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)