Fiche Factory: talking sites

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

Hey @reef-building

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

4 Likes

My two cents:

  • I would let go of JET-15 for now. If ever we win the lottery we can always pick it up again.
  • I would save energy wherever we can, so I would not insist in investing time in definite no’s.
2 Likes

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 :upside_down_face:

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!

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 ?

1 Like

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.