- in this folder you can find the presentation of the architects (plans, impact of sun, new cost calculation)
- the updated planning is located here
the video joannes made: https://photos.app.goo.gl/EAXa6tkzCzrJEKj86
8 Likes
My takeaway is:
- We got one extra unit + 200 m2 commons + lifts for the same price per m2. Great!
- However, there is a disconnect between the size of units that Oak Tree wants and that offered in the sketch. Sophie is on it.
- Not enough studios, possibly too many 1 bedrooms (though there is some ambiguity here).
4 Likes
Agree with what Alberto has said.
But I also want to add my main takeaway, which is this:
We agreed to an approach where we asked for everything (Oak Tree, elevators, etc.) without the price per square meter going up, and it appears as is if that has been achieved. But the cost has been a significant decrease to the size of the garden. I can’t find the exact size in the files, but last night they said 900 and something. Plus there is more of the garden in the space behind Edifix, and there are now three bike storage units taking up some space. For perspective, we’ll have a garden not much bigger the one at Brutopia (which is apparently 750 square meters), but in a U shape.
Maybe this is a sacrifice that most people are willing to make. But as we move forward with fine-tuning of the plan, it’s important to know what the cost of ‘having it all’ is.
Also, one thing I’m hoping that someone will enlighten me about at some point is how the cave space fits into all this. Is it included in the price, and if so, how big can it be? Or would this be something extra to pay for?
7 Likes
hi chris, looking at the new price calculation (giving a price per m2 of 4438 euro) and the old one (giving a price per m2 of 4370 euro), the cave space has stayed exactly the same, and amounts to 212 m2.
This 212 m2 consists of
- private cellar space (105 m2)
- common cellar space (technical space, …).
This is foreseen in the price.
I’ve understood they still can make it bigger according to the wishes of the later members joining, or if we would want a common atelier.
Extra private cellar space should not come as an extra cost for the group, as it will be financed by the later members wanting a private cellar.
A common atelier will be an extra cost (but very limited)
The things that are not clear to me:
- how big can the cellar space go , it cannot grow unlimited (but maybe not a question for now as there is no need known and i have the impression this topic is not one important for the commune as long as we stick to the surface of the front building)
- they were talking about having no place yet for the ‘bins’ which they - my understanding- would have liked to foresee above ground for practical reasons but as the bikes are put in those ‘possible’ places, their idea is to put them on the -1 level. I don’t know if this will increase the m2 of common cellar place. Maybe, maybe not, but if needed, the increase of price will be very limited
4 Likes
I agree with Alberto, and with Chris (the garden looks smaller indeed).
I have a question about the “sunlight sketches”. Could we ask the architects if they could provide the same images but from a different view, i.e. street view?
And about the bike spots in the garden: it is unclear to me whether they are covered?
2 Likes
Could you please elaborate how you got to that assessment? Because in the cout esquisse file, “cave privatives” are an option you actually have to pay for (bottom section - Ventes Option). Accordingly, only 62m² are available, i.e. roughly 3m² per household. Also the “Exemple coût pour 1 logement” suggests that a private cellar is not included in the price.
2 Likes
hi richard,
Yes, you are right, i expressed myself badly.
Like it has been indicated from the beginning, and how it is calculated in the JET-14 simulation file: if you want a parking space, a terrace or a private storage place in the cave , this comes as an extra cost on top of it, it is not included in the price per m2 ‘espace vendable’
What i meant is that the cave space will not - at a later point- lead to a big increase of the price per m2 of espace vendable, because no budget (for the common cave space) has been foreseen in the current price per m2 of espace vendable. That is how I interpreted @ChrisM question.
You have a point about the 62 m2 (under bottom section - ventes option) which is a bit in contradiction/creates confusion with the 105 m2 of cave under ‘Programme’.
What is clear is that the price calculation that leads to 4438 euro/m2, has taken into account 212 m2 of underground space of which
- 62 m2 of this space is now foreseen to be funded by individuals (choosing for a private cellar space at an extra cost of 1350 euro per m2 cave space)
- the rest of the space (212 m2 - 62 m2) is funded by the 4438 euro per m2 of espace vendable
There is indeed only 62m2 of private cave space foreseen right now and i have no view up untill how much m2 of private space we can go. If we want to add a big amount of private cave space, we might need to have to go towards a cave space underneath the middle building, and this would - if i understood well- lead to an increase of the price. Not clear to me if we would raise the price /m2 of cave space or if we would put this cost in the price/m2 of espace vendable. I personally would stick with the cave space under the front building to avoid this cost and just make it work with the space we have there.
But this is a discussion the architects indicated to push to a later moment, so I would not tackle this now, unless you do see a need for this?
i don’t know if this is any clearer?
4 Likes
hi @reeflings
the architects worked on a different simulation/proposal, where they tried to reduce the surface of the 3 buildings. Their goal with this different simulation is to propose surfaces that are more according to the surfaces we demand (for the 2 bedroom apartments surfaces of more or less 93 m2 instead of 100 m2, and studios of 45 m2 instead of 50 m2). This leads to a higher price per m2 as we reduce the total number of m2 espaces vendable, but if you calculate the price of these 2 bedroom appartments or studios, they will be cheaper.
They call this the MINI version. On the plans going with this simulation the white zones are the traces of the proposition that was presented on wednesday (maxi version), which will illustrate the difference in surface of the buildings and garden.
-
front building
the depth is reduced to 12 m (as is autorised by the PPAS, which will thus higher the chance to get the permit)
they eliminate the outside hallway and add this surface to the surfaces of the apartments.
the multipurpose room is a little bit smaller
In this building, for now, the central apartment (1 bedroom) is reduced (they can still explore to better divide the surfaces and reduce a bit the bigger apartments to make the 1 bedroom a bit bigger) -
middle building
The depth of this building is reduced which leads to 15m2 less per level
The 2 bedrooms end up to be 93 and 95 m2 (instead of 97 and 105 m2)
This also leads to smaller studios on level 0, which is more in lign with the surfaces Oak tree wants (45 m2) -
back building
The length and a bit the depth of the building are reduced (and we further ourselves a bit more from the closest neighbour)
The studios and other apartments in this building are reduced
The advantage of this proposal is that the distance between the buildings becomes bigger, and thus the garden as well, which leads to a better sunshine exposure.
the final cost of this proposal is 56 euros more expensive than the previous version (meaning 4494 euro/m2)
When we then take a 2 bedroom apartment and make the price calculation.
- Maxi version : 101 m2 at a price of 4438 euro/m2 = 448 238 euro
- mini version : 93,75 m2 at a price of 4494 euro/m2 = 421 312 euro
=> difference of 27 000 euro
When we take an Oaktree studio and do the same comparison
- maxi version: 50,5 m2 * 4438 euro = 224 119 euro
- mini version: 46,87 m2 * 4494 euro = 210 656 euro
=> difference of 14 000 euro
the plans and price calculation going with this: Login – Nextcloud
4 Likes
The mini version has the problem that several units “degrade”: they go below the minimum surface for their category. For example, O1 goes from 66 to 39 m2: with the minimum surface for a 1-bedroom at 69, it degrades from a slightly small 1-bedroom to a very large studio. I3 goes from 110 (a slightly small 3-bedroom) to 102 (a 2-bedroom – minimum surface stands at 113).
This breaks the afféctation in mini. See here: Login – Nextcloud
| Unit type | Maxi | Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Studio | 5 | 9 |
| 1 bedroom | 5 | 2 |
| 2 bedrooms | 6 | 8 |
| 3 or more bedrooms | 7 | 4 |
| common spaces | 3 | 3 |
1 Like
Just flagging that your analyis above does not seem to align with that of the architects (“14b typologies logements” - Login – Nextcloud)
Looking at this table, it seems to be me that the concern about having enough studios (8 in total: Alberto, Dave, Marcel + 5 for Oak Tree) should be easy to solve by converting one big two-bedroom into two studios. I trust the architects will figure something out, so I’m gonna stop worrying about that.
hi @reeflings
I had a closer look at the calculation files and some things i want to share:
- there is now a post ‘auvents vélos’ (my understanding is that for the bikes in the garden, please frenchspeakers correct me if you would interpret this differently) for a total budget of 30 000 euro => so i guess this will mean decent ‘roofs’ or bike sheds (so budget foreseen for that)
- there is an extra post for the coursives (which are not optional), which are at a cost of 950 euro/m2. In the front building, all leftside and right side units (3 bedrooms and 2 bedrooms) have a private coursive. Special attention for the 3 bedroom on the 3 floor with a private coursive of 22 m2 meaning a cost of 20,900 euro on top of the price of the unit (i guess). On the other floors, for the other apartments, these surfaces are
- 10,5 m2(9975 euro) for the 3 bedroom and
- 9,5 m2 (9025 euro) for the 2 bedrooms on level 1 and 2 and
- 14 m2 (13300) for the 2 bedroom on level 3.
- there are 135m2 of terrasses. If i count i don’t come to 135 m2 of obligatory terrasses, so @sarah: could you add 2 questions to the list of question for architects:
- how do they come to 135 m2 of obligatory terrasses
- in the ‘cout’ section (where they calculate the total of all costs), they don’t seem to foresee the cost of the 135 m2 of obligatory terrasses , while in the ‘ventes options’ section they mention them as an income. It seems like an error which - in case it is - make the price/m2 rise
3 Likes
Hi all.
So I edited the list of questions
Do you want some of this in the question list? If so, can you add it in the document, I’m not sure how to sum it up.
I’m really unclear what our final take is on mini.
Auvent means just a cover on the top
I added them as is, as I didn’t follow your reasoning. Please check and edit if needed.
1 Like
@reef-building, would somebody be willing to offer a couple of bullet points on the key conclusions on the meeting with the architects? It could be just a couple of sentences, just to keep everybody informed about where we are with things. TIA!
a little correction of what i wrote before…
In the cost calculation of the maxi version these obligatory terrasses and coursives are calculated at a cost of 950 euro/m2 BUT for now the architects have foreseen to sell them at a price of 1500 euro/m2 (a price that is for us to set). Meaning the total cost I mentioned above should be adapted to the costs below (if we maintain the architects proposition)
- for 3 bedroom first floor and second floor in the front building O2 and O5: you have two obligatory terraces (that both can be converted to apartment space if wanted) of a total of 21 m2 => an extra 31500 on top of the price of the unit
- for the 2 bedroom first and second floor in the front building O4 and O7: you have an obligatory coursive of 9,5 m2 (that can be converted to apartment space if wanted)=> an extra 14,250 on top of the price of the unit
- for the 3 bedroom top floor back building: you have an obligatory terrace of 38 m2 => an extra 57.000 on top of the price of the unit
- for the 3 bedroom top floor front building O8: you have an obligatory coursive of 22 m2 (that cannot be converted into apartment space) => an extra 33,000 euro on top of the price of the unit
- for the 1 or 2 bedroom top floor front building O10, you have an obligatory coursive of 14 m2 (that cannot be converted into appartment space) => an extra 21,000 euro on top of the price of the unit.
At what price we want to sell them (building cost or more) is up to us to set, and setting this price will have an impact on the final price/m2. Setting the price of these obligatory terraces to 950 euro/m2 instead of 1500 euro/m2 leads to a difference of 74,250 euro, which is peanuts in comparaison to the total budget of 9,400,000 euro (and thus probably leading to a small raise of the price per m2), but again it’s a raise. => i’ve added this as well in the document of the unforseen expenses.
@Lee @reef-finance : My opinion: before people can commit on which appartment they chose, i think there needs to be clarity on the price for these extras:
- these obligatory terraces and coursives.
And next to that also on
- the ‘private garden spaces’ behind the back building (rate of the price of the land or not) and
- the parking spaces.
- private ‘caves’ (where the selling price is now set at more or less the construction cost, but maybe if we have a higher price for the obligatory terraces, maybe we should do the same for the private caves?)
So according to me also a task for team finance for the coming months?
3 Likes
I would propose to keep it simple. Sell private cellars and balconies at cost (why would we make a profit on them?); sell private coursives at a fixed fraction of the unit’s specific price per m2 (for example 30 or 35%). Obligatory balconies are, as I understand, still private.
The private gardens and parking spaces are a bit more complicated. Note, however, that the existence of private gardens means a (peanuts-level) overall price decrease for non-private garden units. This is because we need to price private gardens for reasons of equity, but we don’t actually pay for the garden. So that becomes a small extra that goes into the budget, yay!
But yes, we need a proposal on that.
I agree that this requires clarity. As a first step, would it be possible to update the price calculator with the prices the architects are proposing? We can take a group decision on this later on, when we have more information, but for now the architects’ indication looks like a solid place to start?
My key take-away was that we are good to go to the commune, and that this does not necessarily require a dedicated consent process at this moment.
I’ll try to clarify that. So when they said “we need you to give the green light for the gabarits and what not”, in my understanding this was an excessively detailed question. Rather, what they need to know is "can we go to the commune to present a sketch with the following features:
-
Maxi
-
Number of units of every type: x, y and z?"
These two points come with the following understanding:
-
Even if eventually we wouldn’t go for Maxi, it makes sense to ask for Maxi and see which reaction we get. No need to overthink that now.
-
The number of units needs to be adjusted, because in a scenario with Oak Tree, we need 5 + 3 units, i.e. they need to fit in 2 extra studios in the sketch they will be presenting and they will take care of that in the next coming days. The division into units is of no relevance to the commune yet, so no need to overthink that.
That said, my second take-away was about the size of the units. We had a discussion about moving walls, and how to divide the buildings into units, and one of the conclusions was that the size of the units in Asterix / the middle building is too big. This too I understand they will be looking into, so I expect that we will be receiving a revised sketch in the course of next week?
Any additions and corrections to this summary are very welcome.
@sarah can you tell us in which folder we can find the meeting notes?
2 Likes
@reeflings The full minutes as well as the original answers from Serge can be found here: internal link
As for the bullet points, I guess the main takeaway is that the architects recommend going to the commune even if the details are not ironed out, to get a confirmation that maxi can work the way it is. It is a bit pointless to start drawing the apartments if the volumes are going to change.
And action points were:
- Oak tree to contact the architects about the size of the studio and compliance to the RRU
- Architects to :
- make a simulation for a mini bis with only asterix bein smaller
- try and see whether it would be possible to fit a 3 bedroom and a 2 bedrooms in Asterix
- make sure we have 8 studios
- give a clear overview on the number of units in each scenario
- send sun simulation and garden size info
I’m sorry, I don"t think I took very good notes. Please everybody feel free to add to this post and/or to the document where you see extra info or corrections needed.
4 Likes
there was an issue with reception of emails between The Reef and the architects. serge (architect)_ tried to send a document with responses and this document was probably sent to an address that nobody from the team can check. contact@thereef.brussels
the architects also mentioned that we should pay attention to having all project discussions in the open web. they fear that some neighbourse may use this info to harm the project development
2 Likes
No update needed. All the terraces (and coursives) are set at the same price. The difference is in the cost, not the selling price.
fyi: I’ve been working on a new simulation file, where you choose a unit (instead of chosing m2) and the m2 and possible obligatory terraces/coursive are retrieved, you can also indicate the 2-4% markup. The goal is to also to take into account the weighing factor once we agreed upon that (and that’s why i haven’t published it yet). If you would allready find it useful, here it is
simulation file 2.ods (42.5 KB)
3 Likes
@reeflings
One of the things the architects promissed to do, following the meeting of the 21/10, was to simulate the impact on the price if we would go for a version in between the maxi and the mini version.
So in the mini version they reduced the size of the front building, the middle building and the back building.
In this new simulation, they kept the sizes of the front building and the back building as in the maxi version, but they only reduced the size of the middle building as in the mini version, which leads to 2 bedroom apartments that are more aligned with our programme and with studio’s that are smaller/more fitting the need of oaktree in the middle building.
so in this version, the price comes down to 4473 euro/m2, an extra 35 euro /m2 than the maxi version.
Fyi:the maxi version came down to 4438 euro/m2, the mini version came down to 4494 euro/m2
5 Likes