On September 24th in Luxemburg, Nebula B4P organised the very first workshop dedicated to the New European Bauhaus at the Sustainable Places Conference.
The objectives of the session were to raise awareness about the NEB amongst a mixed audience of experts from the built environment, question how they address the NEB value in their respective R&D projects, and identify the remaining challenges towards the further implementation of the new Bauhaus.
A participative approach was proposed, breaking down the audience in small working groups enabling discussions and brainstorming, and using ‘traditional material’ to formally collect inputs (paperboards, sticky notes). A synthesis of discussion is provided below.
The participants
Forty participants joined the physical session. A majority of them filled in the online poll that was proposed at the beginning of the session, in order to get an overview of the attendees’ profiles and projects.
The next diagrams respectively show the background of participants, and the R&D projects they were representing in the framework of the Sustainable Places Conference 2024.
About the NEB Values
Value “Sustainable”:
- Participants discussed their practices about energy efficiency solutions and strategies (insulation, passive and active solutions); the design and use of biobased and low carbon material; the consideration of local value chains; the whole life cycle approach, circularity and reusability; and setup of communities of practices.
- The main challenges identified relate to: the lack of standards and the insurance issues when considering reused and recycled material; the difficulty to implement citizen engagement measures and the potential reluctance of local public administrations to this regard; the conflicting objectives and criteria (budget vs sustainability); the need to provide evidence on the benefits of sustainability for all stakeholders of the value chain; the need for behavioural change and the related difficulty to change the mindsets in the construction industry.
Value “Beautiful”:
- Participants discussed the beauty aspect as a sense of cultural identity, belonging, quality of life and feeling good. The cultural heritage was discussed as an example of buildings that can provide a sense of belonging and identity. The market should be prepared to offer a wide range of products that can adequately support building heritage preservation while ensuring energy-efficient renovation. The sense of identity and belonging was also discussed considering social and cultural activities that bring together the community in a participatory movement. The buildings’ history and their relationship with personal history create an emotional connection between people and places. This brought up the topic of the legacy of historical buildings and evolved to the question of the legacy of new buildings. How will future generations admire the new buildings of today?
- The beauty concept can be vague and often subjective compared to sustainable and inclusive. The challenge mentioned is related to adapting new technologies while preserving the cultural heritage, combining functionality aspects with aesthetics providing visually pleasant solutions, and the difficulty of the construction sector and procurement procedures to embrace changes. It was noted that beauty can be a challenge when people are still fighting to survive. Therefore, beauty might be only achieved when no one is left behind.
Value “Inclusive”:
- Participants shared various strategies for fostering inclusivity in their projects. Key approaches included co-design and co-creation processes, tenant engagement in social housing, and gathering input from diverse stakeholders. Participants emphasized the importance of working in large, collaborative teams, using workshops and tools for stakeholder engagement, and promoting open knowledge sharing. Psychological research, worker training, and involving intermediaries between professionals and residents were also highlighted.
- Several challenges were identified in implementing inclusivity in their projects. Key issues included digital inclusion and ensuring broad citizen participation, particularly among different age groups. Managing large information flows, balancing digital and physical engagement, and building trust were highlighted as difficulties. Divergent interests, prejudices, and lack of awareness also posed obstacles, alongside communication gaps between researchers and scientists. Additionally, challenges around participatory foresight and maintaining social trust were discussed.
About the NEB Working principles
Working principle “Transdisciplinary”:
- Participants agreed that consortia in European projects are more and more interdisciplinary, notably with the increasing integration of social sciences experts. The involvement of local stakeholder groups was clearly identified as a key success factor to ensure transdisciplinary. The concept of citizen science was also discussed.
- The main challenge raised by the group was the language issue when dealing with interdisciplinarity, both inside and outside a consortium: indeed, the terms, but also the concepts and values behind them, differ between cultures and disciplines. Reaching a common understanding is an absolute prerequisite to effective co-creation. Also, initiating a co-design process across different pilot sites throughout Europe is challenging, due to different practices and habits of the local stakeholders, each pursuing their own local agenda.
Working principle “Multi-level engagement”:
- Participants discussed how this was addressed in their projects. They highlighted the integration of top-down and bottom-up approaches, the importance of considering multi-benefit concepts, and the effective use of personal networks. Organizational challenges at different levels were also noted, along with the need for a neutral space where stakeholders at local, regional, and global levels feel empowered to influence project outcomes.
- The key issues identified included difficulties in replicating solutions across different levels of stakeholders, split incentives, and balancing mindset changes with organizational shifts. Conflicts arose from differing narratives and dynamic versus static project elements. Additionally, replication challenges were noted, with external inputs varying significantly across local, regional, and global levels, complicating the consistency of project outcomes.
Working principle “Participatory”:
- Participants discussed that the participatory approach can be achieved through active communication, collaborative research, and knowledge sharing. Participatory activities must be well organised with well-defined tasks for all people involved. Surveys, workshops, presentations, and interviews are tools to deliver this approach.
- Excessive consultations, surveys, and interviews voluntarily might be a challenge in the participatory approach. The skillset, training, and political adjustments were also identified as a challenge in this environment.
We thank Larissa De Rosso from Architects’ Council of Europe (ACE-CAE), Kelly Riedesel from NTNU, Eva Čeh from InnovaWood network, and Clémentine Coujard from Dowel innovation, for facilitating the workshop and drafting this synthesis.
Looking forward to a second edition next year!
