Integrating the principles of the New European Bauhaus NEB into architectural competitions

The  EUI SHARE project exemplifies a local institutional effort to translate the NEB’s  vision into concrete practices, by launching an architectural competition which  includes NEB objectives as guiding principles for architectural proposals.

The call for competition launched at the end of September 2024 awards 15.000€ for the winner proposal (9.075€ for the second, 4.235€ for the third, 2.420€ for each of the 3 mentions) for a total 236.250€  amount for the basic and executive project  of a residential facility with approximately twenty independent living units for autonomous seniors. The dwellings should be designed according to universal accessibility, assuming that future users might use wheelchairs or spend extended periods bedridden. The estimated average usable surface area per dwelling is 50 square meters, although a mix of dwelling types was considered in the call, provided that a minimum of fifteen units would be guaranteed, and room dimensions must comply with the residential use requirements set forth in Fuenlabrada’s General Urban Development Plan (PGOU- BOCM 19/05/1999). Another important condition for the call is that the architectural proposal must foster a sense of belonging and requires that interior spaces are designed to maximise natural light, reserving outdoor areas for recreational use with  patios, terraces (with or without coverings), where residents can rest, socialise, create therapeutic gardens, or cultivate small urban vegetable plots. The project should also aim for near-zero CO₂ emissions, incorporate energy-efficient strategies (both passive and active), ensure efficient water and waste management, and address key aspects of urban metabolism.

The inputs for the call have based on supporting documents  and references provided by SHARE partners, such as  a bioclimatic analysis by Khora Urban Thinkers, and a summary of qualitative research results  with seniors as potential inhabitant (through interviews, focus groups, and workshops) also conducted by Matia Gerontological Institute. Not only the NEB was provided as guidance to potential architectural firm competing in SHARE but a central innovation of this competition was the inclusion of NEB values as formal evaluation criteria. The  proposals were assessed based on  architectural quality, alignment with the functional and technical program, and also in terms of  consistency with the  NEB values (Sustainability, Aesthetics, Inclusion) and three working principles (Participation, Transdisciplinarity and Multi-level stakeholders engagement).

According to Marta Nieto, part of the municipal team responsible for managing SHARE,  the competition was designed not only to produce a high-quality architectural solution but also to foster an inclusive and participatory process taking into account environmental aspects and wellbeing of future inhabitants. Adopting the NEB working principles, the structure of the competition emphasised co-design with future users  adopting an inclusive approach: “Stakeholders will contribute their knowledge and concerns to ensure that the project's operation and governance emerge from this collaborative foundation. The selected project team will be required to hold up to six workshops or meetings throughout the project’s development and construction, integrating needs and preferences that enhance user ownership of the building without compromising the core architectural concept”.

These NEB requirements  marked also significant departure from conventional architectural evaluation frameworks. Reminiscent of the Vitruvian firmness, commodity, and delight (Latin: firmitas, utilitas et venustas)  -the three salient aspects of good architecture declared by the Roman architect- the idea of “good  architecture” might be considered assumed as implicit part of the NEB values.

The jury composition featured representatives from the Fuenlabrada City Council, the Official College of Architects of Madrid and several honorary members with architectural expertise as Iñaki Carnicero Alonso-Colmenares, Secretary General for the Urban Agenda, Housing and Architecture at the Ministry of Housing and the Urban Agenda. According to interviews with Jury members, there was a belief that the  NEB values had to be considered contained in any project of architectural merit.  However, this assumption,  overlooks the NEB’s broader emphasis on social participation, cultural innovation, and environmental ethics. Indeed,  the three NEB working principles  required participants to explicitly demonstrate and the jury member to evaluate,  how the proposals design and implementation process would be delivered in practice.

The competition's governance structure was also a key discussion point. Marta Nieto noted the potential value of granting a “quality vote” to the City Council in future competitions to ensure that proposals align more closely with the city’s long-term needs and policy objectives. This idea reflects a broader concern about the balance between technical expertise in architectural qualities and  democratic accountability for which the local government is responsible in terms of urban planning.

Overall, according to the SHARE team in the municipality,  these  requirements on the  NEB working principles fostered a more reflective and intentional design process and contributed in  creating among the jury members  and the municipal team in SHARE a  new shared vocabulary for interpreting the NEB values.   As result, the  explicit references to NEB principles in the competition materials guided submissions and  shaped the evaluative mindset of the jury.

While the collaborative drafting of the competition documents helped elevate the overall quality of the proposals received, deepening institutional understanding of NEB criteria, a clearer articulation of these criteria might also enhance the legitimacy of the jury’s decisions and support broader public understanding of the initiative. The openness of the European Commission’s NEB framework allows for broad interpretation and adaptability across different local contexts, but while this flexibility can inspire creativity, it also introduces ambiguity and operational challenges. As Nieto pointed out, this duality must be managed carefully to ensure that the NEB remains both visionary and  pragmatically implementable.

One of the more pragmatic challenges raised during the competition process  concerned the remuneration of participating teams.  Beyond the mere production of architectural proposals, the engagement with the NEB  working principles requires a deeper investment of time and energy—one that is not easily quantifiable in conventional financial terms. This includes sustained reflection on social values, iterative feedback  participatory processes, and the development of collaborative networks.  In the absence of regulated fees for architects in Spain, these additional procedural requirements add to the complexity of calculating fair compensation. A broader institutional conversation is needed to rethink the economics of architectural practice in light of these evolving demands placing high expectations placed on teams to deliver both participatory processes based architectural design.  While this issue is not unique to the NEB, it becomes particularly salient in initiatives that position architectural practices among one of the vehicle for systemic transformation.

The SHARE project illustrates how architectural competitions can function as laboratories for institutional innovation and cultural change. By embedding NEB principles into the very structure of the competition, the SHARE team has created a framework that goes beyond aesthetics to address social, environmental, and procedural dimensions. However, in practice the team has learnt that the process is far from straightforward: it requires careful negotiation among stakeholders, continual refinement of understanding NEB criteria, and an openness to learning from practice. The experience in Fuenlabrada also reveals the friction between traditional understandings of architectural excellence and the emerging values championed by the NEB: while some may view these values as redundant in architecture or overly prescriptive, others see them as essential to the future of the discipline, which looks at design and participatory processes while at the same time embracing complexity and ethical responsibility. In this sense, the competition has functioned not merely as a procurement mechanism but as a platform for cultural dialogue. It has brought to light implicit assumptions, surfaced institutional blind spots, and catalysed new conversations about what architecture can—or should—do in the face of contemporary challenges.