@reef-building got the weighing criteria from the architects, with their priority in relation to each other.
There are 6 criteria in total.
The file can be found here.
Some extra info the architects gave during our meeting:
they also considered to add ‘distance to the common spaces’ , but left it out as they judge that it has both a positive (not having to go far to reach the commons) and a negative (noise, more passage,…)
the factor ‘light’ is not a seperate criteria, as it is ‘hidden’ in sunlight/floor
a lot of the criteria are linked, their goal is also - when looking at an apartment- not just apply this criteria but to see the whole of these criteria in relation to the apartment in question. They also indicated that while doing the exercise of weighing each apartment, they still adapt these criteria or priority because they notice that ‘in reality’ that it’s not logic/balanced.
they indicated it will be a complex exercise (even though they have done it before). The goal is that the sum of the prices of all the units = m2 of the private units * average price/m2
we also indicated that an extra criteria for us is, to stay within this +/- 10% in relation to the average price. The architects indicated that their goal in first instance is to rate the different apartments according to the market price, which might result in some apartments being more expensive than this +10% or others being less expensive than -10%… They mentioned that in Brutopia (more compact site, building with 5 floors high) the most expensive apartment was + 30% and least expensive was -30%. This price fork differs from project to project. It will be up to us to agree on this price fork (or not), but maybe already sth to raise to the group now: What do we prefer : ‘have a price setting that reflects the market price’ or ‘staying within this +/- 10%’.
the options won’t be taking into account for the price setting (as they will be chosen later). E.g. an apartment with a terrace will probably have a higher market value than the exact same apartment without one. (and it might not just only be the diffence in cost of the terrace)
@Sophie_B@joannes : don’t know if you want to add something or if you interpreted things in a different way…
i think - like you said in the meeting with the architects: follow a bit the market price + allow people with lesser budgets to be able to afford to live in a cohousing. @lee?
Just to be clear: I’m all in favour of dropping the price fork and going for market price, but I do want to insist on process here, because it’s my favourite strategy to keep conflict at bay.
The current situation is that we took a decision by consensus (level 5) on 26 March 2023, where the group decided on a price fork of +/- 10%. The proposal can be found in Team Reef > Proposals, or also here: publicly accessible link.
Our governance document (point 5.2.3) says that decisions like this can only be re-opened when there is a 50% majority who wants to do so, and the condition is that “new information” has shown up, which of course one could argue is the case here.
I personally don’t expect however that the result of the architects’ weighting exercise will go beyond +/- 10%, so I have a preference for 1) not raising stress levels until we have more information, and 2) leave the journey to this final decision in the delicate hands of @reef-finance. Would that work?
Finally, a small note on the the story on Brutopia’s price fork as it is reported above, which the way I understand is clearly not the one we have been told by Mark. What we have been told is that at some point it turned out that some financially weaker households would have had to leave the group with a +/-10% price fork, and that there was a quick and voluntary agreement from the financially stronger household(s) to stretch their price fork, or “l’accordéon” as they call it. I wasn’t there, so I can’t know, but I do know that @RichardB and I did quite some research on immo sites to inspire the proposal we gave consensus to in 2023, and that 10% seemed to be a reasonable range.
My takeaway from the meeting was that anything under +/- 10% would be unfair as it wouldn’t reflect the market reality and that it was up to the group to decide on a larger price fork for solidarity reasons.