Loan approved - but take the longer view with the i360

Recent statements by architect Marks Barfield and the council need some clarification.

Marks Barfield says the pod is now capable of carrying 200 people to the top of the tower in ten minutes before returning them comfortably back to ground.

My guess on the overall time frame is considerably longer: five minutes for boarding, ten to ascend, five for viewing (plenty long enough, there’s not much to look at), five minutes descending and another five unloading. That’s a total of 30 minutes.

The council says the tower could handle 600 people an hour. By my guess, however you massage the figures, that plainly just isn’t possible.

How many hours per year will the tower be open? Assuming the daily times will vary with the seasons and factoring in maintenance off-time, what is the anticipated average passenger complement per trip?

What are the planned rates for adults and children and, from that, the revenue set against operating costs?

This all points to a highly risky venture unless it will generate compensating financial benefits for the city. Concerning the structural design, has the live weight of the additional 100 moving passengers been covered?

Will it be the great attraction the council and developers think it will be?

It is being compared to the Palace Pier. Would you go on the pier more than once? Would you take a ride on the i360 more than once?

Brian Beck, Highdown Road, Lewes

We'd rather have an ice rink

I find it absolutely disgusting that Brighton and Hove City Council is prepared to loan £36 million pounds for the i360 viewing tower on the seafront yet has not even offered a penny towards opening a new ice rink in the city.

Thousands of people have been involved in campaigning for a new ice rink and this has been going on for more than a decade.

A new rink would offer a safe environment for young people, cutting boredom and antisocial behaviour, encourage exercises and tackle obesity. It would attract people to the area through ice hockey tournaments and such, benefiting the local economy and provide new activities for the disabled such as sledge hockey.

A tower will be used once by most people. It will tackle none of these issues. I really cannot understand it.

Abi Feldwicke, Stafford Road, Seaford

We've got our priorities wrong

So let’s get this straight. Brighton and Hove’s Green administration, with the support of the Tories, will underwrite a loan for the building of the i360. It is also reported that the cost of the project has doubled since July 2012. In effect this places the council in debt for the next 25 years.

This, at a time when the council cannot even get our rubbish and recycling collected on time or, in some cases, at all.

Has the world gone completely mad?

Surely the priority of any local council is to get the basics right for the community it serves, and work upwards from that?

Peter Atkinson, Labour and Cooperative candidate for Portslade North

Council must encourage tourism

So the “doughnut on a pole” is expected to bring up to 305,000 new visitors to the city. What a joke.

How does this Green administration hope to achieve that? Do the Greens expect them to come on bicycles? They certainly won’t want to come by car to be ripped off with exorbitant parking charges.

This city needs to be a bit more car-friendly to attract more visitors but that is never going to happen all the time we have the Greens.

Our council makes the most money from the motorist outside London and is the only council in England to try to raise council tax by 4.75%. I can only assume they either cannot manage their finances or spend too much on pet projects.

John Dace, Cleveland Road, Brighton

If it’s too good to be true...

So the Conservatives have joined the Greens to finance the i360 and seem to think that the financial risk is minimal. But can that be true?

Well, the construction will certainly not be easy and the height and difficult site may throw up unforeseen problems. The viewing platform will be dependent on sophisticated controls and will have to withstand gale-force winds and salt spray.

Under these conditions, day to day running may be a problem and the significant levels of salt corrosion will lead to high maintenance costs. Running costs may well be higher than the developer’s estimates.

However, the major concern must be the projected visitor numbers and income. After the opening peak, the prediction is for 700,000 paying customers every year. This is more than twice the numbers visiting the Royal Pavilion.

The Royal Pavilion is a world-class tourist destination in the heart of our tourist area. The i360 is well away from the centre, difficult to access with public transport and, in the winter months, devoid of any tourists. A predicted figure of twice the visitors of the Royal Pavilion must be regarded as wildly optimistic.

A glance at the attendance figures for the Brighton Wheel might have been a useful exercise. In summer on most days just a handful of pods are occupied and in winter you may be lucky to see anyone using it. And, of course, the wheel is at the centre of tourist activity.

So perhaps it is not surprising that no private investors have been willing to invest in it.

There is a phrase often used by financial advisers: if it’s too good to be true, it probably is.

If those visitor numbers are wildly optimistic then the projected income from the operator’s profits and the revenue from regeneration will disappear and the council will just be left with having to find all the money to pay off the £36 million – not ideal if you want to maintain council services. Should a council really be playing such a high risk game?

Malcolm Dawes, chairman, The Brighton Society

It's nothing new

Fifty years ago, in March 1964, plans were submitted to build a massive tower on Brighton seafront between the piers, on the same site as the proposed i360.

It was to be 1,000ft high, built on a 300ft pier, with bars, a restaurant and a marine attraction, with three lifts and able to carry 1,500 people an hour, to the top, at a cost of £1 million pounds. It was to be called The Sky Deck. It came to nothing.

A picture of this can be seen in the book Brighton: The Century In Photographs, Volume 11 by Christopher Horlock (page 109).

So the i360 is nothing new. Is it just the same red herring with a higher price tag for the next generation to pay for?

E Bartup, Overhill, Southwick

And what's plan B?

In the main Brighton and Hove has been allowed to become a lacklustre city; it will remain so until some attempt is made to smarten it up.

On leaving Brighton Station, visitors are confronted by Queen’s Road – need I say more? Walk down to the Clock Tower – no improvement.

At a time of straitened finances we should not rush into accepting loans. But if it is decided to spend money we can ill-afford, surely we should be spending it on projects of long-term benefit for visitors and the community and virtually guarantee a return on investment.

Do our councillors really think tourists are going to flock into a rundown area with rotten parking and little else to offer to pay exorbitant prices for a view of it?

And what is plan B when its limited life span, which may be shortened by rising sea levels, comes to an end? Borrow more money, assuming the original debt has been honoured?

Neil Kelly, Tredcroft Road, Hove