- I changed the id of the UCC-02 Av. des Statutaires to UCC-04, as the numbering wasn’t correct. I think i changed it everywhere, but if i forgot to change it somewhere, please do so
- I added the old and missing UCC-02 Av. Prince Orange to the ‘Sites overview excell’,
@Sarah /@Sophie_B : you scored it. Sophie, you said that after feedback architects it was ‘out’, does this means it went to PF? (didn’t add anything to the PF tab for UCC-02 yest) - Did the same for the old and missing UCC-03
@anon78992831 : do you know why it was rejected? (you scored it with Julien) - EVE-01 @Sophie_B : you contacted the notary and guess you have the best view on the status… In the overview tab , it has ‘move forward’ ‘N’, in the scoring tab, it has ‘move forward’ ‘M’.
- AND-43 @Caro : i don’t know if you inscribed for a 2nd screening for this fiche or sth went wrong => if you want i can take it over, i have the impression you are taking up a lot of other things at the moment…
- @Sarah : MOL-38: it’s in the overview tab, but not really filled in in the ‘scoring’ tab. Can you complete?
2 Likes
- Did the same for the old and missing UCC-03
@anon78992831 : do you know why it was rejected? (you scored it with Julien)
No idea sorry
1 Like
Indeed
I think it should be a “M” but currently on hold (public sale didn’t go through, commune of Evère needs to decide what to do with it. I should hear from the notary (lawyer?) if something happens.
1 Like
Thanks for asking @els 
I was thinkingyou are maybe taking a lot of things haha…
AND-43 : 2nd screening done, but I wanted extra infos from Sarah to define if this is no go or maybe. In the end, the site was discarded anyway. OUT.
1 Like
There is already a cohousing project for this site, so I moved it straight away to Out; no need for scoring. I must have started scoring it and then stopped when I realised it wasn’t for sale…
1 Like
@reef-building (ignore this message, and look at the one below)
some consistenties issues I resolved in the overview. If you wouldn’t agree, please adapt:
- BER-07, BER-09: Move forward ‘N’, status ‘In’, Next action ‘discuss in meeting’, Current stage ‘In’ => Statut ‘out’, Next action ‘n.a.’, Current stage ‘Out’
- AND-38 Move forward ‘N’, status ‘In’, Next action ‘discuss in meeting’, Current stage ‘PF candidate’ => Statut ‘out’, Next action ‘n.a.’, Current stage ‘Out’
- AND-42b Move forward ‘N’, status ‘In’, Next action ‘discuss in meeting’, Current stage ‘screening’ => Statut ‘out’, Next action ‘n.a.’, Current stage ‘Out’
2 Likes
Thanks @anon78992831
- I’ve found the fiche, the name was AND-28 instead of AND-38 => i renamed correctly, the fiche can be found in the ‘Sites still in’.
- I undid the changes for AND-38, it seems that it is still ‘in’. For some reason it had a ‘Move forward’ =‘N’ in my local ‘Sites overview’ file, while - when i went to the online version, it had a ‘M’ for ‘Move forward’
- i will recheck the other fiches i changed as well (and won’t be using the local version any more)
Thank you !
This is an example of how I’m not convinced of the reliability of the new Excel file and find it not easy to use. I hope it will be improved (simplified) soon.
1 Like
(continuing the message above Fiche Factory: talking sites - #29 by els’
- @Sarah BER-07: tab 3a: Move forward ‘Y’, tab 2: Move forward ‘N’, tab 1: Move forward ‘N’ (this last one is a copy of the scoring tab’. In tab 2: no scoring was filled in. The fiche is in the ‘sites discarded’ folder => I have the impression it’s a move forward ‘N’
- BER-09: tab 3a: Wrong copy of the value ‘Move forward’ in tab Overview (copied the value of id 134 and should have done it from id 133) => changed everything back and put ‘move forward’ to Y in overview
- AND-42B: same as BER-09 => changed everything back and put ‘move forward’ to M in overview
I guess this is linked to the copy issues from one tab to another , what Lie was talking about.
Let’s discuss on Tuesday!
3 Likes
Hey!
Sorry but I haven’t had time to look into all this. Will try to go through it soon…
This is one of the very big sites (5000m2), for which we decided we will talk to the architects in our next meeting. I have scored it now, it requires 2nd scoring. So for now I put both actions down (we need a system for dealing with the fact that sometimes there are 2 actions, I will suggest something later).
I also moved the fiche back into “Still in”
I changed in to “on hold” in 00, I am a bit confused with the other tabs, so not sure this is right but I set it to M in 3.a. And I just didn"t do any thing in the automatic tabs in 00 cause I don’t really know how they work.
Also I’ve changed the coding slighlty cause it was a bit messy for this: we now only have “Scoring” (no more 2nd scoring, neither Screen or Screening)
2 Likes
@reef-building
I have put JET-16, UCC-03 and UCC-05 out, reason ‘not buildable’ (villa-land), after what architects said during FS of JET-14.
If you would disagree, let it be heard…
4 Likes
Hi @reef-building , I found two rundown-looking buildings in Anderlecht where there are warehouses for hire. Maybe worth a check? How do I submit a site to your attention with the new scouting strategy? What I have: OSM pins with the coordinates and some bad photos with the phone numbers to call if you wanted to rent a warehouse.
2 Likes
Please ignore the above. I found a manual and submitted a fiche. Not sure I did everything right, have a look.
1 Like
Hello @reef-building
I’ve started a document to try and get an overview of the sites that we have left, to see whether we have a chance of finding the perfect site or not, and to decide which sites to prioritize (internal link)
@Caro @els you said you might have time to look into this? Maybe we can use the document to work simultaneously and fill in the details?
If you think there is info missing, please just add it. And if you think of a better way to do this, also feel free to share!
And of course anybody else welcome!
4 Likes
Great ! A huge thanj you !!
I m off work tomorrow afternoon, I ll have plenty of time to take up !
1 Like
@reef-building : looked at the fiches in the ‘New fiches folder’. There is 1 that maybe looks promissing (if it all belongs to the same owner)…
if any one would have some time to check my scoring: MOL-41
2 Likes