Positive Energy District (PED) is recently proposed to be an integral part of a district/urban energy system with a corresponding positive influence. Thus, the PED concept could become the key solution to energy system transition towards carbon neutrality. This paper intends to report and visualize the initial analytical results of 60 existing PED projects in Europe about their main characteristics, including geographical information, spatial-temporal scale, energy concepts, building archetypes, finance source, keywords, finance model and challenges/barriers. As a result, a dedicated date base is developed and it could be further expanded/interoperated through an interactive dashboard. It is found that Norway and Italy have the most PED projects so far. Many PED projects state a ‘yearly’ time scale while nearly 1/3 projects have less than 0.2 km² area in terms of spatial scale. The private investment together with regional/national grants is commonly observed. A mixture of residential, commercial and office/social buildings are found. The most common renewable energy systems include solar energy, district heating/cooling, wind and geothermal energy. Challenges and barriers for PED related projects vary from the planning stage to the implementation stage. Furthermore, the text mining approach is applied to examine the keywords or concentrations of PED-related projects at different stages. These preliminary results are expected to give useful guidance for future PED definitions and proposals of ‘reference PED’.

The definition, characterization and implementation of Positive Energy Districts is crucial in the path towards urban decarbonization and energy transition. However, several issues still must be addressed: the need for a clear and comprehensive definition, and the settlement of a consistent design approach for Positive Energy Districts. As emerged throughout the workshop held during the fourth edition of Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions Conference (SSPCR 2022) in Bolzano (Italy), further critical points are also linked to the planning, modeling and assessment steps, besides sustainability aspects and stakeholders’ involvement. The “World Café” methodology adopted during the workshop allowed for simple—but also effective and flexible—group discussions focused on the detection of key PED characteristics, such as morphologic, socio-economic, demographic, technological, quality-of-life and feasibility factors. Four main work groups were defined in order to allow them to share, compare and discuss around five main PED-related topics: energy efficiency, energy flexibility, e-mobility, soft mobility, and low-carbon generation. Indeed, to properly deal with PED challenges and crucial aspects, it is necessary to combine and balance these technologies with enabler factors like financing instruments, social innovation and involvement, innovative governance and far-sighted policies. This paper proposes, in a structured form, the main outcomes of the co-creation approach developed during the workshop. The importance of implementing a holistic approach was highlighted: it requires a systematic and consistent integration of economic, environmental and social aspects directly connected to an interdisciplinary cross-sectorial collaboration between researchers, policymakers, industries, municipalities, and citizens. Furthermore, it was reaffirmed that, to make informed and reasoned decisions throughout an effective PED design and planning process, social, ecological, and cultural factors (besides merely technical aspects) play a crucial role. Thanks to the valuable insights and recommendations gathered from the workshop participants, a conscious awareness of key issues in PED design and implementation emerged, and the fundamental role of stakeholders in the PED development path was confirmed.

In recent years, many cities have adopted action plans to become climate neutral in the coming decades. Hereby, a strong motivational factor has been the goal to realize a win-win situation in the long term: climate neutrality and sustainable functioning are not only beneficial for the environment, but are equally beneficial for society and for the economy if well-integrated trajectories are adopted. Nevertheless, as actors across the fields start to implement these plans, many practical obstacles have arisen. These barriers are typical of a systemic transition: dominant practices are characterized by path dependencies, vast institutional frameworks and vested interests that are hard to break through. At the same time, relevant initiatives typically show some elements of uncertainty and a long term return, factors that make it difficult to attract financial investments. The present article addresses the state of the art for current transition experiments in the region of Flanders, Belgium, focusing on actions related to energy and buildings in cities. A brief overview of the state of affairs in several cities and provinces is presented, and some important opportunities and bottlenecks are identified. The resultant findings are tested against the framework of transition theory and related literature on the subject. Subsequently, a set of possible strategies to overcome the above mentioned barriers is formulated. These strategies focus on effectively mobilizing actors and investments.

In some discourses on sustainability, modernism in architecture is blamed for its technocratic beliefs that supposedly generated a lot of the social and environmental problems the world is facing today. At the same time, many architectural critics seem to be convinced that the present call for sustainability with its “green buildings”, is but another screen behind which well-known old power structures hide. In this paper, we react to these viewpoints in different ways. First we clarify the issues that are haunting current architectural discourses by unraveling the logics behind the viewpoints of the critics of the “environmental doctrine” on the one hand and the technical environmentalists on the other hand. We will offer, secondly, a new framing to these debates by relying upon the modal sphere theory of the Dutch philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd. This new framing will allow us to reconnect, thirdly, with the discourse of modernism, which, we will argue, is all too often conflated with a technocratic paradigm—a partial, incomplete and even misleading representation. In conclusion, we present a different framing of modernism, which allows understanding of it as a multilayered and multifaceted response to the challenges of modernity, a response that formulated a series of ideals that are not so far removed from the ideals formulated today by many advocates of sustainability. We are, thus, suggesting that the sustainability discourse should be conceived as a more mature and revised version of the paradigm of modernism, rather than its absolute counterpoint.