During the last two-weekly progress meeting with stekke+fraas, team Building asked about the options we have for the finishing of the interior of our units. They are:
The unit gets delivered “casco” Y/N
Stekke+fraas do the interior design Y/N
The interior is built by the main contractor, who also builds the rest of the building Y/N
Part of the interior is built by the owners (DIY), e.g., the flooring Y/N
The architects would like us to decide on option 1 (casco Y/N) for each unit by the beginning of December. Our choice has an impact on the workload of the technical experts (who we are about to designate) and the overall cost calculation. The acoustics expert, for example, will have to be involved to determine whether a bathroom might be an acoustic nuisance for a neighbour.
There are cost and schedule advantages of having stekke+fraas do the interior design and having the interior built by the main contractor. Indeed, the finishing will be cheaper (because of economies of scale) and your unit is likely to be delivered sooner (because of fewer problems of coordination between suppliers)
The architects also indicated that:
They have a portfolio of interior design work (which they love to do)
They would conduct individual discussions with each owner to consider their needs, preferences and budget.
The request for the building permit needs to include a rough interior layout for the all of the units, to certify respect of the building code.
it’s part of their assignment for Stekke + Fraas to do the interior design to a certain level which goes quite far (tiles bathroom, plancher, …). What is certainly not part of their job (coming from the contract): ‘L’étude de la décoration et de l’ameublement.’ So this is for me not a choice.
all units are delivered ‘casco’ and if I understand well , even maybe some extra’s to avoid problems like “there is a leak, who is responsable”, to make sure that the acoustics are ok for the whole building (so not to be seen as a thing unit per unit)
The questions to be asked for me are:
Do you want to stop at the casco level ? (maybe still to be cleared out what this exactly means). This means, doing the walls, electricity, floors, ceilings , … I think they prefered showers and the acoustics to be done by them/a company.
If not: do you want to work with one company, the same as for the casco. This means one contract between the group and the contractor (as for the casco, no individual contracts). This will lead to faster delivery, and cheaper price. Downside: limited choices (e.g. of kitchen, of tiles, …). He indicated that Spiegel had worked with individual contracts, because one wanted a ‘pompe a chaleur’ and another one a ‘chaudière’, so for me this means all chosing for the same ‘technical solutions a bit’. For me this doesn’t mean every one has to do the same: sb can decide for a wooden floor (parquet), another one for concrete… (also maybe to be cleared out with the architects still)
if you don’t want to stop at casco level, and have a bit more individual choices, than every unit will has its own contract with 1-2-3-… companies. It can even be an individual contract with the same company as for the casco.
For these last two options you still can decide to leave certain things out: eg: you don’t want to go for an installed kitchen but buy a stove second hand and by some second hand furniture for in the kitchen. Or you want to do the plancher yourself. If you want to do that yourself, that would also mean you would need to do the doors, because that come after the plancher…
My feeling is that they want for us to know who will do the work themselves, and for those choosing for finishing, i think they - as a group- will need to decide between 2 or 3
ps i don’t know how to foresee what you want: work with your own interieur designer. I have the impression, you would need to go for casco, have your interieur designer do the design, you would need to find somebody to do the works and an architect to follow-up?
I think I had the same vision as Els.
Although I feel like it’s not so different from what Joannes is saying, maybe just a different angle? But I would indeed go with Els’ description.
I wasn’t clear about that part. I think it CAN be part of their assignment (and probably mostly it will be), but that we do have the choice (although they seem to think we were going to do this with them as well).
Hey, As shared with Els after the dinner, I didn’t fully understand a) at which point of the construction the “dividing line” between casco or “all in” runs and b) what the exact implications for the group would be - so I guess we take it back to the architects? Sorry to not be able to shed any more light on this.
@els I had a look at the new version, thanks a lot for doing this! It’s very clear and super helpful!
I don’t have anything to add but some initial questions (not sure if they are for now or for the plenary though):
What is “honoraires AR”?
Would it be possible to have an estimate of how much more we are talking with option 2? How much more for architects fees? Idem for techniques spéciales, PEB? Is it a difference of a 1000euros per apartment? 10 000?
Problème avec sosim: I didn’t quite understand it
Option 1: the choice of the finishings has to be made before we have the final estimate at the end of the avant projet?
C’est quoi un Rotor et on l’utiliserait pour quoi??
Honoraires AR = honoraires architectes, as defined in the contract with the architects, they correspond to 10% des travaux. In option 1 it will be 10% on the invoices of the general company. In option 2, it will be 10% on the invoices of the general company + 10% on the several seperate /individual invoices for the finishings.
For the estimate: I asked them how much more expensive the price for the technical experts would be. For the other part (extra cost for the finishing) it all depends on the choices made by the reefling. There honoraires are a % of the total cost. In option 1, you will never be able to go for a very expensive finishing (as the choices will be standard), but if in option 2 you want to go for the most exquisite materials, than the invoices will be a lot more expensive. For the DIY’er that wants to do a lot, option 2 will be , e.g. less expensive.
Problème avec sosim. I personally don’t think it is a problem. They said it is simple if -for option 2- you stop the Sosim after having finished the casco. They wondered if it would be possible to go further, meaning keeping the Sosim also for the finishing. But they said to go a see a lawyer to figure out how this would work. After talking to Lee a bit, it’s clear for me that we will not go there, the société simple will stop after the finishing of the casco (indicated like that in the Statutes i think), otherwise the société simple will have the responsability to dive into each individual file (24 of them), know it to be able to follow it up. And for me this is a clear ‘no’.
Option 1: the choice of the finishings has to be made before we have the final estimate of the end of the avant projet. If we go for one company. For the general company to be able to give a price offer, they will need to know the finishings we choose. (hence the remark: The choice of the finishing has to happen quite fast, at the same time as the call for tender/call for bids for the casco (appel d’offre)). This also means that this phase of the avant projet will take longer than for option 2. (this ‘loss of time’ will be regained later though)
Rotor: it’s not a product or machine but a company (https://rotordc.com/). They recuperate materials when breaking down old building,… and they resell these.
Referring to this week’s coordination meeting and lee’s post, there are two topics that need to be adressed soonish.
One of them is this topic: what type of contract we want to go with for the finishing. (The other topic is handled in this post)
In this Sunday’s plenary meeting, the goal is to create common understanding and maybe collect some extra questions for the architects.
The second step will be to come to a proposal to consent to. This Sunday’s plenary will indicate what steps will need to follow (survey needed?) and if we can come to a proposal based on this Sunday’s discussion about the topic.
Does somebody feel like taking up the follow-up of this topic so we can come to a proposal to consent to?
ps: if you would prefer an extra TB meeting or moving the TB meeting of December 17th to next week, let me now.
I read the proposal in detail, and to be honest I am not sure I understand why this is even presented as a proposal. It is very well possible that there is something I am missing. In that case it is unclear to me what exactly entails “casco” and what is understood by “finishings”.
From what I seem to understand from the text of the architects though, the Blueprint (or at least the slide deck) says that units will be delivered casco, first of all because we want people on low budgets to have the freedom to keep the price of their finishings as low as possible, and (to some extent) second also because we want to provide everybody with the freedom to choose their finishings, instead of ending up with the typical Cohousing Projects or Trevi apartment (which all look the same).
My request would therefore be to clarify things as much as possible ahead of the plenary (without exhausting ourselves). On top of that my suggestion - given my argument about the Blueprint above and also the fact that this seems to be a bottleneck - would be to write it up in the agenda as a decision for consent to option 2.
Happy to get your thoughts, here or in a quick call.
@reef-building : i am ok to change it to a proposal after all. Don’t know about you…
@Lee: for me for those who are not DIY and want to go cheap, the first option will be less expensive.
My understanding is that there are not many DIY in the group (i think of 2 but i might be wrong), so i assume that option 1 might still be desired for budget reasons (and faster includes also ‘cheaper’) by some people. I am also having concerns for those going for a bridge loan / getting the abattement. I don’t know what the maximum period those people have in mind, but if I would be in that case and i would want to play it safe, i might want to go for option 1.
I also think option 1 might be an extra argument for Oaktree to continue with us, as it will be less costly in comparaison to option 2 for them (and the way i understood it from Sophie, price is at this moment now the biggest issue for Oaktree).
That is for me the reason why it is maybe worthwhile to put this on the table, and more going for a combination of option 1 and option 2 to allow ‘cheap for not DIY’ with ‘freedom of choice’.
answer from the architects on the higher cost of the techniques spéciales, in case of option 2
Pas facile à estimer. Je dirais un supplément de + 10-15% par rapport aux honoraires de base.
So looking at the price offers we have received (and my understanding there is only 1 missing, for the accoustics), we are at 158.220, so an extra 10-15% = an extra 15.822 à 23.733 (and still adding an extra 10 à 15 % for the accoustics)
There is 5,1% of the total budget foreseen for these special techniques, with these 4 (peb, stabilité, sécurité, technique spécial), we are at 2,93% of the budget,
Adding soil samples and land surveyor (2100 and 2600), we arrive at 3,017% of the budget.
If we add another 23733, then we arrive at 3,46 %, so leaving still 1,64% of the budget for accoustics (if that is the only thing missing in this categorie) = 88.560 euro.
My feeling is that the increase of 10 à 15% of the extra cost for the techniques speciales will still fall in the budget foreseen for them in the FS
You seem to have gotten the process started but I’m happy to help/take over. I can make time in the next three days, but then it will have to wait until the weekend though, so I’m not sure if that helps… But if there’s something else to be done before wednesday I’m happy to help!
I would like to come back to something that was said yesterday in the PM.
Related to option one (for the choice of contract for the finishing), @alberto mentionned that option one would need to full the criteria of durability & sustainability.
I can ask the question to the architects, but for me these are quite broad terms to which it is hard to give a simple answer to (a yes or a no)
So my question to the ones for who ‘durability & sustainability’ is a precondition to choose for option 1. What do you understand by it?
an interior/finishing (machines/products) that has a certain quality / that doesn’t need to be thrown away after a limited amount of years => is on my list to ask the architects
the materials that the products are made off, are from sustainable resources (natural resources like wood/wool/… over mineral resources over oil-based resources) or for which the production process is ecological (no excessive use of energy or resources) => is on my list to ask the architects
the origin of materials/products: new products vs recuperated products => This for me doesn’t go together with option 1. That was clearly indicated by the architects
the reusability of the products/machines, once they are damaged/broken can they be reused/recycled? (e.g. clay vs plaster) => I can ask the architects, but I would think that e.g. a clay finishing is not seen as a standard option
Any other elements that you categorize under durability/sustainability?
I think if you want to go as sustainable/durable as possible, you need to go for option 2 as you have a larger range of choices/possibilities.
I always imagined that at some point we would need to decide as a group exactly what we mean by ‘durability’ and ‘sustainability’, in order to convey that information to the architects and/or contractors. At which point they try to meet our criteria within the constraints of our budget. For instance, what’s our position on heat pumps, or how negotiable is a flat roof? Perhaps I’m over thinking it, or perhaps that moment has arrived. Having said that, @els I don’t think we need definitive answers to every question for your proposal to move forward. Perhaps just a shared understanding of what’s important in a broad sense at this point…
The way I had pictured it, was for some Team, lets call them “Team Finishings”, to take care of collective negotiation of several items, like e.g. tiles, kitchen and bathroom, but also more fancy things, like e.g. a recirculating shower (i.e. a shower that only uses 30 liters of water, no matter how long you use it). I also thought that one way or another we would gang together and choose the same contractor, yet having individual contracts (hence keeping more control). Or said shorter: the way I pictured it, was that we would pool our forces wherever we can, while maximising individual choices.
For me to be able to consent to the proposal I would like to get more clarity on:
Why is it important that we decide this now? (I don’t want to pretend that I understood what was said at the plenary)
What do we win by deciding at this moment to collectivise a very big bundle of finishings?
What will we have lost in a scenario where right now we decide to only go for casco, and to collectivise certain (or all) finishings at a later moment?
If Option 1 goes forward, how will the accounting be handled?
My intuition is that by signing up now it’s not very clear what we win, while it seems to be certain that those who sign up for option 1 will have very limited choices in terms of hard-core sustainability options.
The “option 1 goes faster” argument I would oppose as an argument in favour of a collective option 1. It says that this is beneficial for those with bridge loans. I would say that this also holds for those who are renting, and that we have a collective commitment to (at least make it possible to) finish the construction with the deadline for a bridge loan (i.e. 2 years).
