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!
@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
Below is the feedback on the last 4 sites we sent for PFS:
nous nous sommes penchés sur les 4 sites.
feux rouges pour tous.
UCC-02: trop petit et typologie hyper résidentielle (grosse villa sur son terrain).
WAT-01: idem UCC-02
AND-35: parcelle très complexe (on comprend l’absence de projet) et contexte pas vraiment « charmant »…
JET-15: similitude avec le site de JETte sur lequel nous travaillons. parcelle profonde qui impliquerait une implantation similaire. mais gabarits environnants plus petits. nous n’atteindrons pas les m2.
I initially thought that it could be worth enquiring more about JET-15, but given what we are discovering about JET-14 and the fact that this one is probably worse, I don’t think it is necessary to have more info, and that we can just exclude this based on their advise. What do you think? Do you want to know more about how many m2 that would be?
And a more general question about the new process: do we want to ask them to fill in the list of criteria only for the credible candidates, or also for the ones they think definetly “no”?
note: I have moved all the sites and updated the table, apart from Jet-15
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
=> 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) "
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
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…
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…
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 ?
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.
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)
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.
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?
