Le Programme: Please fill in this survey!

I have a rather worrying question that is bugging me, and I need to put my brain at rest by asking a question that is either extremely silly, or utterly crucial! :sweat_smile:

In this estimation (and hence in the rounded up figure of 4K/gross m2), are the “finitions” taken into account? From Alberto’s comment and from looking at the file, I feel that maybe it isn’t.
But talking to people, I know we’re not the only ones considering that the finitions are indeed included in the 4K estimation, and I believe this is because it is the case in the size calculation spreadsheet that we’ve been using to evaluate how much space we need. But then also Jolan mentionned that this is an old spreadsheet from a former cohousing project… So does it actually applies to us??

1 Like

Yes… at least, that was my recollection. @Lee knows for sure.


Backing up Alberto’s recollection, I also recall that in the 4K/sqm estimate the ‘finitions’ are included!

1 Like

Thanks for your answers!
Do we know what estimate they used for this? i.e. what price they took into account for the price of finitions per m2? Because that can vary wildly…

I do not, my recollection purely comes from past meetings where it has been said that the 4K/sqm has finitions factored in, but how that calculation was made I have no clue about

1 Like

Yes, the 4000 euro estimation includes all possible costs (notary, VAT etc) and therefore also the finishings. This means that if you are good at DIY or if you are happy with cheap solutions, you can probably deduct 200-300 euro (per square meter) from this price.

More information can be found here: Architect estimation, round one

We ended up using 4000 euro per square meter based on the assumption that we’ll go for a site that makes it possible to only pay 6% VAT and also on the assumption that we need to add some money to the architects 3500 euro estimate to take into account the future-proofing investments that are in the Blueprint 1.0.


Thanks to everyone who has filled in the survey already! @MariaAM @lenaftng and @Lara could you please fill in the form by tomorrow 21/03 at the latest? Thank you in advance <3


Thank you everyone for filling in your preferences using the google form, I really appreciate how everyone gave such clear input <3 Based on the form responses I’ve tabulated and aggregated all the data and have made a short report of this: voila Le Programme! I’m sharing this document with you all now and will send it to the architects after the weekend, to leave some time for discussion of the results and possible changes to peoples’ answers before I send the architects all the info. Please take a look at this document.

I won’t be able to make the plenary on Thursday or the weekend on 25-26, so if you have any questions or remarks please make them in this thread.


Thank you @JolanWuyts for all your hard work on this… much appreciated!

1 Like

Reopening this thread to let @reef-building know that the data from the survey (as well as a summary document) are in this folder (internal link).


@alberto: if you have access, can you please share it with somebody from Team Building? We need to start collecting data again, from the investors and from the new Reeflings.

@reef-building: I was looking at the calculation sheet again, and I noticed that “terrace” is counted in the total surface. Looking at the financial estimate, isn’t this a bit deceiving, given that the price of the terrace is significantly lower than that of the surface inside the units?

1 Like

Hey @Lee, thanks for looking into this - will pick this up at our next meeting (unless somebody else already knows the answer…).

1 Like

Hi @Lee

I think don’t understand you question about the terrace ? They are first count in in line 30 but then excluded in line 45. This is to count them in in the extra costs linked to studies, architects and VAT.

Is this clear for you ?

Further, do you think we should redo the survey of the programme to help the architects better estimate sites? Personnaly I think that as long the reef family is not complete (25 households) we should work with some mean surface per unit.

1 Like

I was also gonna post something on le program…
Personnaly I wonder if it would be helpful to do one again actually…
As Lie’s commented in the updated estimate post, the estimate is very sensitive to the size of the appartements. So I think it would be a good time to re-do a survey and get a more accurate picture of the financial estimate. Maybe after the lastest wave of reeflings has had a meeting with the confesseur and got a better idea of what size they could realisticly wish for?


The original survey was on Google. The data are here. From them, you can also rebuild the survey itself.

If we are doing this often, it might be worth it to use the Forms functionality on NextCloud rather than defaulting to Google: https://c301.nl.tabdigital.eu/apps/forms/. It’s not as good as Google forms, but it works, and it is integrated with the rest of our system.

1 Like

I was referring to the size calculator file (which is linked in post no 3 above). There, in line 40 it counts the square meters for the terrace as part of the total square meters of the unit, which is deceiving, because the square meters of the terrace are significantly cheaper. I believe this is an error that needs to be fixed rather urgently, as it leads to an overestimation of people’s budget by +/- 20.000 euro.

I agree. I would do feasibility studies based on an estimate of 2700 m². Nevertheless I think it’s a good idea that everybody fills in that survey, as it is a good exercise to get more precise about your wishes for your unit.

I’m all for it, but I am not sure I understand what we would be trying to achieve by re-doing it?

I already passed on the link to the investors, so it would be great if we could just recover the ownership of that survey. No need to rebuild it. @Sophie_Beese could somebody in Team Building ask Jolan to pass on the ownership?

Line 40 is the calculation of full price including studies, registration and VAT as I said before.
Then options are excluded of this (first arrow of picture). line 47.

Then it is based on that new price that the price m² brut is fixed. Line 54.

Then in the example, starting line 57, you see the options are added back at initial price. This means the studies, registration and VAT on these are in reality carried by the whole group. We could discud if this is fair though.

Hope it’s clear. If not, we can do a videocall tomorrow :wink:

Hi Julien,

The point I am making (please see my post above) is about the unit size calculator: https://c301.nl.tabdigital.eu/f/53545

This is the file that we use to calculate the surface of our units. The resulting number is then multiplied by 1.25 to get the gross number of square meters, and then by 4000 to estimate the cost of the unit (see The confesseur process).

In line 40 of the size calculator the terrace is included, which is set at 7 m² as a default (because it’s sort of mandatory). The price of the terrace is 1500 euro / m² however (and not 4000), so that means we are adding up square meters with a different price, which would mean that people would be overestimating the cost of their unit by roughly 20.000. This seems like an error to me, so I would be grateful if somebody in Team Building could look into that and correct it if needed.

1 Like

The owner of the form is Jolan. He added me as an editor, so I was in turn able to add you, Lie, as an editor. Can you check you have enough permissions to do what you want to do?

@alberto you shared the excel with me, but not the access to the survey. If you manage, can you please also add @Sophie_Beese?

1 Like