I agree with Lee (about jet-15), i put it to ‘out’ , if you would disagree, let it be known…
1 Like
Thanks to forward their feedback !
For JET 15 : I would put it on hold as well for the moment. Only 1 small différence with JET 14 : it is a built parcel so it should be 6% TVA, so we might be able to affort mess units ? On the conter part : the existing buildings can’t be renovated so maybe they consider the demolition cost too much for what it’s worth ?
For AND 35 : can we ask them what they consider too complex in this ? So that we know what we should (not) look at for the next sites 
1 Like
=> i added it in the list with questions for the architects (internal link)
=> i also added an AP of last team buildings meeting in the file '"Ask architects about their preferred way of working, timing etc. (new PFS/FS) "
1 Like
Hi @reef-building ! Some thoughts about some sites :
-
AND-42a : this site implies to mainly renovate and partly wreck down and existing (sort of heritage) building. I wonder if the archis could quickly have a look and tell us how they feel about the cost of this (I added it in the questions doc but feel free t take it out if you think it is no priority).
-
ETT-02 : this site just seem to be sold recently and has a recent permit, as I see the permit affiche on the picture taken on site. Or am I missing some info ? @Sophie_B as see you as reference in the Fiche Factory
1 Like
I just wanted to mention about this that if we don’t ask them to give us details about the sites they reject (which I also think we shouldn’t), then we need to be clearer on what is an acceptable range for m2 for us, because I don’t know whether they are taking into consideration the 2600 in our program, or if they are using a tolerance range, and if yes, of how much. Don’t know if that’s worth clarifying…
1 Like
Yes, I think this is very important, and I would even like to do a retro-active screening of all the sites that we sent for a PFS.
In case it can be of help, I once did a simulation to see what would be the minimum and maximum number of square meters (see "Le programme": minimum buildable area - #10 by Lee). It doesn’t take into account the extra costs of a reduced number of square meters, but it nevertheless gives some indication IMHO
Yes I looked at that post and thought we should use it for drafting a proposal for our acceptable range…
Sorry to just drop the thought of an extra task and just leave it at that… I hope you guys are managing…
1 Like
All good! Your input will always be welcome!
1 Like
BER-07 : after what we said at the last team meeting, I checked the site : I think in an intérieur d’ilôt like this it would be difficult to build too high and compact
→ so it can be a project but it will probably be smaller units
→ thus more expensive, on the same time it will be 6% TVA
→ less open on the neighborhood / streets
→ it depends a lot about the price for sell that the owner gives
I would say let’s not throw it away, there are still possibilities, but let’s not send it for PFS since there are sites with more potential > on hold ?
What do you think ?
2 Likes
hi @reef-building ,
as an ap of last team building meeting, i asked the architects to also give us feedback when the PFS is negative (architects).
When i had francois on the phone today, he brought it up and gave the following feedback:
- Francois: we don’t go so much in detail during a prefeasibility study, so giving all these answers would be extra work for them.
- i replied: ok, then give all the feedback you can give and even if you don’t have the exact square meters or units, let us know that you think it’s too small for example with the aim - if we don’t find anything in a half year/year, we can maybe think about adjusting our criteria and going back to some sites we disqualified as being too little.
- he understood our need and will try to give us that info
If you are not ok with my answer, we can discuss again in a TB meeting and i can get back to them.
2 Likes
Personally I would adapt the reference m2 a bit here and give us a chance to look into slightly smaller sites already…
hi Sarah,
We also talked (in last TB meeting) about the second part of the question:
- do we communicate an acceptable range for m2/ a minimum and maximum number of square meters
Our conclusion in the meeting was:
- we would like to wait for the 3 FS first (jet-14, mol-26 and AND-28) to have a better understanding of the price per m2 it costs. We think with 3 FS, we will have a better understanding of what we can expect in bxl)
- we would like to have the discussion on the common spaces: do we stick with the 10% range or go for e.g. 200 m2 , so not making it dependant on the number of units. (none of us had time to study Lie’s calculations, what was foreseen as m2 for the common spaces in those calculations)
=> this will give us a better view on whether the minimum is realistic, price wise… and then do a communication to the architects with the knowledge of these 2 things
(in the meantime our full focus goes now to the votes on the plenary of May 2nd)
2 Likes
Hi @els,
My father is asking whether it is possible to get an idea of the purchase price per square meter of sites that we have been looking at. My sense is that this lingers around 1000 euro per square meter, but it would be nice to have a more precise understanding.
Would this be something you could do in 15-20 minutes? If it’s really easy and you can find the time (or better: ask a newling), that would be great. Otherwise I would let it go because we have tonload of work to do.
Thanks. Very interesting.
This proves at least that the price of Jette is more than correct.
I think this means also that you must forget BER01, SCH02, SCH06: they are smaller and much more expensive
For AND22 someone must first win the Lotery. 5 Times the price of yet
I think you must also forget MOL21 and BER03: (almost) 3 times as expensive…
UCC05 and AND46 are about double the price, these could be possible if you can share it with a second co-housing. Not a first choice and not evident.
LAK11 might be an option if you can reduce the price and if you can build more appartments
So this means that Jette remains as a winner. There is a calculated risk (the problem with the neighbour) which seems to be under control.
Also positive is that there are alternatives like LAK11 or eventual UCC05 and AND46.
Remains to investigate: In the street there are some buildings with (at least) 3+1 stages:
-
3 buildings in front of the terrain (same hight as nr 44 with 3+1/2 stages
-
nr 453 (at the same side on the corner) they have 4+1 stages!
-
nr 464 seems to have also a construction on top of the 3+1 stages
Maybe with 4 stages (at the streetside?) the number of appartements can be increased?
m
2 Likes
Hi Marcel,
I looked at all the fiches, a lot of them are out already…
I agree, jet is very attractive…
Lee mentioned your remark to the architects. Apparently it is more the building left and right that count to see how high we can go, so I think it will stay with the current proposal…
1 Like
I think we must be careful also with the heighs of the buildings, as building higher than 4 floors on the strer building will take away some light from the neighbors (and even our garden?) and increase the vis-à-vis with them >> this could bring back the neighbor issue
3 Likes
If you look at the buildings left and right: in the back of the terrain left and right neighbour seem to be rather 3+1 stages.
I understand it is delicate, but to keep everything within budget you have to stretch as much as you can.
Don’t forget that the first permit in 2016 was approved for 25 appartements, 1 commercial space and 35 parking places
(this also means that the owner is trying to sell this since 2015…
Another idea to discuss with the architects is to see if eventually later another floor can be added on top. Mostly this can nowadays and as the instructions are (by lack of terrains) to construct higher (you see this in every street) it is not excluded that later you can add a stage. Better be prepared for this. You never know.
m
3 Likes
This is right now not at all the strategy that Stekke+Fraas want to push forward, they said in the work session they don’t want to loose the trust of the municipality for the moment by pushing too much… I would also want that we stretch it to the max mut maybe the site has its own limits…
Right now, their proposal is already a 4 layers building at the street, with a zone the recul for the last layer. They can eventually take away the zone de recul to gain some m2 but to go higher/closer to the n°249 is bringing back the risk of the neighbor starting a recours in Conseil d’Etat >> the recours happens after a permit is given, and worked in the previous case in the legal case against Matexi.
The only option where to go higher, to me, is on the bloc at the backside (the “Idefix” volume)
2 Likes
Another idea/remark regarding the comparison of prices I made.
This is a comparison of “naked” grounds like Jette is.
To make the comparison with a renovation or deconstruction ground maybe you could ask the architects if they can make a simulation on Jette, imagining that there would be a building on it. VAT would be 6%, which gives a difference of about 1 to 2 millions savings. Which can make another terrain of 2 million as or more attractive.