i360 is going ahead. Former potential investor has been arrested.

[symyjym]

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.

It was voted for by the council, not the general public. So I don't see how it was a fair vote when it was all in house and spin. The council don't want to hear the views from the general public.

What reasons did you give for not having your say on the King Alfred's current policy? Apart from the fact we cannot have a say.

The council wanted an ice rink at Black Rock with something like 50% housing, and they wanted a leisure centre and pool at the King Alfred with something like 50% housing.

Now why wouldn't they think of building a 100% leisure centre, pool and ice rink at the King Alfred and then build 100% housing at Black Rock?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It was voted for by the council, not the general public. So I don't see how it was a fair vote when it was all in house and spin. The council don't want to hear the views from the general public.

What reasons did you give for not having your say on the King Alfred's current policy? Apart from the fact we cannot have a say.

The council wanted an ice rink at Black Rock with something like 50% housing, and they wanted a leisure centre and pool at the King Alfred with something like 50% housing.

Now why wouldn't they think of building a 100% leisure centre, pool and ice rink at the King Alfred and then build 100% housing at Black Rock?

Of course it wasn't voted for by the public. It followed the usual planning process in this country which is broadly speaking a vote by the council planning department after (lengthy) public consultation and presentations. Remember the process to get the AMEX built?

And my reasons for not getting involved this time is that it's pointless. I have lost count of the proposed KA projects which are always knocked back by busy-body local NIMBYs. I like Brighton, but this inaction and procrastination will cost it dearly over the long term. It's already losing/lost it's status as a top conference location. And every time Black Rock comes up most people I know roll their eyes; we've literally heard it many many times before so why should now be any different?

How old are you out of interest? I'm guessing early 20s? I had similar hope at that age.

 

[jackanada]

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?

I think the opinions of informed residents who will be partially funding such an enterprise are more valid than those in a London office. Have you read the "Office Numpties" thread (forget exact title)? I'm not trusting any opinion that gets total backing from an office.

The doughnut on a stick will just be an overpriced crappy experience that makes no difference to visitor numbers. People will come to Brighton and perhaps go on the doughnut, it is not going to attract a 'drop' as they call it in Vegas.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

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?

And those people in London won't actually have to pay for it if ( or more likely when ) the developer goes bust. As a B&H resident all my life I have no issue at all with the i360 in principle - any attempt to attract extra tourists has got to be a good thing. What erks me, no pisses me off in fact, is that we the tax payer have now been put at risk of paying the loan. The company that the money was lent to was already over £2m in debt and now are over £40m in debt. There are also strong links between individuals that own the development company and those that sat on the committee that awarded them the loan. Let's also not forget the under the table deal that allowed the Greens to get exactly the two Tory votes they needed to get it through council. Many of the local Tory councillors were set against the loan but Theobald did a deal.

If it was worth building financially then private enterprise would have built it. I only wish that had been the case. As a local I certainly won't be parting with the £20-£25 predicted charge for going on it either. Bring that down to a fiver and I would.

 

[symyjym]

Of course it wasn't voted for by the public. It followed the usual planning process in this country which is broadly speaking a vote by the council planning department after (lengthy) public consultation and presentations. Remember the process to get the AMEX built?

And my reasons for not getting involved this time is that it's pointless. I have lost count of the proposed KA projects which are always knocked back by busy-body local NIMBYs. I like Brighton, but this inaction and procrastination will cost it dearly over the long term. It's already losing/lost it's status as a top conference location. And every time Black Rock comes up most people I know roll their eyes; we've literally heard it many many times before so why should now be any different?

How old are you out of interest? I'm guessing early 20s? I had similar hope at that age.

early 20's I'm not. How old are you? I am guessing late 90's?

The KA project wasn't knocked back by Nimby's. Both the KA and Black Rock, in the end, couldn't get the financial backing, and had they managed to, they both would have been built. The costs for the projects spiraled out of control and became unrealistic fantasies.

For some reason to some, the towers and luxury holiday appartments became more important than the city building a decent leisure centre like Guilford managed at far less of a cost than the grand fanciful schemes our council have been trying to push through.

I have always been of firm belief that the King Alfred should be dedicated to sport and leisure, and I hope that any policy that tries to squeeze 450+ residential units on the site will always fail.

As I said it is illogical, in this day and age, to build an ice rink and leisure centre in separate places.

 

[drew]

early 20's I'm not. How old are you? I am guessing late 90's?

The KA project wasn't knocked back by Nimby's. Both the KA and Black Rock, in the end, couldn't get the financial backing, and had they managed to, they both would have been built. The costs for the projects spiraled out of control and became unrealistic fantasies.

For some reason to some, the towers and luxury holiday appartments became more important than the city building a decent leisure centre like Guilford managed at far less of a cost than the grand fanciful schemes our council have been trying to push through.

I have always been of firm belief that the King Alfred should be dedicated to sport and leisure, and I hope that any policy that tries to squeeze 450+ residential units on the site will always fail.

As I said it is illogical, in this day and age, to build an ice rink and leisure centre in separate places.

Unfortunately the KA is probably not the ideal site for a Spectrum or K2 style leisure centre, both of which could be the template for what is required for Brighton.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Every time another bit of the West Pier fell into the sea, there would be jolly Dr Geoff Lockwood standing on the windswept beach on camera in a Martin Perryesque anorak going 'ho ho we can rebuild it, no problem'.

Then you turn on the telly to Salvage Hunters and there's Rachel Clark flogging off the pier's historic wrought ironwork for thruppence.

With a 'Trust' like that, who needs enemies?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Every time another bit of the West Pier fell into the sea, there would be jolly Dr Geoff Lockwood standing on the windswept beach on camera in a Martin Perryesque anorak going 'ho ho we can rebuild it, no problem'.

Then you turn on the telly to Salvage Hunters and there's Rachel Clark flogging off the pier's historic wrought ironwork for thruppence.

With a 'Trust' like that, who needs enemies?

Rachel Clark was as useless as they come. The West Pier Trust was ( and I use the past tense as they barely exist anymore ) an old boys club made up of titled knobs and incompetent administrators. It pains me to say it but the old pier would have had a better chance if they sold it to Eubanks !

 

[symyjym]

Unfortunately the KA is probably not the ideal site for a Spectrum or K2 style leisure centre, both of which could be the template for what is required for Brighton.

The site is as close to ideal as we have in the city. What do you think the pros and cons of the site are?

 

[beorhthelm]

If it was worth building financially then private enterprise would have built it. I only wish that had been the case. As a local I certainly won't be parting with the £20-£25 predicted charge for going on it either. Bring that down to a fiver and I would.

im very much pro-i360, think it will be a brilliant addition to Brighton. however, this does sum up the problems. it shouldnt be using public funds, if its viable it doesnt need them. and £20 is a joke and i cant see many of the London day trippers going on it at that rate. it aint offering London Eye views, who offer 2 trips for £25.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

It's a shame we can't just build a super sports centre and make it pay for itself or subsidise? There is a distinct lack of decent facilities in B&H. Why do we need to tie it in with 700+ flats?

 

[sahel]

im very much pro-i360, think it will be a brilliant addition to Brighton. however, this does sum up the problems. it shouldnt be using public funds, if its viable it doesnt need them. and £20 is a joke and i cant see many of the London day trippers going on it at that rate. it aint offering London Eye views, who offer 2 trips for £25.

I could not agree less. Public funds should of course be used to generate economic activity that benefits people. Why do we subsidise rail travel? Why do we subsidise the arts? Why do we provide librairies? Why do we have public leisure centres? Why do we build roads? I could go on but it is getting boring. To make an informed decision on i360 you need to evaluate the economic impact, the opportunity cost of doing nothing, the potential increase in council tax , parking and other revenues. Have you done that? The private sector has a very narrow definition of viability and of risk and a very short term view of return. Many many things would not get done if the public sector used the same criteria

 

[symyjym]

It's a shame we can't just build a super sports centre and make it pay for itself or subsidise? There is a distinct lack of decent facilities in B&H. Why do we need to tie it in with 700+ flats?

As you can see below, the footprint for a full size ice rink, 50m competition pool, with a diving end, and a childrens pool takes up a little over a half of the King Alfred site.



So there is plenty of room for a super sports centre at the site, with room to spare.

 

[beorhthelm]

I could not agree less. Public funds should of course be used to generate economic activity that benefits people. Why do we subsidise rail travel? Why do we subsidise the arts? Why do we provide librairies? Why do we have public leisure centres? Why do we build roads? I could go on but it is getting boring.

if the cost of going on i360 was going to be 0 or close to it, like you examples (bar rail), you might be able to justify it. public subsidy must be justified by wide, common, public use or amenity. and the subsidy must be relative to the costs and benefits of the improvment. a tower on the beach doesnt cut it, its not like its going to be a draw to generate new tourism like if it was in say Hastings or one of the other run down seaside resorts. im sure there are other plans that could use that sort of cash more productively.

anyway raising parking costs or council tax due to this are bloody great negatives.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I could not agree less. Public funds should of course be used to generate economic activity that benefits people. Why do we subsidise rail travel ( because using public transport benefits everyone ) ? Why do we subsidise the arts ( very questionable why we should )? Why do we provide librairies ( reading benefits society as a whole and why should knowledge be only available to those that can afford it ? ) ? Why do we have public leisure centres ( the health benefits reduce the NHS bill ) ? Why do we build roads ( because we as a nation need goods to be able to get to places ) ? I could go on but it is getting boring. To make an informed decision on i360 you need to evaluate the economic impact, the opportunity cost of doing nothing, the potential increase in council tax , parking and other revenues. Have you done that? The private sector has a very narrow definition of viability and of risk and a very short term view of return. Many many things would not get done if the public sector used the same criteria

But the i360 isn't for the overall public / country benefit and the money is being loaned to a company already in financial trouble.

Using your argument the AMEX should have been built using public funds but I wouldn't have supported that ( even if it did happen in Hull ).

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

As you can see below, the footprint for a full size ice rink, 50m competition pool, with a diving end, and a childrens pool takes up a little over a half of the King Alfred site.

View attachment 63220

So there is plenty of room for a super sports centre at the site, with room to spare.

Is this what they are proposing now? I'd love a 50m pool in Brighton.

 

[8ace]

Arrested on suspicion of corporate manslaughter, apparently.

of Dave Clark

http://www.northstandchat.com/showthread.php?313411-dave-clarke

 

[symyjym]

Is this what they are proposing now? I'd love a 50m pool in Brighton.

No, it's something a local resident tried to bring to the attention of the council, after the Gehry failure, as what should be considered in in a new development.

This is the Argus story from 2009 http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/4767449.Hove_resident_draws_up _King_Alfred_plans/

It came with a video to help visualise the space;



The current policy for development is the same as the Gehry one but with 450 residential units instead of 750. They want a 25m pool, no diving, and a children’s pool. They have already chosen two developers who are vying for the tender. The council will then choose which one they want. http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1168...r_Kin g_Alfred_Leisure_Centre_develo pment/

 

[oneillco]

I think the opinions of informed residents who will be partially funding such an enterprise are more valid than those in a London office. Have you read the "Office Numpties" thread (forget exact title)? I'm not trusting any opinion that gets total backing from an office.

The doughnut on a stick will just be an overpriced crappy experience that makes no difference to visitor numbers. People will come to Brighton and perhaps go on the doughnut, it is not going to attract a 'drop' as they call it in Vegas.

I would say that when building a tourist attraction the views of potential visitors from London are pretty crucial. If you made tourism decisions based on the views of local residents as expressed in the Argus letters page or certain contributions to NSC then a wall would be built blocking the M23 at Pease Pottage and trains would terminate at Balcombe.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

How old are you? I am guessing late 90's?

Ouch. Nope, but I sometimes feel it.