This is something i’ve mentioned in some other posts (the setting of the price of the options), and I am not sure if I am the only one thinking that we should come with a proposal on this.
So what I’ve done, I’ve created a document collecting some info, putting forward some options of price settings, and this document could be the start of a proposal.
If you, team finance, don’t find it worthwhile to bring this up in a plenary (proposal that needs consenting to), it could also end up in the bin.
Could you read it, and @ugne can we do a quick round on this in the next team finance meeting to see if we go through with this or not?
The document can be found in the ‘price setting of options’ under the ‘Price setting’ folder of team finance.
ps: if we want to go through with this, it’s set on the agenda of the PM of December 16th
Thank you for the document, @els . I think this needs a deeper discussion within TeamFin, we are still quite far from a proposal. An important consideration is who is subsidizing whom. For example, if we set “too low” price of the balconies, units with small or no balconies will end up subsidizing units with large balconies. Since lower-wealth households are going on the ground floor (no balconies), this means mostly that the poorer reeflings would subsidize the richer ones, which warrants some discussion.
So, let’s schedule a dedicated meeting and think through this.
Thanks alberto, this is exactly one of the points i wanted to make
The architects repeatedly indicated that the prices they foresee in the FS as ‘selling cost’ are not to be seen as an advice from them to us. They clearly indicated that it is for us to set the price. For most prices they indicated as ‘selling cost’ the building cost but without 21% VAT, without the fees. When confronting them with this, they confirmed and repeated what i mention above: they are for us to set.
Exactly what you said: the people not taking these options will sponsor the people taking them. Most likely these will be the people with lower budgets and I don’t think this is something we want
For the parkings: for me - after talking to friends who have been looking to buy a parking in jette) the price they indicate for the parking is not conform to market value but higher (and i might be wrong, who knows). So the architects set a price higher than construction cost and higher than market value (according to me). I don’t think it is/was the idea we want to sponsor the Reef by setting the price for options higher than market value. As a reefling wanting to buy a parking space, this doesn’t sit well. I am willing to pay extra , for the extra common spaces and elevators, but i would like this to be a free choice to do so or not, and i would like this to be a free choice in how much i would want to contribute or not.
(ps update the file a bit, for the part concerning the ‘buffer zones’, based on extra info from the architects)
And yes: please discuss this in Team Finance , my goal with this document is to put it on the table/create common understanding so you can decide how to proceed (and i don’t think you need me for this further discussion)
When the architects shared the info of the weighing of the units, they also shared some extra info/advice on the price of certain of the options:
"Nous proposons un prix de 350€/m2 pour les jardins privatifs.
Pour les terrasses obligatoires, nous avons utilisé le prix de 1500€/m2. Pour la toute grande terrasse de 38m2 sur Idefix, on se demande si il ne faut pas réduire un peu ce prix au m2. "
(ps the price of 1500 euro/m2, is again the price without VAT, Fees)
Some extra info from the architects, concerning private terrasses for the units on ground level:.
A statement from them:
’ Nous pensions ne pas prévoir de terrasses pour les lots OAK (sinon c’est un surcout pour eux), par contre pour les logements Reef au rez, ce serait bien qu’ils puissent avoir une terrasse. ’
First question from my part:
‘si j’ai bien compris ce sera un choix libre par les personnes du Reef qui prend un logement au rez (pas d’obligation par la région/commune)?’
Reaction from them: ’ Il faut prévoir un petit espace extérieur minimum pour les logements Reef. La taille par contre peut être au choix. ’
Second question from my part
je suppose que le coût d’une terrasse au rez aura un autre coût que les prix des terrasses au +1, +2, +3. Est-ce que vous pouvez donner une indication du prix (et indiquer si ça inclut le TVA, 15,1 % de frais (honoraires AR + études techniques)’
Reacton from them: ‘Pour le projet spiegel, on avait compté le même montant qu’aux étages. Même si elle sera moins chère à réaliser. Cela inclus un prix pour le terrain. Ça c’est si la terrasse n’est pas dans un jardin privatif bien entendu. Mais vous pouvez décider d’un autre montant si vous ne souhaitez.’
What is the point of having a ground floor balcony? It just reduces the common garden. It creates barriers where there is no need for any. I understand the logic in a non-cohousing apartment block, but in a cohousing it’s not justifiable.
OK, but here we should look for a workaround IMHO. Otherwise it looks like “we are a cohousing, but we actually do not want to hang out together, so each of us has their own little table with a fence around it, I hang out alone here in front of my unit and you’d better stay over there in front of yours”. It would be visually messy. It would be much nicer if we would have three beautiful sets of garden furniture, and that would be where people mostly hang out. We now even have the sunlit Reef Zone in Idefix, why would people not go hang out in front of that?
I don’t see a problem with ground floor units having a little terrace for themselves, just like the other units on the other floors have terraces that are private. If they want it, it would allow them to use some outside space (eg for putting a laundry rack, growing herbs, installing a telescope) without needing consensus from the group to do this (like the people living on other floors).
Met the architects tonight and some extra info about the options, their reasoning and what they advise:
Reasoning behind the price of 350 euro/m2 for the private gardens => they are rather big surfaces, the total price of the private garden would be too high if you apply the price of land + notary costs
Reasoning behind the ‘obligatory terraces’: they are cheaper to build than the non obligatory terraces, why is the selling price the same => because they are private outdoor spaces. Only in the case of the top unit in Idefix, where the surface is quite big, they would go for a lower price/m2. For this latter: same argument as for the private gardens: the total price of that obligatory terrace would be too high
Recommendations by the architects:
private gardens (behind Idefix): 350 euro/m2
private terrace on ground level (1 bedroom Obelix): obliged, same price as terraces on other levels, minimum size of 6 m2
private cellars: construction cost + VAT + fees
terraces (obligatory and non obligatory) except for the one on top floor idefix: building cost of ‘non-obligatory terrace’+ VAT + fees
parking: 20.000 (In Spiegel, where there were carports, they sold them at 17,000 euro. In Brutopia (underground protected parking) somebody recently sold one at 25,000)
I asked again if we cannot negociate about the obligatory private terrace for the ground level units (without private garden) , there is one unit, the 1 bedroom in obelix on the ground level. They said the commune/region won’t accept it, it’s clearly mentioned in the report of the last meeting with them (see post). They don’t think the argument of cohousin/big common garden will work. The minimal surface should be around 6m2.