Energy poverty is not just about cold homes; it’s about social exclusion and wasted potential. By blending beauty, participation and innovative finance, a new approach to housing renovation is taking shape. One that puts people — not just buildings — at the centre of Europe’s energy transition
By Diego Giuliani
Fighting energy poverty and improving the efficiency of Europe’s buildings is an urgency for everyone — and an emergency for many. With housing ranking among the top sources of urban greenhouse gas emissions, the issue has clear environmental implications but also mirrors deep social and economic inequalities. The highest price, in terms of unhealthy living conditions and real health risks, is paid by the most vulnerable groups, notes Riccardo Coletta, Senior Project Manager at APRE, an Italian non-profit association that supports and trains stakeholders on the EU’s research and innovation programmes. That is why SUPERSHINE, one of the European projects he coordinates, focuses on the renovation of social housing to help reduce energy poverty. After three and a half years, the project is now nearing completion. What will remain, Coletta says, is a valuable legacy of tools and knowledge for public administrators and the scientific community. “We’re leaving behind innovative financial models that make energy efficiency a concrete reality,” he explains, “but also a stronger awareness of how central citizen engagement is to creating and sustaining virtuous, sustainable solutions.” The urgency is backed by figures: in 2023, one in ten Europeans said they could not adequately heat their homes, while only 1% of Europe’s building stock is renovated each year to modern energy-efficiency standards.
What do these figures reveal, first and foremost?
They show that most of Europe’s housing stock is old and built with outdated materials, methods and insulation. That means there is enormous room for improvement — but also that many people face a real emergency. The fact that one in ten citizens cannot heat their home properly means that a significant share of the population lives in unhealthy and harmful conditions. Think, for instance, of the vast stock of public housing in various countries, or the apartment blocks inherited from the Soviet period in Eastern Europe.
Why is it so urgent to act on social housing, specifically in terms of energy efficiency?
Because energy poverty is not only about those who can’t heat their homes. It’s also an economic issue, one that wastes public resources while deepening inequality. The impact is felt most strongly by people with fewer means, who have limited access to alternative energy sources that are less exposed to market fluctuations. In Europe, this is becoming a genuine emergency. Environmentally, it’s worth recalling that in urban areas, the largest share of emissions doesn’t come from transport — but from housing. Increasing energy efficiency in homes therefore has a huge environmental impact. But sustainability also has multiple social dimensions. It means improving living conditions, yes, but also strengthening the sense of belonging to one’s neighbourhood, enhancing its liveability and how it’s perceived — both by residents and by the wider community. Our approach, therefore, goes beyond simple energy upgrades. It’s inspired by a broader vision of design and regeneration — of homes and shared spaces — leading to an overall improvement in how we live together.
You mentioned “financial sustainability.” How central was that in your approach?
Finance is a key part of the puzzle. The goal is to identify suitable instruments to fund renovations without placing the burden solely on homeowners or public authorities. This can mean public–private partnerships, contracts with energy providers that share risks and returns, or other mechanisms that make these projects truly feasible.
Riccardo Coletta, Project Coordinator, APRE
What philosophy has guided your work?
Our approach is shaped by the three pillars of the New European Bauhaus. The first is sustainability, achieved through solutions — for both buildings and outdoor spaces — that cut emissions and deliver tangible environmental benefits. Since sustainability is also financial, this includes tools that make these interventions economically viable. The second is beauty — not just aesthetic beauty, but the usefulness and usability of spaces for those who live in them. It’s about improving everyday life, providing services, and rediscovering the beauty of living well. The third is participation, which is crucial in disadvantaged contexts. Involving residents in designing their spaces is essential for fostering a sense of ownership. We want people, at the end of the renovation process, to feel truly at home — to see those spaces as their own and take care of them, to the benefit of all.
How did this approach translate into practice?
We applied it across three pilot sites — in Trieste (Italy), Riga (Latvia) and Herning (Denmark). The socio-economic and environmental conditions are very different, but in all three cases the context is social or affordable housing. Everywhere, we involved residents in studying and testing solutions suited to local conditions — from climate to ownership structure.
In Trieste, we designed the complete reconstruction of several buildings in an urban area with limited green space, rethinking together the homes and shared spaces, starting from new materials and solutions. In Riga, we worked on Soviet-era buildings near the city’s medieval centre, focusing on restoring green areas and improving energy efficiency. In Denmark, where — as in Latvia — the buildings were privately owned, we focused on creating community spaces: an orangery, a greenhouse and new green areas.
What did working with such different contexts teach you?
First of all, the importance of cultural factors. Beyond material or geographical differences, people’s expectations and attitudes vary enormously from country to country. Interestingly, while contexts differ, the financial models and tools we developed are surprisingly adaptable. They need local adjustments, of course, but working with such diverse realities has given us valuable insights to help bridge these gaps in the future.
Nelson Mandela said: “I never lose. I either win or learn.” As the project comes to an end, would you say you won or learned?
Projects like ours often encounter realities very different from what’s imagined on paper, and that brings challenges and constant adaptation. But many things worked even better than expected.
We were formally responsible only for the design phase, yet thanks to resident participation, in some cases we actually moved into implementation. In others, the community’s involvement led to the spontaneous creation of shared spaces and meeting areas. From a technological standpoint, perhaps we could have been more ambitious, but we learned just how decisive local conditions are — and faced some administrative barriers that at times proved heavy.
What were the main obstacles you faced — and what message would you send to those who can help remove them?
One issue lies in the complexity of administrative procedures. If projects planned with residents today take four or five years to materialise, many of those people may never see the results.
Another challenge is aligning administrative timelines with funding cycles. In some cases, bureaucracy needs to be streamlined; in others, financial aspects slow down the process. These two levels must be harmonised, otherwise one train leaves the station — and the project never takes off.
With SUPERSHINE now concluding, one chapter ends but the story continues. What legacy does the project leave behind?
Two key elements stand out. The first is financial modelling, which will soon be replicated in four other contexts and remain available to support similar initiatives. The second is the awareness gained through our work with local communities. We’ve learned that resident engagement is essential — not only during implementation but to ensure that these initiatives live on and endure over time.
Finally, returning to those first figures: only 1% of Europe’s buildings are renovated each year to meet energy-efficiency standards. Political ambitions are high, but the numbers are sobering. Can this gap ever be closed?
It will take time and investment, but I believe so. Research projects like ours exist to show the way forward — to prove that feasible, cost-effective solutions do exist. What we hope we’ve done is to leave things a little better than we found them.
Cover photo credit: Foto di Vitaly Gariev on Unsplash
Riccardo Coletta photo credit : Fondazione ICONS
