[Brighton] i360 filing for administration

[Official Old Man]

I don't believe it can. It has poor positioning and, if you did fancy it, you would only go up there once. I used to work in Tower Point, so I enjoyed great views across town for 16 years.

I'm in the 'yes it could work' camp, but in the right hands. I looked up some figures and saw that the Pier took £25 million in 2022 but only £15 million in 2023. Proof alone that the town is dying. But when you look at those figures you have to also look at the fact they have 10 million visitors a year and loads of things for the visitors to spend money on. Be it a stick of £1 rock or a £25 wristband. And people come back year after year and spend that money.
Look also at the work being done at Madeira Drive. The zip wire has a huge presence with the Zip Deck. Packed daily although very few go on the wire. In a few years the length of Brighton Beach will be near on two miles of things to see and do. So the i360 needs something other than a tall lump of concrete. It needs a reason to go to that area, laugh and have fun, and spend a few £'s.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

If they get new operators, they have to cut prices and maybe make it part of a ticket that also gives you admission to, perhaps, the zip wire and the upside-down house. It's poorly located because even if you're a local who would be interested in seeing Brighton from high up, you can't see the Pavilion or much at all (although I can see my house). Any talk of someone buying it and doing something else with the site (eg by Argus reporters) forgets that the land is owned by the West Pier Trust and the i360 pay them rent.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

An earlier scheme which never got off the drawing board - Skydeck 1965

https://archives.parliament.uk/collections/getrecord/GB61_HC_CL_PB_6_plan1964_1965_3

View attachment 193127

I'm not sure that increasing the portion of the view occupied by empty sea would have helped the situation.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

If they get new operators, they have to cut prices and maybe make it part of a ticket that also gives you admission to, perhaps, the zip wire and the upside-down house. It's poorly located because even if you're a local who would be interested in seeing Brighton from high up, you can't see the Pavilion or much at all (although I can see my house). Any talk of someone buying it and doing something else with the site (eg by Argus reporters) forgets that the land is owned by the West Pier Trust and the i360 pay them rent.

I wouldn't trust the West Pier Trust as far as I could throw them. Self-serving ****s

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Some right miserable ****s on here. I like it and in the right hands it can be a success.

I suspect you're missing the point (purposely). A vast amount of those of us that objected to the i360 - and still do - do so more because of the risk to the taxpayer than the idea itself. It should have been privately funded without the council taking a gamble with OUR money. The original figures couldn't even pass even basic scrutiny but councillors were blinded by the idea itself and the shed loads of money they thought would roll into council coffers.

It's a great engineering feat but in the wrong part of the city. I didn't want it to fail - why would I as a local taxpayer ?

As an aside, and maybe this makes me a miserable ****, I went up it once - for free - and really couldn't see the great attraction. Would never have paid to ride it.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I wouldn't trust the West Pier Trust as far as I could throw them. Self-serving ****s

Indeed. Rachel Clark the WPT CEO has made a tidy living of £70k a year for decades.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I suspect you're missing the point (purposely). A vast amount of those of us that objected to the i360 - and still do - do so more because of the risk to the taxpayer than the idea itself. It should have been privately funded without the council taking a gamble with OUR money. The original figures couldn't even pass even basic scrutiny but councillors were blinded by the idea itself and the shed loads of money they thought would roll into council coffers.

It's a great engineering feat but in the wrong part of the city. I didn't want it to fail - why would I as a local taxpayer ?

As an aside, and maybe this makes me a miserable ****, I went up it once - for free - and really couldn't see the great attraction. Would never have paid to ride it.

I'm not missing the point at all. But the 50m is sunk cost . By all means complain about how the attraction was originally funded, but moving forward it will not help to resolve the current situation.

As an aside, and maybe this makes me a positive outlooking person, I went up it once - paid - and loved it although felt a bit giddy after a few too many of the Nyetimber they were selling.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Indeed. Rachel Clark the WPT CEO has made a tidy living of £70k a year for decades.

Saw her once on a Brighton edition of Salvage Hunters flogging off the West Pier's heritage by the pound. And that other one, the guy in the anorak? Every time another bit of the pier fell into the sea he'd be interviewed on the beach, smugly chortling about how they had all the bits in storage and how they could rebuild it. That went about as well as you'd expect. Abhorrent leeches

 

[Han Solo]

I'm not sure that increasing the portion of the view occupied by empty sea would have helped the situation.

Maybe not a thrilling ride for those expecting water in the sea but for everyone else it should be value for money.

 

[jcdenton08]

It was just so frivolous when the money could’ve been put to such better use.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Tear it down so I don't have to pretend to want to ride it when I come and visit. Monuments that scream "you're a tourist, give me all your money" are rarely as successful as cities and countries hope.

Agree, the ferris wheel in Dam square isn’t even in the top 10 of attractions ridden.

 

[OzMike]

Half the entry fee and double the profits.
Too expensive.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

Half the entry fee and double the profits.
Too expensive.

Assuming demand is perfectly price elastic, which I imagine it isn't.