A Quick Overview
From the February 2025 Newsletter
The i360, was it a vanity project or a failed economic fantasy? Perhaps some in the council thought it might be their legacy, a new addition to the city’s heritage? Oh, foolish dreamers of the day. When did this folly start? The BBC News article on 6 March 2014 might shed some light on things. It reported that the then council leader, Jason Kitcat, said the council would take out a government loan for the i360 scheme from the Public Works Loan Board, then pass it on to developers. “It would earn the council over £21m in interest payments and fees, which could be used to repair seafront arches, structures, sea defences and walls that are currently in need of £70m repairs. The project was crucial for revitalising the city’s tourism industry and seafront and would be a clear signal the city was open for business”. Furthermore, the council said the i360 was projected to earn three times more than it needed to cover its loan repayments.
The i360, a 162-metre tall “vertical pier”, was seen as a British attempt at the “Bilbao effect”, Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim art gallery, that attracted visitors and also revitalised urban areas, but this viewing platform is not a Guggenheim. It’s a pity Kitcat and his council didn’t listen to local people who campaigned against this scheme and the public loan at the time. In a letter dated 20 July 2012 to the Argus, Selma Montford (then our secretary), wrote: “In order to generate enough cash to repay the loan, the i360 will need to attract at least 480,000 visitors a year. This is more than 1,300 a day at almost 40 people per ride. Given there will be days in the winter when there will be few, if any, visitors the i360 pod will need to be full on most rides on summer days. This seems a very optimistic assumption. Any money lost as a result of the scheme will have to be found from the council’s budget and will therefore be a cost to taxpayers. In this sense, it is public money being put at risk for a commercial enterprise – and it’s a risk no bank has been willing to take over the past five years”.
Officials at the i360 consultation meeting were reported to have laughed at this criticism.
Malcolm Dawes, when chair of the Brighton Society, in a letter dated 11 March 2014 to the Argus, wrote: “The major concern must be the projected visitor numbers and income. After the opening peak, the council’s prediction is for 700,000 to 750,000 paying customers every year. This is more than twice the numbers visiting the Royal Pavilion, a world class tourist destination”. These public concerns were ignored and the councillors went ahead and agreed to take out £36.2m from the Public Works Loan Board.
One consultancy firm estimated that approximately 347,000 people would have to visit each year for the loan to be paid back to the council. Between 2016 and 2023, 1,878,000 people visited the i360 – averaging 268,429 visitors a year. This average might be skewed as there would have been an initial interest at the opening, then a drop off in numbers.
The council said the actual loss to the council relates to the underlying loan debt and interest repayable to the government which stands at about £32m. The old adage “Look before you leap” clearly was ignored and the city today is potentially falling down a financial black hole. Failure to make a proper financial assessment of a project’s capacity to deliver a profitable return affects important assets in the city – our existing heritage assets being some of them. A detailed inquiry is needed to prevent any similar mistakes being made in the future.
What of the i360’s future? Who would want to take on ownership of a loss making “attraction”? An announcement on 23 January in the local press said that there is apparently a mystery buyer who will. Let’s hope it all works out, otherwise this white elephant might become another West Pier.
