Z E M C H 2 0 1 2 I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e
76
constructions based on unnecessary safety measures. In some ways this is a parallel to
the authorities’ drive today towards bulky thick walled Passive houses practically
eliminating heat loss from the envelope. Selvaag was a down to earth engineer; he tried
out things in full scale, in reality, and had built a lot of housing projects before he even
presented his famous claim. As he managed to convince more and more people of his
ideas and they were tried out, even the authorities started using his recommended
dimensioning. “Light” or “material saving” housing was not only accepted but became
favoured by the Housing directorate in order to increase the number of new dwelling
units while bringing costs down. The building regulations were later even adapted to fit
Selvaag’s ideas.
The Selvaag story is a story about sustainability, about developing rational area efficient
plans, about using just the right amount of materials and to avoid waste. It is a lesson in
choosing the right sequence in design. First the inexpensive measures, the way the lines
are drawn on paper to develop a rational plan, section and construction drawing. Later
comes the technology necessary to power the house.
Selvaag’s achievements sparked a new interest in housing and a range of housing
entrepreneurs entered the growing market. The downside of mass production became
visible as architectural qualities vanished. Variation disappeared and questions were
beginning to be asked. The need for more individual expressions designed for each
homeowner arose. The concept of mass customisation was established as a
combination of mass production and individual customisation. At the time this was a
revolutionary concept and Alvin Toffler anticipated it in his book entitled “Future Shock”
(TOFFLER 1970). Stanley Davis coined the term itself in 1987 in his book entitled
“Future Perfect”, while in 1993 Joseph B. Pine II eventually systematised the general
methods of mass customisation. Noguchi and Friedman in their paper later established a
design system model based on the Japanese prefabrication industry (NOGUCHI 2002).
The North European case revisited 2012
The learning outcomes from the 1948 Selvaag case were at least twofold:
•
The establishment will often defend the established truths.
•
It pays off to question cemented truths. But someone must lead the way.
Seen in this light, it is perhaps normal that as the decades pass new borders must be
passed and memories of former “battles” are evaded. Today the history repeats itself.
Architects are again in 2012 criticising the Selvaag group (DOKK HOLM 2012) for
building for the low cost end of the market in several parts of Norway. This is in spite of
the fact that what Selvaag does is to deliver socially-, economically- and sustainable
homes for the majority of the middle and low income groups.
Such homes will necessarily have to economise on the use of land and distance
between buildings especially as high-rise solutions are sought. Selvaag tries to find a
balance between targeting low enough cost levels to allow young people accessing the
housing market and simultaneously offering acceptable housing and landscape
conditions for people. It is a balancing act. Something has to suffer. Some qualities will
have to be compromised. In this process one can choose to fight against every new
thought that occurs and argue for the preservation of the city as it is, with air, greenery
and other qualities. If so, the result is too often that the city or that part of the city
becomes reserved for the rich and mighty with monetary resources enough to enter the
housing market. Or one can fight for the lower cost level of the market.
