Travel writer Chris Leadbeater posed a few interesting questions recently about Brighton’s West Pier which made me wonder – could relics like this become the new tourist attractions just like crumbling old castles?
The West Pier was closed in 1975 and after years of battering by the sea, was eventually destroyed by two fires in 2002, leaving only the iron structure to rise out of the English Channel. Previously I’d always looked at this and wondered why it wasn’t knocked down as it seemed to be an eyesore, but then I began to wonder – what is the difference between the West Pier and say Kendal Castle, both of which are simply shells.
There are plenty of people who would be horrified if this or any other crumbling old castle was to be pulled down even though they serve little practical purpose beyond being of interest to tourists. Given a few more years and a little marketing, could Brighton’s West Pier be classified under the same criteria as somewhere to view, if not perhaps visit directly?
You could argue that a rusty old structure doesn’t have the same appeal as a stone castle, but then an awful lot of people visit the Angel of the North which is rusty by design and I’ve not heard too many complaining about that being an eyesore. Rather all the people from Gateshead I’ve seen comment on it have been very proud of it.
Whether this applies to Brighton’s West Pier, that I’ll have to let you decide, but perhaps its not quite as bad as it first appeared?
Brighton Links:
Tourist attractions in Brighton
Hotels in Brighton
Self-catering in Brighton
