he eagerly-awaited proposed design for the King Alfred site is now open to public ridicule and scorn. No surprises then that the controversial Frank Gehry concept is to be the design which is submitted.

Savvy developers know the controversy will be worth millions in free pre-marketing publicity, as well as establishing the development's ego-enhancing credentials.

The added, much-hyped Brad Pitt factor provides the required seasoning for the project in this vacuous celebrity culture.

But is the plan any good? Will it truly become the landmark for 21st Century Hove or are we in danger of putting on the Emperor's New Clothes?

The design appears avant-garde and will no doubt appal lovers of traditional architecture and those who believe in reproducing endless variations on a Regency theme.

Those who believe that futuristic is best will delight in its departure from the local architectural style.

If this media-generated "controversy" is indeed a battle between old and new, I believe both camps have lost.

The design, as it stands, strikes me, as an artist, designer and lifelong student of good design, as a wimpish compromise.

It lacks a coherent style, relies on gimmickry and lacks courage.

There are two predictably bendy, shiny Gehry format towers, both of which are disappointingly stumpy, surrounded by blocks reminiscent of suburban Belgrade or East Berlin, with a Cubist experiment crumpled between. It is less a single concept than a collection of three.

Gehry's Guggenheim in Bilbao is masterly in that it doesn't compromise or try to fit in with its surroundings and, consequently, succeeds beautifully and trumpets its individuality. It celebrates its difference, rather than apologises for it.

Traditionally, this is also true of Brighton and Hove.

The Bilbao Guggenheim has a coherent design and purpose and all its elements are stylistically compatible.

The interior fits the building, which, in turn, fits its immediate landscaped environment.

This sense of a singular style and confidence convinces us it belongs in an otherwise alien environment.

Hove's "Pitts", as many have already named it, will not be mentioned in the same breath when appraising the architectural successes of the 21st Century. Unlike Bilbao, Hove's building doesn't know what it wants to be.

Consequently, it lacks the charisma to stand proud as a fine example of architectural style.

If we are to go modern, let's have the guts to do so and not settle for something which, in 20 years, will resemble some of the appalling design mistakes, such as the current King Alfred centre and the Brighton Centre, of the past.

I initially loathed the towers, thinking them all style over substance. I now find them appealing (though they should be higher).

If the other design elements had followed the same curvaceous, abstract principles and the reflective coloured patchwork of the sports area was abandoned, then we might have a stunning, cohesive unit.

This, despite the fact that it doesn't "match" the surrounding architecture, will, at least, be so eccentric, it would echo Brighton and Hove's reputation for the unusual.

Let's not be seduced by its celebrity connections or the hype of the patronising developers. Let's tell them to be brave enough to go further and give us something to thrill the soul and lift the spirits of residents and visitors alike.

-Martin Hall, Hove