Suggestions of improvals for the facade of the common spaces

Hi @reeflings,

In the PM of 05/04 some remarks were made concerning the facade of the commons spaces.
This post has the aim to collect feedback on the remarks made, with the goal to consent to a proposal on the PM of the 15/04.

A summary of the remarks made:
Document with numbered arrows, linked with the remarks below: TB/avant projet/Facade

  • Obelix (front building)

    • Suggestion to have the window going down till ground level (arrow number 1)
      Argument: to avoid litter/rubish being put on the windowsill

    • The architects have foreseen a third door in the multipurpose room (arrow number 2). This extra door makes the connection between the multipurpose room and the firebrigade entrance.
      Do we want a third door in multipurpose room?
      If we would convert it into a window, we could have a window starting at 50 cm high, creating some extra space for bikes

    • The front facade and back facade of Obelix is all windows.
      Suggestion to foresee a little bit of wall, on the level of the arrows number 3, to have some flexibility in the multipurpose room. If later we want to make some extra devision in the multipurpose room, we have a point where you can attach a wall to

    • The back facade of Obelix has two sizes of windows: bigger windows going down to +/- 30 cm above ground level (arrow number 4.a) and smaller windows going higher above ground level (arrow number 4b)
      Suggestion to make the bigger windows smaller, same height above ground level as windows (4b). This would allow to have extra cupboards for storage. As we have limited cellar space, we will need storage space in the multipurpose room itself. There is the big wall next to Alberto’s unit where we could foresee cupboards, but can you ever have enough storage space? What is the added value of the bigger windows?

  • Idefix (back building)

    • Back facade of Idefix: the whole back facade is mainly window going to ground level. The access to the garden is foreseen by opening a window
      Suggestion: as we will have the guestroom there, The suggestion to foresee a door on the level of arrow 5, so we don’t need to enter the guest room to access the garden.

    • Linked to the previous point: suggestion to foresee a piece of wall next to proposed door (arrow 6). This to allow a better connection of a fixed or none-fixed wall to the back facade, leading to better accoustics for the guest room.

5 Likes

Concerning the third door in the multipurpose room


We haven’t discussed the layout of the multipurpose room yet, but I kind of like where the kitchen is foreseen on it right now. If it would stay there, I think the space where the door is foreseen now, would be better converted into an extra cupboard to store kitchen stuff + an extra surface to cut veggies or to put a coffee machine or sth.

I find three doors also a lot, I think it might make it a bit more complicated if we want to close the multipurpose room off from the rest of the common area


1 Like

Hi @reeflings ,

Because of the limited reactions to the post, i made a survey to understand what you prefer, to be able to come to a proposal we can consent to on the PM of the 15/04.

Here is the link to the survey. Is it possible to fill it in by Sunday 13/04 12:00 (noon)?

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe0Foz-LPN-DcXCCrGo0qUieFrPKTxwi-xVzbR0shCBsy78qw/viewform?usp=header

5 Likes

Hi @reeflings ,

Here is the proposal based on the above survey, it will be brought up for consent in this Tuesday’s PM (15/04): Login – Nextcloud

@Hannah and Jeroen:

  • you’ve indicated that you would prefer the third door in the multipurpose room to be converted into a window. Most people are in favour to keep this door and give ‘nice for kids’ as an argument. As you have kids, I would like to understand why you would find it hard if the door would stay (knowing that there is a gate closing off the ‘parking’ space from the street, so keeping it safe for children.)

  • you requested to have the bikes in front of your unit being moved to the space in front of the reefonly zone.

    • the placement of the bike spaces is not part of this proposal, and as far as i understood, the bike spaces have been fixed and are not up for discussion any more

    • as the reefonly zone was chosen to be at that space in idefix because of the ‘sunny space’ reason, I don’t think the group would want to sacrifice that nice piece of garden for bike storage. @ the rest of the group: feel free to react if I made a wrong assumption.

Thanks a lot Els, great work!

I personally have some doubts about proposal number 2, to reduce the size of the windows of Obelix on the side of the garden. Are we sure we want to sacrifice daylight and a view / sense of connection to the garden, for storage space, or let alone heating? I’m not gonna stand in the way, but if anything, I would have made these windows bigger, reaching to the ground, so I just want to make sure that everybody is visualising the implications of this proposal.

As for proposals 1 and 3 on adding a bit of wall to leave the option open to build something later, I’m not sure what the little black squares are in the plan. The way I understand it, these are heavy things (pillars, beams) for stability purposes, so let’s please check with the architects whether we need something extra.

Hi @Lee

The proposal is based on the results of the survey, and for this particular point a majority chose to reduce it, with no one finding it hard to reduce it and one person finding it hard if it wouldn’t be reduced. I invite every one to read the remarks made in the survey (link to the results is in the proposal) and the ones made in this thread, including yours. If anyone would want change their mind, I invite them to react via this thread and if needed the proposal can be adjusted.

As indicated in the proposal, this is indeed something that still needs to be verified with the architects. If we could obtain the goal of adding a fixed or non fixed wall, without adding an extra piece of wall in the facade, than this wouldn’t be done. I personally don’t see an issue to check this with the architects after consenting to the proposal, so they can focus on getting the estimates finished. Ok for you?

Yes.

With respect Els, but we do not decide by majority. Instead we decide based on concerns and the interest of the group. We did one round of concerns on this at the meeting, and the second in the poll. I am formulating my concern in the post, and I would like it to be duly considered, without arguments of what the majority wants.

Hi lee, i do agree it’s not about the majority deciding and i do hear you. It’s however difficult to come to a proposal and weighing what is in the end the best in the interest of the group based on all this input. For me the difference between ‘i can live with it’ and ‘i find it hard’ was also a way to see what to propose as well. The way I understood it is to clear things as much out beforehand, via edgeryders so we can ‘quickly’ consent to it in the PM. So again I invite everyone to express themselves via this thread and let it be known if they would rather find this hard to accept. Or do you prefer to go through a ‘concerns’ round on the PM itself (for now i only foresaw a limited amount of time on the PM, expecting it just to be a ‘consent’ round)? (Or any other suggestion?)

If we don’t decide by majority, then I wouldn’t bring in a graph. I’m quite immune to it personally, but ideally I prefer to keep the space void of arguments that could be pressure people into not speaking up. Conversely I would recommend acknowleding people’s concerns before bringing in a proposal (ideally a proposal is also discussed with someone else and peer reviewed).

That said, I will not stand in the way and yet I will also not consent to this until my concern has been considered, so yes, I would not just bring this to consent right away at a plenary.

I am sorry I pressured you into not speaking up or make you feel ignored/your concerns not being acknowledged, with this post and survey my goal was exactly the opposite: to collect peoples concerns and feedback
 In the end the goal was to come with a proposal otherwise there is no consent possible in the PM. And as there is contradictory feedback/(underlying) concerns, i as the author need to make a decision, being very conscious about the concerns made about the current proposal.

I maybe should have made the deadline for the survey sooner so there was time for a review or discussion possible. So if somebody has time to review the proposal: please do. I wanted to put it out as the PM is the day after tomorrow. Or do you want to postpone this topic to the PM of the 20th?

I have reworked the proposal a bit, mentioning the concerns/downsides of the proposal, so it’s more balanced/you have a better overview on what’s been expressed
The ‘concerns’ round in the PM will indicate if the current proposal needs to be adapted before we consent to it. => does that work for you?

I havel adjusted the time foreseen for this topic in the PM so there can be a concern round, with then the possiblity to adjust the proposal to be consented to.

Just to be clear: I was not experiencing any unpleasant feelings, and I felt free to speak up. My request would be to steer clear from adding up replies to a poll, as we don’t decide by majority, and I believe this does not create the openness to speak up against the majority that we aspire to.

This I believe is a misunderstanding. As the person taking the lead on a proposal, it is your task to make sure that all concerns that have been brought up are shared with the group. The steps that were missing in my view are listing these concerns in the proposal, possibly checking in with people (i.e. bring a couple of these arguments back to Edgeryders) and explaining why the proposal is as it is.

Thanks, that works. The one thing I am looking for is making sure that everybody can visualise the consequences of this proposal. Are we really sure we want to give up daylight and a sense of connection to the garden for extra storage space? Also, is everybody aware that if there would be a small child standing on the other side of the window, it won’t be possible to see it from inside the multi-purpose room?

Hi there :slight_smile:

I just have a concern/request for clarification that I would like to add about point 1. If we make these black bits bigger to be able to attach a wall, doesn’t it also mean that the pillars in the middle of the common room also have to become bigger?

Thanks to both of you for getting this proposal out!

1 Like

We can check, but I am almost sure that these things are not linked.

@reeflings

In the last PM (15/05) where we had a proposal for the facade of the common spaces, we didn’t come a consent because we wanted to clear out things further concerning the wish to reduce or not reduce the big window in the back facade of Obelix.

One argument pro reducing it, was because of creating extra wall-space for storage and for radiators. In the technical note of the technical engineer, I find some info concerning this point:

“It’s important to note that if you chose for radiators where the energy needed is produced by heat pumps, the radiators should be much bigger, or you should have much more. This can be a very efficient system and interesting on a financial level. The down sides are the visual aspect and the possibility of ‘cold zones’ (zones that are further away from the radiators).”

For the multipurpose room, a space of 115 m2 brut , 4 m high, this worries me a bit.

They propose other solutions for heating:

  • floor heating. Downside that this is more expensive and I don’t think this fits in the foreseen budget of 750 euro net/m2.

  • ventilo-convectors. They are more compact than radiators.they obtain faster the wanted temperature. Downside: it is noisy (how noisy is not mentioned). (no indication of the price)

(to be further checked with the architects)

5 Likes

@reef-coordination

As we got a return from the architects on the open questions concerning this topic, i made an adapted proposal: Login – Nextcloud

It’s very short. Lee, this probably doesn’t need to go on the PM of coming Saturday, but if there would be time over
 This should go quick.

Could somebody of the coordination group or @reef-buildfin review it?

Hey :slight_smile:

Had a read-through, sounds good.
I’m not fully clear on the way forward with the issue round a partition wall in ObĂ©lix (adding a structure behind the window if and when we want to build a wall? Or before building?) but I’m not sure that matters, personally happy to follow you and the archi on this


it’s when we go in details over de windows, before building

For me the learning here was “go to the architects with needs and concerns, not strategies”.

Translated in those terms, the architects response was “we take note of your need” (option of a perpendicular wall) and “we can accommodate that but we’ll do it in a way that doesn’t disrupt the aesthetics of the facade”.