ABSTRACT
Norwegian architects have not been much occupied with sustainable design. Most of them do not seem to regard sustainability as an aspect to which they have to relate, and even less as something that they should integrate into their practice. Thus, sustainable design is ‘domesticated’ only by a minor part of the profession (Silverstone et al. 1989; Sørensen 1996). One reason for this is probably that most Norwegian architects struggle with defining sustainability as a core part of their profession. The dominant architectural discourse is experimenting with form, function and shape (Ryghaug 2002). Moreover, sustainable architecture has traditionally been associated with out-groups and a particular image of buildings that breaks with the modernism preferred by most architects. This alternative building image is often coupled with two opposing traditions: low-tech and high-tech ecological architecture. The low-tech movement is associated with the use of wooden materials, turf roofs and a style similar to traditional mountain cabins, the high-tech energy-efficient buildings with double glass façades or complicated ventilation systems and buildings where technology is thought to be more important than the shape or design. Similar approaches to sustainable buildings are identified by Guy and Farmer (2001) and by Sudjic (1995), quoted in Guy (2002). This debate is also referred to as a technocentric versus ecocentric debate (Farmer and Guy 2002).
