For the key: best to call my dad, and see with him whether you can directly call the seller. After that probably a good idea to spend some money on duplicates and even a key box?
For the common spaces: did they indicate in what format they would like to receive our programme? I mean, is it for example two pages of text with the spaces or functions that we would like to have, or …?
My sense here is that we are going into the details too fast, both in terms of how something can be done (mezzanine, underground etc) and what the price implications would be (especially for such small amounts). I would rather give them our list of wishes, probably with a distinction betweeen “indispensable” and “nice-to-have” and then ask them to work on that, and then maybe present us a couple of options and their price implications?
I don’t say you are not right and i do think the architects can come up with solutions (which indeed we do not need to foresee)… If possible I would like to talk to you before our 'helping circle ‘common spaces’ takes place … (Common spaces: getting more precision on our "programme" - #25 by Sarah).
We shared the table that came out of the ‘common spaces survey’, and understood they already took that into account in the proposal they made to us. The way I understood it, @Sarah@Sophie_B complete/correct me if you understood it differently:
they made a proposal of our common spaces, which include a multipurpose room with kitchen, a laundry room and a multipurpose mezzanine with living room, guest room and shower. For me this corresponds to our which list in terms of ‘what spaces we want’ => see what the groups reaction is to that (m2 ok, concerns,…)
they asked us to check whether an atelier on the -1 level is acceptable
they asked us to give the number of bike spaces we want, taking into account that we cannot go to the minimum as they need to justify the 5 parking spaces
i would handle it as with the apartments a bit: say what is absolutely important (and like you said what is nice to have), maybe say if we have an extra budget for it, and what that would be
So for me a word document containing this info should do it. I guess 1 or 2 pages should do. When i asked the same question for the apartments, they didn’t seem to mind much about the format (that was my feeling)
In my notes, I wrote end of December 2024, but anyway Francois said they could not commit to this yet .
That sounds good!
Although it’s always a bit of chicken and egg situation, where we need some info from them so that we can get started and not just go full blue sky on the process. So I still think it wasn’t a bad idea that we gathered some data to base our thinking on a little… But yes to lets not be overly specific on what we communicate to them in the final step…
@els was there an indication of when we will get to this level of clarity? I’m asking because for the recruitment process it’s a bit of disaster to not know where the units will be. Can you please include a note somewhere to insist that we are really in a rush with this, if only for a first draft?
last week they wouldn’t work on the Reef, but coming week they could
they will work on the planning (as what francois presented in our meeting wasn’t yet validated with serge) and adding dates to it. So for me next week I think we can expect an indication of when the several phases would be delivered.
(=> i will add the this question to our list of open questions (the planning and stressing we would need a first draft asap)
@reeflings , i would like to have some feedback on this…
As mentionned above, the architects asked for the ‘program of the full members’. I wonder if we shouldn’t open it to full and associate members as well. So what does it mean if we don’t open it to associate members?
It means that the architects will only take into account the full members wishes from the third round of ‘Le Program’ and try to foresee these units in Obelix, Asterix, Idefix, together with our wishes for the common spaces. For the m2 left, they will create extra units, taking into account the proportion (more or less 1/3 of studios or 1 bedroom apartments, 1/3 of 2 bedroom apartments and 1/3 of 3 or 4 bedroom apartments). This means that the current associate members becoming full members in a few months, will ‘only’ have the choice to pick one of those latter apartments. What is the danger/risk of also sending the program of the associate members
In any case, the current full members will have a priority of choice of unit over the current associate members.
The only risk/problem I see is if an associate member would have an exuberant choice of apartment (e.g a 500 m2 3 bedroom apartment) . Looking at the file destined for the confesseur, i see no such thing. So the worse case (the associate member would not decide to become a full member) is that we will need to ‘sell’ this absolutely normally sized apartment to another person. Is that a problem? I think not so i would argue for having the output of the third round of ‘Le Program’ of associates to be send to the architects as well…
I agree with your reasoning.
Question: when do we need to fill in the program 3? Preferably in the coming days? I will leave on holidays on Thursday at noon and I will not have a laptop with me so I would like to fill this in before then.
Hi mieke, i thought you were already on a break ;-). The idea would be to send it out this week (might be after Thursday), but you will still have time to fill it in after your holiday…
Return of the architects on your question, if we should foresee a condition ‘suspensive’ . Their answer: this seems very complicated to do. We have never done this before and this goes beyond our skills. On top of that, it would surprise us that the seller would accept that.
We will need to clear the site asap, as it is needed for the geometer and for the people doing the soil tests => did i remember well that this was taken up in the ‘offre d’achat’ (or other document) for the seller to take this up?
In the meantime i called to marcel and he indicated that it was agreed with the seller that he will not take this up, because of his health issues…
Some more answers from the architects on questions we asked about commons, units, planning,…: Login – Nextcloud
Reviewed planning with high level dates of the different steps. This planning goes until the deposition of the permit at the commune :Login – Nextcloud
The text of the offer is as following :
“the bidder will enjoy the property by taking actual possession of it, after the plot will have been cleaned up (removing machinery, objects and construction waste).”
I haven’t visited the site so I do not know what exactly is there to remove. I saw your other post about clearing it. As long as it involves mainly elbow grease removing the plants, shrubs, etc, I don’t see any problem doing it ourselves. If there are bigger items, maybe it would be worthwhile to ask the current owner to discard them if otherwise it implies extra cost for the group. This is at long as the bigger items can stay on the plot and not interfere with the work of the architects/geometre until the owner removes them.
@reef-building
I do not know how the selection of the geometrician will work (is it the architects who decide? or they give us the right to decide ?) but since the notary specifically said he works with certain geometrician only, it would be good to have the name selected by the architects to green light it with the notary (or at least to inform him that we will be working with someone who is not on his list) before any order is placed. I will discuss this also in team finance tomorrow.
the architects have now asked for a price offer of 5 candidates, 3 they know (and think are good) and the 2 passed by our notary.
They will send us the price offers as soon as they get them, and then we shouldn’t waste too much time deciding on them. It is us deciding.
We don’t need to know everything in details for the common spaces already! I think we might need to try and chillax on that…
related to the above point: moving the bikes to the garden to recuperate the extra common space: not so straightforward. They need to be in a secure shelter => we shouldn’t think about solutions ourselves, we just need to state our problem high level. In this case ‘try to optimize the bike space area to gain extra m2 for other common spaces’
The programmes individuels are only there to guide decision when there is a choice, but they don’t look at it individually and try to match them
10% safety margin is for unforeseen expenses and nothing else
They will look at the whole of ‘le programme of the units’ and will try to create this wished apartments of the full members. They need to take into account the shape of the different buildings e.g. putting all 2 bedroom apartments on the top floors is not going to work probably, as you will be left with a lot of 3 bedroom apartments that are the biggest. So probably there will be a bit of an equal repartition of 1-2-3 bedrooms on the different floors. If e.g. they have the choice to put on a certain floor a (1-bedroom and a 3-bedroom) or (2 two-bedrooms), than they will look at the priority and will see: the one highest on the list wants a two-bedroom on the topfloor of obelix: ok, lets go for 2 two-bedroom apartments instead of a (1-bedroom and a 3- bedroom).
(i am not sure if i am clear) @Sarah : complete if you have sth to add…
I didn’t actually understand this, for me basically they might have a quick look to have an overview, but won’t really be looking at it to create the divisions (they said “we won’t be making an apartment thinking of such or such person”… ).
They would just check our wishes when there is a choice to make. So the example you gave about the choice on a certain floor is exactly right though.
