Hello @reeflings,
On Tuesday 14 January @els, @joannes and I went to see the architects to talk about the planning. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss what we can do to avoid that our planning keeps being delayed, something that happened twice in the last 7 months (see Planning).
Below are my meeting notes, with an open invitation to Els and Joannes to complete or nuance whatever I missed …
I opened the meeting by expressing my concern about these delays. From the start I also said that we are aware that some of the delays are on us: for example in the first planning that we received, we were supposed to deliver our programme (common spaces included) by 15 June, and eventually they only found our full programme by the of August. I therefore clearly indicated that we were very open to hear their feedback about things we could be doing differently.
From their side, the architects explained that the second delay (which happened around November-December) is partially because they needed our reply to certain questions much faster, and partially also because there are things that are outside their control that took longer than expected (e.g. it took 5 reminders before the commune sent their report of the meeting). They also explained that the planning they sent is a “planning d’intention”, which means it represents an ideal scenario and doesn’t include any margins.
We then briefly went into the long term planning, and the phases where there is the biggest risk for delays (outside of their control), which are the construction permit and the stage of the “appel d’offres”.
Looking ahead the architects said that we are about to come to the end of the stage where big decisions need to be made (e.g. common spaces etc). What will be coming up next, to finalise the avant-projet stage, is a period where there will be bi-weekly meetings with the technical experts, and biweekly meetings with the architects. For some of the important choices, like e.g. the walls and the chassis, they will present us with 3-4 options to chose from. The way they presented it, it should not be something very complicated.
The architects’ recommendation is to 1) move to weekly meetings with Team Building (at least this is how they did it), and 2) to start to distinguish between decisions that need to be confirmed by the plenary meeting, and “logical” decisions that can be taken without consulting everybody (e.g. which kind of sun protection).
When we asked whether it is necessary to have people with a technical background in Team Building, the architects said that this is not so important. This was not the case in the other cohousings. What is important however is to have some flexibility in your agenda, and ideally also having the same people present at the meetings with them and the technical experts.
Meeting’s conclusions
-
The architects will re-do the planning, and foresee some margin where necessary, so that it becomes more realistic and feasible to hold on to.
-
This revised planning will also include intermediate deadlines for the avant-projet stage, so that it becomes easier for us to plan our plenary meetings.
-
The architects will clearly communicate what the deadline is for things they need an answer to.
-
We need to revise which decisions we want to take together, and which ones we can pass on to Team Building or a Board-like group of people.
-
We need extra capacity for the latter group, so that we can ensure some continuity in the meetings with the architects and the technical experts.
-
Revising the meeting schedule with the architects in function of the plenary meetings (e.g. on the 7th, the 17th and the 27th - more or less) is an option.
-
The architects will provide us with feedback if needed.
-
The architects use more sophisticated planning tools, but not in this stage (rather in the construction site stage).