choosing your units

The Reef
1

@reeflings
As agreed, here’s a form for full and associate members to indicate the three units they prefer, in order of preference.
We are still using the Obélix, Astérix, Idéfix designations because that’s what the architects put on the plans.
To assist you in choosing, you have at least these two sources:

Please fill out the form before Monday 21h. This is when Els will start processing your answers to prepare for Tuesday’s plenary meeting.

4 Likes
2

hi @marcelh
Afgelopen woensdag hadden we een presentatie van de architecten met een eerste voorstel van een opdeling van de gebouwen in apartementen. De afmetingen van de apartementen komen min of meer overeen met wat gevraagd werd.
Om een idee te krijgen wie wat zou nemen, zouden we graag hebben dat je je eerste, tweede en voorkeur ingeeft voor jouw appartement. (link naar de google form staat in de post hierboven). Je kan ook bij elke voorkeur opmerkingen meegeven (bv maximaal x m2, …)
Mocht je graag wat meer uitleg nodig hebben over de plannen of deze google form, let us know…

De link naar de plannen vind je in de post hierboven van Joannes.

1 Like
3

@reeflings
mieke and joannes noted that on the plans/profils shared by the architects, there is no profile of the buildings projected on the left-side wall.
If this is an important info for you when choosing your 3 preferred units: there are the results of the land surveyor that gives an indication of the height of the left side wall…

3 Likes
4

Hi @reef-building, when I make my top 3, I don’t know if I will be able to afford these options, because it will depend on the price fork, which is unknown so far.

Do you think that all top floor apartments (in the front, middle and back building) will be in the highest price fork or not necessarily? If that would be a sure thing, I would like to take that already into account when making my top 3.

Thanks for your help.

5

Hi Mieke and @reeflings, I just made a VERY ROUGH simulation of the price fork: https://c301.nl.tabdigital.eu/f/178895.

Technical point on just how rough it is

I have not bothered to impose the condition that the sum of the price of all units is equal to the total construction cost.

SUM(apartment price x apartment surface) = medium price x total surface

In real life, this is important to have, because it makes sure that, once everyone has paid for their unit, the costs of the project are entirely covered.

Since there are more lower floor units than upper floor ones, there will be a discrepancy. it is likely that the coefficients in my simulation (-10%, -3.33%, +3.33%, +10%) might need to be tweaked upwards to make up for the discrepancy. For example -8.5%, -2%, +3.33%, +10%. You are welcome to add this condition if yoy feel like it.,

Each unit is assigned a “discount coefficient” from -10% to +10% depending on the floor it is in, with two exceptions. The logic is explained in the spreadsheet.

You can also play with it, for example with a narrower fork of -5% to +5%. To do so, enter the value you want in cell J1.

The real thing will be more sophisticated, but in the end the floor reflects sunlight, quiet and privacy, so it is a reasonably good proxy.

It seems reasonable that at least O8, O9, O10 and I5 would be in the top category, yes. Jury is out for A7 and A8.

7 Likes
6

Thanks for this Alberto!

Just a remark: for the price per m2 you took 4370, but in fact it would be 4438 no?

And for confirmation, this doesn’t include the 10% security margin, does it?

7

The price is a parameter. You can change it in the Excel, and the simulation adapts.

No

1 Like
8

Thank you so much for doing that simulation Alberto! It helps me to get a better idea of the price range of the different units :+1:.

1 Like
9

Hi @alberto !
Thanks for all your work :slight_smile:
I think there might be a mistake though.
In the architects ‘typologie’ document (Login – Nextcloud) they have eight 2-bedrooms and five 3-bedrooms. But in your document, it is six of the former and seven of the latter. And I think this is because you are seeing A6 and A8 (both 105 m2) as 3-bedrooms, whereas they see them as 2-bedrooms…

10

I am aware of that. I did that because of the various comments that we need (1) smaller units and (2) smaller 3-bedrooms in particular, plus the question on how “hard” are the minimum surfaces per unit type. So I hoped these would be that. But OK, feel free to change it back – though it is no problem to take a large surface and build one fewer bedroom, it it is the opposite (adding one bedroom in the same space) that is problematic. So, if you want A6 or A8 as a two-bedrooms, you can still have them!

11

All clear :slight_smile:

12

We have done the exercice, but without sun simulation or more precise weighing, I don’t think there is any certainty that our choice will be a definite one, and I guess that is probably the case for a lot people…

2 Likes
13

Yeah, same.

1 Like
14

Hello @reeflings, I have looked through the results of the simulation, they are reasonably encouraging.

What I did

  • Put the reeflings in order of joining. Associate members have not joined, so for now I put them last, all together.
  • Went through this list from the top down. For each person, I looked at their first choice of unit. If that had not yet been claimed by anyone else, I assigned it to this person. If not, I moved on to the person’s second choice. If that had not been claimed by anyone else, I assigned it to the person. If that, too, had already been claimed, I moved on to the person’s third choice. If that, too, had been claimed, I picked a random unit with the same numer of bedrooms.

Results

  • 9 households out of 15 get their first-choice unit
  • 3 get their second-choice unit
  • One gets their third-choice unit
  • Special case: Dave did not vote, so I assigned to him a random unassigned studio.
  • Special case: Odile’s three choices were all taken. Her choice of units were divided between 1- and 2-bedrooms: there are still units of both types available.

Full results below.

Name Order of joining Unit Ranking of the choice Notes
Alberto (1 bedroom) 1 I02 First
Alberto (studio) 1 I01 First
Lie 2 O10 First
Ugne and Manuel 3 O07 First
Sarah and Chris 4 I04 First
Sophie 5 O04 Second
RIchard and Maria 6 I05 First
Dave 7 A01 None Chosen by Alberto ex officio
Mieke 8 A07 First
Els 9 O06 First
Marcel 10 A03 Third If Dave were to choose A03 Marcel would have to fall back below 3rd choice
Odile 11 O09 None
Hannah and Jeroen 12 O05 Second
Perrine and Christian 12 A06 First
Joannes and Anna 12 A08 Second

Conclusions

  • Maxi is quite good at satisfying the needs of the group. Thanks to group diversity, there is not much conflicts, and two thirds of the group get their most preferred unit.
  • Some fine-tuning is still needed to accommodate especially Dave and Odile, possibly Marcel too.
  • Oak Tree is not part of this simulation. I am not sure whether the architects can maintain a division into units similar to that of Maxi, while still carving five small studios.
6 Likes
15

The results are promising indeed.
I just feel like adding that it I might have to go for my second choice, because of the price probably, but then nobody else seems interested in my second choice so there is no problem there so far :slight_smile:

2 Likes
16

for those interested in the results of the survey, and reading the remarks people added when filling in the survey => 1st tab of the excel
for those interested in having a view on 1st, second and third choice and seeing where the ‘most’ popular apartments are located => 2nd tab
https://c301.nl.tabdigital.eu/f/179767

1 Like
17

Hi Alberto,
Is it possible to change the choice of apartment you put for me to O09? It will be a better choice for me for my finances :sweat_smile:. Thanks :pray:
It would be good if the architects could make the 1 bedroom apartments a bit bigger :crossed_fingers:

1 Like
18

Do not get too attached to units! This was just a simulation. Happy to change the unit, but we all will redo the process with the avant projet and the real prices.

2 Likes
19

:ok_hand: :pray:

1 Like