As rising rents challenge European cities, positive and clean energy districts act as a "social shield" by merging affordable housing with sustainable mobility. By prioritising people, they ensure the green transition becomes a collective right rather than a financial burden.
If you live in a European city today, chances are that your most pressing concern is not the melting glaciers, but your next rent cheque. According to the June Eurobarometer on urban challenges, “Lack of affordable housing is by far the most urgent issue for respondents living in cities, with 51% considering it to be an immediate and urgent problem.” This data reveals a stark friction point for the European Green Deal: how can we ask citizens to embrace a radical energy transition when they are struggling just to keep a roof over their heads? The answer emerging from Europe’s most innovative urban laboratories suggests that the solution might lie in a concept that sounds technical but is profoundly social: the positive and clean energy district (PCED). Far from being a ‘green island’ for the elite, these districts are being designed as inclusive, affordable, human‑centric environments that act as a ‘social shield’, specifically engineered to prevent the side effects of previous urban experiments. By integrating housing and mobility into a single, efficient ecosystem, they aim to lower the cost of living and insulate the most vulnerable from the shocks of global energy markets.
To understand how this shield functions, one must first change the very definition of innovation. Ruxandra Aelenei, a lecturer in urban mobility at Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, argues that the true breakthrough isn’t found in a laboratory, but in a shift in perspective. “From my point of view, innovation doesn’t only mean technique or robots or sensors and so on,” she explains. “I think what is really innovative is that we understand that mobility is about people. It’s not about infrastructure, it’s not about vehicles, about cars or bicycles, but it’s really about people.” This perspective is central to what Aelenei describes as the ‘social side of mobility’—the recognition that transport systems are successful only if they improve social interactions and the liveability of a neighbourhood. She insists that for cities to thrive, public engagement must pivot toward the community benefits of the transition: “Communication must focus on what you are bringing back — such as more play areas for children or more shade — rather than focusing on what is being taken away, which requires administrations to be bold.”
This human-centric philosophy is what anchors the energy district within the broader vision of city governance. Speaking on the comprehensive challenges facing modern administrations, Tania Hristova, the Mayor of Gabrovo in Bulgaria, observes: “We must be comprehensive in how we approach the challenges facing our residents. It is not just about affordable housing; it is about integrated solutions—clean transport, the creation of green spaces, and a quality of life that prioritises health and well-being for everyone.” In this light, the power surplus produced by a neighbourhood is no longer a mere statistic; it becomes the invisible current that powers a worker’s bus or keeps a retiree’s home warm, turning the energy transition into a direct instrument of social welfare.
However, the path to these districts is blocked by a significant financial wall. For many residents, “going green” feels like an expensive luxury they simply did not ask for. Paloma Bozman, Project Manager at Zaragoza Vivienda, the municipal housing company of Zaragoza and a partner in the NEUTRALPATH project in Spain, has witnessed this hesitation first-hand. “Installing renewable energy is not an easy thing for many residents,” she notes. “It represents a significant extra cost, and the expense of retrofitting buildings is often so high that some people cannot even bridge the financial gap to access renewable technology in the first place.” This economic reality forces a fundamental political choice. Blanka Tarsoly, an EU Young Energy Ambassador, argues that governments face a fork in the road: “I think cities and governments really have a choice to make. It is about whether you view housing as a public good and design your policies accordingly, or whether you treat it as a profit-maximising, market-driven sector, which inevitably leads to the marginalisation of vulnerable populations.”
The stakes of this choice are visible in the phenomenon of ‘green gentrification’, where environmental improvements inadvertently trigger social exclusion. Tarsoly points to the famous ‘Superblocks’ in Barcelona as a cautionary tale of what happens when urban greening lacks a social energy framework. While an environmental success, the increased liveability made the areas so attractive that property prices surged, effectively displacing the working-class communities that the policies were meant to serve.
To counter this, modern PCED frameworks like those developed by NEUTRALPATH and its sister project ASCEND are moving beyond simple ‘greening’ to create structural social safeguards. The difference lies in the active role of municipal leadership and independent research organisations. Michal Kuzmić, Head of Business and Interdisciplinary Collaboration at the Czech Technical University Centre for Energy Efficient Buildings and a key expert in the ASCEND project, emphasises that involving independent experts early on is the best way to avoid the speculative traps of the past. “Before the procurement stage, it is crucial to co-design with someone independent and external to the process—someone who isn’t simply trying to sell their own specific solution,” he asserts, noting that this ensures energy savings are legally tied to rent stability.
This protective framework is what empowers cities to move beyond mere planning and into direct market intervention. By ensuring that the technology is serving the social goals rather than the other way around, municipal authorities can safely lead the way. In Zaragoza, NEUTRALPATH translates this principle into a dual strategy where the city acts both as a pioneer and a facilitator. As Paloma Bozman explains, “We have two roles: we are retrofitting our own municipal social housing stock, while also providing grants to citizens to help them finance their own energy renovations.” This ensures that public funds act as a bridge, de-risking the transition so that energy efficiency becomes a right rather than a financial burden that pushes people out.
While the energy grid is made of wires and software, its heartbeat is trust. A district cannot be transformed from above; it must be co-created from within. Michal Kuzmic believes that failing to involve residents is the greatest risk of all. He argues that planners must step out of city hall to uncover the hidden potential of a neighbourhood. “This approach consistently uncovers insights that are often overlooked when decisions are made in isolation at city hall,” Kuzmic explains. “For instance, one might discover a building sitting idle half the time that could be repurposed to serve the community. Failing to ask citizens how they might use these spaces represents a significant wasted opportunity.”
This grassroots engagement is often supported by methodologies like ‘emotion mapping’—a participatory process in which residents record their emotional reactions to specific places in the city. By marking where they feel unsafe, anxious or particularly welcome, citizens provide planners with a ‘human heat map’ of the district. This allows developers to address subjective perceptions such as poor lighting, lack of social spaces or unwelcoming atmospheres, ultimately fostering a deeper sense of community ownership and social acceptance. This is particularly vital in regions where energy poverty is rampant and trust in institutions is low. Looking at the reality of many Eastern European cities, Tania Hristova argues that the future of urban resilience depends on collective governance. She proposes the “Quadruple Helix” model as the primary vehicle for this change. “I think we should invest more in projects that combine this approach,” Hristova explains. “To have citizens, public institutions, education and science, and businesses sitting at a table together to identify the answers that will change our society.”
This integrated approach eventually flows back into the streets. In Dresden, this is being tested through the implementation of ‘E-hubs’ alongside the city’s ‘Mobi-Punkte’—the multimodal mobility stations. To clarify the role of the E-hubs, Luke Bojcev, Smart City Manager for the City of Dresden, uses a familiar comparison: “It’s basically like the petrol stations we have known for decades, but instead of fuel, we provide the connections and charging infrastructure for electric vehicles.” While the Mobi-Punkte focus on centralising car-sharing, e-bikes, and public transport links into accessible nodes, the E-hubs provide the energy-centric infrastructure required for a zero-emission district. Bojcev is clear about the hierarchy of needs: “No city can be truly attractive and functional if its mobility systems are not working effectively.” Dresden is currently testing bidirectional charging technology, which allows electric vehicles to not only draw power from these hubs but also return it to the grid when needed. In this vision, the car parked where this technology is available is no longer just a private asset; it is a temporary battery supporting the energy stability of the entire neighbourhood.
By bridging the gap between climate targets and the citizens worried about their bills, the positive and clean energy district is proving that the green transition does not have to be a threat. When built on trust, independent co-design, and municipal leadership, the PCED is the strongest shield we have for the cities of the future.
By Selene Verri
Photo credit: Freepik
