Futuristic towers on Hove seafront would generate jobs, provide housing and attract tourists injecting up to £32 million a year into the economy, according to a new report.

Financial experts hired by the city council to assess the two remaining proposals for the King Alfred site have come down firmly in favour of Piers Gough and Frank Gehry's design, submitted by the Karis ING consortium.

They say the skyscrapers, whose wonky upper-levels have been likened by some to crumpled tin cans, would prove a draw to ten times as many tourists and attract wealthier buyers than the streamlined design proposed by Barratt/Brunswick.

The council commissioned Hill-Smith Associates and the University of Brighton to investigate the long-term economic impact of both.

Deputy chief executive Alan McCarthy said Karis would add between £25 million and £32 million to the economy while Barratt/Brunswick would be worth £15 million to £21 million.

Mr McCarthy said: "The additional visits to the city generated by the Karis scheme would be ten times those resulting from the Barratt scheme."

Both would provide a similar number of jobs during construction, perhaps 700, while after completion, they could both produce 400 to 600 jobs.

The Karis scheme is for a huge leisure centre at low level surrounded by the towers, the tallest of which would dwarf Sussex Heights.

The Barratt project, designed by "blinking-eye bridge" architects Wilkinson Eyre, has shorter towers set around the leisure complex in a ship-like structure.

Brighton and Hove policy committee has to make a decision on which scheme to back on Thursday next week.

Mr McCarthy said: "In terms of image, employment, visitor numbers and overall effect on the city's gross domestic product, the Karis scheme clearly leads.

"This appears to be a combination of the architectural and artistic team and the provision of additional public spaces - the winter garden and high-level viewing gallery and restaurant."

The report says the two sports centres would have a similar impact. They would each save more than £100,000 annually on the present operation.

The number of users would increase by 75 per cent and the subsidy per user would halve.

But the Barratt scheme would be more beneficial to the city's housing budget because it provides a greater number of affordable homes.

A city council spokesman said: "This is part of one of three reports the project board is due to base any recommendation on."