Asif bondi wasnt already crowded enough

[brenno05]

Artifical Reef

What? No more closeouts? Local surfer Rob Stutz has a meeting with Waverley Council tomorrow night (Thurs Nov 15) at 6:30pm to discuss the possibilities of an artificial reef in the Bondi southern corner converting 'the boot' (behind Bergs) into a supabank. Rob 0405 140 973


source* www.aquabumps.com.au
wed 15th november

[Beanpole]

I reckon rebuild the beach volleyball court. That created the best banks for yonks. Or fire the beach bulldozer.

[chopescahrger]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

i dont really care for them building a reef i reckon it would be great
but y dont they build it around north bondi point gets way more swell and is better option would be less crowds at tama and bronte

[Realbooger]

Hahaha not going to be allowed... council will be like, yeeeeh.... no!

[chopescahrger]

i dont know if theyll reject it
waverly councils bloody greedy and if they can rake some dough in theyll do it
if they put a reef there and theres not to many like they r proposing around the place
bondi could be actually a recognised surfing spot and not just mecca for asian tourists in business suits and this would mean more people coming and more people parking and coping parking fines and there are ridiculous amounts of parking metres around bondi and so ultimatley the more people who go there the more money they get from parking fines and then there happy
i dont care about bondi but if they go ahead with it and it overcrowds tama or bronte there all fu(kers

[ether]

Makes me wonder what is actually involved in convincing a council to put in an artificial reef. I've heard of so many of them being proposed over the years and so few actually happening.

Is it just a cost thing? If I'm Mr Super $$$ and I show up to a council and offer to build the whole thing out of my pocket is it all cool?

Or is it more a case of 'let's commission an environmental survey, look at the long term effects on local marine life, sand distribution, etc etc', which will probably conclude that there's some element of risk to building one (however small) in which case better to do nothing. It's one of those things that I just don't get.

[Beanpole]

The rabid greens in the council wouldn't allow it unless you said it was an underwater cycling lane
If you made it at Nth Bondi you couldn't surf it anyway because of the flags :?

Its pretty deep off the Boot but if you made one it could be like Cronulla Point
They could do the same at Coogee

[thermalben]

Makes me wonder what is actually involved in convincing a council to put in an artificial reef.

A large part is convincing them that they won't get sued by anyone surfing the reef.

[buzzy]

I reckon it's a fantastic idea. Waverly Council has gouged residents and visitors alike for eons. They've built and funded a big skatepark and other parks in the municipality. Surfing would drive far more income for Council than any other recreational activity. It's fair for them to fund it, and it would probably aid Bondi in promoting itself to visitors....Bondi businesses are struggling at the moment.

Personally, I reckon there should be more of this stuff.

So far as litigation is concerned provided there's adequate signage etc the Civil Liability Act should protect Council, but it's likely to be the biggest reason for council to say "no". There'd be no significant environmental detriments.

[Chong]

I would want to know how it was going to effect the rest of the beach in terms of sand flow. Not that Bondi is a series of hossegoresque peaks but if the reef meant that the rest of the beach was even less surfable then the crowd would be focussed on one peak which would be frickin ridiculous.

Also the only decent artificial reef built to date is the Mt Reef in NZ - www.mountreef.co.nz which actually produces the goods whereas everything else (WA, Narrowneck) has been decidedly average.

As a previous poster suggested that Volley Ball stadium was awesome for banks.......

[bc]

I recon they could pitch it as a tourism thing.
-with the dropping numbers of shoppers and backpackers coming to Bondi, the council is looking for a new publicity angle.
This new break could do it for a regular series of competitions.

Would it make it more crowded?
-It would have to be an exceptional wave to drag people from other beaches, and it shouldn't affect the other waves along the beach.

[thermalben]

I'll throw my hat into the ring supporting an artificial reef at Bondi - I reckon it's a great idea, and over the coming years we'll probably see them popping up all around the country.

[incontrol]

there already is a wave at the boot, but its a bit knarly for surfers so mainly boadyboarders ride it. Its pretty crap really. They are proposing to move around boulders rather than construct any kind of reef. No way that will work.

[ether]

there already is a wave at the boot, but its a bit knarly for surfers so mainly boadyboarders ride it. Its pretty crap really.

Crap? It's almost non-existent. I live a bee's d!ck from there and could count the number of times I've seen anyone on it on one hand. And yes, boogers only, for 2 sec rides.

[lovenutz]

no chance of this happening. as if the council would let people change the face or australias premier beach.
there are so many waves that could have been good around this area though but didnt quite cut it...eg the boot, ben buckler, mackas point, bronte reef, cemos, harries, bombie, pebble, wedding cake, southy, etc
sometimes i imagine if these were all good waves instead. maybe a bit of global warming will help some off them produce some good waves.

[2nd Reef]

I'll throw my hat into the ring supporting an artificial reef at Bondi - I reckon it's a great idea, and over the coming years we'll probably see them popping up all around the country.

Two things Ben;

1) Litigation. Will local govt. allow them?

2) Precedent. What will happen when, after all the artificial reefs pop up, the other ocean users, say fisherman, want to alter the ocean shore? What if they want to build a mariner and, in the process, destroy a surf spot/s. Remember the Kirra mariner proposal? Or the Shallows at Shellharbour? (which may still go ahead). What argument have we got if we are altering the ocean shore for our purposes?

[thermalben]

Two things Ben;

1) Litigation. Will local govt. allow them?

2) Precedent. What will happen when, after all the artificial reefs pop up, the other ocean users, say fisherman, want to alter the ocean shore? What if they want to build a mariner and, in the process, destroy a surf spot/s. Remember the Kirra mariner proposal? Or the Shallows at Shellharbour? (which may still go ahead). What argument have we got if we are altering the ocean shore for our purposes?

I really don't have enough experience to comment on these issues with any authority, but my gut feel is that we probably won't see an artificial reef at Bondi for a long time, probably due to litigation risks (some enviro concerns are likely to pop up if this were to get to EIA level too). Although the benefits are more than apparent to many of us, councils tend to take a long time to reach agreement on these matters. And an artificial reef is not like a skate ramp or a tennis court (that can be "locked" at night), we're dealing with a lot of loose variables, some of which are at risk of causing serious injury or death to someone (to look at the extreme end of the scale, which is what the council will do). As the safe option costs the council a lot less money and fewer headaches, I reckon they'll swing that way in the short term.

Re: precedent (again, just voicing my opinion here, with no qualification) - I reckon surfers are in a better situation than we used to be, as surfing's acceptance within the broader community means that our opinions are a little more likely to be taken on board. However, it's a fair call - why can't boaties/divers/fishers also have their ideas developed and implemented too? I suppose the case for a reef at Bondi has a lot of marketing and promotion merit, which in turn generates revenue, which will always be viewed in a favourable light by those supplying the funds.

However, just to look at the fisherman example - we've been down this path in some shape or form for a number of years now (offshore tyre reefs, scuttled ships, etc). I don't know what they'd want in the near-shore zone though!

I planned on going to the meeting last night, but got swamped with work - can anyone shed any light on what happened?

[AZ]

The litigation point is a strong one at Bondi, especially after there was the guy who became a quadraplegic after diving into shallow water there. He was initially awarded $4 million against Waverly council, although I think it was overturned in the end.