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 Albertoâs 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 donât 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.
Concerning the third door in the multipurpose roomâŠ
We havenât 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 areaâŠ
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)?
youâve 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 ânice for kidsâ 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 âparkingâ 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 âsunny spaceâ reason, I donât 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.
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? Iâm 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, Iâm 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 letâs please check with the architects whether we need something extra.
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 wouldnât 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 wouldnât be done. I personally donât 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?
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 itâs not about the majority deciding and i do hear you. Itâs 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 âi can live with itâ and âi find it hardâ 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 âquicklyâ 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 âconcernsâ round on the PM itself (for now i only foresaw a limited amount of time on the PM, expecting it just to be a âconsentâ round)? (Or any other suggestion?)
If we donât decide by majority, then I wouldnât bring in a graph. Iâm 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 peopleâs 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 itâs more balanced/you have a better overview on whatâs been expressedâŠThe âconcernsâ 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 donât 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 wonât be possible to see it from inside the multi-purpose room?
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, doesnât 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!
In the last PM (15/05) where we had a proposal for the facade of the common spaces, we didnât 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:
âItâs 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 âcold zonesâ (zones that are further away from the radiators).â
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 donât 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)
For me the learning here was âgo to the architects with needs and concerns, not strategiesâ.
Translated in those terms, the architects response was âwe take note of your needâ (option of a perpendicular wall) and âwe can accommodate that but weâll do it in a way that doesnât disrupt the aesthetics of the facadeâ.
During last PM (26/04), we consented on the proposal concerning this topic.
I would like to retract my consent to this proposal as I would like some clarity on certain things first.
I will explain myself further in a post, as soon as I get off from work today.
Itâs linked to a choice we are not making now and hopefully we will never have to make, namely what if we donât get our units sold because we are too expensive, and we need to go down quite a bit in price.
What i hear as a solution is âwe will convert the reefonly zone into a unitâ. (and maybe there are some other ideas that I havenât heard about).
This is going back on a decision taken, and for me going back on two decisions taken:
1 the one about raising the number of m2 so we can have all we described in Le programme 2 (of august 2024)
2 the decision to have the reefonly zone not in the front building but in the back building
For me, selling some extra common space and convert it into a unit: ok, that seems like the only thing we can do if we are confronted with this reality. Does it need to be the reefonly zone in the back, that is another thing.
I donât want to go into that discussion now, I just want a confirmation of my assumption: if we need to convert some m2 of common space into a unit, we will need to adjust the permit anyway (more m2 of units) and at that time we will discuss where to put this unit: back or front, and if it goes into the back: what other things we need to change to the plans to provide a good acoustic insulation for the reefonly zone which would then move to Obelix. Correct?
If yes, all good and no need to further retract my consent to this proposal.
