The partial collapse of the West Pier has put the eyes of the world on Brighton with papers all over the globe carrying sorry pictures with sympathetic text.

As so often in the past, there seems to be more recognition elsewhere that the city has a unique treasure to be preserved than within its boundaries.

I went down to see the sorry sight within half an hour, following a swift tip, and quickly came to three conclusions.

The first was that although the collapse was spectacular, it did not involve much of the pier. The second was that it is amazing the pier has stayed there for so long. The third was that little has changed.

Some critics are saying the project is hardly worthwhile since it would be more a rebuild than a restoration but that has been true for some time. Successful rebuilds have also taken place of other historic structures such as Uppark in West Sussex, Windsor Castle and Hampton Court after fire damage.

Blame has been heaped on everyone from the West Pier Trust to the city council for causing the delay leading to the collapse. But it is futile to fuss over past mistakes. All those who care for the pier should now concentrate on how to save it.

Much now rests on whether plans for a shoreline development are approved by city planners late next month.

We are told these two large buildings, or something similar in scope, are essential, not only to provide funds from the private sector but also to make the restoration viable once the job has been completed.

It is a difficult decision for the city to take. The proposed buildings are hardly elegant but they were designed following an instruction they should be subordinate to the beauty of the pier.

An earlier plan to have soaring architecture was dismissed after English Heritage, whose approval is essential, practically had a nervous fit over the prospect.

If they are approved, they will be the price Brighton and Hove pays for a restored pier. There usually is some cost. You have only to look at the Palace Pier with its fairground rides to realise the truth of that. It is clear public funds will not cover the restoration completely and, even if they did, the project would not be viable.

And if the plans are rejected, what then? There will probably be a limit to the patience of the Heritage Lottery Fund, which has kept millions of cash on hand to complement that raised by the private sector. No other developer would be interested without that money.

The Brighton West Pier Trust, which has tried valiantly to restore the pier for almost 30 years, would probably not see the point in continuing. It would be unable to care for the pier and ownership would almost certainly revert to the Crown as it did in the Seventies.

Then there would be the tricky problem of how to get rid of the pier. It took several tries to demolish the ruined pier at Margate, another designed by Eugenius Birch.

The West Pier is a much more substantial building and would take some shifting despite its poor state. There would also be the question of who would pay a bill likely to run into millions.

If the plans are approved, there will still be problems, including the sustained legal challenge by owners of the Palace Pier over letting lottery money go to its rival on the ground of unfair competition.

This is being taken seriously and is currently heading towards the European Court.

All big projects in Brighton take time, trouble and tens of millions.

A new library is only now being built after 50 years and approval has only just been given for redeveloping the station site, vacant since the days of steam.

Rest assured, we have not yet seen the end of the pier show.