Yet again Brighton & HOve have conned us..

[Stoichkov]

All that's missing is the 42-storey tower which is not now going to happen.

And the steep sided city-centre football stadium.

How good would that have been? Like a lower league St James Park!

Imagine the match day atmosphere....

 

[Nibble]

This isn't a problem relating to Brighton & Hove - this is a problem relating to 'regeneration'.

I dare say there are towns and cities up and down the country with plenty of people who will say the same. Glasgow, for example, is atrocious in these respects. The city council bends over backwards for any rich bastard who promises to build yet more poncey flats or another retail park, but fails to 'regenerate' community facilities or low-cost and social housing. One particularly bad recent example is Silverburn (which recently won a prize for 'Worst Planning Decision of the Year in Scotland'). Essentially, the main community shopping area for the whole of the south side of Glasgow (an area of serious deprivation) and a school have been pulled down and replaced by a shopping mall containing expensive shops and a Tesco. Silverburn's website is quite clear on who they wish to see coming to the centre - those who live in gentrified Giffnock and Newton Mearns (ie Glasgow's Toryville). Sod the locals (although presumably they can have jobs cleaning the place, or something - that's the 'regeneration' bit). Meanwhile, locals on low income now have to waste money on buses or trains to get to the kinds of shops they used to be able to walk to. The Commonwealth Games project is, perhaps, even worse - prefectly acceptable housing in need of some care and attention is to be pulled down and replaced with an athletes' village which will be sold off to yuppies after the games have finished; and, of course, all of the new sports facilities will be carefully policed and expensive to use (it's all in the business plan - and only the incoming yuppies will be able to afford to use them). This, of course, is all being done with funds reallocated from the budgets which support genuine community sports and leisure facilities.

All make sperfect sense.

 

[Nibble]

I think that's a matter of opinion. I'll grant you that it's not an awe-inspiring, jaw-droppingly marvelous development that will win awards for the next 20 years, but it is fulfulling some needs in a manner that is not 100% offensive. It's infinitely better than what used to be there. Again, just my aesthetic opinion, you may have preferred the wasteland, fair enough.

Certainly I didn't want to wait another 40 years for the 100% ideal development to come along.

Yes it is better than the wasteland but in ten years time that whole part of the development is going to look rundown and awful. It is the next Tyvelgate.

 

[The Large One]

I use conned as a general expression of how Brighton has the opportunity to use land and resources to make the quality of life better for residents instead it uses them to the advantage of Sainsburys.

And Brighton does not need another hotel.

Sorry, Nibble, but you're utterly wrong there. I did some work for the Tourist & Leisure department at the City Council in 2001 and 2002, and back then, they were screaming out for more hotels. They were saying that Brighton is horribly short of hotel spaces - especially around conference times and peak summer times.

It's why Jury's Inn, the one next to the Library and the one where Sergeant Yorke's Casino was have all been granted permission to go ahead as hotel developments. They wouldn't give permission for something it doesn't need. Even then, it still leaves the city short.

Put it this way, if it was what you were after, YOU try and get a two or three-star hotel for the weekend in Brighton during the summer.

 

[Nibble]

Sorry, Nibble, but you're utterly wrong there. I did some work for the Tourist & Leisure department at the City Council in 2001 and 2002, and back then, they were screaming out for more hotels. They were saying that Brighton is horribly short of hotel spaces - especially around conference times and peak summer times.

It's why Jury's Inn, the one next to the Library and the one where Sergeant Yorke's Casino was have all been granted permission to go ahead as hotel developments. They wouldn't give permission for something it doesn't need. Even then, it still leaves the city short.

Put it this way, if it was what you were after, YOU try and get a two or three-star hotel for the weekend in Brighton during the summer.

If you are playing a numbers game then yes Brighton probably needs Hotels but the reason they are being built is why I say we dont need them. The reason? So that people come into Brighton and spend money in Pubs and shops which is great for business but again ignores the residents needs. Any money that Brighton generates through tourism sure as hell doesn't get put back into the community.

A little balance and consideration rather than pandering to big business is what we need, not hotels. You are failing to see the bigger picture.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

A huge positive of the flats and the development is their level of sustainability and their 'minimal' environmental impact.

 

[Nibble]

A huge positive of the flats and the development is their level of sustainability and their 'minimal' environmental impact.

Only a few have been built in that fashion.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

If you are playing a numbers game then yes Brighton probably needs Hotels but the reason they are being built is why I say we dont need them. The reason? So that people come into Brighton and spend money in Pubs and shops which is great for business but again ignores the residents needs. Any money that Brighton generates through tourism sure as hell doesn't get put back into the community.

A little balance and consideration rather than pandering to big business is what we need, not hotels. You are failing to see the bigger picture.

What about all the people in the communitites that work in the Tourism Industry?

It's the only major industry the city has, especially as the council doesn't seem to want to support the Creative Industries outside of the performing arts.

 

[Brovion]

Yes it is better than the wasteland but in ten years time that whole part of the development is going to look rundown and awful. It is the next Tyvelgate.

Well yes, maybe. If that's the case it can be knocked down and rebuilt like they did with Churchill Square. The Americans do it all the time. Like I said earlier it's only conservative, reactionary Britain that has a default positon of assuming that every development is 'bad' and puts obstacles in the way.

 

[Nibble]

What about all the people in the communitites that work in the Tourism Industry?



Fucke 'em. I want a swimming pool!

On a serious note though the tourism industry consists of very low paid, exploited workers a vast number of which are immigrants that will be conned into any shitty contract so more of this type of work is not really a good thing.

 

[Nibble]

Well yes, maybe. If that's the case it can be knocked down and rebuilt like they did with Churchill Square. The Americans do it all the time. Like I said earlier it's only conservative, reactionary Britain that has a default positon of assuming that every development is 'bad' and puts obstacles in the way.

But honestly you cannot be saying that there wasn't an opportunity to really do something good and inventive with that space and they blew it. They sold out.

Yes, a hotel has some benefits. Yes ,a supermarket has some benefits. I'm not disputing that. What I am asking is, is that the best use of the land? For fat cats, yes. For the people of Brighton? Im not so certain.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

But honestly you cannot be saying that there wasn't an opportunity to really do something good and inventive with that space and they blew it. They sold out.

QUOTE]

Like? Don't think a leisure centre would have been very good there as its not very well populated.

 

[Nibble]

But honestly you cannot be saying that there wasn't an opportunity to really do something good and inventive with that space and they blew it. They sold out.

QUOTE]

Like? Don't think a leisure centre would have been very good there as its not very well populated.

What? Are you serious? Next to mainline, stones throw from town,If A Sainsburys can survive there, a leisure centre would. a good bus link going directly there and you are away.

 

[gullshark]

And the steep sided city-centre football stadium.

How good would that have been? Like a lower league St James Park!

Imagine the match day atmosphere....

Our stadium there would have been *fantastic* it is infact the perfect location.

 

[Nibble]

No, no you are all right. A shop and a pikey weatherspoons style pub with a monolithic travel lodge style hotel on top is just what that area needed. A leisure centre would have been reckless folly, even if you combined it with a good gig/show venue. Nobody would have used it.

 

[Nibble]

Bet they would have considered a sports centre if David Lloyd had wanted a private one there.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

What? Are you serious? Next to mainline, stones throw from town,If A Sainsburys can survive there, a leisure centre would. a good bus link going directly there and you are away.

You need parking there for all the kids IMO and there is already the Prince Regent pool just down the road. You got any other ideas apart from a leisure centre?

 

[The Large One]

If you are playing a numbers game then yes Brighton probably needs Hotels but the reason they are being built is why I say we dont need them. The reason? So that people come into Brighton and spend money in Pubs and shops which is great for business but again ignores the residents needs. Any money that Brighton generates through tourism sure as hell doesn't get put back into the community.

A little balance and consideration rather than pandering to big business is what we need, not hotels. You are failing to see the bigger picture.

Wrong again. I am 100% aware of the bigger picture.

You're arguing the point from the wrong side. If you are a resident of Brighton, you don't necessarily need more housing for those residents,, because they are already resident - you need housing for either homeless, the transient or the in-comers.

Similarly, more hotels (within reason) provides (a) more tourists and (b) more income for the city for the Council to spend on residents' needs.

It was Sainsbury's who largely paid for that part of the development - indeed they had to cut their original plan down for their supermarket because it was seen as too big - too expansive. It's a good way for the taxpayer not to have to fork out for housing development costs if you can get a big company to do it instead.

So you want another leisure centre in the city centre to go alongside the Prince Regent? The council would clearly love for another development to take numbers away from their facilities... A white elephant if ever there was going to be one.

 

[Nibble]

The income generated from tourism does not get spent on residents.

Whoever pays for the housing it is overpriced and will most likely be bought up by buy to let owners or commuters.

If you think that the buildings they have erected on the site are a good thing for the area and residents you are very short sighted. There is only one reason they are there and that is to make people with vast amounts of money even more money.

If not a leisure centre then surely we have more options than a supermarket and a hotel?

 

[CHAPPERS]

The Sainsburys has an underground car park that reminds me of being on a ferry.