3F studies to sent to the architects: i don’t feel i can do this at this moment, so yes: go ahead (for me), the sooner it is done, the better. Thanks!
yes: i would also go for blocking agenda’s and maybe cancelling some afterwards if needed. Lee was also planning to write an extra post on scouting, but if i remember well that was on motivating people to do as much scouting as possible : individually and on the foreseen days, and was more linked to ‘we first need to have a view on where to scout next’, so would definately go ahead with the planning.
Let’s add a point on everything communication to the agenda of the next meeting?
That said, if I’m not wrong there was an action point left of asking the architects for their bill. So unless I missed something (I didn’t see anything in the mailbox) I’ll take care of that, so we can close the 2023 budget.
Exactly that.
It’s the financial estimation document indeed. I propose we first have a look at it (I’ll start a small thread), and then see where that brings us. Talking to Alberto yesterday we also figured that it’s probably a good idea to bring a Team Finance number cruncher to the work flow, once the feasibility studies have come in.
Indeed. The sites we sent out are all going to be over budget by about 1 mil, and one of them (maybe both) also implies reducing the number of units to carry that cost. So this will raise the cost of the site per square meter built. We need to find out by how much, so that we can make informed choices about how much we can offer for those sites.
It is. My point is that, if we have a good sense for the economics, we might be able to:
Discard sites that are obviously over budget at the pre-feasibility phase. All we need is two numbers that are on the pre-feasibility study: surface of the site and number of square meters vendable that the site supports.
If our numbers do not add up, review the criteria for a viable site.
We received 2 answers from the architects about Mol-26, and their feedback is very positive! As the site is for sale, they are advising to bomb ahead with sending it for feasibility and organising a visit for them to go on site. They also ask for a few clarifications.
So questions:
do we want to move ahead quick with this, and try and do what we can ahead of the next plenary? We could at least organise the visit to the site , even though that is by-passing a bit the normal process. An other option is to even request consent online for sending it tor feasibility study, which I feel is the best option here. What do you think?
Who takes responsibility to answer to that email? @Sebas are you happy to keep going with it?
I also have (not great) news about AND-13 and AND-32 that we sent for feasibility. The architects got back to us asking to organise visits on site, so I have tried to contact the owners again.
And-13: the owner is really not cooperative at all, and just told me it wasn’t a good time for her to talk, and to call back another time, not giving me a time when to do that when I asked… I’ll try again next week.
And-32: the owner is open to organising a visit, but there is 2 problems, one small and one big.
The small problem is that they have a contract with a local car dealership that they have priority if the site should be for sale (I have some info that this might be self-resolved, but there is that…); so he is saying he wants us to be aware that we might be doing some work for nothing if that’s what should happen. I feel that it would be ok to take the risk, let me know if you think otherwise.
The other big problem is that the owner is really not in a rush, and that for the moment he says it would probably take him 3 years to be ready to move his activity… Mainly because he needs to find a suitable site, and ask for a permit as he foresees that he will have to build a new warehouse from scratch. I am thinking that the timeline might change if he find a suitable site with a suitable building on it, so maybe there is still some hope… But as he is a bit reluctant to start looking for a new site before he is sure he will sell his current site, we would only now that a bit further down the line… So… the question is whether we keep going with this site or whether there is just no hope for it. After talking to Lie about it, the plan is to ask the architects for their view on it and see what they advise us to do.
So I will answer to the email’s architect with all of this, just thought I would let you know where we were up to with these 2 sites. Let me know if you have comments/ideas.
Personally i would go for asking consent online. It seems likely to me that this will not be the only time where we would want to move quickly, so ideal to try it out already
@Sarah do you have time to bomb ahead on MOL-26, or would you prefer somebody else does it?
My suggestions regarind practicalities would be a separate Edgeryders post with a short summary, a poll and a deadline, and then maybe a message in the Signal emergency chat, so we can shorten the time to get a complete vote?
Hi team, MOL-26 has been sent to the architects for a pre-feasibility study. The architects are on holiday until 08/01, so let’s hope to hear back from them by the plenary session on 11/01. By the way JET-14 is also for sale and also sent for PF.
6 sites are waiting for a responsable for contact the owner and some Fiches are waiting to be screened.
Yes, actually it’s true that we didn’t get the drawing of the pre-feasibility, ; but they said they had a look at it and that we should move to feasibility, so I don’t think we need to wait for the full pre-F in this case.
So personally I think we should move ahead on the basis of what the architects said so far.
And at least consider the fact that they asked whether we could organise a visit after the 7th when they get back, and start doing that.
Sorry, i just discover the second email, great news.
I can find a date to organise a meeting beetwen owner(s) and archi but have no time to organise a summary, a poll, a deadline, and a message in the Signal emergency chat.
Hi @reef-building !
We have a scouting day planned next week and haven’t really decided on the next zone to scout… I would like to propose we try and decide on this online. Let me know below if you disagree.
If we go ahead online, here are my thoughts.
We have never systematically done Forest. @Sebas is this commune fully done?
Otherwise, how about the furtherest part of Auderghem or Etterbeek? Personnaly I feel that Etterbeek is too central and probably quite full but @Aline_Jeandenans you seemed to think it could have potential?
Etterbeek ans Auderghem was just “why not”, I don’t know a lot about these communes… I just go to families’s house everywhere in Brussels and these two seem to be quiet and nice and in our criterias… It is more an intuition
As the site is for sale, they are advising to bomb ahead with sending it for feasibility and organising a visit for them to go on site. They also ask for a few clarifications.