I don't know the financing arrangements but I suspect most of it is loan finance at low interest rates. That makes it possible for a decent return to whatever small amount of equity is involved. It's obviously high risk but the Council can quite reasonably take a different view of risk to an individual or a private sector investor. It can take into account economic benefits to the local community, future council tax receipts etc etc. I think you could argue that projects like i360 are vital for Brighton's future . Good on the Greens for being brave enough to make it happen
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
i360 is going ahead. Former potential investor has been arrested.
- Thread starter desprateseagull
- Start date
I don't know the financing arrangements but I suspect most of it is loan finance at low interest rates. That makes it possible for a decent return to whatever small amount of equity is involved. It's obviously high risk but the Council can quite reasonably take a different view of risk to an individual or a private sector investor. It can take into account economic benefits to the local community, future council tax receipts etc etc. I think you could argue that projects like i360 are vital for Brighton's future . Good on the Greens for being brave enough to make it happen
oneillco
Well-known member
- Feb 13, 2013
- 1,259
I agree wholeheartedly; I get sick of people who live in B&H moaning about the i360. I work in London and everyone I've shown pictures of it to thinks it looks amazing, and say they will come down and visit it (and presumably spend money). This is what Brighton is supposed to be for isn't it?
Spider
New member
- Sep 15, 2007
- 3,614
£6m private backing, £4m lottery money (or something), £36m interest loan from council.
It's all very well talking about interest and wider community benefit, but if the tower fails financially (which, as I said before, based on their projections is a very real possibility), we're stuck with a big white spike, a massive hole in the public finances, and none of the benefits that they're trumpeting.
I also think this quote from their website:
'if it doesn’t happen the west of Brighton is going to be a no man’s land'
I have literally no idea what this means. I can only assume that this guy's definition of a no mans land is somewhere where crap gentrification - homogenised restaurants and bars, express supermarkets, and the infinite possibility to squeeze idiot London types who claim to love Brighton;s unique character of their dishonestly earnt cash - hasn't happened.
oneillco
Well-known member
- Feb 13, 2013
- 1,259
I have literally no idea what your last paragraph is supposed to mean. Oh and perhaps bear in mind that without speculation Albion would still be playing at Withdean.
symyjym
Banned
It was a Tory plan, and it's a shame the Greens don't give a stuff about the King Alfred.
Spider
New member
- Sep 15, 2007
- 3,614
Why would West Brighton be a no mans land without i360?
This. People have to remember tourism is Brighton's industry.
Not correct. The new Tory council put a stop to it and cost you the tax-payer a lot of money which was wasted on the development and planning. Very disappointing. And here we are yet again thinking about what to do with the site. This has been going on for well over two decades now.
Vegas Seagull
New member
- Jul 10, 2009
- 7,782
& The Salt Room opens tomorrow night in the Metropole (ex Cannon) opposite the site. most chatter & publicity about a restaurant opening I can ever recall...who will be the 1st NSC'er to review!?
symyjym
Banned
In peak season, Brighton is at gridlock and all the roads entering the city form one long queue for the car parks that are full. I don’t think we could pack any more tourists in than we get already.
symyjym
Banned
The scheme, which included the construction of 751 homes in 11 buildings of up to 98 metres high, was thrown into doubt in July when Dutch bank ING withdrew its financial support because falling house prices no longer made it financially viable.
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/3830232.King_Alfred_plans_are_killed_off_/
This is not the full story though. Karis wanted to temporarily moth-ball the plans/obtain a time extension to find alternative funding but the new council, which originally opposed the plans, spitefully denied them this opportunity when they gained power.
symyjym
Banned
I agree that there is a lot to the story, but having a time extension doesn't automatically mean that the money would have been found. We were at the start of a recession at the time. Many people were against the project because it failed to provide a decent leisure centre.
The previous administration had permission for the type of development below;
3.14) Permissions dating back to 1984 for various leisure/entertainment facilities on the RNR site, was granted in February 1990 (3/89/0365) for the construction of a complex containing parking and public toilets at basement levels with restaurants, nightclub, shops, leisure ice rink, new ten-pinbowling alley, ancillary facilities and associated public areas above. This was a ‘Regulation 5’ application submitted by the former Hove Borough Council on its own behalf. This permission has since expired.
http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/sit...SPGBH_King_Alfred-RNR_site_planning_brief.pdf
That is the sort of development locals want at the site, not luxury towers for the rich to buy as holiday apartments.
I could see the Gehry towers being built as part of a new Brighton Centre development, but not the King Alfred.
Of course it does not the money would be found, but providing more time at least offers a chance. And in the absence of any other plans/project what was the issue?
And yes people were against it, they always are, but it was voted through fairly. I think the council should have used common sense and provided an extension.
Brighton has a bad reputation amongst architects and it is sad that whilst other cities get wonderful new projects and landmark developments we get little if anything. West Pier, Black Rock, King Alfred's, the new Brighton Centre.....how many decades have we heard all this flannel for?
symyjym
Banned
People were rightfully against it in this case, and I am not so sure that it was voted through fairly. The choice was a token gesture leisure centre with as much residential development as possible, or a token gesture leisure centre with as much residential development as possible
I was against it because the King Alfred should be dedicated to sport and leisure. The new proposals will fail because the council policy is exactly the same as what it was with Gehry.
Have you had your say or voted for the new policy guidelines for the site?
The problem is the council/officers set their eyes on grand fanciful schemes where the costs spiral out of control and become unaffordable. The problem is even more heightened when they try to squeeze as much housing as possible into projects.
To win these projects it's about who can bullshit the best, and then the developers cannot live up to to their promises, because it was bullshit and too expensive.
oneillco
Well-known member
- Feb 13, 2013
- 1,259
OK so Brighton is a success and lots of people want to come here, and so you build attractions to keep the city relevant but perhaps improve the rail service so not so many people drive... And what about weekdays when the tourist attractions aren't so busy?
oneillco
Well-known member
- Feb 13, 2013
- 1,259
I have absolutely no idea who said west Brighton (why "West Brighton" ?) would be a no man's land, that is clearly bollox. But you may have noticed that in recent years that this part of the seafront features a ruined pier and crumbling seafront infrastructure; certainly it has very few shops and businesses. The i360 will provide a focal point for regeneration, and if you can't see it as an exciting development then you may be more at home living in Burgess Hill.
desprateseagull
New member
- Thread starter
- #78
I cannot see how the west pier trust can continue.
The i360 is a copy cat folly, and seems to only be feasible, if they get a loan via the council. Why should taxpayer money fund this (even if 'secured' on future income?).
Other piers have been rebuilt with far less hassle.
I smell a fish. And it stinks.
The i360 is a copy cat folly, and seems to only be feasible, if they get a loan via the council. Why should taxpayer money fund this (even if 'secured' on future income?).
Other piers have been rebuilt with far less hassle.
I smell a fish. And it stinks.
Care to elaborate? I was quite close to the scheme (purely as a supporter) at the time so I'm very interested to know what you are suggesting.
And no I haven't voted because it's utterly pointless, for the reasons I gave.
oneillco
Well-known member
- Feb 13, 2013
- 1,259
Crikey it must be fun in your world...