Sustainability
Design or renovation of buildings and living spaces that are not only ecologically responsible, but also financially viable in the long term.
The dimension of Sustainability within the New European Bauhaus (NEB) paradigm identifies the environmental and economic perspectives as two main drivers to promote a holistic approach for the design or renovation of buildings and living spaces that are not only ecologically responsible, but also financially viable in the long term. This approach encourages the development of innovative solutions that minimise environmental impacts, while also generating economic value, thus fostering a symbiotic relationship between ecological stewardship and economic prosperity.
The environmental perspective of the sustainability dimension needs to address issues related to energy, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and other non-energy related environmental impacts from the built environment.
The economic perspective of sustainability for projects in line with the NEB initiative should follow the three levels of ambition introduced in the Compass: (i) to repurpose, (ii) to close the loop and (iii) to regenerate. The economic perspective of sustainability addresses two main aspects: (i) a more efficient use of scarce resources and the use of less money in a more effective way, and (ii) the investigation and collection of diverse potential sources of existing public funding and available private funding to support projects.
Key Performance Indicators
| S.1 | Minimise the use of fossil fuels in the built environment |
Energy efficiency first principle is the main guiding principle, complementing relevant EU objectives in sustainability, climate neutrality and green growth, becoming particularly significant in the construction sector to achieve buildings that exhibit a very low energy use from conventional or renewable energy sources. Hence, it is essential to minimise the primary energy consumption of buildings and maximise the use of renewable energy sources in line with the provisions of the recent recast EPBD. |
| S.2 | Maximise the Use of Sustainable Energy in the Built Environment |
Once a building has achieved a high energy performance with low energy demand, the next target is to maximise the use of sustainable energy, according to the following two objectives:
|
| S.3 | Minimise Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Built Environment |
The target intents to minimise whole life cycle GHG emissions that constitutes a pillar of EU policies to control the impacts of climate change. Accordingly, the target aims to achieve the two following objectives:
|
| S.4 | Enhance Sustainable Mobility in the Built Environment | |
| S.5 | Minimise Non-Energy Related Environmental Impacts to Air and Water | |
| S.6 | Related Environmental Impacts from the Built Environment | |
| S.7 | Achieve the best possible greening of the public sector in terms of its economic involvement in the sustainability of the Built Environment | |
| S.8 | Achieve the best possible greening of the private and financial sector in terms of its economic involvement in the sustainability of the Built Environment | |
| S.9 | Promote Circular economy in the Built Environment |
Handbook section
Beauty
Ensuring an adequate quality of experience for the users and presenting a pleasant level of aesthetics and style that transcends functionality.
The New European Bauhaus (NEB) paradigm identifies, within the dimension of Beauty, two primary requirements for the built environment: ensuring an adequate quality of experience for the users and presenting a pleasant level of aesthetics and style that transcends functionality. This revisits the principles of Vitruvian tradition, wherein architecture was regarded as a reflection of nature, and where aesthetic quality (venustas), stability (firmitas) and utility (utilitas) stood as its fundamental attributes.
There is a need to draw the attention of designers to issues of beauty in the built environment and to support solutions that go hand in hand with EU policies. Achieving beauty in the built environment should be a conscious pursuit and an explicitly declared objective of place-making, planning or building. This is inherently related to the preservation of cultural heritage, including rediscovery of history of architecture and places that feel familiar, or places that are in harmony with the natural world. The same protection and care should be extended to unique places and forms that appeal to people's creativity and imagination.
Today, various models for the aesthetic quality of architecture and the built environment are identified. This is characterised by the coexistence of traditional architecture and new building styles, depending on the region, available technology, and climatic conditions. As a result, European modern and historical architecture is characterised by a desirable diversity that should be enhanced and protected. At the same time, we are witnessing and contributing to a paradigm shift in the creation of living spaces. The contemporary approach emphasises sustainable design, environmental protection, supporting local communities, and satisfying aesthetics. There is an increasing use of local, natural building materials, greater attention to the material and cultural surroundings, and a concern to perpetuate the heritage for future generations of Europeans. Human beings remain the focus of architects’ and planners’ attention, but modern science is creating new tools to assess their wellbeing, including aesthetics.
Key Performance Indicators
| B.1 | Digitalization in Construction |
The extent to which disruptive technologies are adopted, with a specific focus on the establishment of a collaborative working environment and the integration of digital technologies, premanufacturing and automation. |
| B.2 | Quality of design and delivery |
The extent to which high environmental performance and project quality are ensured through the engagement of actors with relevant experience and competencies, the responsible procurement of certified products, and the optimisation of the quantity of sourced materials. |
| B.3 | Improving building resilience to extreme events |
The extent to which the design considers the different natural and man-made hazards to which the project may be exposed, including the effects of climate change, ensuring that the building and its components are designed to resist them and that preparedness measures are taken to foster more effective emergency management and rapid restoration of project functionality post-disaster. |
| B.4 | Ensuring occupant health, comfort and well-being | |
| B.5 | Improving accessibility of the built environment for everyone | |
| B.6 | Maximising durability and service life | |
| B.7 | Ensuring high level of aesthetic acceptance of buildings and spaces | |
| B.8 | Providing spatial coherence in planning and design | |
| B.9 | Improving preservation of cultural and natural heritage | |
| B.10 | Maintaining genius loci and improving sense of belonging | |
| B.11 | Understanding aesthetic perception of buildings and spaces through comparison to actual 'styles' and tendencies in art and architecture |
Handbook section
Inclusiveness
Increase the equal access of products and services by diverse groups and enhance democratic participation, co-production and effectiveness in projects' management.
The Inclusiveness dimension of NEB projects refers to a twofold social objective. On the one hand, NEB projects mainly aim at increasing the equal access of the products and services they provide by diverse groups in terms of social status, citizenship, age, gender etc. and, on the other, at guaranteeing that these projects are operated in ways enhancing democratic participation, co-production and effectiveness in their management.
Within the New European Bauhaus, diversity and equality are concepts employed to address the principle that, to promote a socially fair transition — as outlined by the European Green Deal — we must address the inequalities that are related with this transition. For New European Bauhaus projects, this signifies affordable, accessible and non-discriminatory access to suitable buildings and living spaces adhering to high-quality standards, situated in neighbourhoods that uphold adequate services, promoting equal opportunities for their residents, leaving no one behind.
Building on the NEB core value of inclusiveness, NEB transformative projects promote togetherness — which refers to concepts of inclusion, diversity, equality, accessibility, and affordability — as a means to consider and remove potential barriers to access and use of the resources and opportunities offered, avoiding any form of discrimination based on individual or social groups’ characteristics. At the same time, it involves responding consistently and thoughtfully to the expressed needs within the project context, particularly those of individuals who are at a higher risk of exclusion or marginalisation than others and whose needs might remain unexpressed or unrecognised.
Key Performance Indicators
| I.1 | Funding and land value |
The funding channels of a project and the value derived from land transformation play a crucial role in directing the built environment to avoid or mitigate inequalities and pursue the public interest. Projects aimed at facilitating the creation of financial assets rather than offering public goods, through either the use of financial and speculative financing circuits or by harnessing land value appreciation for speculative purposes, may result in price increases and uneven development. This process can have even more serious consequences for the affordability of housing access, primarily because it contributes to price inflation and drives cycles of price rises. In this respect, the de-commodification process, which involves excluding land from speculative markets, is crucial to restore their use value, prevent uncontrollable price hikes, and address social claims. |
| I.2 | Affordability |
The European context is characterised by a great diversity of features in housing regimes and policies across and within states. As a result of the crucial role played by the regulatory and policy frameworks, guaranteeing affordability at the project level might be a radically different endeavour in different contexts. Where housing regimes are orientated towards the right to housing (with the existence of, e.g. non-speculative financing circuits, robust protections for tenants, large public housing stocks), providing housing that is affordable vis-à-vis existing needs is much easier than in systems where housing welfare is residual. For this reason, affordability needs to be assessed in relation to the context where the project is implemented, to avoid rewarding or penalising projects for their national/regional/local housing regimes. To this end, indicators have been conceptualised and operationalised to measure the extent to which the project can promote/improve affordability within the context of its specific housing regime and/or to the prevailing economic status of the area where the project is being developed. |
| I.3 | Inclusive quality, equality and accessibility |
To promote neighbourhood equality, it is crucial for projects providing housing and services to ensure that they contribute to improving residents' quality of life. This KPI assesses the extent to which the project ensures that the quality of created spaces and services is maintained over time, the distribution of services and their accessibility is equitable, and the production of spatial disparities is limited as much as possible through the choice of housing models that promote diversity and inclusion. |
| I.4 | Rent regulation | |
| I.5 | Impacts on neighbourhood social cohesion | |
| I.6 | Needs and resources for social accessibility | |
| I.7 | Needs of vulnerable and marginalised groups | |
| I.8 | Anti-discrimination initiatives | |
| I.9 | Involvement of stakeholders | |
| I.10 | Administrative capacity |
Handbook section