Get rid of the bloody ugly thing

[The Spanish]

It looks like a great big industrial chimney that you can see for miles away. Bloody shambles.

like shoreham power station, that was very much part of the skyline.

i think it looks ridiculous, is totally pointless, and a bit bonkers, which is the same as pretty much every major Brighton landmark that everyone has grown to love over the years or centuries.

 

[symyjym]

I've never been on it and it hasn't grown on me. Have they released the footfall data over the out of season months yet? I think they said they had 100,000 in the first two months of operation. I think it's impossible for it not to break even and the debt will not have to be subsidised by the public, but it will never be profitable or considered a success.

 

[The Fish]

It's no Angel of the North like

 

[symyjym]

It's no Angel of the North like

View attachment 83172

Just need Bloom to pose by the i360 and call it cock ring of the South Sadly it will always be made a joke of in that respect.

 

[pearl]

It looks like a great big industrial chimney that you can see for miles away. Bloody shambles.

IMHO big industrial chimneys can enhance the landscape ... it looks like a giant biro to me

 

[knocky1]

like shoreham power station, that was very much part of the skyline.

i think it looks ridiculous, is totally pointless, and a bit bonkers, which is the same as pretty much every major Brighton landmark that everyone has grown to love over the years or centuries.

Never heard the buildings of John Nash being described as ridiculous, pointless and bonkers before.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

You think that's bad - this is really ugly

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

It looks like a great big industrial chimney that you can see for miles away.

Currently useful as a physical and metaphorical pointer to the abject failure of the West Pier 'Trust' to do anything much beyond feather their own nests for a few more years. Self-serving ****s.

 

[The Large One]

I hate that blot on our coastline.... BA i360.
Just read it's closed for the third time in 8 months. Not only is it embarrassing for our City to have this often reported failure .... it's all wrong and shouldn't be sitting there offending the eyes of Sussex folk. Off with their heads

Speak for yourself.

And for those who don't wish to encourage tourism, money and jobs.

It hasn't been open for eight days in 240. Can you personally claim the same level of functionality?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I think it's great. A wonderful addition to our city.

 

[TheDuke]

Speak for yourself.

And for those who don't wish to encourage tourism, money and jobs.

It hasn't been open for eight days in 240. Can you personally claim the same level of functionality?

You have got to be joking. EIGHT days in 240 is hardly reasonable for a supposedly multi-million hi-tech structure... 8 days sick leave in 2/3 of a year is sackable level of functionality.
Of course I would always welcome more tourist money and jobs to Brighton but I'm also sure I could achieve that (with the money invested) without the monstrosity that blights our seafront.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

Seems like some engineers were looking for some suckers to try out a basically untested technology, and Brighton Council put themselves forward as guinea pigs - and now we're lumbered with the bloody thing

 

[Eeyore]

I like it now. I walk home from Portslade to Kemptown most evenings along the seafront. It's become a landmark. I hated the wheel at first but was sad when it went. Give it time.

 

[The Large One]

You have got to be joking. EIGHT days in 240 is hardly reasonable for a supposedly multi-million hi-tech structure... 8 days sick leave in 2/3 of a year is sackable level of functionality.
Of course I would always welcome more tourist money and jobs to Brighton but I'm also sure I could achieve that (with the money invested) without the monstrosity that blights our seafront.

So because YOU don't like it, those jobs, tourism and money shouldn't be allowed in? Brilliant.

You have taken far more than eight days off in 240 days - so what's your point? It's been closed for far fewer days for maintenance than were originally planned.

You've identified what you believe is a problem (based on your aesthetic misery), without working out a solution. Unless you think taking it down it the answer.

Meanwhile, it's a popular attraction, there for the benefit of the city.

 

[The Rivet]

I've always thought it looks like a big rivet.

Nothing to do with me! Thankyou............

 

[Spider]

You have got to be joking. EIGHT days in 240 is hardly reasonable for a supposedly multi-million hi-tech structure... 8 days sick leave in 2/3 of a year is sackable level of functionality.
Of course I would always welcome more tourist money and jobs to Brighton but I'm also sure I could achieve that (with the money invested) without the monstrosity that blights our seafront.

The whole 'Faulty Tower' idea is a total non-story. Considering its quite a unique piece of technology and not just shipped in Ferris wheel it has had good reliability for its first year. It could easily have been down for high proportions of the year. Just look at newly opened roller coasters, or the lifts on the Spinnaker tower, to see that these things can often go awry when testing is over and actual bodies get on them. I'm not a big fan of the i360 but the attempt to paint it as a failure due to reliability is absurd - the chances of it making through the first year with no technical faults were zero, and the fact the BBC story refers to only 3 specific incident is, on the contrary, and technical achievement.

 

[The Rivet]

The whole 'Faulty Tower' idea is a total non-story. Considering its quite a unique piece of technology and not just shipped in Ferris wheel it has had good reliability for its first year. It could easily have been down for high proportions of the year. Just look at newly opened roller coasters, or the lifts on the Spinnaker tower, to see that these things can often go awry when testing is over and actual bodies get on them. I'm not a big fan of the i360 but the attempt to paint it as a failure due to reliability is absurd - the chances of it making through the first year with no technical faults were zero, and the fact the BBC story refers to only 3 specific incident is, on the contrary, and technical achievement.

It was considered abysmal and a failure before it was built, for many reasons. Technical problems or not it's a failure.

 

[Chicken Run]

I'm more than certain that 3 stoppages in 8 months can't be described as a failure?

 

[Spider]

It was considered abysmal and a failure before it was built, for many reasons. Technical problems or not it's a failure.

It's interesting that even though you decided to ignore a crucial part of the sentence despite very pointedly highlighting the whole thing.

 

[mothy]

Poll? I like it