"If we find a mound six feet long and three feet wide in the forest, formed into a pyramid, a solemn mood comes over us and a voice says: 'Someone lies buried here.' That is architecture."
Adolf Loos "Ornament and Crime"
So that is architecture. Thanks Adolf. I find I am left with a few remaining questions, though. Is architecture:
An artistic practice for the design of good buildings?
A mechanism for social change?
A technological practice?
Just another profit driven business?
Perhaps it is all four in different measures depending on the studio? What is architecture for? I think it might be helpful to start with naive open questions like that and then drill down into each with ideas and a bit of detail.
One. An artistic practice for the design of good buildings.
The first problem is how to agree on what a good building is. My career has left me concerned with a building's appearance. I find that spending time in beautiful buildings in beautiful environments makes you feel good. I would like everyone to have that experience on a regular basis and I am convinced that architects could achieve that goal quite quickly if tasked with it. But I think there are three main reasons why they are not thinking along those lines.
The first of these is Plato’s dream – the idea that plan and function is all that matters. This is what gets drilled into architecture students' heads. You are being given special skills which no one outside of your profession can understand, the distribution of space as seen through the plan which reveals this hidden dimension. Perhaps this is wrong and needs to change. Architects are highly trained experts whose voice grants them a certain level of authority. But architecture is a public practice and what they do is in the public interest. The appearance of cities is therefore an important part of the contemporary commons. What sense does it make for architects to be focussed mainly on the invisible?
The second is the Great Filter. Historians and friends who listen to history podcasts will point out that the world was mostly a filthy slum until recently. We are only left with the best bits. So if you mention to an historian that most people prefer historic quarters, they will point out that only a few buildings from each era stand the test of time. This is the great filter which is the reason we think the past was so lovely. Historic photographs do reveal plenty of poverty and squalor, but they also show lots and lots of beautiful buildings, countryside and nature. Perhaps we could try learning from Las Ramblas instead of Las Vegas, moving forward.
Then there are the Isms: Parametricism, Brutalism, Functionalism Structuralism Deconstructivism (Post) Modernism all replace beauty with other interests ranging from technology to French philosophy which in turn grew out of German philosophy. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that anything is beautiful if you pay attention to it, but more importantly beauty reflects canonical preferences of the capitalist bourgeoisie which developed by aping aristocratic preferences. These beliefs are not limited to architecture. Whereas art and English students are taught to think and speak differently and feel at odds with the bourgeois values, architecture students learn modernist design maxims. These emerged from the changing times and technology at the turn of the last century and were put into practice to rebuild post-war Europe. They are mostly marxist, at odds with aristocratic taste and certain that capitalism is just a transition phase, the last few miles on the road to paradise. The enthusiasm it inspires in teachers and students alike is understandable as it creates meaning. Traditional architecture is seen as anachronistic as traditional clothing. Worse, the desire to build in an earlier style can only lead to McMansions or Chinese pastiche. Architects are the bulwarks against this, the guardians of good taste. Perhaps instead of signing up for another ism, they could instead take a hippocratic oath to do no harm. Subject areas that might achieve that goal would include but not be limited to the following:
Relational aesthetics: how buildings relate to each other, a new programmatic challenge to improve what is there.
History as a dialectic. We might synthesise contradictions between postwar buildings and previous traditions. Evolution not revolution when changes are made. It should involve research into local preferences of its users.
Local understanding. This implies the performance of the building as responding to environmental constraints. It further implies research into local building practices married with the latest technological advances.
Two. A mechanism for social change: It’s the environment, stupid.
Young people have always wanted to burn the world down and start afresh. Ironically, it seems they now want to prevent us “boomers” from doing it. This presents opportunities for architecture schools and offices alike. Enrollment is on the rise in many schools, unlike the case with the humanities. But offices complain that students are not qualified to work after their studies. Let’s tap into that energy like we once did. The fiery dogmas of the 20th century made architecture sexy. The old joke about the 20 year old capitalist having no heart and the 40 year old communist having no brain still applies. The only thing that has changed is the subject. To study was to join the religion of the avant garde. To work was to enter the battlefield. Architects changed the world. They ought to do so again and environmentalism presents a great opportunity.
Because of the amount of leaky buildings and the need to creatively update and preserve them, there is no shortage of ecologically sound, contemporarily beautiful visual thinking needed.
Adaptive reuse is one option. Office conversions are still the most common, representing 34% of all adaptive reuse projects. But hotel conversions are gaining, to reach 29% of projects. In 2022, 2,954 apartments were created as a result of hotel conversions, an increase of 43% over the 2,060 apartments generated in 2021. Examples include Orms, Standard Hotel, London & Alila Yangshuo Hotel. Two tiny houses employing the idea of the Dovecote are Dovecote Studio by Haworth Tompkins, Dovecote by AZO Sequeira Arquitectos.
We should also look into stacking. There are plenty of opportunities to build atop the existing building stock. These could mean the expansion of prefab and an opportunity to put an environmentally friendly hat of insulation and solar panels on old buildings. Hotel bars have done this for some time, Spain is peppered with illegal homes due to a loophole in the law. What about doing it properly and at scale? WORKac has done a version of this, as did Coop Himmelblau in 1988 with the Falkestrasse loft conversion. But the question is to democratise the approach to roll it out at scale.
See Endnote 1.
Three. A technological practice.
Patrick Schumacher has been the most coherent and vocal voice for technologically determined design. Parametricism and its latest subdivision, tectonism, is one way of doing this. But it is only one way. A bit like a revolutionary, he is calling for this to be the only way to do architecture moving forward in a strange absolutist voice that is to my mind as off putting as are his buildings.
Another way would be to let everything sustainable and low impact determine the way buildings are designed. At the moment there is a lot of research going into new materials such as engineered wood and low-carbon cement. But the idea of the building as a machine could be far better enacted now than Le Corbusier could have ever dreamed of. Engineered wood, natural ventilation, natural lighting and shading all have an important role moving forward. We could become less passive about creating the passive house and larger instantiations of this idea.
To some extent the building as a machine has already been achieved. If you have ever looked at a BIM model of MEP / HVAC of a shopping mall or conference centre you know this to be true. But that is just getting the most efficient use out of old technology. Engineers will continue to be tasked with the means of getting more and spending less. But they will not change the paradigm.
Four. A profit-driven business.
Rem Koolhaas and Ranier de Graaf have done their best to explain why architectural dogmas don’t matter because architects simply don’t make any important decisions. One might quote Robin Evans here, ‘Architects do not make buildings, they make drawings of buildings’. They also publish and consume images. That’s about it. And if you have heard of them it means they are successful businessmen and women. Be that as it may, architects still play a crucial role in the shape of our world. We should rethink what art, literature and architecture departments are for. Construction and energy provide the opportunity and need to do so.
Over the next 40 years, an additional 230 billion m2 buildings will be constructed – the equivalent of adding the floor area of Japan to the planet every year to 2060. The amount of buildings added to cities will increase dramatically just as the countryside of most developed countries will empty out. We have the opportunity to completely reshape the world. In the 1970s this meant filling the world with precast concrete columns and slabs erected with cranes in order to turn the world quickly and cheaply into a workers paradise. It would be good to do better this time around. So with all of that in mind, as comrade Lenin once asked before improving the lives of millions by murdering them….
What is to be done?
Currently our expensive states devote most of their resources to looking after people made useless. When we get old, or when we are ill, when we are unemployed or studying for employment the state is meant to provide. As such, the state sees people as inert masses to boss around and provide for. This is a strict unpleasant nanny. Is there no way instead for the state to provide meaningful work for precisely those people in a way that would benefit society? I have three big ideas which overlap in promising ways and connect to the above criticisms of architecture.
Erasmus Builders: Massive new deal EU funded building project. Young people travel and work for a year.
Not everyone can or wants to go to University. No problem. Enterprising craftsmen have a whole generation of disaffected young men at their disposal. Some will become tradesmen, some will become policemen, some will do nothing, and others will turn to crime. Might the government spend less on funding progressive liberal art schools and redirect some of that towards a scheme for mass producing skilled workers to build new houses? Can we not learn the lessons of Poundbury and adapt them to modern housing? Poundbury shows us we can build beautifully today. The same goes for the post-war reconstruction of Munich, Nuremberg and old Warsaw. Can we rediscover how to make streets and squares again as they have done? A problem with all of this is it suggests good building can only be done by repeating the styles of yesterday. This will suit some but not all. Can’t we also make modern stone, brick, timber and earth buildings that take the best of the past without copying it wholesale? We don’t seek to wear Victorian clothes so why should we seek to live in Victorian houses? There was much loveliness from then which we are still drawn to, and this is what our cleverest architects might set their minds and pencils to, were it not for the ideology of the classroom and the reactionary voice of what seems to be the only alternative.
There are four obstacles: the designers, the developers, the contractors and the bureaucracy. The biggest obstacle is surely the last. The construction industry has spent the last 50 years industrialising construction, like it says on the tin. How do you get them to go backwards and use craftsmen at scale for a profit? Here is where public / private partnerships come in. But the sheer scale and inflexibility of legal barriers to change are daunting. Perhaps getting more architects involved could improve things? Here we circle back to the truisms of architecture schools.
Students are already pushing back against the entrenched beliefs of their reactionary-avantguard professors. Students no longer want to build. They have had their Greta-wakening and do not want to contribute to climate change. This too presents an opportunity. What if instead of walking away from this profession they used their energy to reshape it? Conservation used to be a conservative value. The hint is in the name. Upon becoming progressive - save the earth - it has aligned itself with progressive aesthetics. But this is arbitrary. In the future, it could be both. I for one would love to see a Glass Bead Game competition emerge between traditionalists who conserve heritage buildings and create new buildings along those lines and progressive techno-optimist environmentalists who build at the intersection of technology and climate change. Recycled buildings instead of recycled ideas and a far more delight filled world. We are at an impasse, a generational divide much like the one experienced in the late 1960s. What if we use that energy? What if ‘boomers’ could meet youthful energy with a helping hand instead of a closed fist. The centre clearly cannot hold, but rather than spinning off into the binary cardinal points of Old/Young, Men/Women, Conservative/Progressive…what if a synthesis of experience with enthusiasm were sought? The energy of young people in a classroom is vitalising, but the teacher still plays a role. Not the old despot of victorian times, just someone vested with limited authority based on merit who structures and guides the group.
A technologically - ecologically determined world could be horrible. It could look like Schumacher’s fantasies or worse. But there is no reason for that. The objectionable parts of Dubai are the opposite of ecological, suggesting a new aesthetic could be found. At the level of ecology and aesthetics this might also be a chance to learn from the past. Think Dubai with traditional earth houses with shaded courtyards instead of precast concrete and glass boxes connected with hyperloops to the other Emirates and beyond. Skyscrapers and airports appealing to some might happily exist alongside traditional neighbourhoods appealing to others. Here are a few more old ideas that might need revisiting by designers and builders.
Bridge houses where wanted and viable (so not like the pitched for London)
Leafy green streets (instead of greenwashing) and squares for pedestrians and cyclists
Load bearing stone, rammed earth and brick buildings with wooden window frames with leaded glass and pitched roofs where suitable.
All of these could be traditional and modern at the same time. The work of Innaur Matt, Tuomas Siitonen, Mer Architects, and Manuel Cervantes provide examples of how that might be done. But there are countless architects combining pre and post war architectural knowledge with great effect. A good place to witness this is Pikisaari in Oulu, Finland where new builds on one side of the street fit well within the context of traditional wooden houses on the other side. Another is the Alps seen through Alpine-Spaces on Instagram and their website. But these are all luxuries. We need to do it at scale.
Make Europe Great Again…through managed migrant manufacturing.
There are millions of displaced people due to war at the time of writing, and millions more are economic migrants. Most spend their savings and risk their lives to illegally enter Europe and America. This has led to a rise in social conflict, crime and populism. We should make illegal immigration unattractive by giving people a better option, integrating the next wave of arrivals immediately by putting them to work. Immigrant passport for migrants seeking a new life instead of Fortress EU. Rising population growth will be in Africa. This could be a way to legalise and manage immigration which integrates arrivals instead of trying to block them entry. This together with mobilising young people would provide millions of jobs at a low cost making the transition viable whilst creating a new skilled workforce that will go on to earn more in meaningful jobs throughout their lives. The model already exists. Architecture studios are filled with students who intern before going on to complete their education working for paid positions. This model could be applied and adapted to immigrants and young people on training schemes.
Failed attempts at immigration in the UK, France and Germany should be studied. The current 2 year asylum seeker hiatus is a disaster. What else has gone wrong with past schemes? What went right? Are postwar Portuguese and Spanish immigration to France a model vs immigration from former colonies North Africa over the same period? Legal immigration into the USA, UAE, Singapore should be learned from as well.
See endnote 2.
Dad’s Army. The west is ageing and populations are declining.
Perhaps young people might be inclined to have more children if they could afford it and had someone reliable to look after them. What would it take to get retired people working at scale as surrogate grandparents? Not the infirm and the insane. And they would have to be younger than a US president to get the job. But there are millions of retired people rotting away from boredom, loneliness and neglect. There are millions of unborn children due the perceived difficulties of having children in the developed world. Is it not conceivable that different programmes could be developed to let these two problems solve each other? A few simple ideas:
New Nice Nursery-Residencies. Imagine if instead of building expensive museums and prisons we built a new kind of building designed to bring together the very old and the very young. This would be an entirely new type of building with a programme.
Trusted House Sitters. In its current form vetted members look after pets whilst their owners are away. Surely this could be adapted to childcare but with more rigorous background checks and perhaps a form of oversight through visits?
The babysitter model. A day leavers programme where people locked away in pensioner’s homes could look after children after school on a regular basis. They would have to be of sound mind and body. Same goes for supervisors. All of this might seem like an aside, but it is not possible to do any of the above without having people to look after children after school. This is an important issue moving forward which needs to be factored into any large scale social change. I have it on good authority that this option has been studied and discarded, but something to give old people a role in society and make the birth of new people possible has to be done. Failure is not an option.
The Bottom Line.
But how to pay for it? Of course, this is for technocrats to determine. And they will suggest taxation if they are civil servants, which is a political nonstarter. And for years there has been talk of taxing companies for data usage and forex transactions. These are probably also nonstarters because they would reduce Europe’s competitiveness. There was talk of issuing an EU bond to pay for Covid. Would it be impossible to do the same to kickstart private / public partnerships to get these three ideas off the ground? This would potentially be a very large pool of money. The extraordinary amount of money China has invested into treasury bonds in recent decades implies it would not just sit there. Just creating a fund would activate an enormous amount of money to grow. Can the EU have a sovereign wealth fund the way Norway does? Or could Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac serve as a model for what to do with it? What about the way the housing markets and the US stock market has recycled the world's money? What about the VC model for Tech? Prior to any of that, pilot projects would have to be conducted by the EU as with UBI which of course might be a fourth component to a better, brighter future for the EU. But we are not there yet. I simply wish to put forth the idea that problems facing the EU represent opportunities for new starts. We need to engage the young, the old and foreigners of all ages in new ways.
See Endnote 3.
.
.
.
.
Endnotes
Endnote 1. The European Union (EU) has set ambitious sustainability targets to address climate change, promote renewable energy, and transition to a circular economy. These targets are outlined in key policies such as the European Green Deal, the Fit for 55 package, and various sector-specific regulations.
1. Climate and Carbon Emissions
Net Zero by 2050:
The EU aims to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, meaning no net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
55% Reduction by 2030:
Under the European Climate Law, the EU committed to reducing net GHG emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.
Emission Trading System (ETS):
Strengthened to include more sectors, with stricter caps on emissions.
2. Renewable Energy
42.5% Renewable Energy by 2030:
The EU's updated Renewable Energy Directive (RED III) sets a binding target for 42.5% of total energy consumption to come from renewable sources by 2030, with an aspirational goal of reaching 45%.
Sector-Specific Targets:
Buildings: 49% of energy in buildings should come from renewable sources by 2030.
Transport: 29% of final energy consumption in transport should be renewable by 2030.
3. Energy Efficiency
11.7% Energy Consumption Reduction by 2030:
Member states must collectively reduce energy consumption by 11.7% compared to projected 2030 levels under the Energy Efficiency Directive.
Renovation Wave:
The EU plans to at least double building renovation rates by 2030, focusing on improving energy efficiency and reducing carbon footprints.
4. Circular Economy
50% Reduction in Municipal Waste by 2030:
Targets include reducing waste generation and achieving a 55% recycling rate for municipal waste by 2025, increasing to 60% by 2030.
Mandatory Use of Recycled Materials:
Regulations require minimum recycled content in plastics and construction materials.
5. Sustainable Materials and Construction
Increased Use of Renewable Materials:
Promotion of bio-based materials, such as wood and cross-laminated timber, in construction.
Sustainable Product Initiative:
Proposes sustainability requirements for products, including life-cycle assessments and reduced use of non-renewable materials.
6. Transportation
Zero-Emission Vehicles:
New cars must achieve zero CO2 emissions by 2035, effectively phasing out internal combustion engines.
Rail and Public Transport Expansion:
Aims to double high-speed rail traffic by 2030 and make urban transport emission-free by 2035.
7. Industry and Manufacturing
Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM):
A carbon pricing mechanism for imports in energy-intensive sectors like steel, cement, and aluminum to promote low-carbon production.
Green Hydrogen:
Plans to produce and use 10 million tons of renewable hydrogen annually by 2030.
8. Agriculture
Farm to Fork Strategy:
Reduce pesticide use by 50% and fertilizer use by 20% by 2030.
Promote organic farming to make up 25% of EU agricultural land by 2030.
9. Forests and Biodiversity
Biodiversity Strategy for 2030:
Legally protect at least 30% of the EU's land and marine areas.
Restore degraded ecosystems, with a focus on forests and wetlands.
3 Billion Trees:
Plant 3 billion trees across the EU by 2030.
10. Financing and Monitoring
Sustainable Finance Taxonomy:
Classification system to guide investments into sustainable projects.
EU Green Bonds:
Funding initiatives to meet renewable energy and climate adaptation goals.
Key Challenges:
Implementation Across Member States:
Aligning national policies with EU-wide goals.
Balancing Economic and Social Equity:
Ensuring the transition is fair for all, particularly vulnerable populations.
These targets reflect the EU's leadership in global sustainability efforts, balancing regulatory rigor with innovation and funding mechanisms to achieve its climate and environmental goals.
Endnote 2. Germany’s Gastarbeiter Program (1955–1973)
The "Gastarbeiter" (guest worker) program in Germany is one of the most notable examples of a managed migration initiative. It aimed to address labor shortages during Germany's post-war economic boom while maintaining political control over the flow and integration of migrant workers.
Overview:
Objective: Recruit foreign workers for low- and semi-skilled jobs in industries like manufacturing, construction, and mining.
Participants: The program initially focused on Southern European countries (Italy, Spain, Greece), later expanding to Turkey, Yugoslavia, and North Africa.
Scale: Between 1955 and 1973, around 14 million workers were recruited, of which about 11 million eventually returned home.
Political Context:
Economic Demand:
Post-WWII Germany faced severe labor shortages due to war casualties and economic rebuilding efforts.
The Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle) of the 1950s and 60s created a demand for workers, particularly in industries requiring manual labor.
Bilateral Agreements:
Germany signed labor recruitment treaties with countries like Italy (1955), Greece (1960), and Turkey (1961).
These agreements ensured labor supply while allowing the sending countries to benefit from remittances.
Temporary Residence Policy:
Migrants were given temporary work permits, typically for two years, with the expectation they would return home afterward.
The policy was politically palatable because it framed migration as temporary, assuaging fears of permanent demographic change.
Political Buy-In:
The program was supported by both German businesses, which needed workers, and politicians, who emphasized the temporary nature of the arrangement to mitigate public resistance.
Funding and Financial Mechanisms:
Employer Contributions:
Employers bore the cost of recruitment, training, and transportation for workers.
They were incentivized by tax credits and subsidies tied to the program.
Social Security Contributions:
Migrant workers contributed to Germany’s social security system, with benefits accruing only if they stayed long-term or returned to claim pensions under bilateral agreements.
Remittances:
Remittances sent back to home countries were a significant source of income for families and contributed to the economic development of sending countries.
Implementation Details:
Recruitment Centers:
Centers were established in sending countries to screen applicants based on health, skills, and other criteria.
Collaboration with local governments ensured a steady and organized flow of workers.
Housing and Integration:
Employers provided basic housing for workers, often near factories or work sites.
Limited integration efforts aimed to keep the program “temporary,” though many workers stayed and established families in Germany
Regulatory Oversight:
Germany maintained strict controls over work permits and residence status to prevent overstaying.
Outcomes:
Successes:
Economic Growth: Migrants played a critical role in Germany’s economic miracle, enabling industrial expansion and infrastructure development.
Remittances: Sending countries benefited significantly, with remittances bolstering local economies.
Social Contributions: The program laid the groundwork for a multicultural society in Germany, despite its initial resistance to permanent migration.
Challenges:
Integration Issues: Many workers overstayed their initial contracts, leading to unforeseen challenges in housing, education, and social cohesion.
Cultural Tensions: The temporary nature of the program delayed efforts to integrate migrant workers into German society.
Dependence on Migrant Labor: German industries became reliant on foreign workers, complicating efforts to transition to a more self-sufficient labor market.
Legacy:
The Gastarbeiter program ended in 1973 due to the global oil crisis, which triggered economic downturns and reduced labor demand. However, many guest workers stayed, eventually leading to the establishment of immigrant communities that are integral to German society today. The program is studied as a model of managed migration, balancing labor demand with political sensitivities, though it also serves as a cautionary tale about the unintended consequences of temporary migration policies.
Endnote 3. EU Funding mechanisms
The European Union (EU) employs several funding mechanisms to support large-scale initiatives, including building retrofits, technical training for youth and immigrants, and other social and economic development programs.
1. EU Bonds
Purpose: Raise funds for large-scale initiatives, such as green investments, digital transformation, and recovery programs.
Key Examples:
NextGenerationEU Bonds:
Issued to finance the EU's €800 billion COVID-19 recovery package.
Supports initiatives like the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), which includes funding for building renovations and digital skills training.
Bonds are aligned with sustainable investment principles, including green bonds to finance climate action.
EU Green Bonds:
Part of NextGenerationEU, these are used explicitly for projects meeting EU taxonomy criteria for environmental sustainability.
Includes building efficiency projects and renewable energy investments.
2. European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF)
Purpose: Address regional disparities and support sustainable economic development.
Relevant Programs:
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF):
Focuses on building renovations for energy efficiency and sustainable urban development.
Provides grants for retrofitting public and private buildings to reduce carbon emissions.
European Social Fund Plus (ESF+):
Finances skills training for youth, migrants, and disadvantaged groups.
Targets labor market integration, entrepreneurship, and lifelong learning.
Cohesion Fund:
Supports environmental and transport infrastructure projects in less developed EU member states.
Includes funding for sustainable building projects and training programs.
3. Horizon Europe
Purpose: Promote innovation and research, including sustainable technologies and training.
Key Applications:
Funds research into energy-efficient building materials and construction methods.
Supports educational initiatives to upskill youth and workers in green and digital technologies.
4. InvestEU Program
Purpose: Mobilize private investment for EU priorities through guarantees and blended finance.
Areas of Focus:
Sustainable Infrastructure:
Supports building retrofitting projects through public-private partnerships.
Skills and Social Investment:
Funds technical training programs for youth and immigrants, with a focus on digital and green jobs.
5. European Investment Bank (EIB)
Purpose: Provide loans and guarantees for large-scale projects.
Key Instruments:
EIB Loans for Renovation Wave:
Supports the EU’s goal of doubling building renovation rates by 2030.
Offers low-interest loans for public and private building efficiency projects.
Skills and Jobs Loans:
Co-finances vocational training initiatives targeting young people and migrants.
6. Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs)
While SWFs are not directly EU mechanisms, they can complement EU programs by investing in projects aligned with EU priorities.
Key Examples:
Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global:
Frequently invests in sustainable infrastructure and renewable energy projects within the EU.
Qatar Investment Authority and Abu Dhabi Investment Authority:
Known to co-finance European urban development and energy efficiency projects.
7. National Recovery and Resilience Plans (NRRPs)
Purpose: Funded by the RRF, these plans enable member states to tailor investments to their specific needs.
Applications:
National initiatives to upscale building retrofits and provide technical training for youth and immigrants.
Examples include Italy's and Spain’s plans focusing on youth unemployment and building efficiency.
8. Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs)
Purpose: Combine public funding with private investment to amplify resources.
Applications:
Training centers for digital and technical skills managed by private tech firms in partnership with public bodies.
Retrofitting projects using energy performance contracts (EPCs) that leverage private sector expertise.
9. European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF)
Purpose: Support workers displaced by economic restructuring, including through training and reskilling.
Applications:
Provides grants to train immigrants and youth for integration into the labor force.
Focuses on regions impacted by globalization or automation.
These mechanisms collectively enable the EU to fund and implement large-scale initiatives, addressing both immediate and long-term challenges in building efficiency, youth training, and immigrant integration. The integration of public, private, and international resources ensures comprehensive support for ambitious goals.