Going really into the nitty gritty, I would add the following recommendation:
Make a note that a parking spot will not be mandatory, and that we’ll find a solution to share the burden of the total number of mandatory parking spots.
Recommend that people add a terrace space that equals 10% of the surface of their unit (net), so 7 m² of terrace for a unit of 70 m² net, with a minimum of 5 m². We’d need to check the details with the architects, but there are indications that this is going to become mandatory (see e.g. this article in Bruzz).
It’s just a suggestion of course, but can it be an option to create a separate post on how to estimate the surface of our units? This could include several suggestions, like e.g.
The minima imposed by the RRU
The size calculator (with a link)
The minima as calculated above
Have a look on websites like Immoweb, and get a feel for the size of different apartments
Have a look at the apartments of other Reeflings.
On the last point: I measured the different rooms of my apartment and I’d be happy to share this in a dedicated post. This should make it easier to see what a 70 m² unit looks like (mine), and that it’s easy to imagine to cut out 20 m² in total. And then if maybe a couple more people join in, we’ll become experts at estimating surfaces and feeling confident about what we could live with?
This is not a detail, so I’m grateful you insist. I looked at the “small units” post again and scrolled through the RRU once more, and I think that my conclusion is that the “small units” post is confusing, in that it presents units of 35 and 55 m² net (studio and one-bedroom apartment), but that based on the RRU these could actually be smaller, such that 35 and 55 m² become the gross surfaces.
That being said, in the correspondence that Julien had with the architects on the financial estimate, at some point they recommend us to stick with net surfaces, because this is what is commonly used, and also what’s going to go in the notary’s deeds. So that would mean that in the calculation guidance we keep things as they are, i.e. we make people estimate the net surface, then have them multiply that by 1.25 to arrive to gross m², and then multiply that by a 4000 +/- 10%. Does that make sense?
Hey!
Thanks for your answer!
I understand the confusion no!
So what I understand and think we can do is this:
The numbers that I have at the moment could indeed be the minimum gross surface for an apartment (and I personally wonder if they could be less, we’ve asked the architects about that), but for clarity purposes, we should include net numbers in the new post on estimating the size of the appartment.
So the post would become:
Net surfaces for minimum size
@Julien: this is exactly the reason why we insist so much on documenting everything on the forum. This way we don’t loose information that is dug deep into the mailbox.
Julien and I worked on a new calculator tool that includes a calculation of the price (internal link) and I’ve adapted the posts accordingly (internal link).
Waw! That looks great! This is a fantastic step forward!
Two questions, one technical + 1 organisational: (ping @Sarah and @Julien)
I don’t understand why there is a 15 m² (net) difference when going up one bedroom. Isn’t the minimum surface for a bedroom 10 m²?
Do you think it would be feasible to upload the document your shared above as a post on Edgeryders? If yes, I can add the link in the presentation for Wednesday.
Good point… Doesn’t really make sense indeed. Maybe the thinking was that you need more room to be comfortable when you are more people? Which would indeed indicate that these are not minimal but standard appartment sizes…
We’re waiting for an answer from the architects on this…
Yes it was the idea to make it a post and to make it as quicly as possible !
I think I’ll do that, and for the appartment sizes I might keep the “waiting for confirmation”, and think of what to do for the appartments (I think I will put a minimal and standard size, will report back soon
That makes sense. For financial estimation purposes however I think the minima are the more interesting. For the presentation I’m working on a format like this: Login – Nextcloud
Could you maybe fill in the minimum surfaces, so I can complete my table in coherence with your calculations?
On a different topic: I’m afraid that nobody is going to find your documents on Nextcloud, as this is more a finance than a buildings issue. Would it be ok for you to move them to Team Finance’s folder? Login – Nextcloud
With that said @reef-finance: Sarah and Julien have done a lot of work to help people estimate the cost of their units (see posts above). Maybe this would be something for you to take over when you have the capacity?
The numbers of the architect don"t actually always match the RRU minimum and are not consistent in terms of how much they add to that minimum…
So Im not sure anymore whether to include them.
I think I will include the minimum surface as per the RRU, indicating this doesn"t include corridors, which may add a substantial amount.
So it would go:
Studio: 29 net, 36 gross
One bed room: 49 net, 61 gross
2 bed room: 58 net, 72 gross
3 bed room: 67 net, 83 gross
4 ber rooms: 76net, 95 gross
I don"t think I’ll round these up or down in the post as the idea is to give the absolute minimum. But I guess in the presentation you can probably round them as the objective is just to give an idea…
For info about corridors, I’ve just measured my Mum’s and it is 5,5 m2 for a 2 bedrooms! Not nothing! We can certainly re-arange our appartments to not have it or at least minimize it, but I think people should be aware of the fact that it is not a negligeable expense…
5 m² for a hallway does not seem unreasable. In the estimation for the presentation I have added 5 for a two bedroom, and 5 more for a three and four bedroom. To make matters simplers I also went with 10 m² for extra bedrooms instead of 9.
The result you can see below. All in all it matches with the size of the architects’ apartments that we visited. My own apartment is 70 m² net, so that also matches.
The confesseur post also needs to be updated, but it’s not a wiki. @Lee could you make it a wiki or update it ? Instead of the text in section 3, it should be : See this post about size and price and price estimation (internal link) On the website ofImmothekeryou can do a financial simulation of your lending capacity. If you are eligible, you can also do a simulation on the website of the Fonds de Logement, which will have more generous conditions.
Hi again @Lee and @reef-building
Trying to finalise this so that I can put it out to the group…
There is a little problem though, which is mainly that the calculator gives minimum appartment surfaces that are smaller than the standard/minimum surfaces advised by the architects (see this post). I’ve made a little table that summarizes the differences here. I don’t really understand why there is such a difference… And the weird thing is that even using the standard room size that they suggest, it’s still smaller than what they said was the standard for social housing.
What I’ve done to deal with it for now:
I think it makes sense to leave the minimum surfaces so that people don"t go below that for a specific room
But overall we probably have to go with the advise from the architects for the appartment size, so I’ve made a reference to the post on calculating appartment size in the table (but overall I feel it is now rather confusing…)
I’m really not sure I’m thinking clearly about this anymore, so my questions to you:
Can you please have a look at the relevant posts and excel tables, and tell me if you catch something that looks wrong or something that could be done better.
I don"t know whether we want to do something about the fact that the different numbers don’t match, and check the numbers with them again ? (the calculator is derived from a document that they had shared with us, so you would expect it would match what they said in terms of overall appartment size)
The difference with the architects’ calculator I would explain by the fact that the calculator is there to help us estimate the surface that we need, without there being a link with the legal minima. Could it be that the confusing bit is that we should mostly be looking at column C (standard surface) to see how much we should add to the minima, and not so much at column B (minimal surface)?
So if the above would make sense, then I think our instructions are these:
Look at the social housing minima and don’t count on going lower;
If you want extras or if you want to be creative, use column C of the calculator (standard surface) to get an indication of how much it would add to the minimum.
I’m not sure I’m helping here so happy to get your thoughts.
. Giggle feedback loop!
so happy to get your thoughts.