you say here.....but, just a thought, is there ANY "dedicated aerial appliance" capable of reaching the height of this thing if it gets stuck at the top with 200 people crammed on board?
That's a very good point. I presume if it breaks down there is no way off. Does it come with stairs? I suppose all 200 people may have to climb onto the roof and be rescued by helicopter!

I think the costs of this will go up and up as it is constructed. Ongoing maintenance will also cost a fortune. The visitor numbers do not add up and I can't see it ever turning a profit. It will never even pay for itself.

However, it is quite fitting that our lasting memory of the Green Party's experiment in Brighton will be that of a large, rusting penis.
Maybe there's an emergency rope ladder they sling out over the side?

Wouldn't fancy going down the greasy pole in the middle - hate to think who you'd find at the bottom of it!
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: How about taking £7m of that loan and STOPPING the proposed cuts to the Fire and Rescue service? This council seem to believe that just 16 firefighters are enough to protect the 250,000 residents of Brighton and Hove..... Not to mention during the summer when the population doubles. It's YOUR life they are putting at risk. As for the i360: Who is going to rescue the tourists from this 'Over Priced Lift' when it breaks down? There will be no firefighters available, and no dedicated aerial appliance to deal with the incident![/p][/quote]I agree with what you say here.....but, just a thought, is there ANY "dedicated aerial appliance" capable of reaching the height of this thing if it gets stuck at the top with 200 people crammed on board?[/p][/quote]That's a very good point. I presume if it breaks down there is no way off. Does it come with stairs? I suppose all 200 people may have to climb onto the roof and be rescued by helicopter! I think the costs of this will go up and up as it is constructed. Ongoing maintenance will also cost a fortune. The visitor numbers do not add up and I can't see it ever turning a profit. It will never even pay for itself. However, it is quite fitting that our lasting memory of the Green Party's experiment in Brighton will be that of a large, rusting penis.[/p][/quote]Maybe there's an emergency rope ladder they sling out over the side? Wouldn't fancy going down the greasy pole in the middle - hate to think who you'd find at the bottom of it! Richada
  • Score: 1

12:46pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Hovite says...

Richada wrote:
Automaton wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?
The council claims this will attract 800,000 visitors per year.

That equates to 2191 visitors every day of the year. Considering that the weather is going to be problematic for say 65 days per year (high winds, rain etc) then this would require over 2500 visitors on ALL remaining days. Midweek and in winter the numbers are likely to be lower.

Call me a cynic but I just cannot imagine that this will happen.
Make that 2286 visitors a day - it is closed for two weeks in January!

I honestly hope that they are right and that we are wrong - i.e. that this thing is a success - there will be no pleasure in saying "told you so" when, on the council tax bill, we're subsidising a loss making venture.
It will be classed as a success just by getting it built.

There will be no real incentive to pay back the loan within 25 years because as long as the council and government are earning the 7.8 % interest from it, they will be quite happy earning that for the next 100 years on an interest only basis. By which time the people who borrowed the money will be dead, and so will we, and the amount remaining will be written off when it becomes unusable.

It is sort of more beneficial to the council if they do have a problem paying back the loan.
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Automaton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?[/p][/quote]The council claims this will attract 800,000 visitors per year. That equates to 2191 visitors every day of the year. Considering that the weather is going to be problematic for say 65 days per year (high winds, rain etc) then this would require over 2500 visitors on ALL remaining days. Midweek and in winter the numbers are likely to be lower. Call me a cynic but I just cannot imagine that this will happen.[/p][/quote]Make that 2286 visitors a day - it is closed for two weeks in January! I honestly hope that they are right and that we are wrong - i.e. that this thing is a success - there will be no pleasure in saying "told you so" when, on the council tax bill, we're subsidising a loss making venture.[/p][/quote]It will be classed as a success just by getting it built. There will be no real incentive to pay back the loan within 25 years because as long as the council and government are earning the 7.8 % interest from it, they will be quite happy earning that for the next 100 years on an interest only basis. By which time the people who borrowed the money will be dead, and so will we, and the amount remaining will be written off when it becomes unusable. It is sort of more beneficial to the council if they do have a problem paying back the loan. Hovite
  • Score: 2

12:48pm Fri 7 Mar 14

BornInBrighton1968 says...

This whole business stinks; the figures don't add-up, and I imagine that a lot of 'brown envelopes' have crossed-hands somewhere along the line.

It really needs someone to do a bit of dirt-digging and see who on the council is either friends with, related to, or went to school with some of the contractors, engineers etc...
This whole business stinks; the figures don't add-up, and I imagine that a lot of 'brown envelopes' have crossed-hands somewhere along the line. It really needs someone to do a bit of dirt-digging and see who on the council is either friends with, related to, or went to school with some of the contractors, engineers etc... BornInBrighton1968
  • Score: 8

1:13pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Lady Smith says...

sound_man wrote:
And your council tax is increasing...
And services are being cut....
And the roads are full of holes...
And here is £36 million of public money to fund a private building that will be run for a profit (but I expect it will make losses) by a private company.
Quite.
[quote][p][bold]sound_man[/bold] wrote: And your council tax is increasing... And services are being cut.... And the roads are full of holes... And here is £36 million of public money to fund a private building that will be run for a profit (but I expect it will make losses) by a private company.[/p][/quote]Quite. Lady Smith
  • Score: 3

2:03pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Monkeymoo1 says...

Check out the Rhyl and Morecombe towers Both roaring successes. Rhyl's has not worked since 2010 and Morecombe's is about to be pulled down
Check out the Rhyl and Morecombe towers Both roaring successes. Rhyl's has not worked since 2010 and Morecombe's is about to be pulled down Monkeymoo1
  • Score: 10

2:07pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Nosfaratu says...

And the last word is: Actually went to Brighton last week where I parked in the Theatre car park for less than 2 hours and had to pay £8.40.

To be honest I don't really care if Brighton bankrupts itself as it is an appalling place to go to. Would rather visit 'Bath'. A much more sensible City.
i360 on a view few who live there would relish.
And the last word is: Actually went to Brighton last week where I parked in the Theatre car park for less than 2 hours and had to pay £8.40. To be honest I don't really care if Brighton bankrupts itself as it is an appalling place to go to. Would rather visit 'Bath'. A much more sensible City. i360 on a view few who live there would relish. Nosfaratu
  • Score: -3

2:16pm Fri 7 Mar 14

downbythesea says...

RJJM wrote:
As of 2005, however, the London Eye hadn't yet turned a profit, and British Airways and Marks Barfield were in debt. In 2006, the Tussauds, a company that owns other attractions, bought the wheel and dropped "British Airways" from its name.

http://adventure.how

stuffworks.com/londo

n-eye.htm
Indeed they did, I suppose Tussauds (part of Merlin entertainments - the BIGGEST entertainment group in Europe, and the 2nd biggest in the world after Disney group, with a turnover of £1.074 billion in 2012) bought the entire project and ALL of the outstanding debt of the project some £150 million because it was such a BAD INVESTMENT for them, and EDF who later went into partnership because it was so bad for their reputation to be associated with them?... No, I didn't think so either.

And perhaps for balance in your comment, you should mention that it has since turned in record profits, and by the end of 2010 had carried over 38.5 million passengers since it opened, and still over 3.5 million people a year go on it.

2008... Profit of £24.68 million .
2009... Profit of £29.1 million turnover up 18% on previous year

Not to mention the 80+ national tourism awards it has won.

Some of these are below:
2012
Group Travel Award: Best Attraction for Group Visits – Short Visit

2011
Most Iconic Development Award: London First

2010
London Development Agency Green500: Platinum Award
Visit London: Best Tourism Experience Bronze Award

2009
Group Travel Awards - Best Attraction for Group Visits: Short Visit

2008
British Travel Awards - Silver Award: Best Visitor Attraction
Coolbrands - third coolest attraction
Group Travel Organiser Awards - Best Attraction for Group Visits: Short Visit
Toptable.co.uk - Gold Award for Champagne Flights

2007
TripAdvisor.com - Best Attraction in Europe
Coach Tourism Awards - UK’s Attraction of the Year


2006
Visit London - 'Best Day out for Londoner's' People's Choice award
The British Travel Awards 2006 – Best attraction
Enjoy England awards - Best Tourism Experience
Platinum Access Award - Scope


2005
Best Art Direction for Advertising Communications Award
Visit London - 'Tour London' award
Visit London - 'Best Day out for Londoner's' People's Choice award


2004
The World Travel Awards - Word’s leading attraction
The Best Art Direction for Advertising Communications award 2004


2003
Visit Britain, Excellence in England - Tourism Website of the Year
Visit London – Tourism website of the year
The 2003 Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation


2002
London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award


2001
Design and Architecture Design Awards - Most Outstanding Environmental
London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award
Marketing Effectiveness Awards - New Product of the Year
Daily Mirror Pride of Britain Awards - Innovation
Travellers' Choice Awards - Best Millennium Attraction.

2000
Leisure Property Forum Awards - Best Innovative Concept
London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award

Those are the real FACTS you have conveniently forgotten to mention.

I say well done to the council for doing something to p1ss off the moaning stuck in the mud, nimbies in Brighton, with a loan which effectively costs us NOTHING in reality as it comes from general taxation, and has an iron clad price contract, and has been INDEPENDENTLY in terms of visitor numbers TWICE and been accepted as sound.

This also has nothing to do REALLY with the Green party, as it was planned and got planning well before they came into office, so they shouldn't be claiming that it was their scheme if they do.

Feel free to vote this comment down as I am sure the shedload of moaners on here will, but these are the ACTUAL FACTS which anybody can easily find, not the total cr*p most posters are putting on here about something which I am certain will be good for tourism, in what is effectively is and always will be a tourist town.

Get out more people, and give your keyboards a break, time for mine to cool down now! :o)

Instead of moaning about something why not get behind it now it's going to be a reality and stop bleating and whining about the whole world.
[quote][p][bold]RJJM[/bold] wrote: As of 2005, however, the London Eye hadn't yet turned a profit, and British Airways and Marks Barfield were in debt. In 2006, the Tussauds, a company that owns other attractions, bought the wheel and dropped "British Airways" from its name. http://adventure.how stuffworks.com/londo n-eye.htm[/p][/quote]Indeed they did, I suppose Tussauds (part of Merlin entertainments - the BIGGEST entertainment group in Europe, and the 2nd biggest in the world after Disney group, with a turnover of £1.074 billion in 2012) bought the entire project and ALL of the outstanding debt of the project some £150 million because it was such a BAD INVESTMENT for them, and EDF who later went into partnership because it was so bad for their reputation to be associated with them?... No, I didn't think so either. And perhaps for balance in your comment, you should mention that it has since turned in record profits, and by the end of 2010 had carried over 38.5 million passengers since it opened, and still over 3.5 million people a year go on it. 2008... Profit of £24.68 million . 2009... Profit of £29.1 million turnover up 18% on previous year Not to mention the 80+ national tourism awards it has won. Some of these are below: 2012 Group Travel Award: Best Attraction for Group Visits – Short Visit 2011 Most Iconic Development Award: London First 2010 London Development Agency Green500: Platinum Award Visit London: Best Tourism Experience Bronze Award 2009 Group Travel Awards - Best Attraction for Group Visits: Short Visit 2008 British Travel Awards - Silver Award: Best Visitor Attraction Coolbrands - third coolest attraction Group Travel Organiser Awards - Best Attraction for Group Visits: Short Visit Toptable.co.uk - Gold Award for Champagne Flights 2007 TripAdvisor.com - Best Attraction in Europe Coach Tourism Awards - UK’s Attraction of the Year 2006 Visit London - 'Best Day out for Londoner's' People's Choice award The British Travel Awards 2006 – Best attraction Enjoy England awards - Best Tourism Experience Platinum Access Award - Scope 2005 Best Art Direction for Advertising Communications Award Visit London - 'Tour London' award Visit London - 'Best Day out for Londoner's' People's Choice award 2004 The World Travel Awards - Word’s leading attraction The Best Art Direction for Advertising Communications award 2004 2003 Visit Britain, Excellence in England - Tourism Website of the Year Visit London – Tourism website of the year The 2003 Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation 2002 London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award 2001 Design and Architecture Design Awards - Most Outstanding Environmental London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award Marketing Effectiveness Awards - New Product of the Year Daily Mirror Pride of Britain Awards - Innovation Travellers' Choice Awards - Best Millennium Attraction. 2000 Leisure Property Forum Awards - Best Innovative Concept London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award Those are the real FACTS you have conveniently forgotten to mention. I say well done to the council for doing something to p1ss off the moaning stuck in the mud, nimbies in Brighton, with a loan which effectively costs us NOTHING in reality as it comes from general taxation, and has an iron clad price contract, and has been INDEPENDENTLY in terms of visitor numbers TWICE and been accepted as sound. This also has nothing to do REALLY with the Green party, as it was planned and got planning well before they came into office, so they shouldn't be claiming that it was their scheme if they do. Feel free to vote this comment down as I am sure the shedload of moaners on here will, but these are the ACTUAL FACTS which anybody can easily find, not the total cr*p most posters are putting on here about something which I am certain will be good for tourism, in what is effectively is and always will be a tourist town. Get out more people, and give your keyboards a break, time for mine to cool down now! :o) Instead of moaning about something why not get behind it now it's going to be a reality and stop bleating and whining about the whole world. downbythesea
  • Score: 0

2:34pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Green_Girl_1990 says...

downbythesea wrote:
RJJM wrote:
As of 2005, however, the London Eye hadn't yet turned a profit, and British Airways and Marks Barfield were in debt. In 2006, the Tussauds, a company that owns other attractions, bought the wheel and dropped "British Airways" from its name.

http://adventure.how


stuffworks.com/londo


n-eye.htm
Indeed they did, I suppose Tussauds (part of Merlin entertainments - the BIGGEST entertainment group in Europe, and the 2nd biggest in the world after Disney group, with a turnover of £1.074 billion in 2012) bought the entire project and ALL of the outstanding debt of the project some £150 million because it was such a BAD INVESTMENT for them, and EDF who later went into partnership because it was so bad for their reputation to be associated with them?... No, I didn't think so either.

And perhaps for balance in your comment, you should mention that it has since turned in record profits, and by the end of 2010 had carried over 38.5 million passengers since it opened, and still over 3.5 million people a year go on it.

2008... Profit of £24.68 million .
2009... Profit of £29.1 million turnover up 18% on previous year

Not to mention the 80+ national tourism awards it has won.

Some of these are below:
2012
Group Travel Award: Best Attraction for Group Visits – Short Visit

2011
Most Iconic Development Award: London First

2010
London Development Agency Green500: Platinum Award
Visit London: Best Tourism Experience Bronze Award

2009
Group Travel Awards - Best Attraction for Group Visits: Short Visit

2008
British Travel Awards - Silver Award: Best Visitor Attraction
Coolbrands - third coolest attraction
Group Travel Organiser Awards - Best Attraction for Group Visits: Short Visit
Toptable.co.uk - Gold Award for Champagne Flights

2007
TripAdvisor.com - Best Attraction in Europe
Coach Tourism Awards - UK’s Attraction of the Year


2006
Visit London - 'Best Day out for Londoner's' People's Choice award
The British Travel Awards 2006 – Best attraction
Enjoy England awards - Best Tourism Experience
Platinum Access Award - Scope


2005
Best Art Direction for Advertising Communications Award
Visit London - 'Tour London' award
Visit London - 'Best Day out for Londoner's' People's Choice award


2004
The World Travel Awards - Word’s leading attraction
The Best Art Direction for Advertising Communications award 2004


2003
Visit Britain, Excellence in England - Tourism Website of the Year
Visit London – Tourism website of the year
The 2003 Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation


2002
London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award


2001
Design and Architecture Design Awards - Most Outstanding Environmental
London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award
Marketing Effectiveness Awards - New Product of the Year
Daily Mirror Pride of Britain Awards - Innovation
Travellers' Choice Awards - Best Millennium Attraction.

2000
Leisure Property Forum Awards - Best Innovative Concept
London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award

Those are the real FACTS you have conveniently forgotten to mention.

I say well done to the council for doing something to p1ss off the moaning stuck in the mud, nimbies in Brighton, with a loan which effectively costs us NOTHING in reality as it comes from general taxation, and has an iron clad price contract, and has been INDEPENDENTLY in terms of visitor numbers TWICE and been accepted as sound.

This also has nothing to do REALLY with the Green party, as it was planned and got planning well before they came into office, so they shouldn't be claiming that it was their scheme if they do.

Feel free to vote this comment down as I am sure the shedload of moaners on here will, but these are the ACTUAL FACTS which anybody can easily find, not the total cr*p most posters are putting on here about something which I am certain will be good for tourism, in what is effectively is and always will be a tourist town.

Get out more people, and give your keyboards a break, time for mine to cool down now! :o)

Instead of moaning about something why not get behind it now it's going to be a reality and stop bleating and whining about the whole world.
I agree with you 100%; all of the bed-wetters and panty-brats who complain about this project must understand that we Greens are doing this for your own good. The i360 will generate incredible amounts of revenue, that in turn will be ploughed-back into Brighton's economy to make the city a better place to live in.

The i360 is happening; DEAL WITH IT.
[quote][p][bold]downbythesea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RJJM[/bold] wrote: As of 2005, however, the London Eye hadn't yet turned a profit, and British Airways and Marks Barfield were in debt. In 2006, the Tussauds, a company that owns other attractions, bought the wheel and dropped "British Airways" from its name. http://adventure.how stuffworks.com/londo n-eye.htm[/p][/quote]Indeed they did, I suppose Tussauds (part of Merlin entertainments - the BIGGEST entertainment group in Europe, and the 2nd biggest in the world after Disney group, with a turnover of £1.074 billion in 2012) bought the entire project and ALL of the outstanding debt of the project some £150 million because it was such a BAD INVESTMENT for them, and EDF who later went into partnership because it was so bad for their reputation to be associated with them?... No, I didn't think so either. And perhaps for balance in your comment, you should mention that it has since turned in record profits, and by the end of 2010 had carried over 38.5 million passengers since it opened, and still over 3.5 million people a year go on it. 2008... Profit of £24.68 million . 2009... Profit of £29.1 million turnover up 18% on previous year Not to mention the 80+ national tourism awards it has won. Some of these are below: 2012 Group Travel Award: Best Attraction for Group Visits – Short Visit 2011 Most Iconic Development Award: London First 2010 London Development Agency Green500: Platinum Award Visit London: Best Tourism Experience Bronze Award 2009 Group Travel Awards - Best Attraction for Group Visits: Short Visit 2008 British Travel Awards - Silver Award: Best Visitor Attraction Coolbrands - third coolest attraction Group Travel Organiser Awards - Best Attraction for Group Visits: Short Visit Toptable.co.uk - Gold Award for Champagne Flights 2007 TripAdvisor.com - Best Attraction in Europe Coach Tourism Awards - UK’s Attraction of the Year 2006 Visit London - 'Best Day out for Londoner's' People's Choice award The British Travel Awards 2006 – Best attraction Enjoy England awards - Best Tourism Experience Platinum Access Award - Scope 2005 Best Art Direction for Advertising Communications Award Visit London - 'Tour London' award Visit London - 'Best Day out for Londoner's' People's Choice award 2004 The World Travel Awards - Word’s leading attraction The Best Art Direction for Advertising Communications award 2004 2003 Visit Britain, Excellence in England - Tourism Website of the Year Visit London – Tourism website of the year The 2003 Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation 2002 London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award 2001 Design and Architecture Design Awards - Most Outstanding Environmental London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award Marketing Effectiveness Awards - New Product of the Year Daily Mirror Pride of Britain Awards - Innovation Travellers' Choice Awards - Best Millennium Attraction. 2000 Leisure Property Forum Awards - Best Innovative Concept London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award Those are the real FACTS you have conveniently forgotten to mention. I say well done to the council for doing something to p1ss off the moaning stuck in the mud, nimbies in Brighton, with a loan which effectively costs us NOTHING in reality as it comes from general taxation, and has an iron clad price contract, and has been INDEPENDENTLY in terms of visitor numbers TWICE and been accepted as sound. This also has nothing to do REALLY with the Green party, as it was planned and got planning well before they came into office, so they shouldn't be claiming that it was their scheme if they do. Feel free to vote this comment down as I am sure the shedload of moaners on here will, but these are the ACTUAL FACTS which anybody can easily find, not the total cr*p most posters are putting on here about something which I am certain will be good for tourism, in what is effectively is and always will be a tourist town. Get out more people, and give your keyboards a break, time for mine to cool down now! :o) Instead of moaning about something why not get behind it now it's going to be a reality and stop bleating and whining about the whole world.[/p][/quote]I agree with you 100%; all of the bed-wetters and panty-brats who complain about this project must understand that we Greens are doing this for your own good. The i360 will generate incredible amounts of revenue, that in turn will be ploughed-back into Brighton's economy to make the city a better place to live in. The i360 is happening; DEAL WITH IT. Green_Girl_1990
  • Score: -5

2:37pm Fri 7 Mar 14

jo_brown says...

downbythesea wrote:
RJJM wrote:
As of 2005, however, the London Eye hadn't yet turned a profit, and British Airways and Marks Barfield were in debt. In 2006, the Tussauds, a company that owns other attractions, bought the wheel and dropped "British Airways" from its name.

http://adventure.how


stuffworks.com/londo


n-eye.htm
Indeed they did, I suppose Tussauds (part of Merlin entertainments - the BIGGEST entertainment group in Europe, and the 2nd biggest in the world after Disney group, with a turnover of £1.074 billion in 2012) bought the entire project and ALL of the outstanding debt of the project some £150 million because it was such a BAD INVESTMENT for them, and EDF who later went into partnership because it was so bad for their reputation to be associated with them?... No, I didn't think so either.

And perhaps for balance in your comment, you should mention that it has since turned in record profits, and by the end of 2010 had carried over 38.5 million passengers since it opened, and still over 3.5 million people a year go on it.

2008... Profit of £24.68 million .
2009... Profit of £29.1 million turnover up 18% on previous year

Not to mention the 80+ national tourism awards it has won.

Some of these are below:
2012
Group Travel Award: Best Attraction for Group Visits – Short Visit

2011
Most Iconic Development Award: London First

2010
London Development Agency Green500: Platinum Award
Visit London: Best Tourism Experience Bronze Award

2009
Group Travel Awards - Best Attraction for Group Visits: Short Visit

2008
British Travel Awards - Silver Award: Best Visitor Attraction
Coolbrands - third coolest attraction
Group Travel Organiser Awards - Best Attraction for Group Visits: Short Visit
Toptable.co.uk - Gold Award for Champagne Flights

2007
TripAdvisor.com - Best Attraction in Europe
Coach Tourism Awards - UK’s Attraction of the Year


2006
Visit London - 'Best Day out for Londoner's' People's Choice award
The British Travel Awards 2006 – Best attraction
Enjoy England awards - Best Tourism Experience
Platinum Access Award - Scope


2005
Best Art Direction for Advertising Communications Award
Visit London - 'Tour London' award
Visit London - 'Best Day out for Londoner's' People's Choice award


2004
The World Travel Awards - Word’s leading attraction
The Best Art Direction for Advertising Communications award 2004


2003
Visit Britain, Excellence in England - Tourism Website of the Year
Visit London – Tourism website of the year
The 2003 Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation


2002
London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award


2001
Design and Architecture Design Awards - Most Outstanding Environmental
London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award
Marketing Effectiveness Awards - New Product of the Year
Daily Mirror Pride of Britain Awards - Innovation
Travellers' Choice Awards - Best Millennium Attraction.

2000
Leisure Property Forum Awards - Best Innovative Concept
London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award

Those are the real FACTS you have conveniently forgotten to mention.

I say well done to the council for doing something to p1ss off the moaning stuck in the mud, nimbies in Brighton, with a loan which effectively costs us NOTHING in reality as it comes from general taxation, and has an iron clad price contract, and has been INDEPENDENTLY in terms of visitor numbers TWICE and been accepted as sound.

This also has nothing to do REALLY with the Green party, as it was planned and got planning well before they came into office, so they shouldn't be claiming that it was their scheme if they do.

Feel free to vote this comment down as I am sure the shedload of moaners on here will, but these are the ACTUAL FACTS which anybody can easily find, not the total cr*p most posters are putting on here about something which I am certain will be good for tourism, in what is effectively is and always will be a tourist town.

Get out more people, and give your keyboards a break, time for mine to cool down now! :o)

Instead of moaning about something why not get behind it now it's going to be a reality and stop bleating and whining about the whole world.
Well said!!!
Couldn't agree more. About time this town moved on and B&HCC started approving planning applications for dynamic, forward thinking, innovative design, otherwise this town will sink, just like the West Pier.
[quote][p][bold]downbythesea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RJJM[/bold] wrote: As of 2005, however, the London Eye hadn't yet turned a profit, and British Airways and Marks Barfield were in debt. In 2006, the Tussauds, a company that owns other attractions, bought the wheel and dropped "British Airways" from its name. http://adventure.how stuffworks.com/londo n-eye.htm[/p][/quote]Indeed they did, I suppose Tussauds (part of Merlin entertainments - the BIGGEST entertainment group in Europe, and the 2nd biggest in the world after Disney group, with a turnover of £1.074 billion in 2012) bought the entire project and ALL of the outstanding debt of the project some £150 million because it was such a BAD INVESTMENT for them, and EDF who later went into partnership because it was so bad for their reputation to be associated with them?... No, I didn't think so either. And perhaps for balance in your comment, you should mention that it has since turned in record profits, and by the end of 2010 had carried over 38.5 million passengers since it opened, and still over 3.5 million people a year go on it. 2008... Profit of £24.68 million . 2009... Profit of £29.1 million turnover up 18% on previous year Not to mention the 80+ national tourism awards it has won. Some of these are below: 2012 Group Travel Award: Best Attraction for Group Visits – Short Visit 2011 Most Iconic Development Award: London First 2010 London Development Agency Green500: Platinum Award Visit London: Best Tourism Experience Bronze Award 2009 Group Travel Awards - Best Attraction for Group Visits: Short Visit 2008 British Travel Awards - Silver Award: Best Visitor Attraction Coolbrands - third coolest attraction Group Travel Organiser Awards - Best Attraction for Group Visits: Short Visit Toptable.co.uk - Gold Award for Champagne Flights 2007 TripAdvisor.com - Best Attraction in Europe Coach Tourism Awards - UK’s Attraction of the Year 2006 Visit London - 'Best Day out for Londoner's' People's Choice award The British Travel Awards 2006 – Best attraction Enjoy England awards - Best Tourism Experience Platinum Access Award - Scope 2005 Best Art Direction for Advertising Communications Award Visit London - 'Tour London' award Visit London - 'Best Day out for Londoner's' People's Choice award 2004 The World Travel Awards - Word’s leading attraction The Best Art Direction for Advertising Communications award 2004 2003 Visit Britain, Excellence in England - Tourism Website of the Year Visit London – Tourism website of the year The 2003 Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation 2002 London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award 2001 Design and Architecture Design Awards - Most Outstanding Environmental London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award Marketing Effectiveness Awards - New Product of the Year Daily Mirror Pride of Britain Awards - Innovation Travellers' Choice Awards - Best Millennium Attraction. 2000 Leisure Property Forum Awards - Best Innovative Concept London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award Those are the real FACTS you have conveniently forgotten to mention. I say well done to the council for doing something to p1ss off the moaning stuck in the mud, nimbies in Brighton, with a loan which effectively costs us NOTHING in reality as it comes from general taxation, and has an iron clad price contract, and has been INDEPENDENTLY in terms of visitor numbers TWICE and been accepted as sound. This also has nothing to do REALLY with the Green party, as it was planned and got planning well before they came into office, so they shouldn't be claiming that it was their scheme if they do. Feel free to vote this comment down as I am sure the shedload of moaners on here will, but these are the ACTUAL FACTS which anybody can easily find, not the total cr*p most posters are putting on here about something which I am certain will be good for tourism, in what is effectively is and always will be a tourist town. Get out more people, and give your keyboards a break, time for mine to cool down now! :o) Instead of moaning about something why not get behind it now it's going to be a reality and stop bleating and whining about the whole world.[/p][/quote]Well said!!! Couldn't agree more. About time this town moved on and B&HCC started approving planning applications for dynamic, forward thinking, innovative design, otherwise this town will sink, just like the West Pier. jo_brown
  • Score: 2

2:54pm Fri 7 Mar 14

pumpkineater23 says...

"The local authority is expected to also get an extra £300,000 income from Regency Square car park"

I live in Regency Square. The car park is full during the day all weekend in the summer with queues of cars trailing back to the main road. As Brighton is relatively quiet during the week how is it expected the the car park will make so much extra money when the i360 can only be busy at the weekend also?
"The local authority is expected to also get an extra £300,000 income from Regency Square car park" I live in Regency Square. The car park is full during the day all weekend in the summer with queues of cars trailing back to the main road. As Brighton is relatively quiet during the week how is it expected the the car park will make so much extra money when the i360 can only be busy at the weekend also? pumpkineater23
  • Score: 9

3:05pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Green_Girl_1990 says...

Taking into account the magnificent hard work that the Green Council have put into realising this project, and the fantastic amounts of revenue that the i360 will generate, I think the travel pod (the doughnut-shaped part that travels up-and-down the shaft of the i360) should have the faces of ALL of Brighton's Green councillors displayed on it's base, and pictures of their faces should be illuminated at night.

I have voted for, and have worked for the Green party ever since I started university at Sussex and the i360 has never made me more proud to be a member of the Green party.

The i360 will be a WONDERFUL benefit to the people of Brighton
Taking into account the magnificent hard work that the Green Council have put into realising this project, and the fantastic amounts of revenue that the i360 will generate, I think the travel pod (the doughnut-shaped part that travels up-and-down the shaft of the i360) should have the faces of ALL of Brighton's Green councillors displayed on it's base, and pictures of their faces should be illuminated at night. I have voted for, and have worked for the Green party ever since I started university at Sussex and the i360 has never made me more proud to be a member of the Green party. The i360 will be a WONDERFUL benefit to the people of Brighton Green_Girl_1990
  • Score: -10

3:08pm Fri 7 Mar 14

MoronSpotter says...

I see the moaning minnies, naysayers, miserable beggars and cleverdick saddoes are out in force on this one. What a surprise.
I see the moaning minnies, naysayers, miserable beggars and cleverdick saddoes are out in force on this one. What a surprise. MoronSpotter
  • Score: -3

3:16pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Green_Girl_1990 says...

MoronSpotter wrote:
I see the moaning minnies, naysayers, miserable beggars and cleverdick saddoes are out in force on this one. What a surprise.
Confirmation that the i360 will definitely begin has never made me more proud to be a member of the Green party.

When the i360 starts to bring in incredible amounts of revenue and establishes Brighton as the South's premier tourist destination, I for one will look forward to all of the bed-wetters and panty-brats who criticised this project eat their words!
[quote][p][bold]MoronSpotter[/bold] wrote: I see the moaning minnies, naysayers, miserable beggars and cleverdick saddoes are out in force on this one. What a surprise.[/p][/quote]Confirmation that the i360 will definitely begin has never made me more proud to be a member of the Green party. When the i360 starts to bring in incredible amounts of revenue and establishes Brighton as the South's premier tourist destination, I for one will look forward to all of the bed-wetters and panty-brats who criticised this project eat their words! Green_Girl_1990
  • Score: -11

3:38pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Hovite says...

Green_Girl_1990 wrote:
Taking into account the magnificent hard work that the Green Council have put into realising this project, and the fantastic amounts of revenue that the i360 will generate, I think the travel pod (the doughnut-shaped part that travels up-and-down the shaft of the i360) should have the faces of ALL of Brighton's Green councillors displayed on it's base, and pictures of their faces should be illuminated at night.

I have voted for, and have worked for the Green party ever since I started university at Sussex and the i360 has never made me more proud to be a member of the Green party.

The i360 will be a WONDERFUL benefit to the people of Brighton
It's not perfect though and the objective of this was to finance a new pier.

If a new pier was built with the i360 sat at the end and out to sea so the users could look back to the shoreline, because then it would be a complete project.

I also think that most peoples frustrations are that MB were going to finaince it themselves and could find no one to back it, then the council were going to loan them £14m, now it's £36m and could rise.

The council have got their priorities back to front because there are greater needs in this city for the people that live here. When it comes to city sport and leisure facilities we have a lower status than of a village.

I should point out that the Green Party cannot take all the praise or blame as it was the Tory Party who were behind it in 2006 and it's the Tory Government who is lending the money. So I doubt your dream of having the Green Party's faces being illuminated on it at night will happen.
[quote][p][bold]Green_Girl_1990[/bold] wrote: Taking into account the magnificent hard work that the Green Council have put into realising this project, and the fantastic amounts of revenue that the i360 will generate, I think the travel pod (the doughnut-shaped part that travels up-and-down the shaft of the i360) should have the faces of ALL of Brighton's Green councillors displayed on it's base, and pictures of their faces should be illuminated at night. I have voted for, and have worked for the Green party ever since I started university at Sussex and the i360 has never made me more proud to be a member of the Green party. The i360 will be a WONDERFUL benefit to the people of Brighton[/p][/quote]It's not perfect though and the objective of this was to finance a new pier. If a new pier was built with the i360 sat at the end and out to sea so the users could look back to the shoreline, because then it would be a complete project. I also think that most peoples frustrations are that MB were going to finaince it themselves and could find no one to back it, then the council were going to loan them £14m, now it's £36m and could rise. The council have got their priorities back to front because there are greater needs in this city for the people that live here. When it comes to city sport and leisure facilities we have a lower status than of a village. I should point out that the Green Party cannot take all the praise or blame as it was the Tory Party who were behind it in 2006 and it's the Tory Government who is lending the money. So I doubt your dream of having the Green Party's faces being illuminated on it at night will happen. Hovite
  • Score: 8

3:39pm Fri 7 Mar 14

pumpkineater23 says...

Green_Girl_1990 wrote:
MoronSpotter wrote:
I see the moaning minnies, naysayers, miserable beggars and cleverdick saddoes are out in force on this one. What a surprise.
Confirmation that the i360 will definitely begin has never made me more proud to be a member of the Green party.

When the i360 starts to bring in incredible amounts of revenue and establishes Brighton as the South's premier tourist destination, I for one will look forward to all of the bed-wetters and panty-brats who criticised this project eat their words!
"I for one will look forward to all of the bed-wetters and panty-brats who criticised this project eat their words!"

You make it sound like a competition. There's a great deal of money at stake and people have the right to be skeptical. Childish 'name calling' is all the supporters of the i360 seem to be capable of. Instead why don't you try answering some of the *valid* questions, like the massively exaggerated visitor numbers for example?
[quote][p][bold]Green_Girl_1990[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MoronSpotter[/bold] wrote: I see the moaning minnies, naysayers, miserable beggars and cleverdick saddoes are out in force on this one. What a surprise.[/p][/quote]Confirmation that the i360 will definitely begin has never made me more proud to be a member of the Green party. When the i360 starts to bring in incredible amounts of revenue and establishes Brighton as the South's premier tourist destination, I for one will look forward to all of the bed-wetters and panty-brats who criticised this project eat their words![/p][/quote]"I for one will look forward to all of the bed-wetters and panty-brats who criticised this project eat their words!" You make it sound like a competition. There's a great deal of money at stake and people have the right to be skeptical. Childish 'name calling' is all the supporters of the i360 seem to be capable of. Instead why don't you try answering some of the *valid* questions, like the massively exaggerated visitor numbers for example? pumpkineater23
  • Score: 4

4:13pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Automaton says...

downbythesea wrote:
RJJM wrote:
As of 2005, however, the London Eye hadn't yet turned a profit, and British Airways and Marks Barfield were in debt. In 2006, the Tussauds, a company that owns other attractions, bought the wheel and dropped "British Airways" from its name.

http://adventure.how


stuffworks.com/londo


n-eye.htm
Indeed they did, I suppose Tussauds (part of Merlin entertainments - the BIGGEST entertainment group in Europe, and the 2nd biggest in the world after Disney group, with a turnover of £1.074 billion in 2012) bought the entire project and ALL of the outstanding debt of the project some £150 million because it was such a BAD INVESTMENT for them, and EDF who later went into partnership because it was so bad for their reputation to be associated with them?... No, I didn't think so either.

And perhaps for balance in your comment, you should mention that it has since turned in record profits, and by the end of 2010 had carried over 38.5 million passengers since it opened, and still over 3.5 million people a year go on it.

2008... Profit of £24.68 million .
2009... Profit of £29.1 million turnover up 18% on previous year

Not to mention the 80+ national tourism awards it has won.

Some of these are below:
2012
Group Travel Award: Best Attraction for Group Visits – Short Visit

2011
Most Iconic Development Award: London First

2010
London Development Agency Green500: Platinum Award
Visit London: Best Tourism Experience Bronze Award

2009
Group Travel Awards - Best Attraction for Group Visits: Short Visit

2008
British Travel Awards - Silver Award: Best Visitor Attraction
Coolbrands - third coolest attraction
Group Travel Organiser Awards - Best Attraction for Group Visits: Short Visit
Toptable.co.uk - Gold Award for Champagne Flights

2007
TripAdvisor.com - Best Attraction in Europe
Coach Tourism Awards - UK’s Attraction of the Year


2006
Visit London - 'Best Day out for Londoner's' People's Choice award
The British Travel Awards 2006 – Best attraction
Enjoy England awards - Best Tourism Experience
Platinum Access Award - Scope


2005
Best Art Direction for Advertising Communications Award
Visit London - 'Tour London' award
Visit London - 'Best Day out for Londoner's' People's Choice award


2004
The World Travel Awards - Word’s leading attraction
The Best Art Direction for Advertising Communications award 2004


2003
Visit Britain, Excellence in England - Tourism Website of the Year
Visit London – Tourism website of the year
The 2003 Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation


2002
London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award


2001
Design and Architecture Design Awards - Most Outstanding Environmental
London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award
Marketing Effectiveness Awards - New Product of the Year
Daily Mirror Pride of Britain Awards - Innovation
Travellers' Choice Awards - Best Millennium Attraction.

2000
Leisure Property Forum Awards - Best Innovative Concept
London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award

Those are the real FACTS you have conveniently forgotten to mention.

I say well done to the council for doing something to p1ss off the moaning stuck in the mud, nimbies in Brighton, with a loan which effectively costs us NOTHING in reality as it comes from general taxation, and has an iron clad price contract, and has been INDEPENDENTLY in terms of visitor numbers TWICE and been accepted as sound.

This also has nothing to do REALLY with the Green party, as it was planned and got planning well before they came into office, so they shouldn't be claiming that it was their scheme if they do.

Feel free to vote this comment down as I am sure the shedload of moaners on here will, but these are the ACTUAL FACTS which anybody can easily find, not the total cr*p most posters are putting on here about something which I am certain will be good for tourism, in what is effectively is and always will be a tourist town.

Get out more people, and give your keyboards a break, time for mine to cool down now! :o)

Instead of moaning about something why not get behind it now it's going to be a reality and stop bleating and whining about the whole world.
But this is not the London Eye and there isn't as much of interest to see. Half of the view will be of the sea. I am not against it but just wonder how the council comes up with the figures for visitors numbers. They estimate twice as many as visits as the Spinnaker Tower Portsmouth. Do they really believe that 800,000 per year will come down for this. As I said before that is more than 2000 rides per day every single day of the year.
Sounds highly unrealistic.

It would be great if it was successful but it would be nice to not be treated like idiots and subjected to unsubstantiated propoganda
[quote][p][bold]downbythesea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RJJM[/bold] wrote: As of 2005, however, the London Eye hadn't yet turned a profit, and British Airways and Marks Barfield were in debt. In 2006, the Tussauds, a company that owns other attractions, bought the wheel and dropped "British Airways" from its name. http://adventure.how stuffworks.com/londo n-eye.htm[/p][/quote]Indeed they did, I suppose Tussauds (part of Merlin entertainments - the BIGGEST entertainment group in Europe, and the 2nd biggest in the world after Disney group, with a turnover of £1.074 billion in 2012) bought the entire project and ALL of the outstanding debt of the project some £150 million because it was such a BAD INVESTMENT for them, and EDF who later went into partnership because it was so bad for their reputation to be associated with them?... No, I didn't think so either. And perhaps for balance in your comment, you should mention that it has since turned in record profits, and by the end of 2010 had carried over 38.5 million passengers since it opened, and still over 3.5 million people a year go on it. 2008... Profit of £24.68 million . 2009... Profit of £29.1 million turnover up 18% on previous year Not to mention the 80+ national tourism awards it has won. Some of these are below: 2012 Group Travel Award: Best Attraction for Group Visits – Short Visit 2011 Most Iconic Development Award: London First 2010 London Development Agency Green500: Platinum Award Visit London: Best Tourism Experience Bronze Award 2009 Group Travel Awards - Best Attraction for Group Visits: Short Visit 2008 British Travel Awards - Silver Award: Best Visitor Attraction Coolbrands - third coolest attraction Group Travel Organiser Awards - Best Attraction for Group Visits: Short Visit Toptable.co.uk - Gold Award for Champagne Flights 2007 TripAdvisor.com - Best Attraction in Europe Coach Tourism Awards - UK’s Attraction of the Year 2006 Visit London - 'Best Day out for Londoner's' People's Choice award The British Travel Awards 2006 – Best attraction Enjoy England awards - Best Tourism Experience Platinum Access Award - Scope 2005 Best Art Direction for Advertising Communications Award Visit London - 'Tour London' award Visit London - 'Best Day out for Londoner's' People's Choice award 2004 The World Travel Awards - Word’s leading attraction The Best Art Direction for Advertising Communications award 2004 2003 Visit Britain, Excellence in England - Tourism Website of the Year Visit London – Tourism website of the year The 2003 Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation 2002 London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award 2001 Design and Architecture Design Awards - Most Outstanding Environmental London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award Marketing Effectiveness Awards - New Product of the Year Daily Mirror Pride of Britain Awards - Innovation Travellers' Choice Awards - Best Millennium Attraction. 2000 Leisure Property Forum Awards - Best Innovative Concept London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award Those are the real FACTS you have conveniently forgotten to mention. I say well done to the council for doing something to p1ss off the moaning stuck in the mud, nimbies in Brighton, with a loan which effectively costs us NOTHING in reality as it comes from general taxation, and has an iron clad price contract, and has been INDEPENDENTLY in terms of visitor numbers TWICE and been accepted as sound. This also has nothing to do REALLY with the Green party, as it was planned and got planning well before they came into office, so they shouldn't be claiming that it was their scheme if they do. Feel free to vote this comment down as I am sure the shedload of moaners on here will, but these are the ACTUAL FACTS which anybody can easily find, not the total cr*p most posters are putting on here about something which I am certain will be good for tourism, in what is effectively is and always will be a tourist town. Get out more people, and give your keyboards a break, time for mine to cool down now! :o) Instead of moaning about something why not get behind it now it's going to be a reality and stop bleating and whining about the whole world.[/p][/quote]But this is not the London Eye and there isn't as much of interest to see. Half of the view will be of the sea. I am not against it but just wonder how the council comes up with the figures for visitors numbers. They estimate twice as many as visits as the Spinnaker Tower Portsmouth. Do they really believe that 800,000 per year will come down for this. As I said before that is more than 2000 rides per day every single day of the year. Sounds highly unrealistic. It would be great if it was successful but it would be nice to not be treated like idiots and subjected to unsubstantiated propoganda Automaton
  • Score: 7

4:43pm Fri 7 Mar 14

pumpkineater23 says...

Automaton wrote:
downbythesea wrote:
RJJM wrote:
As of 2005, however, the London Eye hadn't yet turned a profit, and British Airways and Marks Barfield were in debt. In 2006, the Tussauds, a company that owns other attractions, bought the wheel and dropped "British Airways" from its name.

http://adventure.how



stuffworks.com/londo



n-eye.htm
Indeed they did, I suppose Tussauds (part of Merlin entertainments - the BIGGEST entertainment group in Europe, and the 2nd biggest in the world after Disney group, with a turnover of £1.074 billion in 2012) bought the entire project and ALL of the outstanding debt of the project some £150 million because it was such a BAD INVESTMENT for them, and EDF who later went into partnership because it was so bad for their reputation to be associated with them?... No, I didn't think so either.

And perhaps for balance in your comment, you should mention that it has since turned in record profits, and by the end of 2010 had carried over 38.5 million passengers since it opened, and still over 3.5 million people a year go on it.

2008... Profit of £24.68 million .
2009... Profit of £29.1 million turnover up 18% on previous year

Not to mention the 80+ national tourism awards it has won.

Some of these are below:
2012
Group Travel Award: Best Attraction for Group Visits – Short Visit

2011
Most Iconic Development Award: London First

2010
London Development Agency Green500: Platinum Award
Visit London: Best Tourism Experience Bronze Award

2009
Group Travel Awards - Best Attraction for Group Visits: Short Visit

2008
British Travel Awards - Silver Award: Best Visitor Attraction
Coolbrands - third coolest attraction
Group Travel Organiser Awards - Best Attraction for Group Visits: Short Visit
Toptable.co.uk - Gold Award for Champagne Flights

2007
TripAdvisor.com - Best Attraction in Europe
Coach Tourism Awards - UK’s Attraction of the Year


2006
Visit London - 'Best Day out for Londoner's' People's Choice award
The British Travel Awards 2006 – Best attraction
Enjoy England awards - Best Tourism Experience
Platinum Access Award - Scope


2005
Best Art Direction for Advertising Communications Award
Visit London - 'Tour London' award
Visit London - 'Best Day out for Londoner's' People's Choice award


2004
The World Travel Awards - Word’s leading attraction
The Best Art Direction for Advertising Communications award 2004


2003
Visit Britain, Excellence in England - Tourism Website of the Year
Visit London – Tourism website of the year
The 2003 Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation


2002
London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award


2001
Design and Architecture Design Awards - Most Outstanding Environmental
London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award
Marketing Effectiveness Awards - New Product of the Year
Daily Mirror Pride of Britain Awards - Innovation
Travellers' Choice Awards - Best Millennium Attraction.

2000
Leisure Property Forum Awards - Best Innovative Concept
London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award

Those are the real FACTS you have conveniently forgotten to mention.

I say well done to the council for doing something to p1ss off the moaning stuck in the mud, nimbies in Brighton, with a loan which effectively costs us NOTHING in reality as it comes from general taxation, and has an iron clad price contract, and has been INDEPENDENTLY in terms of visitor numbers TWICE and been accepted as sound.

This also has nothing to do REALLY with the Green party, as it was planned and got planning well before they came into office, so they shouldn't be claiming that it was their scheme if they do.

Feel free to vote this comment down as I am sure the shedload of moaners on here will, but these are the ACTUAL FACTS which anybody can easily find, not the total cr*p most posters are putting on here about something which I am certain will be good for tourism, in what is effectively is and always will be a tourist town.

Get out more people, and give your keyboards a break, time for mine to cool down now! :o)

Instead of moaning about something why not get behind it now it's going to be a reality and stop bleating and whining about the whole world.
But this is not the London Eye and there isn't as much of interest to see. Half of the view will be of the sea. I am not against it but just wonder how the council comes up with the figures for visitors numbers. They estimate twice as many as visits as the Spinnaker Tower Portsmouth. Do they really believe that 800,000 per year will come down for this. As I said before that is more than 2000 rides per day every single day of the year.
Sounds highly unrealistic.

It would be great if it was successful but it would be nice to not be treated like idiots and subjected to unsubstantiated propoganda
"But this is not the London Eye and there isn't as much of interest to see. Half of the view will be of the sea."

Exactly. Half the view is the same as from the ground, and the other half is similar as from the top of Sussex Heights, try for yourself, it's really not that impressive. In the center of London the i360 would work. It would be surrounded by interesting architecture and history as far as the eye can see. Also worth bearing in mind that London has a far greater number of visitors than Brighton.. and throughout the entire year too, not just the summer weekends (when it sunny).
[quote][p][bold]Automaton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downbythesea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RJJM[/bold] wrote: As of 2005, however, the London Eye hadn't yet turned a profit, and British Airways and Marks Barfield were in debt. In 2006, the Tussauds, a company that owns other attractions, bought the wheel and dropped "British Airways" from its name. http://adventure.how stuffworks.com/londo n-eye.htm[/p][/quote]Indeed they did, I suppose Tussauds (part of Merlin entertainments - the BIGGEST entertainment group in Europe, and the 2nd biggest in the world after Disney group, with a turnover of £1.074 billion in 2012) bought the entire project and ALL of the outstanding debt of the project some £150 million because it was such a BAD INVESTMENT for them, and EDF who later went into partnership because it was so bad for their reputation to be associated with them?... No, I didn't think so either. And perhaps for balance in your comment, you should mention that it has since turned in record profits, and by the end of 2010 had carried over 38.5 million passengers since it opened, and still over 3.5 million people a year go on it. 2008... Profit of £24.68 million . 2009... Profit of £29.1 million turnover up 18% on previous year Not to mention the 80+ national tourism awards it has won. Some of these are below: 2012 Group Travel Award: Best Attraction for Group Visits – Short Visit 2011 Most Iconic Development Award: London First 2010 London Development Agency Green500: Platinum Award Visit London: Best Tourism Experience Bronze Award 2009 Group Travel Awards - Best Attraction for Group Visits: Short Visit 2008 British Travel Awards - Silver Award: Best Visitor Attraction Coolbrands - third coolest attraction Group Travel Organiser Awards - Best Attraction for Group Visits: Short Visit Toptable.co.uk - Gold Award for Champagne Flights 2007 TripAdvisor.com - Best Attraction in Europe Coach Tourism Awards - UK’s Attraction of the Year 2006 Visit London - 'Best Day out for Londoner's' People's Choice award The British Travel Awards 2006 – Best attraction Enjoy England awards - Best Tourism Experience Platinum Access Award - Scope 2005 Best Art Direction for Advertising Communications Award Visit London - 'Tour London' award Visit London - 'Best Day out for Londoner's' People's Choice award 2004 The World Travel Awards - Word’s leading attraction The Best Art Direction for Advertising Communications award 2004 2003 Visit Britain, Excellence in England - Tourism Website of the Year Visit London – Tourism website of the year The 2003 Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation 2002 London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award 2001 Design and Architecture Design Awards - Most Outstanding Environmental London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award Marketing Effectiveness Awards - New Product of the Year Daily Mirror Pride of Britain Awards - Innovation Travellers' Choice Awards - Best Millennium Attraction. 2000 Leisure Property Forum Awards - Best Innovative Concept London Tourism Awards - BBC London People's Choice Award Those are the real FACTS you have conveniently forgotten to mention. I say well done to the council for doing something to p1ss off the moaning stuck in the mud, nimbies in Brighton, with a loan which effectively costs us NOTHING in reality as it comes from general taxation, and has an iron clad price contract, and has been INDEPENDENTLY in terms of visitor numbers TWICE and been accepted as sound. This also has nothing to do REALLY with the Green party, as it was planned and got planning well before they came into office, so they shouldn't be claiming that it was their scheme if they do. Feel free to vote this comment down as I am sure the shedload of moaners on here will, but these are the ACTUAL FACTS which anybody can easily find, not the total cr*p most posters are putting on here about something which I am certain will be good for tourism, in what is effectively is and always will be a tourist town. Get out more people, and give your keyboards a break, time for mine to cool down now! :o) Instead of moaning about something why not get behind it now it's going to be a reality and stop bleating and whining about the whole world.[/p][/quote]But this is not the London Eye and there isn't as much of interest to see. Half of the view will be of the sea. I am not against it but just wonder how the council comes up with the figures for visitors numbers. They estimate twice as many as visits as the Spinnaker Tower Portsmouth. Do they really believe that 800,000 per year will come down for this. As I said before that is more than 2000 rides per day every single day of the year. Sounds highly unrealistic. It would be great if it was successful but it would be nice to not be treated like idiots and subjected to unsubstantiated propoganda[/p][/quote]"But this is not the London Eye and there isn't as much of interest to see. Half of the view will be of the sea." Exactly. Half the view is the same as from the ground, and the other half is similar as from the top of Sussex Heights, try for yourself, it's really not that impressive. In the center of London the i360 would work. It would be surrounded by interesting architecture and history as far as the eye can see. Also worth bearing in mind that London has a far greater number of visitors than Brighton.. and throughout the entire year too, not just the summer weekends (when it sunny). pumpkineater23
  • Score: 4

4:57pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Green_Girl_1990 says...

I will NOT tolerate ANY criticism of the Green council.

We work so hard for all of you, and this this is how you treat us?

Disgraceful.
I will NOT tolerate ANY criticism of the Green council. We work so hard for all of you, and this this is how you treat us? Disgraceful. Green_Girl_1990
  • Score: -10

4:57pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Green_Girl_1990 says...

I will NOT tolerate ANY criticism of the Green council.

We work so hard for all of you, and this this is how you treat us?

Disgraceful; hang your heads in shame...
I will NOT tolerate ANY criticism of the Green council. We work so hard for all of you, and this this is how you treat us? Disgraceful; hang your heads in shame... Green_Girl_1990
  • Score: -11

5:06pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Hovite says...

Green_Girl_1990 wrote:
I will NOT tolerate ANY criticism of the Green council.

We work so hard for all of you, and this this is how you treat us?

Disgraceful; hang your heads in shame...
Make the most of the next 14 months and then you can go and work for someone who will appreciate you.
[quote][p][bold]Green_Girl_1990[/bold] wrote: I will NOT tolerate ANY criticism of the Green council. We work so hard for all of you, and this this is how you treat us? Disgraceful; hang your heads in shame...[/p][/quote]Make the most of the next 14 months and then you can go and work for someone who will appreciate you. Hovite
  • Score: 11

6:19pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Just trying to earn a crust says...

I''ve just been looking at some of the later editions of the national press. Congratulation Kittycat for the second time in 2 weeks your party has made Brighton and Hove the laughing stock of the nation. The Green party aren't fit to govern a toy city, let alone alone a real city like Brighton and Hove. Resign before you do any more damage than you already have
I''ve just been looking at some of the later editions of the national press. Congratulation Kittycat for the second time in 2 weeks your party has made Brighton and Hove the laughing stock of the nation. The Green party aren't fit to govern a toy city, let alone alone a real city like Brighton and Hove. Resign before you do any more damage than you already have Just trying to earn a crust
  • Score: 4

6:48pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Richada says...

Green_Girl_1990 wrote:
I will NOT tolerate ANY criticism of the Green council.

We work so hard for all of you, and this this is how you treat us?

Disgraceful; hang your heads in shame...
Did you think it so good you had to say it twice then?

Not as funny as previous posts - didn't you want to take a pop at those of us who didn't go to university and who are therefore are too stupid to understand the mathematics and business case of the i360?
[quote][p][bold]Green_Girl_1990[/bold] wrote: I will NOT tolerate ANY criticism of the Green council. We work so hard for all of you, and this this is how you treat us? Disgraceful; hang your heads in shame...[/p][/quote]Did you think it so good you had to say it twice then? Not as funny as previous posts - didn't you want to take a pop at those of us who didn't go to university and who are therefore are too stupid to understand the mathematics and business case of the i360? Richada
  • Score: 0

6:58pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Richada says...

Green_Girl_1990 wrote:
Taking into account the magnificent hard work that the Green Council have put into realising this project, and the fantastic amounts of revenue that the i360 will generate, I think the travel pod (the doughnut-shaped part that travels up-and-down the shaft of the i360) should have the faces of ALL of Brighton's Green councillors displayed on it's base, and pictures of their faces should be illuminated at night.

I have voted for, and have worked for the Green party ever since I started university at Sussex and the i360 has never made me more proud to be a member of the Green party.

The i360 will be a WONDERFUL benefit to the people of Brighton
A reality check, without the support of the Tories your green Councillors would never have got this off the drawing board.

It must have taken quite a lot to go, cap in hand, to Cllr Theobald, who, against all his capitalist beliefs decided it a good thing to back this as a state funded project.

For our (that is the council tax payer's) sake, rather than yours, I for one honestly do hope that miraculously all these visitors turn up and pay £14.00 a head to take a ride.

Just out of interest, I wonder how many of your student colleagues will be stumping up to actually use this "fantastic" new attraction?
[quote][p][bold]Green_Girl_1990[/bold] wrote: Taking into account the magnificent hard work that the Green Council have put into realising this project, and the fantastic amounts of revenue that the i360 will generate, I think the travel pod (the doughnut-shaped part that travels up-and-down the shaft of the i360) should have the faces of ALL of Brighton's Green councillors displayed on it's base, and pictures of their faces should be illuminated at night. I have voted for, and have worked for the Green party ever since I started university at Sussex and the i360 has never made me more proud to be a member of the Green party. The i360 will be a WONDERFUL benefit to the people of Brighton[/p][/quote]A reality check, without the support of the Tories your green Councillors would never have got this off the drawing board. It must have taken quite a lot to go, cap in hand, to Cllr Theobald, who, against all his capitalist beliefs decided it a good thing to back this as a state funded project. For our (that is the council tax payer's) sake, rather than yours, I for one honestly do hope that miraculously all these visitors turn up and pay £14.00 a head to take a ride. Just out of interest, I wonder how many of your student colleagues will be stumping up to actually use this "fantastic" new attraction? Richada
  • Score: 3

7:13pm Fri 7 Mar 14

wexler53 says...

Some undoubtedly green twerp wrote "costs us NOTHING in reality as it comes from general taxation"...

So, who do you think paid this general tax?

The poor beleaguered, ignored and dis respected tax payer, that's who...

Why are these people so stupid?

Government, local or national has no money. They are elected to make sensible decisions on our behalf, are paid for by the tax payer, who is totally shafted by the lot of them.

Makes the i360 quite apt really....

When will we get public servants worthy of our trust? When they are accountable I guess, but as long as they can milk the gravy train without fear, there's not much hope.

£40 million of our money p**** into the wind for a big dick on the sea front!!!

Unbelievable.
Some undoubtedly green twerp wrote "costs us NOTHING in reality as it comes from general taxation"... So, who do you think paid this general tax? The poor beleaguered, ignored and dis respected tax payer, that's who... Why are these people so stupid? Government, local or national has no money. They are elected to make sensible decisions on our behalf, are paid for by the tax payer, who is totally shafted by the lot of them. Makes the i360 quite apt really.... When will we get public servants worthy of our trust? When they are accountable I guess, but as long as they can milk the gravy train without fear, there's not much hope. £40 million of our money p**** into the wind for a big dick on the sea front!!! Unbelievable. wexler53
  • Score: 2

7:48pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

The story is featured in the daily mail online. Read the comments under it.
While the Mail can be considered to have a horrible political bias, unfortunately its website comment section is used as an accurate thermometer of public opinion, even by government itself which monitor the site.
There seems to be a lack of interest and appetite in the view in Brighton. No excitement at all. Towers really aren't exciting, we've missed the boat.
The story is featured in the daily mail online. Read the comments under it. While the Mail can be considered to have a horrible political bias, unfortunately its website comment section is used as an accurate thermometer of public opinion, even by government itself which monitor the site. There seems to be a lack of interest and appetite in the view in Brighton. No excitement at all. Towers really aren't exciting, we've missed the boat. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 1

8:19pm Fri 7 Mar 14

downbythesea says...

wexler53 wrote:
Some undoubtedly green twerp wrote "costs us NOTHING in reality as it comes from general taxation"...

So, who do you think paid this general tax?

The poor beleaguered, ignored and dis respected tax payer, that's who...

Why are these people so stupid?

Government, local or national has no money. They are elected to make sensible decisions on our behalf, are paid for by the tax payer, who is totally shafted by the lot of them.

Makes the i360 quite apt really....

When will we get public servants worthy of our trust? When they are accountable I guess, but as long as they can milk the gravy train without fear, there's not much hope.

£40 million of our money p**** into the wind for a big dick on the sea front!!!

Unbelievable.
"Undoubtedly Green twerp?", that did make me laugh!

I'm afraid you're wrong matey, voted once for the Green candidate where i was at the time in around 1988 I think, and that was only because they bothered to come to the Uni I was at, and ever since then Conservative or Labour in local and general election, the Greens are a bunch of lentil eating A-holes in my humble opinion.

The point I was making is that this project is good for a tourist town, and however you like to state WHERE the money is coming from; yes we all money for public projects of whatever type come from "general taxation" and eventually therefore from the population & businesses, that's a given, this money was only ever available to projects that create new jobs, not to subsidies for existing services however laudable that is, it is a capital investment in NEW PROJECTS, personally I'd have preferred a new leisure centre on the King Alfred, but we have this so get behind it.

The predicted visitor numbers have been assessed NOT by the council, or anybody with an axe to grind, but by external professional companies, and I quote:

"The financial assumptions in the business case were independently
reviewed in October 2011 by the Economics Team at AECOM, a
worldwide professional technical and management support services firm.
AECOM looked at the attendance and financial projections and
concluded that the i360 should achieve just under 800,000 visitors in its
first year of operation and an operating profit of approx. £6.7m per annum
(the “Base case”)....

"AECOM has been providing planning and development guidance to the
leisure and tourism industry for over 50 years. The firm has been
instrumental in the planning, development and operational phases of
many of the most well known cultural, educational and tourist attractions"
"The Blackpool Tower is offered as an interesting example. This has
recently been taken over by Merlin Entertainments and they anticipate
achieving 800,000 visitors per annum once the tower re-opens. This
would be equal to a 4.6% market penetration rate. The Brighton i360 has
been more conservative in its estimations. If Brighton were to achieve
the same market penetration as predicted for Blackpool, it would achieve
930,000 visitors per annum. AECOM estimates instead predict that the
Brighton i360 will attract between 701,000 and 817,000 visitors and they
use a market penetration rate of around 3.6% (see Appendix 6).
The Spinnaker Tower achieves around 360k visitors per annum. This is
equivalent to 2.3% penetration level of its market. The market in
Portsmouth is 23% smaller than Brighton & Hove and Portsmouth does
not have the large and well established conference and tourist market of
Brighton. Furthermore, Portsmouth does not tend to organise the range
of major events that takes place in Brighton & Hove and bolsters the
visitor numbers significantly. For these reasons, an attraction located in
Brighton is more likely to achieve higher market penetration rates overall
than Portsmouth. It should be noted however that the Spinnaker Tower is
still a success and continues to generate an operational profit."

(All quoted from the loan agreement application)

Given that they genuinely KNOW more about the leisure industry than both you or I ,as that is what they do day in, day out, for decades, I would prefer to trust somebody who knows what they are talking about rather than saying "I believe they are wrong; it's all rubbish; won't make a profit; think of the poor" ad infinitum, or idiots who want this project as a feather in their cap (i.e. the Greens - in my opinion of course lol) just because they are in power for the next 15 months.

This is STATE money that never is or was available for anything other than new construction projects which had been financially assessed and were capable of providing sustained local employment.

This is not JUST a ride, it has a visitor centre, and a 400 seat restaurant, both of which WILL provide a number of new jobs for people in Brighton.

You're entitled to your opinion, as am I, I prefer my glass half full, rather than half empty like some on here. cheers.
[quote][p][bold]wexler53[/bold] wrote: Some undoubtedly green twerp wrote "costs us NOTHING in reality as it comes from general taxation"... So, who do you think paid this general tax? The poor beleaguered, ignored and dis respected tax payer, that's who... Why are these people so stupid? Government, local or national has no money. They are elected to make sensible decisions on our behalf, are paid for by the tax payer, who is totally shafted by the lot of them. Makes the i360 quite apt really.... When will we get public servants worthy of our trust? When they are accountable I guess, but as long as they can milk the gravy train without fear, there's not much hope. £40 million of our money p**** into the wind for a big dick on the sea front!!! Unbelievable.[/p][/quote]"Undoubtedly Green twerp?", that did make me laugh! I'm afraid you're wrong matey, voted once for the Green candidate where i was at the time in around 1988 I think, and that was only because they bothered to come to the Uni I was at, and ever since then Conservative or Labour in local and general election, the Greens are a bunch of lentil eating A-holes in my humble opinion. The point I was making is that this project is good for a tourist town, and however you like to state WHERE the money is coming from; yes we all money for public projects of whatever type come from "general taxation" and eventually therefore from the population & businesses, that's a given, this money was only ever available to projects that create new jobs, not to subsidies for existing services however laudable that is, it is a capital investment in NEW PROJECTS, personally I'd have preferred a new leisure centre on the King Alfred, but we have this so get behind it. The predicted visitor numbers have been assessed NOT by the council, or anybody with an axe to grind, but by external professional companies, and I quote: "The financial assumptions in the business case were independently reviewed in October 2011 by the Economics Team at AECOM, a worldwide professional technical and management support services firm. AECOM looked at the attendance and financial projections and concluded that the i360 should achieve just under 800,000 visitors in its first year of operation and an operating profit of approx. £6.7m per annum (the “Base case”).... "AECOM has been providing planning and development guidance to the leisure and tourism industry for over 50 years. The firm has been instrumental in the planning, development and operational phases of many of the most well known cultural, educational and tourist attractions" "The Blackpool Tower is offered as an interesting example. This has recently been taken over by Merlin Entertainments and they anticipate achieving 800,000 visitors per annum once the tower re-opens. This would be equal to a 4.6% market penetration rate. The Brighton i360 has been more conservative in its estimations. If Brighton were to achieve the same market penetration as predicted for Blackpool, it would achieve 930,000 visitors per annum. AECOM estimates instead predict that the Brighton i360 will attract between 701,000 and 817,000 visitors and they use a market penetration rate of around 3.6% (see Appendix 6). The Spinnaker Tower achieves around 360k visitors per annum. This is equivalent to 2.3% penetration level of its market. The market in Portsmouth is 23% smaller than Brighton & Hove and Portsmouth does not have the large and well established conference and tourist market of Brighton. Furthermore, Portsmouth does not tend to organise the range of major events that takes place in Brighton & Hove and bolsters the visitor numbers significantly. For these reasons, an attraction located in Brighton is more likely to achieve higher market penetration rates overall than Portsmouth. It should be noted however that the Spinnaker Tower is still a success and continues to generate an operational profit." (All quoted from the loan agreement application) Given that they genuinely KNOW more about the leisure industry than both you or I ,as that is what they do day in, day out, for decades, I would prefer to trust somebody who knows what they are talking about rather than saying "I believe they are wrong; it's all rubbish; won't make a profit; think of the poor" ad infinitum, or idiots who want this project as a feather in their cap (i.e. the Greens - in my opinion of course lol) just because they are in power for the next 15 months. This is STATE money that never is or was available for anything other than new construction projects which had been financially assessed and were capable of providing sustained local employment. This is not JUST a ride, it has a visitor centre, and a 400 seat restaurant, both of which WILL provide a number of new jobs for people in Brighton. You're entitled to your opinion, as am I, I prefer my glass half full, rather than half empty like some on here. cheers. downbythesea
  • Score: 3

10:39pm Fri 7 Mar 14

s_james says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
The story is featured in the daily mail online. Read the comments under it.
While the Mail can be considered to have a horrible political bias, unfortunately its website comment section is used as an accurate thermometer of public opinion, even by government itself which monitor the site.
There seems to be a lack of interest and appetite in the view in Brighton. No excitement at all. Towers really aren't exciting, we've missed the boat.
Are you seriously saying the comments section of the Mail online is considered an accurate barometer of public opinion?!!! By whom exactly?!! Oh my days, I've read a lot of ludicrous things written on this website but I think that tops it!!
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: The story is featured in the daily mail online. Read the comments under it. While the Mail can be considered to have a horrible political bias, unfortunately its website comment section is used as an accurate thermometer of public opinion, even by government itself which monitor the site. There seems to be a lack of interest and appetite in the view in Brighton. No excitement at all. Towers really aren't exciting, we've missed the boat.[/p][/quote]Are you seriously saying the comments section of the Mail online is considered an accurate barometer of public opinion?!!! By whom exactly?!! Oh my days, I've read a lot of ludicrous things written on this website but I think that tops it!! s_james
  • Score: -2

10:50pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

It is sadly. It's called the middle England affect.
There are other key public barometers including key groups such Mumsnet. Hence all parties employing people to monitor and lobby these groups during election time.
General elections used to be won on getting the red top editors to support a party and it's how new labour got elected by getting the sun, a traditional Tory paper to move to support Blair, now it's all in the hands of some of the most popular websites.
It's a whole new world s James. The political parties even have people working these sites, even here at grass roots level, politicians and their party members attempt to influence opinion and it's all measured and managed.
I'll dig out some good info for you on the subject. It's fascinating.
It is sadly. It's called the middle England affect. There are other key public barometers including key groups such Mumsnet. Hence all parties employing people to monitor and lobby these groups during election time. General elections used to be won on getting the red top editors to support a party and it's how new labour got elected by getting the sun, a traditional Tory paper to move to support Blair, now it's all in the hands of some of the most popular websites. It's a whole new world s James. The political parties even have people working these sites, even here at grass roots level, politicians and their party members attempt to influence opinion and it's all measured and managed. I'll dig out some good info for you on the subject. It's fascinating. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

10:51pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

It is sadly. It's called the middle England affect.
There are other key public barometers including key groups such Mumsnet. Hence all parties employing people to monitor and lobby these groups during election time.
General elections used to be won on getting the red top editors to support a party and it's how new labour got elected by getting the sun, a traditional Tory paper to move to support Blair, now it's all in the hands of some of the most popular websites.
It's a whole new world s James. The political parties even have people working these sites, even here at grass roots level, politicians and their party members attempt to influence opinion and it's all measured and managed.
I'll dig out some good info for you on the subject. It's fascinating.
It is sadly. It's called the middle England affect. There are other key public barometers including key groups such Mumsnet. Hence all parties employing people to monitor and lobby these groups during election time. General elections used to be won on getting the red top editors to support a party and it's how new labour got elected by getting the sun, a traditional Tory paper to move to support Blair, now it's all in the hands of some of the most popular websites. It's a whole new world s James. The political parties even have people working these sites, even here at grass roots level, politicians and their party members attempt to influence opinion and it's all measured and managed. I'll dig out some good info for you on the subject. It's fascinating. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

5:51am Sat 8 Mar 14

John60 says...

Green_Girl_1990 wrote:
I will NOT tolerate ANY criticism of the Green council.

We work so hard for all of you, and this this is how you treat us?

Disgraceful; hang your heads in shame...
You and your party have worked so hard to **** Brighton up! Even the Tories are better than you lot, you bunch of privileged out of date scruffy looking hippies. You had your chance and you've made a mess of everything, so take your stupid cycle lanes and your 20mph speed limits and swing your hooks!
[quote][p][bold]Green_Girl_1990[/bold] wrote: I will NOT tolerate ANY criticism of the Green council. We work so hard for all of you, and this this is how you treat us? Disgraceful; hang your heads in shame...[/p][/quote]You and your party have worked so hard to **** Brighton up! Even the Tories are better than you lot, you bunch of privileged out of date scruffy looking hippies. You had your chance and you've made a mess of everything, so take your stupid cycle lanes and your 20mph speed limits and swing your hooks! John60
  • Score: 4

12:22pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

s_james wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Ania Green wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?
Quite right.

There's so much negativity towards any type of progress being shown here it's a wonder how anything has ever been achieved by this lot!
God I hate programmed robot-speak. This pole is not one bit progressive. It is absolute dross. So much so that very little private finance to back it was achieved and a massive £21m funding gap got BHCC being asked for it. Then what funding it DID have fell away and BHCC was asked for the whole lot bar £6m coughed up by Marks Barfield family members (already spent no doubt in any case and desperate to try to get it back (out of the £36m).

A chill goes up my spine that you judge being rolled by West Pier Trustees who don't want the personal liabiliy that goes with being a Registered Charity Trustee and their sitting tenants Marks Barfield for the cost of their trashy little pole ride as somehow 'progress'.
Whatever people might think of the finance arrangements you are very much in the minority when it comes to disliking the design. 70% in favour in an Argus poll when it was announced in 2006 and unanimously granted planning permission from all parties (even Warren Morgan voted in favour).

It is too slender to be an eyesore.
What an outrageous attempt at spin. The poll in 2006 was an uneducated view from people who have since woken up. Same happened with the Karis/Gehry horror when people went from excitement at having a famous name doing work here to slow realisation of how utterly citywrecking the proposal was and sadly, it does take time for facts to sink in.

It takes no time at all to react with horror at a loser being bailed out by the council using taxpayers money when no financial investor IN THE WORLD has been willing to give it one penny. Not one penny. Only family money from Marks Barfield has gone in....not even West Pier Trust or West Pier Trustees money has been put towards it. Not one penny.

Warren Morgan made it plain he voted for part council loan two years ago but now votes emphatically against paying for it almost in its entirety.

Too slender to be an eyesore? That pole is huge. About 4 mtres in diameter. It houses the works and it houses a spiral staircase (for maintenance). Imagine if there was a jam at the top and having to walk down a spiral staircase in there.... It is a lift, after all. And lifts fail.

Imagine the vertigo on the way up and standing in that glass bubble looking down....awful.
[quote][p][bold]s_james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Now that the i360 is to be built, how about stop talking the city down and get behind making this a success?[/p][/quote]Quite right. There's so much negativity towards any type of progress being shown here it's a wonder how anything has ever been achieved by this lot![/p][/quote]God I hate programmed robot-speak. This pole is not one bit progressive. It is absolute dross. So much so that very little private finance to back it was achieved and a massive £21m funding gap got BHCC being asked for it. Then what funding it DID have fell away and BHCC was asked for the whole lot bar £6m coughed up by Marks Barfield family members (already spent no doubt in any case and desperate to try to get it back (out of the £36m). A chill goes up my spine that you judge being rolled by West Pier Trustees who don't want the personal liabiliy that goes with being a Registered Charity Trustee and their sitting tenants Marks Barfield for the cost of their trashy little pole ride as somehow 'progress'.[/p][/quote]Whatever people might think of the finance arrangements you are very much in the minority when it comes to disliking the design. 70% in favour in an Argus poll when it was announced in 2006 and unanimously granted planning permission from all parties (even Warren Morgan voted in favour). It is too slender to be an eyesore.[/p][/quote]What an outrageous attempt at spin. The poll in 2006 was an uneducated view from people who have since woken up. Same happened with the Karis/Gehry horror when people went from excitement at having a famous name doing work here to slow realisation of how utterly citywrecking the proposal was and sadly, it does take time for facts to sink in. It takes no time at all to react with horror at a loser being bailed out by the council using taxpayers money when no financial investor IN THE WORLD has been willing to give it one penny. Not one penny. Only family money from Marks Barfield has gone in....not even West Pier Trust or West Pier Trustees money has been put towards it. Not one penny. Warren Morgan made it plain he voted for part council loan two years ago but now votes emphatically against paying for it almost in its entirety. Too slender to be an eyesore? That pole is huge. About 4 mtres in diameter. It houses the works and it houses a spiral staircase (for maintenance). Imagine if there was a jam at the top and having to walk down a spiral staircase in there.... It is a lift, after all. And lifts fail. Imagine the vertigo on the way up and standing in that glass bubble looking down....awful. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 0

12:32pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Green_Girl_1990 wrote:
I will NOT tolerate ANY criticism of the Green council.

We work so hard for all of you, and this this is how you treat us?

Disgraceful; hang your heads in shame...
Listen to yourself. This comment from you sounds pretty fascist and dictatorial to me. And lacking one ounce of humility in the face of a pretty extreme example of hubris about what councillors achieve.
[quote][p][bold]Green_Girl_1990[/bold] wrote: I will NOT tolerate ANY criticism of the Green council. We work so hard for all of you, and this this is how you treat us? Disgraceful; hang your heads in shame...[/p][/quote]Listen to yourself. This comment from you sounds pretty fascist and dictatorial to me. And lacking one ounce of humility in the face of a pretty extreme example of hubris about what councillors achieve. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

downbythesea wrote:
wexler53 wrote:
Some undoubtedly green twerp wrote "costs us NOTHING in reality as it comes from general taxation"...

So, who do you think paid this general tax?

The poor beleaguered, ignored and dis respected tax payer, that's who...

Why are these people so stupid?

Government, local or national has no money. They are elected to make sensible decisions on our behalf, are paid for by the tax payer, who is totally shafted by the lot of them.

Makes the i360 quite apt really....

When will we get public servants worthy of our trust? When they are accountable I guess, but as long as they can milk the gravy train without fear, there's not much hope.

£40 million of our money p**** into the wind for a big dick on the sea front!!!

Unbelievable.
"Undoubtedly Green twerp?", that did make me laugh!

I'm afraid you're wrong matey, voted once for the Green candidate where i was at the time in around 1988 I think, and that was only because they bothered to come to the Uni I was at, and ever since then Conservative or Labour in local and general election, the Greens are a bunch of lentil eating A-holes in my humble opinion.

The point I was making is that this project is good for a tourist town, and however you like to state WHERE the money is coming from; yes we all money for public projects of whatever type come from "general taxation" and eventually therefore from the population & businesses, that's a given, this money was only ever available to projects that create new jobs, not to subsidies for existing services however laudable that is, it is a capital investment in NEW PROJECTS, personally I'd have preferred a new leisure centre on the King Alfred, but we have this so get behind it.

The predicted visitor numbers have been assessed NOT by the council, or anybody with an axe to grind, but by external professional companies, and I quote:

"The financial assumptions in the business case were independently
reviewed in October 2011 by the Economics Team at AECOM, a
worldwide professional technical and management support services firm.
AECOM looked at the attendance and financial projections and
concluded that the i360 should achieve just under 800,000 visitors in its
first year of operation and an operating profit of approx. £6.7m per annum
(the “Base case”)....

"AECOM has been providing planning and development guidance to the
leisure and tourism industry for over 50 years. The firm has been
instrumental in the planning, development and operational phases of
many of the most well known cultural, educational and tourist attractions"
"The Blackpool Tower is offered as an interesting example. This has
recently been taken over by Merlin Entertainments and they anticipate
achieving 800,000 visitors per annum once the tower re-opens. This
would be equal to a 4.6% market penetration rate. The Brighton i360 has
been more conservative in its estimations. If Brighton were to achieve
the same market penetration as predicted for Blackpool, it would achieve
930,000 visitors per annum. AECOM estimates instead predict that the
Brighton i360 will attract between 701,000 and 817,000 visitors and they
use a market penetration rate of around 3.6% (see Appendix 6).
The Spinnaker Tower achieves around 360k visitors per annum. This is
equivalent to 2.3% penetration level of its market. The market in
Portsmouth is 23% smaller than Brighton & Hove and Portsmouth does
not have the large and well established conference and tourist market of
Brighton. Furthermore, Portsmouth does not tend to organise the range
of major events that takes place in Brighton & Hove and bolsters the
visitor numbers significantly. For these reasons, an attraction located in
Brighton is more likely to achieve higher market penetration rates overall
than Portsmouth. It should be noted however that the Spinnaker Tower is
still a success and continues to generate an operational profit."

(All quoted from the loan agreement application)

Given that they genuinely KNOW more about the leisure industry than both you or I ,as that is what they do day in, day out, for decades, I would prefer to trust somebody who knows what they are talking about rather than saying "I believe they are wrong; it's all rubbish; won't make a profit; think of the poor" ad infinitum, or idiots who want this project as a feather in their cap (i.e. the Greens - in my opinion of course lol) just because they are in power for the next 15 months.

This is STATE money that never is or was available for anything other than new construction projects which had been financially assessed and were capable of providing sustained local employment.

This is not JUST a ride, it has a visitor centre, and a 400 seat restaurant, both of which WILL provide a number of new jobs for people in Brighton.

You're entitled to your opinion, as am I, I prefer my glass half full, rather than half empty like some on here. cheers.
Glad you mentioned the ground level housing and centre. That is the only part that will make money. And that bit WILL make money - money that will subsidise the isore above it that nobody in the entire city will be able to escape having to look at from the privacy of their own gardens. That pole will give people stress and annoy the eye because it will dominate and not in a pleasing way. It will be like having a scaffolding pole on the beach.
It is a cruel trick to play on the residents of this city. Cruel. And stupid.

Bailing out failures is not progress or constructive or positive. Using the PWLB for things that ARE wanted ARE in keeping and ARE progressive would be wise, don't you think? Backing projects that financiers clamour to back would be the things to go for, don't you think. Kind of reinforces the likelihood that borrowing at 4% and lending on at 7% (say) really would generate an income for the council that is reliable as well as providing a useful development.
[quote][p][bold]downbythesea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wexler53[/bold] wrote: Some undoubtedly green twerp wrote "costs us NOTHING in reality as it comes from general taxation"... So, who do you think paid this general tax? The poor beleaguered, ignored and dis respected tax payer, that's who... Why are these people so stupid? Government, local or national has no money. They are elected to make sensible decisions on our behalf, are paid for by the tax payer, who is totally shafted by the lot of them. Makes the i360 quite apt really.... When will we get public servants worthy of our trust? When they are accountable I guess, but as long as they can milk the gravy train without fear, there's not much hope. £40 million of our money p**** into the wind for a big dick on the sea front!!! Unbelievable.[/p][/quote]"Undoubtedly Green twerp?", that did make me laugh! I'm afraid you're wrong matey, voted once for the Green candidate where i was at the time in around 1988 I think, and that was only because they bothered to come to the Uni I was at, and ever since then Conservative or Labour in local and general election, the Greens are a bunch of lentil eating A-holes in my humble opinion. The point I was making is that this project is good for a tourist town, and however you like to state WHERE the money is coming from; yes we all money for public projects of whatever type come from "general taxation" and eventually therefore from the population & businesses, that's a given, this money was only ever available to projects that create new jobs, not to subsidies for existing services however laudable that is, it is a capital investment in NEW PROJECTS, personally I'd have preferred a new leisure centre on the King Alfred, but we have this so get behind it. The predicted visitor numbers have been assessed NOT by the council, or anybody with an axe to grind, but by external professional companies, and I quote: "The financial assumptions in the business case were independently reviewed in October 2011 by the Economics Team at AECOM, a worldwide professional technical and management support services firm. AECOM looked at the attendance and financial projections and concluded that the i360 should achieve just under 800,000 visitors in its first year of operation and an operating profit of approx. £6.7m per annum (the “Base case”).... "AECOM has been providing planning and development guidance to the leisure and tourism industry for over 50 years. The firm has been instrumental in the planning, development and operational phases of many of the most well known cultural, educational and tourist attractions" "The Blackpool Tower is offered as an interesting example. This has recently been taken over by Merlin Entertainments and they anticipate achieving 800,000 visitors per annum once the tower re-opens. This would be equal to a 4.6% market penetration rate. The Brighton i360 has been more conservative in its estimations. If Brighton were to achieve the same market penetration as predicted for Blackpool, it would achieve 930,000 visitors per annum. AECOM estimates instead predict that the Brighton i360 will attract between 701,000 and 817,000 visitors and they use a market penetration rate of around 3.6% (see Appendix 6). The Spinnaker Tower achieves around 360k visitors per annum. This is equivalent to 2.3% penetration level of its market. The market in Portsmouth is 23% smaller than Brighton & Hove and Portsmouth does not have the large and well established conference and tourist market of Brighton. Furthermore, Portsmouth does not tend to organise the range of major events that takes place in Brighton & Hove and bolsters the visitor numbers significantly. For these reasons, an attraction located in Brighton is more likely to achieve higher market penetration rates overall than Portsmouth. It should be noted however that the Spinnaker Tower is still a success and continues to generate an operational profit." (All quoted from the loan agreement application) Given that they genuinely KNOW more about the leisure industry than both you or I ,as that is what they do day in, day out, for decades, I would prefer to trust somebody who knows what they are talking about rather than saying "I believe they are wrong; it's all rubbish; won't make a profit; think of the poor" ad infinitum, or idiots who want this project as a feather in their cap (i.e. the Greens - in my opinion of course lol) just because they are in power for the next 15 months. This is STATE money that never is or was available for anything other than new construction projects which had been financially assessed and were capable of providing sustained local employment. This is not JUST a ride, it has a visitor centre, and a 400 seat restaurant, both of which WILL provide a number of new jobs for people in Brighton. You're entitled to your opinion, as am I, I prefer my glass half full, rather than half empty like some on here. cheers.[/p][/quote]Glad you mentioned the ground level housing and centre. That is the only part that will make money. And that bit WILL make money - money that will subsidise the isore above it that nobody in the entire city will be able to escape having to look at from the privacy of their own gardens. That pole will give people stress and annoy the eye because it will dominate and not in a pleasing way. It will be like having a scaffolding pole on the beach. It is a cruel trick to play on the residents of this city. Cruel. And stupid. Bailing out failures is not progress or constructive or positive. Using the PWLB for things that ARE wanted ARE in keeping and ARE progressive would be wise, don't you think? Backing projects that financiers clamour to back would be the things to go for, don't you think. Kind of reinforces the likelihood that borrowing at 4% and lending on at 7% (say) really would generate an income for the council that is reliable as well as providing a useful development. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 4

1:07pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Man of steel says...

As an aside, I wonder what sort of reception the greens would get, kitkat especially, if they all went to Poland and spouted their marxist claptrap.
I had a Polish brother-in-law, he escaped and joined the British forces, but lost his family to the communists I know what his views would have been.
As an aside, I wonder what sort of reception the greens would get, kitkat especially, if they all went to Poland and spouted their marxist claptrap. I had a Polish brother-in-law, he escaped and joined the British forces, but lost his family to the communists I know what his views would have been. Man of steel
  • Score: 2

5:25pm Sat 8 Mar 14

pumpkineater23 says...

downbythesea wrote:
wexler53 wrote:
Some undoubtedly green twerp wrote "costs us NOTHING in reality as it comes from general taxation"...

So, who do you think paid this general tax?

The poor beleaguered, ignored and dis respected tax payer, that's who...

Why are these people so stupid?

Government, local or national has no money. They are elected to make sensible decisions on our behalf, are paid for by the tax payer, who is totally shafted by the lot of them.

Makes the i360 quite apt really....

When will we get public servants worthy of our trust? When they are accountable I guess, but as long as they can milk the gravy train without fear, there's not much hope.

£40 million of our money p**** into the wind for a big dick on the sea front!!!

Unbelievable.
"Undoubtedly Green twerp?", that did make me laugh!

I'm afraid you're wrong matey, voted once for the Green candidate where i was at the time in around 1988 I think, and that was only because they bothered to come to the Uni I was at, and ever since then Conservative or Labour in local and general election, the Greens are a bunch of lentil eating A-holes in my humble opinion.

The point I was making is that this project is good for a tourist town, and however you like to state WHERE the money is coming from; yes we all money for public projects of whatever type come from "general taxation" and eventually therefore from the population & businesses, that's a given, this money was only ever available to projects that create new jobs, not to subsidies for existing services however laudable that is, it is a capital investment in NEW PROJECTS, personally I'd have preferred a new leisure centre on the King Alfred, but we have this so get behind it.

The predicted visitor numbers have been assessed NOT by the council, or anybody with an axe to grind, but by external professional companies, and I quote:

"The financial assumptions in the business case were independently
reviewed in October 2011 by the Economics Team at AECOM, a
worldwide professional technical and management support services firm.
AECOM looked at the attendance and financial projections and
concluded that the i360 should achieve just under 800,000 visitors in its
first year of operation and an operating profit of approx. £6.7m per annum
(the “Base case”)....

"AECOM has been providing planning and development guidance to the
leisure and tourism industry for over 50 years. The firm has been
instrumental in the planning, development and operational phases of
many of the most well known cultural, educational and tourist attractions"
"The Blackpool Tower is offered as an interesting example. This has
recently been taken over by Merlin Entertainments and they anticipate
achieving 800,000 visitors per annum once the tower re-opens. This
would be equal to a 4.6% market penetration rate. The Brighton i360 has
been more conservative in its estimations. If Brighton were to achieve
the same market penetration as predicted for Blackpool, it would achieve
930,000 visitors per annum. AECOM estimates instead predict that the
Brighton i360 will attract between 701,000 and 817,000 visitors and they
use a market penetration rate of around 3.6% (see Appendix 6).
The Spinnaker Tower achieves around 360k visitors per annum. This is
equivalent to 2.3% penetration level of its market. The market in
Portsmouth is 23% smaller than Brighton & Hove and Portsmouth does
not have the large and well established conference and tourist market of
Brighton. Furthermore, Portsmouth does not tend to organise the range
of major events that takes place in Brighton & Hove and bolsters the
visitor numbers significantly. For these reasons, an attraction located in
Brighton is more likely to achieve higher market penetration rates overall
than Portsmouth. It should be noted however that the Spinnaker Tower is
still a success and continues to generate an operational profit."

(All quoted from the loan agreement application)

Given that they genuinely KNOW more about the leisure industry than both you or I ,as that is what they do day in, day out, for decades, I would prefer to trust somebody who knows what they are talking about rather than saying "I believe they are wrong; it's all rubbish; won't make a profit; think of the poor" ad infinitum, or idiots who want this project as a feather in their cap (i.e. the Greens - in my opinion of course lol) just because they are in power for the next 15 months.

This is STATE money that never is or was available for anything other than new construction projects which had been financially assessed and were capable of providing sustained local employment.

This is not JUST a ride, it has a visitor centre, and a 400 seat restaurant, both of which WILL provide a number of new jobs for people in Brighton.

You're entitled to your opinion, as am I, I prefer my glass half full, rather than half empty like some on here. cheers.
I like to know what is in my glass, and in this case it is liquid bulls**t. The predicted visitor numbers don't make any sense. I have lived in Regency Square for ten years, I see when Brighton is busy and when it isn't. The i360 could only be operating at its full capacity for a tiny fraction of the year, ie during the summer at the weekends when it's sunny. For the vast majority of the year it will be *empty*. Clear, obvious common sense is all that is needed rather than putting your trust in some company that *anticipates* visitor numbers. Cheers.
[quote][p][bold]downbythesea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wexler53[/bold] wrote: Some undoubtedly green twerp wrote "costs us NOTHING in reality as it comes from general taxation"... So, who do you think paid this general tax? The poor beleaguered, ignored and dis respected tax payer, that's who... Why are these people so stupid? Government, local or national has no money. They are elected to make sensible decisions on our behalf, are paid for by the tax payer, who is totally shafted by the lot of them. Makes the i360 quite apt really.... When will we get public servants worthy of our trust? When they are accountable I guess, but as long as they can milk the gravy train without fear, there's not much hope. £40 million of our money p**** into the wind for a big dick on the sea front!!! Unbelievable.[/p][/quote]"Undoubtedly Green twerp?", that did make me laugh! I'm afraid you're wrong matey, voted once for the Green candidate where i was at the time in around 1988 I think, and that was only because they bothered to come to the Uni I was at, and ever since then Conservative or Labour in local and general election, the Greens are a bunch of lentil eating A-holes in my humble opinion. The point I was making is that this project is good for a tourist town, and however you like to state WHERE the money is coming from; yes we all money for public projects of whatever type come from "general taxation" and eventually therefore from the population & businesses, that's a given, this money was only ever available to projects that create new jobs, not to subsidies for existing services however laudable that is, it is a capital investment in NEW PROJECTS, personally I'd have preferred a new leisure centre on the King Alfred, but we have this so get behind it. The predicted visitor numbers have been assessed NOT by the council, or anybody with an axe to grind, but by external professional companies, and I quote: "The financial assumptions in the business case were independently reviewed in October 2011 by the Economics Team at AECOM, a worldwide professional technical and management support services firm. AECOM looked at the attendance and financial projections and concluded that the i360 should achieve just under 800,000 visitors in its first year of operation and an operating profit of approx. £6.7m per annum (the “Base case”).... "AECOM has been providing planning and development guidance to the leisure and tourism industry for over 50 years. The firm has been instrumental in the planning, development and operational phases of many of the most well known cultural, educational and tourist attractions" "The Blackpool Tower is offered as an interesting example. This has recently been taken over by Merlin Entertainments and they anticipate achieving 800,000 visitors per annum once the tower re-opens. This would be equal to a 4.6% market penetration rate. The Brighton i360 has been more conservative in its estimations. If Brighton were to achieve the same market penetration as predicted for Blackpool, it would achieve 930,000 visitors per annum. AECOM estimates instead predict that the Brighton i360 will attract between 701,000 and 817,000 visitors and they use a market penetration rate of around 3.6% (see Appendix 6). The Spinnaker Tower achieves around 360k visitors per annum. This is equivalent to 2.3% penetration level of its market. The market in Portsmouth is 23% smaller than Brighton & Hove and Portsmouth does not have the large and well established conference and tourist market of Brighton. Furthermore, Portsmouth does not tend to organise the range of major events that takes place in Brighton & Hove and bolsters the visitor numbers significantly. For these reasons, an attraction located in Brighton is more likely to achieve higher market penetration rates overall than Portsmouth. It should be noted however that the Spinnaker Tower is still a success and continues to generate an operational profit." (All quoted from the loan agreement application) Given that they genuinely KNOW more about the leisure industry than both you or I ,as that is what they do day in, day out, for decades, I would prefer to trust somebody who knows what they are talking about rather than saying "I believe they are wrong; it's all rubbish; won't make a profit; think of the poor" ad infinitum, or idiots who want this project as a feather in their cap (i.e. the Greens - in my opinion of course lol) just because they are in power for the next 15 months. This is STATE money that never is or was available for anything other than new construction projects which had been financially assessed and were capable of providing sustained local employment. This is not JUST a ride, it has a visitor centre, and a 400 seat restaurant, both of which WILL provide a number of new jobs for people in Brighton. You're entitled to your opinion, as am I, I prefer my glass half full, rather than half empty like some on here. cheers.[/p][/quote]I like to know what is in my glass, and in this case it is liquid bulls**t. The predicted visitor numbers don't make any sense. I have lived in Regency Square for ten years, I see when Brighton is busy and when it isn't. The i360 could only be operating at its full capacity for a tiny fraction of the year, ie during the summer at the weekends when it's sunny. For the vast majority of the year it will be *empty*. Clear, obvious common sense is all that is needed rather than putting your trust in some company that *anticipates* visitor numbers. Cheers. pumpkineater23
  • Score: 3

7:06pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Shocking to see the Chair of the Hove Civic Society and past Vice Chair of the Regency Society putting letters in the Argus praising the i360 to the skies. Have a look! In today.
Shocking to see the Chair of the Hove Civic Society and past Vice Chair of the Regency Society putting letters in the Argus praising the i360 to the skies. Have a look! In today. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 1

8:56pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Richada says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Shocking to see the Chair of the Hove Civic Society and past Vice Chair of the Regency Society putting letters in the Argus praising the i360 to the skies. Have a look! In today.
Yes, I saw that too and was wondering just how the i360 could possibly enhance Regency Hove.

There appear to be some strange bedfellows involved in this particular project.

Still everyone that we speak to (away from the sea front) is incredulous that this project has been voted through, the collective opinion of ordinary council tax payers of all walks of life is that this is over £36M of taxpayers money mis-spent.

"Madness" is the most commonly used word in this case.

I am keeping, for posterity, this weeks' B&H Independant, the centrefold of which has the vistor projections for the i360, I'm sure that in four years time it will make absolutely fascinating reading, one way or the other.......

......assuming that, with the involvement of the West Pier "Trust", it ever gets off the ground of course - huge sums of money have disappeared into that particular pit before with nothing to show for it.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: Shocking to see the Chair of the Hove Civic Society and past Vice Chair of the Regency Society putting letters in the Argus praising the i360 to the skies. Have a look! In today.[/p][/quote]Yes, I saw that too and was wondering just how the i360 could possibly enhance Regency Hove. There appear to be some strange bedfellows involved in this particular project. Still everyone that we speak to (away from the sea front) is incredulous that this project has been voted through, the collective opinion of ordinary council tax payers of all walks of life is that this is over £36M of taxpayers money mis-spent. "Madness" is the most commonly used word in this case. I am keeping, for posterity, this weeks' B&H Independant, the centrefold of which has the vistor projections for the i360, I'm sure that in four years time it will make absolutely fascinating reading, one way or the other....... ......assuming that, with the involvement of the West Pier "Trust", it ever gets off the ground of course - huge sums of money have disappeared into that particular pit before with nothing to show for it. Richada
  • Score: 0

10:05pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Time to google Public Works Loan Board. Wonder when the application goes in. Wonder what they do with it. Wonder if they know how the public feels about this. Wonder if they have read the totally negative reception the news got on the Daily Mail comment section....Wonder if they will just treat the application as a formality and whether representations would be useful.....
Time to google Public Works Loan Board. Wonder when the application goes in. Wonder what they do with it. Wonder if they know how the public feels about this. Wonder if they have read the totally negative reception the news got on the Daily Mail comment section....Wonder if they will just treat the application as a formality and whether representations would be useful..... Valerie Paynter
  • Score: -1

10:51pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Richada says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Time to google Public Works Loan Board. Wonder when the application goes in. Wonder what they do with it. Wonder if they know how the public feels about this. Wonder if they have read the totally negative reception the news got on the Daily Mail comment section....Wonder if they will just treat the application as a formality and whether representations would be useful.....
I'd very strongly urge the Public Works Loan Board AND Brighton Council to read the comments following the Daily Mail article - the "againsts" must outnumber the "fors" at least 30 to 1.

That is a national reaction - a common thread to it being that there are vastly better ways to spend upwards of £40M, another common thread being that the money would have been far better spent on a new pier.

If the national reaction converts into visitor figures, this is going to prove a huge loss making white elephant.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: Time to google Public Works Loan Board. Wonder when the application goes in. Wonder what they do with it. Wonder if they know how the public feels about this. Wonder if they have read the totally negative reception the news got on the Daily Mail comment section....Wonder if they will just treat the application as a formality and whether representations would be useful.....[/p][/quote]I'd very strongly urge the Public Works Loan Board AND Brighton Council to read the comments following the Daily Mail article - the "againsts" must outnumber the "fors" at least 30 to 1. That is a national reaction - a common thread to it being that there are vastly better ways to spend upwards of £40M, another common thread being that the money would have been far better spent on a new pier. If the national reaction converts into visitor figures, this is going to prove a huge loss making white elephant. Richada
  • Score: 2

8:16pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Richada says...

So maybe you don't approve of the political leaninins of the Daily Mail, how about the Guardian then?

http://www.theguardi
an.com/commentisfree
/2014/mar/09/brighto
n-politics-i360-seaf
ront-observation-tow
er

Dear oh dear.

This isn't playing out any too well in the national press is it?
So maybe you don't approve of the political leaninins of the Daily Mail, how about the Guardian then? http://www.theguardi an.com/commentisfree /2014/mar/09/brighto n-politics-i360-seaf ront-observation-tow er Dear oh dear. This isn't playing out any too well in the national press is it? Richada
  • Score: -1

9:15pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

There is now also a petition
http://www.change.or
g/en-GB/petitions/uk
-public-works-loan-b
oard-please-refuse-t
he-bhcc-loan-request
-for-36-2m-for-onwar
d-lending-to-brighto
n-i360-ltd-to-build-
the-i360-on-brighton
-s-seafront?utm_sour
ce=guides&utm_medium
=email&utm_campaign=
petition_created#des
cription
There is now also a petition http://www.change.or g/en-GB/petitions/uk -public-works-loan-b oard-please-refuse-t he-bhcc-loan-request -for-36-2m-for-onwar d-lending-to-brighto n-i360-ltd-to-build- the-i360-on-brighton -s-seafront?utm_sour ce=guides&utm_medium =email&utm_campaign= petition_created#des cription Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 1

9:10am Tue 11 Mar 14

Automaton says...

pumpkineater23 wrote:
downbythesea wrote:
wexler53 wrote:
Some undoubtedly green twerp wrote "costs us NOTHING in reality as it comes from general taxation"...

So, who do you think paid this general tax?

The poor beleaguered, ignored and dis respected tax payer, that's who...

Why are these people so stupid?

Government, local or national has no money. They are elected to make sensible decisions on our behalf, are paid for by the tax payer, who is totally shafted by the lot of them.

Makes the i360 quite apt really....

When will we get public servants worthy of our trust? When they are accountable I guess, but as long as they can milk the gravy train without fear, there's not much hope.

£40 million of our money p**** into the wind for a big dick on the sea front!!!

Unbelievable.
"Undoubtedly Green twerp?", that did make me laugh!

I'm afraid you're wrong matey, voted once for the Green candidate where i was at the time in around 1988 I think, and that was only because they bothered to come to the Uni I was at, and ever since then Conservative or Labour in local and general election, the Greens are a bunch of lentil eating A-holes in my humble opinion.

The point I was making is that this project is good for a tourist town, and however you like to state WHERE the money is coming from; yes we all money for public projects of whatever type come from "general taxation" and eventually therefore from the population & businesses, that's a given, this money was only ever available to projects that create new jobs, not to subsidies for existing services however laudable that is, it is a capital investment in NEW PROJECTS, personally I'd have preferred a new leisure centre on the King Alfred, but we have this so get behind it.

The predicted visitor numbers have been assessed NOT by the council, or anybody with an axe to grind, but by external professional companies, and I quote:

"The financial assumptions in the business case were independently
reviewed in October 2011 by the Economics Team at AECOM, a
worldwide professional technical and management support services firm.
AECOM looked at the attendance and financial projections and
concluded that the i360 should achieve just under 800,000 visitors in its
first year of operation and an operating profit of approx. £6.7m per annum
(the “Base case”)....

"AECOM has been providing planning and development guidance to the
leisure and tourism industry for over 50 years. The firm has been
instrumental in the planning, development and operational phases of
many of the most well known cultural, educational and tourist attractions"
"The Blackpool Tower is offered as an interesting example. This has
recently been taken over by Merlin Entertainments and they anticipate
achieving 800,000 visitors per annum once the tower re-opens. This
would be equal to a 4.6% market penetration rate. The Brighton i360 has
been more conservative in its estimations. If Brighton were to achieve
the same market penetration as predicted for Blackpool, it would achieve
930,000 visitors per annum. AECOM estimates instead predict that the
Brighton i360 will attract between 701,000 and 817,000 visitors and they
use a market penetration rate of around 3.6% (see Appendix 6).
The Spinnaker Tower achieves around 360k visitors per annum. This is
equivalent to 2.3% penetration level of its market. The market in
Portsmouth is 23% smaller than Brighton & Hove and Portsmouth does
not have the large and well established conference and tourist market of
Brighton. Furthermore, Portsmouth does not tend to organise the range
of major events that takes place in Brighton & Hove and bolsters the
visitor numbers significantly. For these reasons, an attraction located in
Brighton is more likely to achieve higher market penetration rates overall
than Portsmouth. It should be noted however that the Spinnaker Tower is
still a success and continues to generate an operational profit."

(All quoted from the loan agreement application)

Given that they genuinely KNOW more about the leisure industry than both you or I ,as that is what they do day in, day out, for decades, I would prefer to trust somebody who knows what they are talking about rather than saying "I believe they are wrong; it's all rubbish; won't make a profit; think of the poor" ad infinitum, or idiots who want this project as a feather in their cap (i.e. the Greens - in my opinion of course lol) just because they are in power for the next 15 months.

This is STATE money that never is or was available for anything other than new construction projects which had been financially assessed and were capable of providing sustained local employment.

This is not JUST a ride, it has a visitor centre, and a 400 seat restaurant, both of which WILL provide a number of new jobs for people in Brighton.

You're entitled to your opinion, as am I, I prefer my glass half full, rather than half empty like some on here. cheers.
I like to know what is in my glass, and in this case it is liquid bulls**t. The predicted visitor numbers don't make any sense. I have lived in Regency Square for ten years, I see when Brighton is busy and when it isn't. The i360 could only be operating at its full capacity for a tiny fraction of the year, ie during the summer at the weekends when it's sunny. For the vast majority of the year it will be *empty*. Clear, obvious common sense is all that is needed rather than putting your trust in some company that *anticipates* visitor numbers. Cheers.
Strange the y dont mention the Merlin operated Weymouth tower in the calculations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-dor
set-20893898
[quote][p][bold]pumpkineater23[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downbythesea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wexler53[/bold] wrote: Some undoubtedly green twerp wrote "costs us NOTHING in reality as it comes from general taxation"... So, who do you think paid this general tax? The poor beleaguered, ignored and dis respected tax payer, that's who... Why are these people so stupid? Government, local or national has no money. They are elected to make sensible decisions on our behalf, are paid for by the tax payer, who is totally shafted by the lot of them. Makes the i360 quite apt really.... When will we get public servants worthy of our trust? When they are accountable I guess, but as long as they can milk the gravy train without fear, there's not much hope. £40 million of our money p**** into the wind for a big dick on the sea front!!! Unbelievable.[/p][/quote]"Undoubtedly Green twerp?", that did make me laugh! I'm afraid you're wrong matey, voted once for the Green candidate where i was at the time in around 1988 I think, and that was only because they bothered to come to the Uni I was at, and ever since then Conservative or Labour in local and general election, the Greens are a bunch of lentil eating A-holes in my humble opinion. The point I was making is that this project is good for a tourist town, and however you like to state WHERE the money is coming from; yes we all money for public projects of whatever type come from "general taxation" and eventually therefore from the population & businesses, that's a given, this money was only ever available to projects that create new jobs, not to subsidies for existing services however laudable that is, it is a capital investment in NEW PROJECTS, personally I'd have preferred a new leisure centre on the King Alfred, but we have this so get behind it. The predicted visitor numbers have been assessed NOT by the council, or anybody with an axe to grind, but by external professional companies, and I quote: "The financial assumptions in the business case were independently reviewed in October 2011 by the Economics Team at AECOM, a worldwide professional technical and management support services firm. AECOM looked at the attendance and financial projections and concluded that the i360 should achieve just under 800,000 visitors in its first year of operation and an operating profit of approx. £6.7m per annum (the “Base case”).... "AECOM has been providing planning and development guidance to the leisure and tourism industry for over 50 years. The firm has been instrumental in the planning, development and operational phases of many of the most well known cultural, educational and tourist attractions" "The Blackpool Tower is offered as an interesting example. This has recently been taken over by Merlin Entertainments and they anticipate achieving 800,000 visitors per annum once the tower re-opens. This would be equal to a 4.6% market penetration rate. The Brighton i360 has been more conservative in its estimations. If Brighton were to achieve the same market penetration as predicted for Blackpool, it would achieve 930,000 visitors per annum. AECOM estimates instead predict that the Brighton i360 will attract between 701,000 and 817,000 visitors and they use a market penetration rate of around 3.6% (see Appendix 6). The Spinnaker Tower achieves around 360k visitors per annum. This is equivalent to 2.3% penetration level of its market. The market in Portsmouth is 23% smaller than Brighton & Hove and Portsmouth does not have the large and well established conference and tourist market of Brighton. Furthermore, Portsmouth does not tend to organise the range of major events that takes place in Brighton & Hove and bolsters the visitor numbers significantly. For these reasons, an attraction located in Brighton is more likely to achieve higher market penetration rates overall than Portsmouth. It should be noted however that the Spinnaker Tower is still a success and continues to generate an operational profit." (All quoted from the loan agreement application) Given that they genuinely KNOW more about the leisure industry than both you or I ,as that is what they do day in, day out, for decades, I would prefer to trust somebody who knows what they are talking about rather than saying "I believe they are wrong; it's all rubbish; won't make a profit; think of the poor" ad infinitum, or idiots who want this project as a feather in their cap (i.e. the Greens - in my opinion of course lol) just because they are in power for the next 15 months. This is STATE money that never is or was available for anything other than new construction projects which had been financially assessed and were capable of providing sustained local employment. This is not JUST a ride, it has a visitor centre, and a 400 seat restaurant, both of which WILL provide a number of new jobs for people in Brighton. You're entitled to your opinion, as am I, I prefer my glass half full, rather than half empty like some on here. cheers.[/p][/quote]I like to know what is in my glass, and in this case it is liquid bulls**t. The predicted visitor numbers don't make any sense. I have lived in Regency Square for ten years, I see when Brighton is busy and when it isn't. The i360 could only be operating at its full capacity for a tiny fraction of the year, ie during the summer at the weekends when it's sunny. For the vast majority of the year it will be *empty*. Clear, obvious common sense is all that is needed rather than putting your trust in some company that *anticipates* visitor numbers. Cheers.[/p][/quote]Strange the y dont mention the Merlin operated Weymouth tower in the calculations. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-dor set-20893898 Automaton
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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