Hmm… I do not see it as demanding. They set their own deadline, it is not imposed by us. Once they have set it, respecting it fulfills a need for predictability, in order to be able to organize out own work. I am not sure I can work long term with “it’s ready when it’s ready”.
1 Like
Oki, I see two needs here: 1) trust and ease of collaboration with the architects, and 2) predictability. These should not be contradictory, so I would propose to add it as a general point for the next meeting with the architects.
1 Like
Hi @reeflings , here the last proton email from François (architect)
Bonjour The Reef,
Ce mail pour vous informer que nous avons fixé un rendez-vous mercredi prochain (21/02) à 15h00, avec l’urbanisme de Molenbeek.
Si un représentant de The Reef souhaite venir …
Belle journée
françois
8 Likes
Hi @reeflings !
Today we – with the architect, François - met the Commune of Molenbeek regarding the project for the site MOL 26. Here is a sum-up of the things that have been said and that you might want to know.
The Commune is globally in favor of this project, as it was explained by the nice hand sketch, thought its industrial heritage might make the process slightly more complex. They reminded us some of the core values of Molenbeek Municipality that have an impact on projects :
-
About the program: Molenbeek (and Brussels Region to some extend) is not very pro 100% residential developments. The « productive » vocation of the neighborhoods in the valley must somehow remain, especially on former industrial sites like this one.
Therefore they recommend that we introduce more activities that can benefit the neighborhood, since the existing wood ateliers are not counting as part of our project.
The project showed by our architects is already suggesting to have some ateliers in a part of the site, as you will discover when we recieve the feasibility study.
The question about « who will (co)invest in these ateliers » is to be deeper researched. -
About the vegetalisation/densification: over densification of building plots (meaning buildings high constructions, adding housing units in the middle of the plot, etc…). The actual proposal seems very reasonable and qualitative for them, they like the big garden and the idea of green roofs with potagers.
-
About the heritage: this is a very important characteristic of the site, we must verify if some parts are not being added in the moment to the protected patrimoine of Brussels, and meet URBAN.brussels to present them the project. One of the key challenges will be to see how to enlighten this feature.
-
About the integration in the neighborhood: since this is a particular site, with a strong historic background, the Region/Commune will certainly demand that the project doesn’t privatize it all, and somehow « gives back » something to the neighborhood.
The possibilities of having inclusive units definitely give good points to the project.
Having a public path crossing the site is not especially recommended, but letting a small part accessible for the public for time to time (next to the ateliers for example) would be a plus. -
About the parking: they agree to derogate to the RRU (Règlement Régional d’Urbanisme) and let us not have 1 parking plot per household: this is normally obligatory, but that would mean building an underground parking, which raises highly the costs of the project. To be defined if we can reach max 0,5 parking per household.
They also reminded us to present The Reef, our goal and values, while meeting the public instances: indeed this would always weight in our favor, since we don’t have a commercial intention (they really don’t like promoters so much haha… They asked if we intention to sell units.) and since we want here to build a sustainable, inclusive project.
It must be determined whether the project will imply a regional or a municipal permit, and from that point it would be clearer what the next steps are.
10 Likes
thank you for this debrief.one idea i drop here 
… to convince the public authorities to reduce the rate of car park per household is to introduce car/bike sharing spots in the project. …that are open to everyone(platform clients,cambio,etc)
4 Likes
Update from the architects (ref: email 22/02 “Jette!”):
Le site de Molenbeek (Patrimoine, mixité de fonction, parking, pollution du sol…), est très complexe, cela prendra pas mal de temps pour finaliser une étude de faisabilité. C’est un projet assez (trop?) risqué. Même si cela ferait un projet très excitant.
So they are now focussing on the site in Jette, but they are also continuing to work on MOL-26. When we find a moment we’ll ask why they believe this still makes sense.
2 Likes
As a reminder, tomorrow, Monday 04/03, François will be revisiting MOL-26 at 3pm, so don’t hesitate to join him if you’re interested.
4 Likes
Hi there!
I was checkin our convention for FS for another reason, and found an info that is relevant to this discussion.
Here is what is written in the agreement we have signed with them :
Stekke + Fraas, s’engage à produire ces études de faisabilité dans des délais les plus courts
possible; les prises de renseignements auprès des autorités pouvant parfois prendre du temps il
ne nous est pas possible de nous engager sur un délai ferme.
1 Like
The architects just let us know they have finished with the FS of MOL-26 and suggest this Thursday to present it, late afternoon (I looked at the time of the presentation of JET-14, and it was at 17:30, so i guess same timing will be ok).
Can you let me know via the link below if you can make it/ and if you cannot make it, whether you prefer it to be postponed.
If i remember well from the JET-14: giving the presentation online is not what architects preferred so i will keep the option to ‘life meeting, and either being present life or not being present’.
- i can be present this thursday at 17:30
- i cannot be present that early but 18:00 would work for me
- i cannot be present that early but 18:30 would work for me
- i cannot be present this thursday and i would like to be present
0
voters
PS: I asked if we could get the documents beforehand.
2 Likes
sorry, forgot one option
@Caro @mieke @Lee @ugne, can you bring out your vote again (i have noted it so if you don’t get a chance to revote i will take into account your vote from the poll above)
- i can be present Thurday at 17:30
- i cannot be present that early but 18:00 would work for me
- i cannot be present that early but 18:30 would work for me
- i cannot be present, but i don’t mind, i will rely on the feedback given afterwards
- i cannot be present, i want to be present and thus want the meeting to be postponed
0
voters
1 Like
Thanks for that Els!
Personally I am not sure whether it is still possible to find a date for a meeting that suits all Full Members, so I’m not sure whether postponing should be an option.
What I think we should consider though, is organising some of these meetings online in cases where many people can make it online but not in presence. If we make decisions based on range of tolerance and the interest of the group, then I think this should also hold for the architects.
Hybrid meetings to me are a last resort, as I find them very difficult to follow and sometimes even disruptive, but if it means we can include a Reefling who would like to present and can only be present online, then by all means let’s go for it?
1 Like
@Lee , can we get some clarity on that for the next FS presentation?
- what options to provide in a poll
- what is ‘many’ in exact numbers
- …
Hello @reeflings,
We discussed the feasibility study with the architects last Thursday. The study can be found in the Fiche Factory: https://c301.nl.tabdigital.eu/f/134136
These were my notes, including things that are not directly apparent from the study.
- Price: 4600
- Because it’s a renovation it would require a 15%
- It’s a small Brutopia-style garden (600 m²), with little sunlight
- It comes with some possible complications in terms of patrimoine etc
- There’s this wood workery (or something) in the middle of the site
3 Likes
@Caro can you please post the minutes of the Full Members meeting in the minutes document? I really need this to be able to follow up on my action points. TIA!
@Lee I a m confused… It was said no minutes report was needed and that we were just taking notes to sum up at the end… i even double asked at the end if a report was needed and I got a “no”.
I will start checking where are my notes but I am not even sure this sheet of paper still exist…
1 Like
Ha ok, so it’s a misunderstanding. We have a “documentation or it didn’t happen” policy, which means that we always make minutes. It provides transparency to those who weren’t there, and helps others who need to follow up to do so efficiently.
No need to catch-up on it anymore, but @ChrisM let’s please keep notes of the Full Members meetings, even if it’s only half a page?
1 Like
Yep!
If that piece of paper still exists, can you send me a photo of it. No problem if not… I’ll make a summary of the meeting based on what I remember and the many subsequent posts 
2 Likes
Bonjour,
Today i call MOL-26 owner to inform her of our decision not to continue on this site.
7 Likes