DOME PHASE TWO: GORDON’S BAY AND STRAND TO BE CONNECTED BY TUNNEL AND THE HELDERBERG HAS OFFICIALLY LOST THE PLOT
THE HELDERBURGER — PHASE TWO EMERGENCY EDITION We Apologise For Nothing. The Story Went This Way On Its Own.
Ink was barely dry on our exclusive dome coverage before Mr Khalid’s representative — a man who appears to operate entirely without sleep or doubt — contacted the Helderburger on Monday morning to announce that Phase Two of the Gordon’s Bay Coastal Vision Project was already in conceptual development and that the investor wished to share preliminary details with the community before the community found out through WhatsApp which the representative acknowledged was going to happen anyway and probably already had.
It had. The Gordon’s Bay Community Group had a screenshot of the Phase Two renders by Sunday evening. The Strand Beachfront Residents group had it by Sunday evening plus four minutes. Councillor van der Merwe received it Monday morning from his wife who received it from her book club who received it from someone whose cousin works near the business forum and the councillor has confirmed he did not sleep well Sunday night though he declined to specify why.
Phase Two is as follows.
A fully transparent tunnel and bridge structure connecting the Gordon’s Bay dome precinct to the Strand beachfront spanning the full width of the bay and functioning simultaneously as a pedestrian walkway a swimming lane a paddle ski channel a kayak route a jet ski corridor a rubber duck passage and whatever other mode of water-based transit a visitor might require provided that visitor is renting the equipment from the designated on-site rental facility because personal equipment will under no circumstances be permitted and this is non-negotiable and is written in bold in the Phase Two document which unlike the Phase One document smells even more expensive and has a cover photograph of the bay taken from a helicopter which nobody in Gordon’s Bay knew was there.
THE STRUCTURE ITSELF
The proposed crossing is described in the concept document as a “multi-modal transparent coastal transit and leisure corridor” which is the kind of phrase that takes a simple idea and makes it sound like it was designed by a committee of architects who were also writing a thesis.
In practical terms it would work as follows.
The tunnel portion runs underwater for the deeper section of the bay and is constructed from the same ETFE transparent foil system used in the dome allowing occupants to look directly into the ocean as they transit which the document describes as “an immersive sub-aquatic experiential journey” and which Oom Frikkie Esterhuizen described when shown the renders as “swimming inside a see-through pipe” which is also accurate.
The bridge portion rises above the waterline at both the shallower ends and connects at the Gordon’s Bay side directly into the dome precinct and at the Strand side into a proposed new waterfront reception hub described in the document as “a gateway arrival experience” and which from the renders appears to be a very large and very glass building with a lot of plants inside and staff wearing linen.
The full crossing distance from dome to Strand beachfront is approximately four kilometres. Transit time on foot is estimated at forty-five minutes to an hour. By paddle ski twenty-five minutes. By kayak thirty minutes depending on paddling fitness which the document notes diplomatically and at length. By jet ski the document estimates eight minutes though it notes that jet ski speed inside the tunnel corridor will be strictly governed and monitored because the tunnel is also a walkway and a swim lane and a paddle ski channel simultaneously and the document acknowledges in a footnote that the logistics of this require “further operational refinement.”
This is the document’s only moment of uncertainty. Everything else is presented with the confidence of a man standing on a boat in calm water who has not yet looked at the weather forecast.
THE RENTAL SITUATION
All equipment used within the crossing corridor and the dome precinct will be available exclusively through the Gordon’s Bay Coastal Vision Rental and Experience Centre which will be located at both ends of the crossing and which the document promises will stock kayaks paddle skis jet skis rubber ducks pedal boats electric aqua-scooters and what is referred to on page eight as “additional aquatic mobility solutions to be confirmed at commercial launch.”
Personal equipment is not permitted. This is stated four times in the Phase Two document. Once in the introduction once in the operational guidelines once in the terms and conditions summary and once in a shaded text box on page eleven which contains only the words “YOUR OWN EQUIPMENT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED” in a font that feels less like information and more like a boundary being firmly established.
The reason given for this policy is described as “quality consistency and safety standardisation across the visitor experience corridor” which Bakkies Kleinhans of Ocean Riders read aloud to his lawyer and then sat in silence for a moment before saying he needed a glass of water.
Bakkies has been selling and renting surf and kite equipment in this area for fourteen years. His rental operation represents a significant portion of his annual revenue. The Coastal Vision Rental and Experience Centre is proposing to rent equipment of the kind Bakkies sells from a facility four kilometres long with access points at both ends of the bay and a captive audience of tourists who have no other legal option.
Bakkies’s lawyer has requested a copy of the full Phase Two document. The lawyer’s mood has been described by those present as “focused.”
GORDON’S BAY REACTS AGAIN BECAUSE OF COURSE IT DOES
Corné Pietersen who at this point has submitted more correspondence to more authorities about this project than he has sent in total in the preceding decade said he had updated his question list for Mr Khalid’s representative and that it now contained eighty-nine items.
New additions include questions about structural engineering tolerances for the underwater tunnel section during sustained southeaster-driven wave action questions about what happens inside the transparent tunnel if a large marine animal makes contact with the exterior and questions about the operational protocol for simultaneous jet ski and pedestrian use of a four kilometre enclosed corridor which he noted in his covering letter was “the kind of thing that normally gets discussed quite seriously before a structure is announced to the public rather than after.”
He has also asked about parking. He asks about parking in every submission. No one has answered the parking question. He does not intend to stop asking.
Ruan Fick who has been escalating steadily since the original wall story said the tunnel bridge was in his opinion genuinely impressive as a concept and that he hated how genuinely impressive it was as a concept because it made it harder to object to and he intended to object to it anyway on principle and also on the grounds of the rental equipment monopoly which he called “the part where the vision becomes a business model” in a tone that suggested he did not mean this as a compliment.
Jannie Strydom of the Harbour Arms said he had now had time to reflect on Phase One and Phase Two together and his assessment was that Mr Khalid appeared to be building a small country inside Gordon’s Bay and that small countries historically had complicated relationships with the places they were built inside of and he felt this was worth noting.
He is still waiting for a meeting. He has followed up twice. The follow-ups have been acknowledged.
STRAND REACTS TO BEING INCLUDED
Strand’s reaction to Phase Two has been complicated by the fact that Strand was not mentioned in Phase One at all and is now suddenly the other end of a four kilometre transparent tunnel and the community’s feelings about this contain multitudes.
Charmaine Hendricks who wrote in previously about her tablecloth and the stop sign said she was delighted to be included and asked whether the Strand arrival hub would have somewhere to sit down and a toilet that worked which she said was more than could currently be claimed for the existing beachfront facilities.
Councillor van der Merwe issued a statement welcoming the inclusion of Strand in the Phase Two concept and describing it as “validation of the Strand beachfront’s strategic importance as a coastal destination node” and making no reference to the fact that his original wind wall proposal appears to have triggered a chain of events culminating in a Middle Eastern billionaire proposing to connect the two towns with a transparent underwater tunnel staffed by people in linen.
Miems Botha the retired schoolteacher said she had one concern about the tunnel which was that she was not a strong swimmer and asked whether the walkway portion was fully enclosed and dry and when told yes it was fully enclosed and dry said that was fine then and she would try it but she wanted to know if there was somewhere to hold onto because she did not entirely trust her balance on a good day and a moving walkway next to jet skis sounded like a situation that required a railing.
There will be railings. This is confirmed on page four of the Phase Two document. Miems has been informed.
THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE NOT CALM
The Helderberg Green Coalition held an emergency meeting about Phase Two which by all accounts was significantly less calm than the Phase One emergency meeting which was itself not particularly calm.
The coalition’s primary concern with the underwater tunnel section is the construction methodology. An underwater transparent tunnel spanning four kilometres of active bay requires either a submerged floating tunnel structure anchored to the seabed or a bored tunnel or a combination approach and all of these involve seabed disturbance of a nature and scale that the coalition describes as “an environmental event not a construction project.”
False Bay and the broader Table Mountain National Park Marine Protected Area designation means that any seabed disturbance requires permits authorisations assessments and approvals from a list of regulatory bodies that the coalition has compiled and which runs to fourteen lines and includes SANParks the Department of Forestry Fisheries and the Environment the National Ports Authority the South African Maritime Safety Authority the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure and what the coalition calls “others yet to be identified which is itself a concern.”
The coalition has also raised the question of what a four kilometre transparent structure does to light penetration in the water column beneath it and whether this affects the kelp and seagrass ecosystems that support the bay’s fish populations and by extension the entire marine food chain which includes the whales and nobody wants to be the project that affected the whales.
Tannie Sannie Rousseau attended this meeting as well and raised the bird question again with specific reference to the bridge section which is above the waterline and against which seabirds would fly at speed. The chairperson acknowledged her concern. Tannie Sannie sat down. She has purchased a book about ETFE foil and bird strike mitigation. She is reading it. She is taking notes.
The coalition’s third petition is live. It has 2 400 signatures. It is growing faster than the first two. The coalition believes this reflects increasing public concern. The Helderburger believes it also reflects the fact that people enjoy signing petitions about things that are very large and very unusual and a four kilometre underwater transparent tunnel is both of those things.
BAKKIES KLEINHANS MAKES A FORMAL STATEMENT
Bakkies requested space in the Helderburger for a formal statement which we are printing in full at his request.
“I want to be very clear about what is happening here. A private investor is proposing to build a four kilometre enclosed rental-only water corridor across a public bay. Inside that corridor you will only be allowed to use equipment rented from his company. Your own kayak which you bought and paid for and have paddled in this bay for years will not be permitted. Your own paddle ski will not be permitted. Your own rubber duck which you inflated yourself and carried to the water yourself will not be permitted.
This is not a tourism development. This is a monopoly built inside a tunnel and I have asked my lawyer to look into whether a private operator can legally impose exclusive equipment rental conditions on a crossing of a public waterway and my lawyer says it is a very interesting question and that interesting is not always good.
I want to be clear that I do not object to development. I do not object to tourism. I do not object to Mr Khalid who I have not met but who by all accounts has a very good smile. I object to the part where my customers are legally prohibited from using their own equipment in a bay they have paddled in their whole lives because a dome needed a second phase.
I am still bringing my lawyer. My lawyer is now also bringing a colleague.”
MR KHALID’S REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDS TO EVERYTHING
Reached on Tuesday afternoon Mr Khalid’s representative made himself available for a longer conversation than previously and the following is a summary of his responses to the main points of contention.
On the rental equipment monopoly he said the policy existed to ensure safety standardisation and that all rental equipment would be maintained to the highest international standards and that visitors would find the rental experience seamless and enjoyable and competitively priced and that Mr Khalid understood this was a sensitive point for existing local operators and was open to discussing a partnership model with established local businesses though he offered no specific detail on what that model might involve.
When the name Bakkies Kleinhans was mentioned he said Mr Khalid was aware of Mr Kleinhans and found his passion admirable. When told Mr Kleinhans now had two lawyers he said Mr Khalid found that admirable also.
On the environmental concerns he said the project team included environmental specialists of international standing and that all required assessments and authorisations would be obtained through the proper regulatory processes and that Mr Khalid had developed projects in jurisdictions with stringent environmental requirements before and was comfortable with the process.
On the whale question he said Mr Khalid remained very fond of the whales.
On the parking question forwarded from Corné Pietersen he said there would be significant structured parking at both ends of the crossing and that this had been planned from the beginning and he was sorry it had not been communicated more clearly earlier.
Corné Pietersen has been informed about the parking. He has submitted four follow-up questions about the parking specifically. The questions are detailed. The representative has acknowledged receipt.
THE QUESTION THIS NEWSPAPER FEELS OBLIGED TO ASK
The Helderburger is a community publication. We cover municipal meetings garden competitions and the occasional wind-related incident. We are not accustomed to covering sovereign wealth level infrastructure proposals spanning the full width of a coastal bay.
We therefore want to ask on behalf of the community a question that has not yet been formally asked in any public forum.
Who owns the bay.
The water between Gordon’s Bay and Strand is not private property. It is a public waterway falling within South Africa’s maritime jurisdiction. The seabed beneath it is state property. The airspace above it is regulated. A four kilometre transparent tunnel crossing that bay whether above or below the waterline involves the use of public resources of a nature and scale that goes considerably beyond what a business forum concept document and a helicopter photograph can authorise.
We are not saying the project is wrong. We are not saying it is right. We are saying that a project of this nature requires a level of public participation regulatory oversight and democratic accountability that has not yet been discussed and that the community of the Helderberg deserves to have that conversation before the concept becomes a contract.
We are also saying the southeaster is currently in day seven and is blowing at ninety-four kilometres per hour and the tunnel is going to have to be very well engineered.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED THIS WEEK THAT REQUIRES NO ELABORATION
Unsigned note — Gordon’s Bay
What happens if someone falls off the jet ski inside the tunnel.
Email — Pieter — surname withheld
I cannot swim. Can I still use the walkway section. Also is it air conditioned. Also who is responsible if there is a shark.
WhatsApp message — forwarded eleven times before reaching us
My husband says this is the beginning of the end. I say it is the beginning of something and we will see. We have been married for thirty-eight years and this is basically how we discuss everything.
Letter — handwritten — Strand
I want to walk across the bay. I have wanted to walk across the bay my entire life. I do not care about the rest of it. I want to walk across the bay. Please build the tunnel. Regards, Margaret.
Email — Gary — still no surname
I asked who is cleaning the wall. Nobody answered. Now there is also a tunnel. Who is cleaning the tunnel. I need to know who is cleaning the tunnel. There will be condensation. There will be seagulls on the bridge section. Someone has to clean it. Who is it. Give me a name.
The Helderburger notes that Gary raises a legitimate point about maintenance and has forwarded his query to Mr Khalid’s representative who has acknowledged receipt and says someone will come back to Gary. We will follow up on Gary’s behalf. Gary deserves an answer. Gary has been asking questions since Phase One and his questions are always practical and always ignored and that is not right.
The Helderburger — Connecting Communities — Sometimes Literally — Apparently.
Phase Three coverage will appear in our next edition assuming there is a Phase Three which at this point nobody is ruling out. If Mr Khalid proposes a cable car we will not be surprised. We will report it. We will ask Gary who is cleaning it.