Hello @MariaAM and @Sebas as well as @Lee and @alberto (as the number cruncher of the group) - Sarah and I have put a first draft on how to vote on sites to go for a feasibility study together. Would (some of) you be willing and have time to peer review this proposal until Saturday night so that I could finalise it on Sunday for it to be ready for the plenary on Monday?
Thank you - your input is highly appreciated! 
Thanks a lot @Sophie_Beese and @Sarah!
It was not an easy assignment, but I think it looks great. Overall I find the numerical part rather complicated, but when looking at the example I can see that this could work.
I introduced a couple of comments, some with questions, others with a suggestion, but nothing really major.
Ping @alberto: can you please shine your numerical intelligence on this?
PS: I moved Sophieâs message to a separate thread, so that we can retrieve it more easily. Hope thatâs ok.
1 Like
Thanks @Lee! I cleared the document (highlights in blue are future Team Building tasks) and only left our questions about the exact distribution to @alberto. Thanks everyone!
Hi @Sophie_Beese,
After a nightâs sleep I am not sure any longer whether we are not making it too complicated.
To get a better overview, I created an Excel with the information from the architects in the âPFEâ files (internal link).
Looking at this file, I have two observations:
-
There are truly only two viable candidates: Drootbeek and Kersebeek (the other sites get a +/- at best)
-
Looking again at our budget estimation, regardless of the number of units, being able to build 3300 mÂČ brut is an essential requirement if we donât want the price of the square meter to go up.
Of these two, the one with the +++ (Kersebeek) gets as a remark âto reach the number of units, you need to be able to build 2 floors, which doesnât seem unreasonable, but to be checkedâ.
What I would conclude from all this, is that before we move to any multi-voting:
-
Having an overview file is really going to come in handy
-
We should probably limit the vote to sites that are reasonably eligible.
Happy to get your thoughts!
1 Like
Thank you for creating that file and for putting more thought into this! Indeed, I assume the idea was always to only vote on sites that have received a favourable pre-feasibility study - which is indeed something we havenât defined yet but I am assuming anything that gets at least one â+â. I wasnât aware of the requirement of having 3300mÂČ but happy to add that.
And for the interesting sites, Team Building is looking into Kersbeek and Drootbeek. SĂ©bastien will get in touch with the architects tomorrow and weâll decide on the pilot based on that information.
1 Like
Thanks for this work, Sophie and Sarah. Really good 
1 Like
@reef-building, Thanks to SĂ©bastien who called Serge this morning, we now have the following information on the two sites that received a favourable pre-feasibility opinion from the architects (Drootbeek and Kersbeek):
- Pourquoi +++/++ : Semble + facile et + proche du programme Ă Forest quâĂ Laeken.
- ProblĂšme chantier LâĂchappĂ©e: Oui, riviĂšre sous terraine (+ de frais + de temps). Pas sur Ă 100% mais possible aussi au numĂ©ro 32. Seulement problĂ©matique si on fait un niveau -1 (garage).
- Pour Kersbeek, si la commune dit non pour construire dans lâilot, les architectes ne vont pas plus loin.
Considering these aspects, I suggest that we send the âKersbeekâ-site for a real feasibility study. If you have any objections, please voice voice them until Wednesday. Thanks!
1 Like
Hi,
Iâm in favour of sending the Kersbeek form, insisting that the commune urbanism department be first contacted by the architects to ask their opinion on the construction of our project on the interior of the block (ilot). If the opinion is negative, the feasibility study is stopped.
seb
3 Likes
Hello, this is a confirmation from a friend from lâĂchappĂ©e:
Oui, nous avions eu un problĂšme de nappe phrĂ©atique plus haute que prĂ©vue, qui pourrait vous concerner au 32. Il a fallu la rabattre dans une autre couche gĂ©ologique. Mais François et Serge sâen rappelle certainement trĂšs bien.
3 Likes
Hi @reef-building, I have completed the review of the proposal presented by Sophie at the August 1 plenary. The review is in the form of a half-page of text added at the end of the proposal itself.
3 Likes
Hey @alberto, Thanks a ton for this! I combined the two elements (structure/context of the old proposal + your voting system) - does this work for you? Would you mind presenting it at the plenary (explaining the voting theory behind)? I was wondering if that couldnât be at the plenary next week - time-permitting, @Lee?
1 Like
I can do that, though the proposal is more yours than mine.
1 Like
Not anymore Iâd say - thank you 
Hi, I did look to the proposal, nice work.
Iâm just asking myself how the online voting would/could take place? How quick do people have to answer? (This because I have the feeling some members donât go as often on edgeryders as necessary fot this kind of votes).
1 Like
Good point - as the vote only concerns full members and therefore fewer people, I guess itâs possible to reach out to everyone.
Weâre a bit short on time for the plenary on 22/08, but we can of course easily swap items from one plenary to the other. The reason why I only scheduled it on 06/09 is that we should have our first feasibility study by then, which should make the process to select sites more tangible. What do you think?
I see your point, and at the same time I believe there is a minimum commitment that we need to build a cohousing together. We can do our best to flag people that something is urgent and important, but we can only do this much.
My reasoning was that weâre going to send more fiches for a pre-feasibility soon and might want to vote on the sites that get a favourable opinion at the plenary in september - in which case it would be good to have decided on the system beforehand. But maybe that can be done at the same plenary.
Oki. I added it to the agenda of 22/08. This way there are more items than we have time, but then Iâm not sure whether the item on the sociĂ©tĂ© simple is going to be ready. Letâs see how things go?
1 Like