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).
did the architects say why? when you negotiate with “entrepreneurs” or building companies you can always include a clause in the tender saying … we want X % of materials reused. (materiel de reemploi in french)
We also have a meeting planned with the architects next Tuesday (online at 17:30). Another idea is maybe to join the meeting and ask all your questions to them directly.
To make things clear for future Reeflings, the way we usually work is to add the clarifications directly in the proposal. Would this be feasible?
Adding it to the agenda of the next plenary I thought was something we agreed to last time. Am I wrong?
An argument in favour of option 1 is “it goes faster, and this is good for people with a bridge loan”. This is because people with a bridge loan need to move in after 2 years. What I’m saying is that this also holds for people who are renting, and that in my understanding we have an implicit commitment to finish the works within 2 years. So even if we go for option 2 (as said in the Blueprint), things need to go fast enough so that the finishings can be finished within 2 years after the start of the works.
some answers allready from the architects concerning this topic, will integrate this in the proposal at some point…
Option 1 (1 entrepreneur pour le casco + finition): moins chère, est-ce que ca veut aussi dire ‘une qualité inférieure’? Answer: Non
Pour l’instant nous sommes à 13 unités, avec Oak (s’ils continue avec nous) on est à 17. Est-ce que c’est ok de vous dire le 17/12 qu’on sera au minimum 10 pour l’option 1, ou faut-il dire des 24 unités, combien d’unités vont pour option 1 et combien d’unités vont pour option 2? Answer: Oui, Ok. On pourra communiquer aux bureaux d’études pour voir comment adapter leurs honoraires à cette donnée.
Quand devront-ont dire combien d’unités vont pour option 1 et pour option 2? Answer Le choix devra se faire avant de démarrer le dossier d’appel d’offre. Donc dans longtemps.
To reformulate my questions maybe a little: I am worried that we are stuck, meaning we are getting a delay (including for the moment we can re-start to recruit).
I am also worried that the advantage of option 1, (as I understand it) a small reduction in the cost of the studies of the experts, does not outweigh the lock-in in the future, meaning we are reducing the choices we will have in the future.
Looking at the replies from the survey, it seems to me that there are at least 3 (out of 8) households who chose option 1 that are setting conditions that will land them in option 2 (e.g. because they want “encastré” tailor-made wardrobes). And I also worry that at this stage it will simply not be possible to get enough clarity on which options will be included in option 1 exactly.
All that - the delay we are getting (cost) and the slightly lower cost we could be getting if we decide for option 1 right now (benefit) - make me think that the costs of letting this drag on for so long do not outweigh the benefits.
If some people want to handle their finishings together with one contractor, that will still be possible, but I think that’s going to be much easier (because clearer) if done at a later stage. That means it will come at a small extra cost, but from what I understood the amounts are really insignificant.
@reef-building, can somebody please bring some reassurance about 1) what kind of delay we are building up because of this, and 2) what the concrete plan is for getting to a collective decision on this in due time?
Hi @reef-building . It seems that this discussion has new information in the light of yesterday’s remarks from our notary. May I request that, as you prepare the proposal, you consult with Mark? I find it important to hear the voice of our coach in this debate. Someone told me he actually did serve as maitre du chantier, so he has firsthand experience about the potential pitfalls of running a big construction site as a self-managed group.
I just spoke to a friend who is an architect. She confirmed that working with a single contractor is highly recommended and that managing many individual preferences can become a nightmare in a co-housing project. She gave a telling example where the owners of one apartment wanted to put in floor tiles that were just a little thicker than the standard ones, requiring the base floor (“la chappe”) to be made a little thinner.
