Hello everybody.
Maybe it is worth taking some time to discuss the flood risk and our criteria for excluding areas. The map we have been using colours in light blue areas with a flood risk whose chances of flooding seem rather low (Aléa faible: zone potentiellement inondable, mais de façon très exceptionnelle : environ une fois tous les 100 ans). I wonder if we have excluded areas because they are within this light blue category and I wonder if this needs a revision maybe?
Indeed @MariaAM , there is a 10min item on the exclusion criteria (from you and @anon78992831 ). Some of us have been wondering about the flood risk criterion and I guess it’s a good idea to ask the architects about it once their back from their holidays (after all, Brutopia is in a flood zone, if I am not mistaken).
1 Like
- What do we do with sites that have running businesses on them?
I don’t think we should create files for such sites, because then we could also consider creating a file for an occupied residential building… Et on n’est pas sorti de l’auberge !
hi @reef-building do we still keep one of these two dates available for screening or not necessary anymore with the new guidelines?
I’d be happy to contribute, but I’m not clear on what the question is?
I’m not sure I agree with this. A one in 100 years flood means that if you are going to live in the same place for 50 years, there is a 50% chance of being victim of a flood. And this is a statistic that was computed prior to climate breakdown.
A quick search on the internet confirms that things are likely to get worse due to climate change. Here are two articles that have a reference about 1 in 100 floods now happening back-to-back (i.e. every year):
- 1-in-100-year floods happening so often, the term may change - ABC News
- https://environment.princeton.edu/news/100-year-floods-will-happen-every-one-to-30-years-according-to-new-coastal-flood-prediction-maps/
(and then we didn’t yet go into the details of how accurate these maps are)
I’m also not sure that I agree on this one. Alberto says that the average business only lasts for 5 years, which means that businesses that are on their last legs may be looking for someone to buy their assets, including their building. Admittedly it’s a long shot, but not necessarily an impossible one.
No, indeed, that’s not necessary anymore because the backlog of fiches is gone.
1 Like
When screening the fiches, a few members of Team Building realised that a lot of sites and entire areas scouted (Anderlecht, Forest) had to be excluded due to flood risk. Combined with the fact that Brutopia is built in such an area at risk, we thought it might be worth discussing among ourselves and ask the architects about their opinion.
Also, I guess the question is when/if/how to adapt the assessment criteria in general if we come across issues.
1 Like
I asked the architects their opinion about the flood risk and here under is their answer.
Le tout est de bien prendre en compte les risques et leurs évolutions possibles.
A Brutopia, nous n’avons eu aucun dégâts des eaux depuis 11 ans. Les étanchéités des murs enterrés sont prévues pour être dans la nappe phréatique.Pour nous, il ne faut pas écarter d’office les bâtiments en zones inondables.
I personnaly think we could authorise light bleu zones in our scouting but not forget about it for latter on (impact on works and price for example)
2 Likes
I’m sorry, but I don’t feel that this provides a content-based reply to what I wrote above on floods.
Let me try again by referring to the wikipedia article on 100-year floods (i.e. those predicted for light blue zones): “A common misunderstanding is that a 100-year flood is likely to occur only once in a 100-year period. In fact, there is approximately a 63.4% chance of one or more 100-year floods occurring in any 100-year period.”
In that context “we did not have a flood in the last 11 years” is not a solid argument in terms of statistics.
I also can’t stress enough the importance of the fact that these maps were made prior to the acceleration of climate breakdown impacts.
1 Like
@Julien would it please be possible to send a copy of that correspondence to The Reef’s mailbox? TIA!
1 Like
Hi @Sophie_B ,
Just thinking that we should maybe add a discussion about what to do with big sites in our next meeting. What do you think?
Indeed, I am still waiting for the reply of the architects though. But let’s discuss.
Hey (reduced) @reef-building, I put the agenda for our meeting on Friday online. It only contains three items (sites for pre-feasibility, le programme and tasks for Newlings), let’s see if we make it through that excel sheet first though 
2 Likes
Hello @reef-building,
I’m starting to look into the draft agenda of the next plenary and it seems like we don’t have many other points other than the scouting exercise. Can you please let me know what you would like to put on the agenda?
Also, a request relating to the scouting exercise: given that the search for the owners of a site may become a significant bottleneck to send on the site for a feasibility study, could you please look into a system to organise this as efficiently as possible? Up to you to decide of course, but my recommendation would be to not shy away from asking each and every Reefling to take care of a site, if needed with a deadline.
TIA!
1 Like
Hey @reef-building, our next meeting is on the 12th but I was wondering if there was a chance we could have a quick chat beforehand because things are starting to pile up again: the follow-up of the meeting with the architects (big sites, Kersbeek, remaining 3 pre-feasibilities and more to be send), follow-up of the plenary (reviving the scouting (Signal group?) and sending the 3 sites that were part of the vote on for feasibility) and indeed finding the owners of sites.
Would you by any chance be available for a quick chat tomorrow or Sunday?
- 5.10 (8pm)
- 8.10 (6pm)
- I can’t do either
0 voters
Thanks a lot!
3 Likes
The minutes from the meeting with the architects are in our folder (internal link). It is a bit “brut”/ not edited; let me know if it requires translation or clarification.
Also I don"t think we got the answers for Lie’s questions. Maybe we will need a follow up phone call?
3 Likes
Thanks a lot @Sarah! To me all is clear, and I do feel my questions got answered 
.
Some questions and suggestions for the follow-up:
-
The point on needing at least 80 m² net on average comes unexpected, and has some significant consequences for our recruitment process. Let’s maybe quickly discuss this at the Coordination Group, because this means we quickly need to do our math. In the worst case this will imply that won’t be able to take on any more single people (or even couples without children), and it may also put a limit on our inclusive units
. -
The answer that says that building in an ilot (with less floors) is more expensive is also not trivial. I imagine that this will further reduce the number of sites that we’ll send on for a pre-feasibility study?
-
How does this process of asking questions to the architects work? Can I add more questions in the same document?
-
Along the same lines: can we think of a way to keep the overview in that document? For example, can it be an idea to introduce different sections (financial, scouting, …), so that it will become easier to retrieve the information that we need?
1 Like
Hey @reef-building the agenda for our meeting on Thursday is online. Is there anything you’d like to add?
@Lee, I’ve added your remarks under the item “Feedback from meeting with the architects”, will keep you posted.
On a practical note, is it ok if we start at 7.30pm (and not at 7pm as initially stated in the calendar)?
See you on Thursday 
2 Likes
Hi @Lee , regarding the size of the apartment I don’t fully agree that this might imply that we should exclude certain categories of people, but I rather think that it’s important to stress in the recruitment process that we are now looking for people who want a ‘bigger’ apartment (minimum size to be defined). I think that one’s family situation does not necessarily have to determine the size of one’s apartment.
1 Like
Hi Mieke,
I fully agree, and at the same time the fact that would need people who want a unit of at least 120 m² net, will de facto exclude the majority of single people or couples without children.