The £36m i360 set to go ahead

[Westdene Seagull]

Brighton & Hove attracts 8.5m visitors each year, (6.5m as daytrippers), putting £970m into the local economy. The Pier has 4.5m visitors (admittedly it's free).

Why is 800,000 visitors to the i360 'utterly daft'?

Look at the figures for the Spinnikar - they now only get nearly a quarter of the proposed 800k figure. The Brighton Wheel ? 250k a year. To hit 800k visitors a year they would need to find 182 people an hour willing to pay for twelve hours every day of the year. To extrapolate the likely visitors to the i360 based on how many people visit the city each year is a false calculation.

Besides, if private enterprise thinks it's unworkable ( and they do otherwise they would fund it ) then what makes the council think THEY can make a success of it ? Making the council taxpayer potentially liable for £36m of re-payments ( plus interest ) is a risk not worth taking.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

It appears the i360 will be funded by money from central government. Getting multi-million pound investment in area of the city which needs it has to be a positive thing, doesn't it?

Not a direct choice between building this or getting much-needed leisure facilities.

Who pays the loan when the developer defaults ? Ah yes, us the local taxpayer.

 

[Bwian]

Yep, sounds great-Volks should be one the THE great uk tourist attractions and with a bit of tlc and an extension it could be. Plus of course a zip wire and waterslide from the amex to the station.

Volks should be as iconic as the trams along Blackpool seafront. It is also important historically. It would be fantastic to see Volks running to Hove Lagoon - or as close to it as possible.

 

[Bwian]

It appears the i360 will be funded by money from central government. Getting multi-million pound investment in area of the city which needs it has to be a positive thing, doesn't it?

Not a direct choice between building this or getting much-needed leisure facilities.

London Road needs that kind of funding a lot more than the area near Regency Square.

 

[symyjym]

Good news, it's about time this thing got built. It cannot come a moment too soon for places like Preston Street which has really gone downhill so to speak over the last few years. It could potentially help boost that whole area.

It won't help Preston Street, everyone will be eating & drinking in the i360 restaurant.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

Who pays the loan when the developer defaults ? Ah yes, us the local taxpayer.

I genuinely don't know enough in-depth about the pros and cons of this scheme to have anything more than a passion opinion on it or its likely success.

Was more trying to point out that it does not seem a case of the council funding this directly over improving leisure facilities. The initial funding could not, I don't believe, simply be used to build a new sports centre instead - although I may be completely wrong on that. No doubt there are people on here far more clued up on this scheme than me.

 

[supaseagull]

I'd rather the council spend the money on improving sporting facilties around the city for it's residents, rather than squandering it on some crappy tourist attraction which is only going to be used for a third of the year!

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I genuinely don't know enough in-depth about the pros and cons of this scheme to have anything more than a passion opinion on it or its likely success.

Was more trying to point out that it does not seem a case of the council funding this directly over improving leisure facilities. The initial funding could not, I don't believe, simply be used to build a new sports centre instead - although I may be completely wrong on that. No doubt there are people on here far more clued up on this scheme than me.

You're correct that the loan from central government can't just be used for other projects but the fact remains that this scheme has been rejected as financially impossible by the private sector. The loan is exactly that - a loan that needs repaying that the council ( or rather the council taxpayer ) guarantees. It is irresponsible and immoral for a council to put at the local taxpayer at so much risk. If the local taxpayer ends up paying I wonder what those in support will opt for - yet more cuts to local services or a massive hike in council tax ?

 

[Hotchilidog]

I'd rather the council spend the money on improving sporting facilties around the city for it's residents, rather than squandering it on some crappy tourist attraction which is only going to be used for a third of the year!

The money for this project is not coming from council tax coffers. it is coming from a central government fund designed to support commercial projects such as this and all things being well be repaid by proceeds from the i-360 itself.

Sadly thanks to government cuts and the inability to raise extra funding through council tax all those other things we all want to see here cannot get built.

If the i-360 was not being built there would not be additional funding for other projects.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Brighton & Hove attracts 8.5m visitors each year, (6.5m as daytrippers), putting £970m into the local economy. The Pier has 4.5m visitors (admittedly it's free).

Why is 800,000 visitors to the i360 'utterly daft'?

Blackpool gets 12m visitors a year - Blackpool Tower 65k a year. The 800k figure is complete and utter fantasy and lunacy.

To put the risk into perspective - if the council end up having to pay the whole £36m over 10 years it equates to nearly £60 a year of every household that pays council tax ( very rough and not based on council tax bands ).

 

[The Large One]

Look at the figures for the Spinnikar - they now only get nearly a quarter of the proposed 800k figure. The Brighton Wheel ? 250k a year. To hit 800k visitors a year they would need to find 182 people an hour willing to pay for twelve hours every day of the year.

Do-able. It holds 400 people in the restaurant and 200 in the pod thing.

But even then, it's not something that pays for itself on its own. It's an attraction to the immediate environment.

To extrapolate the likely visitors to the i360 based on how many people visit the city each year is a false calculation.

Quite. We'll use a dump like Portsmouth as a comparative model instead.

Besides, if private enterprise thinks it's unworkable ( and they do otherwise they would fund it ) then what makes the council think THEY can make a success of it ? Making the council taxpayer potentially liable for £36m of re-payments ( plus interest ) is a risk not worth taking.

You do love your dramatic Argus-type fear-generating headlines, don't you?


Incidentally, anyone who thinks that going 130 feet higher than Sussex Heights will only be able to see Regency Square isn't someone who's necessarily looking in the right directions.

 

[Notters]

I think it's great news. Next I think we need about a dozen skyscrapers full of flats to bring house prices down a little.

 

[shaolinpunk]

I think it's great news. Next I think we need about a dozen skyscrapers full of flats to bring house prices down a little.

I'd love to see us start building upwards, although that might ruin the view from the i360

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Do-able. It holds 400 people in the restaurant and 200 in the pod thing.

But even then, it's not something that pays for itself on its own. It's an attraction to the immediate environment.



Quite. We'll use a dump like Portsmouth as a comparative model instead.




You do love your dramatic Argus-type fear-generating headlines, don't you?


Incidentally, anyone who thinks that going 130 feet higher than Sussex Heights will only be able to see Regency Square isn't someone who's necessarily looking in the right directions.

OK - would you as a private investor provide money for the venture ? I guess you'd be hoping your investment skills would be better for a tower than football shirts ? How's that for an Argus style comment ?

As yet, nobody with any real business experience has agreed to fund it - that says everything about what a risk it is.

 

[The Large One]

Blackpool gets 12m visitors a year - Blackpool Tower 65k a year. The 800k figure is complete and utter fantasy and lunacy.

To put the risk into perspective - if the council end up having to pay the whole £36m over 10 years it equates to nearly £60 a year of every household that pays council tax ( very rough and not based on council tax bands ).

I think you mean 650,000 visitors, to something firmly established over decades rather than a new attraction.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I think you mean 650,000 visitors, to something firmly established over decades rather than a new attraction.

Yes, I missed a zero. So Blackpool with nearly 50% more visitors can only 150k LESS people visiting their historic tower ...... yet you think the i360 figures are realistic

 

[Notters]

Yes, I missed a zero. So Blackpool with nearly 50% more visitors can only 150k LESS people visiting their historic tower ...... yet you think the i360 figures are realistic

Every source I can find seems to suggest Blackpool has around 1.5 - 2 million visitors annually whereas Brighton has Around 8 - 10 million. This seems more realistic as I know from my in-laws that Blackpool is dead in the winter months, whereas Brighton is packed with visitors all year round.

 

[The Large One]

OK - would you as a private investor provide money for the venture ? I guess you'd be hoping your investment skills would be better for a tower than football shirts ? How's that for an Argus style comment ?

As yet, nobody with any real business experience has agreed to fund it - that says everything about what a risk it is.

You're still missing the central point. I've outlined it, but you seem blind to your own rage.

An investor would only see a return on the tower itself; and the figures might not add up. As I've already said, it's an attraction which won't necessarily pay for itself on its own, but is designed to bring in extra revenue by greater numbers of attracted visitors. Most of it from the facility itself, but others will benefit from it too (local restaurants, stalls, businesses - maybe even property prices).

The investor wouldn't see the fringe benefits in a way that the city would. It's probably not a profit-maker in itself, but the economy and the area as a whole benefits.

 

[symyjym]

Look at the figures for the Spinnikar - they now only get nearly a quarter of the proposed 800k figure. The Brighton Wheel ? 250k a year. To hit 800k visitors a year they would need to find 182 people an hour willing to pay for twelve hours every day of the year. To extrapolate the likely visitors to the i360 based on how many people visit the city each year is a false calculation.

Besides, if private enterprise thinks it's unworkable ( and they do otherwise they would fund it ) then what makes the council think THEY can make a success of it ? Making the council taxpayer potentially liable for £36m of re-payments ( plus interest ) is a risk not worth taking.

Yep, when the winter weather is like what we have experienced over the last 3 months I very much doubt any usage during that period. It may be busy during the Easter and the Summer Holidays, but the rest of the time will be dependent on weekend visitors.

 

[The Large One]

Yes, I missed a zero. So Blackpool with nearly 50% more visitors can only 150k LESS people visiting their historic tower ...... yet you think the i360 figures are realistic

How many people would have said - three years ago - that we would be selling 27,000 tickets at the Amex each match?