At the new aptly named “Connect Lounge” at Futurebuild this year, the NRH and the Retrofit Connect cohort ran a pair of events back-to-back, the first being a showcase of their work (have a look at their profiles for more here) and followed it with the “Too Hot to Cope” workshop, all about codesign in the community.
The workshop brought together a wide range of voices, both the Retrofit Connect cohort members and Futurebuild conference attendees. Blended into two groups, they explored an ever more relatable scenario:
- How do we cope in our homes when it’s too hot?
- What does indoor overheating mean in reality
- What does a fair response from decision makers look like?
- How can community codesign be leveraged to ensure equity in the solutions?
Across both groups, a clear picture emerged: overheating is not simply a technical issue, but a complex social challenge shaped by inequality, responsibility, and the limits of current systems.
Overheating was described not as an abstract climate risk, but as a daily reality. Participants spoke about children struggling to sleep, homes becoming unbearable in summer, and families searching for cooler spaces during periods of extreme heat.
For some, this meant relying on local shops or public buildings for relief, often in informal and uncomfortable ways. One participant reflected that some shopkeepers resent people using their premises simply to cool down. The comment highlighted a growing tension between community need and the limited capacity of businesses and public spaces to respond.
The discussion again reinforced the importance of free and safe third spaces – social environments outside the home and workplace – in responding to overheating and supporting community resilience.
This tension extended into questions of responsibility. Both groups emphasised the lack of clarity around who should act and who should pay. Households, landlords, local authorities, and businesses all have a role, but no single actor has the mandate or resources to solve the problem alone. Local authorities are seen as central, but constrained by limited funding, procurement processes, and competing priorities. Landlords, meanwhile, are expected to play a role but are not always accountable in practice. As one strand of discussion suggested, the system currently relies on those with the least power, residents and community organisations, to manage the immediate impacts.
Community groups were recognised as essential intermediaries. They already convene people, facilitate communication, and translate between lived experience and institutional systems. However, they are under strain. Participants noted that these organisations are often expected to step into gaps in provision without the funding, authority, or long-term support needed to sustain this role. The risk of consultation fatigue was implicit: communities are frequently engaged, but less often empowered to influence outcomes.
At the same time, there was a strong appetite for working differently. Both groups identified the importance of collaboration across sectors, with colleges, universities, architects, and contractors all playing potential roles. Colleges were seen as particularly valuable, not only as physical spaces but as sites of learning and skills development, capable of training a workforce to deliver retrofit solutions. Universities and architects were linked to research and design innovation, suggesting a pathway from evidence to practice.
However, participants were also realistic about the structural barriers to action. Funding remains a central challenge. One group highlighted the difficulty of identifying viable financing models, noting tensions between cost, scalability, and measurable outcomes. The idea that “one size does not fit all” was repeated across the discussions, particularly in relation to housing types. For example, flats and houses require different approaches, and interventions must respond to specific contexts rather than relying on standardised solutions.
This recognition shaped the types of solutions proposed. Rather than focusing solely on large-scale technical interventions, both groups explored a mix of immediate, local, and systemic responses. On the practical side, suggestions included shading, tree planting, ventilation improvements, and low-traffic neighbourhoods to reduce heat buildup. There was also interest in low-cost, resident-led adaptations, alongside better guidance on how to stay cool without relying on energy-intensive air conditioning.
At the same time, participants pointed to broader environmental and infrastructural changes. Access to green space and water, drawing on examples from elsewhere in Europe, was seen as critical to long-term resilience. Schools and community buildings were identified as potential cooling hubs, but with the caveat that access, funding, and maintenance would need to be addressed.
Underlying these ideas was a shared understanding that overheating is a systemic issue requiring layered responses. Short-term coping mechanisms are necessary, but insufficient. Lasting change will depend on aligning policy, funding, design, and community knowledge, while also building trust and shared accountability across stakeholders.
Ultimately, the workshop made these tensions visible. It highlighted both the urgency of the problem and the opportunity to approach it differently: not as a top-down intervention, but as a genuinely co-designed response shaped by those most affected.
