Summary

We have looked at a lot of buildings here over the last nine months. I tried to provide a sense of the breadth of my research. The effort was well worth it. I was able to complete a first draft of the thesis and am well on my way to becoming an architect. I want to thank the Valle Scholarship people for the generosity in the providing the funds for the trip. With out them none of this would have been possible.

I presented various portions of the research I was doing while in Norway. The final part of the thesis is involved in a comparison of the fehn buildings with the vernacular architecture. I attempted to find an underling similarity in approach rather then a surface manifestation of form or detail. I identified five aspects of the vernacular that I felt were present in the buildings of Fehn. These were: an understanding of environment in which the building is situated, a relationship to the culture in which the architecture will function, a human scale to the spaces, a harmony between the part of a building and the whole, and finally an understanding of the nature of the material used to build.

I felt that Fehn exhibited a similar understanding of each of these aspects of the built environment to that of the vernacular craftsmen. That is not to say that Fehn is solely occupied with the vernacular, indeed he is firmly rooted in modern thought of construction. However, the vernacular has influenced his work, it has given his work flavor and situated it in its environment and culture.

As a formative exercise the investigation has been invaluable. I believe that the vernacular has a lot to tell us about the way in which we dwell in this world. And I believe we can dwell in a better way and that architecture can help us do that.

My goal is to carry this understanding of vernacular into the future and develop a deeper occupation of architecture in the world.

Church, Fotomuseum

Stave Church

Prior to the Middle Ages, ceremonial buildings are nonexistent. There are a few possible reasons for this. First, the type of worship before Christianity did not create any lasting structures. This is either because the ceremonies were individual, taking place in the family dwelling, or because they were performed in the wild. Another reason is that the buildings, if any, did not survive in the archeological record. However, in the Scandinavian Middle Ages, we find the explosion of Christianity bringing with it the house or worship. In Norway this breeds the stave church.

The first of these were simple wooden constructions all of which have disappeared with age. These first houses of worship were most likely single celled buildings with simple altars. As Christianity takes hold the church building gains larger significance in the community. The articulation of the various parts of the church, nave, isle, chancel, and sanctuary can be seen as an expression of the growing functions of Christianity. These developments take their cue from the arrangement of churches and cathedrals in the larger Christian Europe. An example of the simple church beginnings comes from Holtalan, Trondelag Norway from 1050ad. The heavy posts and the siding are set on a sill, which is set on a stone. This prevented rotting and allowed the church to survive longer then a number of earlier attempts. This technological advance is seen in most of the churches that survive. Of the 700 wooden churches built in Norway only 30 survive today.

The “stave” of the stave church refers to the posts that provided the structure of the building. In Holtalan you can see these clearly as the four corner posts. As the churches develop and become more complex, these main posts are buried in galleries and augmented by interior masts. This can be seen in the church at Borgund. Here, the gallery surrounds the main nave and chancel. The staves are providing the structure of the main walls. Additional post are located at significant points in the gallery wall as well as columns, or masts, running down the interior and creating the taller central portion of the roof. This multiplying of the columns creates the cascading roofline of the church.

The traditional siding of the stave church was vertical planks set in sills. Some churches, however, eventually covered this vertical siding with horizontal siding and, in the process, covering the staves. This is seen at Roldal.

Wood was the primary material for the churches of Norway because of its abundance and the level of sophistication achieved by the craftsmen. There were, however, a few cathedrals built of stone. An example of this is the Trondheim Cathedral and Bishopric. These cathedrals were built by imported craftsmen, in most cases from England.

Fotomuseum:

The National Museum of Photography occupies the top floors of a decommissioned Naval depot. The brick building was originally built in 1861. In recent years the Norwegian Navy has restructured its defense and allowed several buildings to be turned over to museums of various types. The space is 158x15 meters. There are three main parts to the public space of the museum. A gallery for changing exhibits and display of photographs, and the permanent exhibit of the museum containing various pieces of camera equipment occupy the eastern side of the building. The Library takes up most of the west with administration offices filling the end of the building. A set of stairs brings the museum patron to the 4th floor and opens up in between the library and the exhibit space.

The building was designed to withstand a barrage of enemy fire. Solid brick vaults make up the space. Fehn has used these vaults in much the same way as he used the existing building at Hedmark’s. Here, however, he chooses steal and wood to separate and at the same time integrate the intervention. The floors have been raised to run mechanical and electrical services and are held off the existing wall by a steel section. This steel section is in turn used to support the various exhibits of the permanent gallery. Elegant steel display mounts come off of these sections and then tie back into the brick wall. This dialogue is softened by Fehn’s use of oak in end panels and for seating and the flooring. In contrast, the walls of the revolving exhibit space have been whitewashed to better set off the photographs hung here.

6: Loft, Bang, Korsmo and Carl Bødtker's house

Loft

The loft is the storehouse of the farmstead. Besides the stue, the loft is the second most important building on the farmstead. It represents the farmer’s holdings. The loft was a storage house for grains and clothing and other goods as well as sometime summer sleeping quarters. This two-story building held a prominent place among the collection of buildings around the tun. Its stature was further increased when, for practicable reasons, it was lifted off the ground.

Up through the Viking period, storage of excess grains and household goods was maintained in the same dwelling as the people. The Loft arises with the increase of arable land and more efficient farming practices. As production increases the amount of space needed to store grain increases. Eventually, storage demands a separate building that houses the grain. The loft is not unique to Norway. It is very likely that this was one of the major imports of building techniques brought back to the northland by returning Viking.

The lofts of the middle ages were log construction originally resting on the ground. This creates a disastrous problem with vermin getting into the stores and moisture spoiling the winter reserves. To combat this, sometime in the late middle ages, the buildings are set on large stones or stumps to keep the rodents out. This in turn allows air to circulate through the building helping to preserve the grain.

The loft was primarily a place to store goods and the lay out and use is similar from region to region and over the course of the middle ages. In some cases, the two-story log construction core is augmented on the upper story with a gallery. This second story galley used the stave construction techniques and the combination was known as Reisverk. This gallery was used as a way station of sorts, a place to store fish and meats to dry.

Riesverk: The log construction of the two-story core of the loft was similar to the log construction of the stue. The loft, however, also combines construction techniques from the stave churches to complete the cantilevered upper story. As mentioned, this is known as Reisverk. The lighter construction was used to cantilever the gallery off of the main storage rooms. There is the added benefit of the gallery protecting the in log core from weathering. In some cases, the lower porch of the loft was also enclosed in stave construction as well.

The problem of vermin infesting the store lead to the raising of the loft off the ground. These chassis were also constructed of stone and in some case the full stone foundations were used.

Before and After WWII: Ove Bang and Arne Korsmo

The thirties wound itself up into WWII and for a period of time stagnation set in as Norway was occupied. Leading up to the war there were two figures who emerged as central to the development of the architecture into the fifties. The first is Ove Bang. After a brief stint as Poulsson’s assistant, Bang moved to a small town in the mountains and opened his own practice.27 He returns to Oslo in 1930, and by the end of the decade he has done a number of buildings that will lay the foundation for Norwegian architecture after the war. It is in these later works that Bang discovers “the old objective of a Norwegian architecture to suit [his] times.” He displays his understanding in a series of houses in Aker (part of Oslo) in which traditional forms are adopted to functional plans. His understanding of traditional forms leads to his most significant work of domestic architecture. In 1937, he designs the residence at Ullern for Ditlev-Simonsen. This is a simple, geometric box set into the land. The functional idiom is written large on this house, but the livability is what sets it apart. Here, functional architecture begins to be suited for domestic dwelling. In addition, Bang has some significant larger works, notably, the Worker’s Association in Oslo from 1939 and the Court House, also in Oslo. The Court House is particularly successful as it sits between the Courts for Justice built in 1903 and the Aker’s Savings Bank built in 1932. Bang achieves the transition between these with a simple façade that both fits it between the two existing buildings and presents the austere nature of the courts.

Bang dies in 1942. He was only 47. Had he lived he may have proved the brother to Arne Korsmo who is the bridge across the valley of war. Korsmo got his degree from the Institute of Technology in Trondhiem in 1926. He worked with Arenberg and Poulsson as well as others and finally starts his own firm in the early thirties. Like Bang, Korsomo is effective in using the functional idiom in domestic architecture. This is based in Korsmo’s fundamental understanding of architecture as poetry and in his ability to endow function with meaning. “A building is not merely some boards put together, but something which speaks to us and ‘releases a tranquilizing and enticing happiness in the ever-searching human mind.” This sentiment carries into his domestic buildings because he is looking to life, to process, landscape and city to form his buildings. Norberg-Schulz comments on Korsmo’s understanding of “the harmony of everyday utensils, furnishings, interiors and buildings…Dimensions, lighting, colors and details became important problems, and his best creations are thoroughly wrought, integrated wholes.” Korsmo designs a number of houses at the end of the thirties. These include the Benjamin House, the Stenersen House, and the Heyerdahl house all in Oslo. These houses are exemplary of the potential for functional architecture to develop domestic living. That is when the functional is infused with poetry. Korsmo’s true contribution to Norwegian architecture, however, comes after the war.

The occupation of Norway during the war years brought German planning to the doorstep of Norway. The destruction of buildings and the foreign ideas infused into the built environment during these years served as a set back to the search for identity. When the war ended large obstacles loomed before the development of Norway, and how building should continue was a major concern. National sentiments were again picked up as a way to move forward after the occupation. But functionalism, Funkis, had grown irrelevant. A new idea was needed, and with it a new way to pursue national identity.

Housing was a major consideration after the war. Many people needed places to live and the only solutions advanced were “green city” planning left over from the thirties.36 Although these were neither urban nor country dwelling, and although they had little Nordic soul, they were erected. A few bright spots stick out in these years. Arne Korsmo is one of them. He provides one of the major directions that Norwegian architecture would take in the 1950’s. That is the poetic functionalism he had developed before the war. Korsmo and Jorn Upzon produce several forward looking plans for urban development, ones that abandon the strict “garden city’ suburban development. But due to dogmatic bureaucracy and competition guidelines, none were implemented.

C. Bødtker House 1 and 2 Oslo, 1965-1967, 1982-1985

Fehn built two houses for C. Bødtker and his wife. The first, in 1967, was for a young couple with children. The second, 20 years later, was for an older couple whose children had grown and left. The two houses occupy the same slope, only a few meters from one another. The first is characterized by an open stairwell set at a 45-degree angle in the middle of the square main volume of the house. The stairs lead from the entrance and living area up to the bedrooms. The kitchen, bath and dining rooms occupy a separate linear volume along the north face of the main living cube. The second house is built at a forty-five degree angle to the site. This creates the same dynamic experience of the building, but on the exterior instead of the interior. The interior of this second house is much simpler. Fehn moves the kitchen, bathroom and stair functions to the northeast perimeter. This changes the focus of the living area, opening it up and allowing the stairs to quietly move from one floor to the other. Both houses have brick cavity walls offset by pine colums and beams and oak flooring.

5: Log construction and the Pavilion of the Nordic Nations

Log construction of the Farm House of the Middle Ages.











As the dwelling develops from the long houses of the earlier ages into the expanded multi building farmsteads of the middle ages, wood retains it’s role as the primarily building material. Wood as a resource in the north is abundant and the craftsmen of the Middle Ages produce techniques for working with wood that provides a rich tradition for the Norwegian architecture.
There are two primary types of wood construction. The log construction, which we’ll talk about this month. And the stave construction, which we’ll look at in subsequent months. Log construction is used in the farm dwellings. The logs are interlocked in notched corners, which provide the structure and stability for the buildings. This locking joint is developed over the centuries to provide a strong interlocking bond.
There is a basic understanding of the wood as a material. The logs used for these wall members are shaped into ovoid shapes. The craftsmen are careful to limit the shaping to the outer sapwood. The sapwood, as opposed to the heartwood, is more pliable. This helps provide a solid, weather tight seem between the logs because as the weight of the building bears down on the individual members, the sapwood of both the upper and the lower log compresses.






The earlier farm dwellings of the Middle Ages were a simple megeron organization. This was a simple square shaped room with a hearth in the center of the space. A smoke hole in the roof allowed the evacuation of smoke for the fire. This basic form evolves over time. First by the addition of an enclosed porch, which soon turns into a separate room. These two rooms evolve further into two useable rooms instead of an entry and a living space. Providing a private sleeping room. The move of the hearth from the center of the space to the corner of the primary living space. This eventually allows for a second story to be added to the space, which was not possible when the smoke hole for the hearth was located in the middle of the room.






The roof itself is predominantly a system of sod roofs. Beams span the distance between the walls. These beams hold purlins, which were spread with water resistant birch bark on which sat the sod. The sod was held at the lower rim of the roof in a variety of ways. Some stones some planks.





The log construction is used for other buildings around the farm. The byre, the stable and the loft all use log construction.

Pavilion of the Nordic Nations in the Gardens of the Biennale Venice, Italy 1958-62

The challenge of designing this pavilion came in the form of encompassing art from three distinct cultures, Norway, Sweden and Finland. Fehn’s solution arises from the similarity of the northern light. Here, as with the Norwegian pavilion in Brussels, the roof becomes the defining characteristic of the space. The space underneath the roof is open and flexible with two solid walls defining the back of the space and two operable glass walls enclosing the other two. A single large column occupies the corner where these two glass walls meet. The roof is composed of a stacked beam system, again similar to the Brussels pavilion. The main beams run north and south and rest on a wall on the north side and a double concrete beam 2.1 meters high on the south side. The beams are 6 cm wide and 1meter tall, spaced 523cm apart. The secondary beams are of similar dimensions running in an east west direction. Between these secondary beams is a system of fiberglass sheets that emit light but repel rain. The size of the beams precludes direct sun from ever entering the gallery yet allows an indirect light into the space.
















The pavilion is built with the existing landscape. Where the hill is two steep the building stops. The pavilion floor is a continuation of the garden path. There is no level change or threshold to cross. Outside and inside are the same. This is reinforced by the humble acquiesces to the trees growing on the site. No trees were removed. Those that stood where the building was meant to go were accommodated and now grow up through the roof. “The main tree is honored as the structure in command gives room for its participation. This is the place where the unity between nature and the building in at it’s maximum.” Fehn/Fjeld

4: The Tun, Functionalists, and Glaciers

The Tun
The development of the Tun arises from the separation of the functions of the farm. Where we saw the Long house of the Bronze Age and the Iron age persist as a shelter for both humans and animals into the Viking age. In the Viking Age a change occurs. This is due to new ideas brought back to Norway from the Viking adventures in other lands. The experience of the different farm organization suggests the separation of the function for the farmstead. We saw in the Viking age that the Long house persists, but now it is solely a dwelling for man. Eventually this separation gives rise to the Tun. In the middle ages, the long house is replaced by the stue, the loft and the brea and instead of a single long house the farmer must now arrange a series of buildings into a functioning meaningful relationship. The Tun becomes the significant organizing principle of the farmstead.

The Tun is the exterior room created by the enclosing arrangements of the now varied parts of the farm. It contained the daily life of the farmer and his family. It served also as a space for celebration, where people could gather for special occasions, weddings, deaths, Yule celebrations, etc. (nw39) There are regional tun types that developed around Norway.

Cluster tun. This is a less organized, variegated siting of farm buildings built up over time. It is the oldest form of the Tun. These are also the largest tuns, comprising of two or three families cooperating to work the land. This is a typical form of the Hardanger region where the dominant landforms are the mountains and fjords. Here farming was only part of a varied subsistence plan that included hunting and fishing.
Hordeland


Row Tun: This tun type-sites along the slope with the more important buildings occupying the higher side of the slope. This type of tun was usually found in the central part of the country, dominated by high ridges and narrow valleys.

Setsdal



Double Tun: This tun type is characterized by a closed yard surrounded by the buildings for human occupation, stue, loft, cook house, and a smaller open tun occupied by the brea and supporting buildings. These tun types are associated with the lager valleys of Gudbrandsal where there was more space to spread the functions of the farms out.

Osterdal



Closed Tun: This type is characterized by a single yard with the long buildings making up the sides of the outdoor space. The larger buildings of this tun type were most likely imported from neighboring Swedned and Finland. The form is typically found in Trøndelag in the north which had contact with it’s neighbors to the east.

Trøndelag



Open Tun: this type is a variation on the row type, which has the relationship of the buildings in a less rigid relationship and forming a rough yard. This type is common in the central part of the country. There are both regular and irregular open tuns depending on the land formations of the site where the farmstead is being built.

Hallingdal



Functionalist identity.
Norwegian functionalism, Funkis, is derived from the ideas of Mie s Van De Roeh and Le Corbusier. By 1933 Norwegian Functionalism was well on its way to becoming the established norm. At this time Le Corbusier is invited to speak at the Oslo Architects Association. In his speech, entitled “Functionalism” he delivers a scolding to the upstart Funkis in which he criticizes their lack of understanding of what the revolution was about, namely clarity, purity and truth. What Le Corbusier failed to understand was that the Norwegians were not simply taking another foreign style and applying it to their architecture. The Norwegians were continuing to search for an identity.



Perhaps the earliest example of Norwegian Functional architecture is Backer’s Ekerberg Restaurant in 1929.



As the thirties roll on, it is Blackstad and Munthe-Kaas who become the driving force of Functionalism. They are the most prolific with the best work. The Odd Fellow building in Olso is an example of their work.



The Dronningen Restaurant in Oslo by Andr. H. Bjerke and Georg Eliassen, for instance, demonstrates the use of concrete skeleton to achieve an open plan giving the banquet hall a sense of freedom. This building sits on the Yacht harbor in Frognerkilen.



Another example is the Dodloug Department Store in Oslo by Erich Mendelsohn and R.E. Jacobesen. Mendelsohn created a schematic sketch for the project while visiting Oslo in 1931. It was Jacodsen who completed the project in 1933.

Glacier Museum

This is a museum celebrating the geology of the glacier. It holds exhibits of how the glaciers work, how people interact with the glaciers (Climbing and hiking them) and how the glaciers formed the area surrounding the museum. The plan is very geometrical long trapezoid holds the main exhibit. This main exhibit space is stretched out along a central axis. The entrance reaches out to greet the traveler, providing a canopy that leads to the front doors. From the entrance lobby the path of the museum leads down the length of the building and around a core block of functional spaces. Just past the lobby two additional volumes break the clean, elongated trapezoidal volume of the main museum. To the north is a cylindrical auditorium and to the south is the triangular glass enclosed cafe.

The primary building material is concrete. This is complimented by Norwegian pine on selected interior walls and portions of the ceiling plane. Clerestories bring natural daylight into the museum path. Drainage from the roof occurs between the two glass walls of the triangular café, reminiscent of the glacier pouring between the two mountains.

One of the glaciers celebrated by the museum

Valley:


Outside the museum:





Stair to roof:

Roof:





Board form pattern on the concrete:

Entrance Canopy:

Glacier ice melting on granite:

Coffee shop:

Exhibit space:



Upstairs office:


Light monitor:

Hall to theater:

Model of proposed addition around theater:

3:Vikings, Neo-Classicism and a Storytellers Museum

The Viking Age Farm, 800-1000A.D. Aveldsnes, Rogland

The first 200 years of the Middle Ages in Scandinavia, 800-1000AD are known as the Viking Age. The world of the Vikings is precipitated by technologies advanced in maritime construction. The ability to build flexible seafaring ships leads to conquest, exploration and trade with the world beyond the fjords. At the same time the settlements of the Vikings Age continue to expand on the forms and construction ideas present in the preceding epochs of the Bronze and Iron Age. The maritime construction techniques begin to influence the domestic construction and vise versa.We can see from these photos of the Viking long house the slight curvature of the roof. This is a direct reflection of techniques and ideas borrowed or cultivated in the building of ships.



The settlement at Avaldsnes is a reconstruction of a typical farmstead of the Viking Age. Aveldsnes is located on the island of Karmøy. Karmøy was a vital strategic position that allowed Harold Fairhair to establish one of the first Kingdoms of Norway. The island itself sits just to the north of Bokkafjorden between Stavanger and Bergen. Trade that was bound for Bergen from all parts of the world had to travel past Karmøy. However, the North sea off the west coast of the island remains some of the most treacherous water along the coast of Norway. The narrow passage between the mainland and Karmøy was passable, but the nature of the passage forced ships to wait out the shifting tides to find their way north. By controlling this passage, Harold Fairhair was able to exact not only tariffs on passing trade goods, by influence on the powers bound for Bergen. Begen being the primary gateway to the rest of Norway, eventually Harold was able to secure his reign and become the first King of Norway.




The people continued to organize in cooperative farmstead, a practice established as early as the Bronze Age. A single farmstead would support a number of people, the extended family of the farmer. The long house remains the primary structure for living. However, the byre begins to be developed as a separate building. Additional buildings are seen to rise as well. Work/storage sheds made of wattle and daub, pole buildings providing sheltered, outdoor work areas and a round wooden temple suggesting the beginning of codified religious worship housed in a structure as part of the community.






The Viking Age long house contains similar features to the long house of the Iron Age. Three alleys delineated by two rows of load bearing posts define the interior. The space is further divided transversely providing rooms at either end of the main space. One room would have been used for as the men’s entrance as well as work area. While the other would have been used for the women’s entrance and work area. The subdivision of the interior space has the added benefit of created smaller, discrete areas for heating in the cold dark winter.






The walls, like the Iron Age example, are wooden interior walls with stacked stone exterior walls which provide insulation and protection from rain. In addition, the orientation of the building, roughly north south, is situated to minimize the impact of wind off the water. Despite their presence in the photos, the trees would have been much more scare in the region. The land would have looked more like this.


The trees around the current reconstruction are Canadian pines planted in the 1960’s. Weather is a significant factor when building in a region of extreme such as Norway. Means of minimizing the cold and wet weather are primary driving forces for form and material. In the Viking long house we can see strategies for addressing the weather on various scales. From the orientation, as mentioned, to the roofing. Here a series of discrete tiles, three deep, are over lapped in such a way as to provide for the shedding of water. However, the sod roof techniques we saw in the Iron Age continue to be developed through this time.



We also see the development of the window in the Viking age. Here a translucent stone is used to although light into the interior, while keeping the wind and cold out. The windows are small to prevent intrusion. The shutters provide additional protection from the weather.

We can see the Viking Age long house developed from the Iron Age structures. As trade and contact with other regions becomes more prevalent, we find the form and function of the farm buildings develop and finally settle into a system that will last through the middle ages and into the 20th century.

Development of modern Norwegian architecture: Resurgence of Neo-Classicism

In the early 20’s the ideas that fueled the Empire Style (the neoclassical movement of the late 18th and 19th centuries in Norway) have a mild resurgence. The architects of the time become concerned that the idea of defining a Nation through architecture has detrimental effects on the understanding and development of the built environment. They seek to make buildings that are less about national identity and more about architecture. In doing so they turn to the classical forms that drove the Empire style. In several public arguments these architects put forth two primary ideas. The first was that the Empire Style was also part of the Identity of Norway; indeed a majority of the large important buildings in Oslo at the time were of this style. And second, their approach had less to do with identity and more to do with architecture.

Between 1920 and 1925 all buildings of consequence were created with this new understanding. An example of Neo-Classical understanding is the New Theater designed by Gudolf Blackstad and Jens Dunker. We can see the Neo Classical elements in this building. But what the Neo-Classicists were actually searching for was a way for understanding architecture that was based on function. They were reward by the end of the decade with a direction that was to take hold the world over. In Norway it was called Funkis and it was the acceptance of the ideas of Mies van de Rohe and Le Corbusier who preached that function should be the driving force of architecture identity.



Aukrust Museum, Alvdal, 1993-1996

This museum holds the drawings of Norwegian artist Kjell Aukrust. Similar to the Glacier museum, it sits in a vast open field and is characterized by an elongated path along which various experiences occur. A central concrete wall divides the space into two sides: the public/exhibit side and the administration/function side. Both spaces stretch the length of the building. The concrete wall itself is broken at regular intervals and houses the mechanical and electrical systems. The exterior wall on the function side appears to lean against this central wall. Fehn explains “The diagonal wall is as simple as leaning fence poles against a barn.” At the end of these elongated space is a conference room and auditorium, which take on a different geometry, setting themselves apart form the path of the exhibition and function spaces of the rest of the museum. In addition, there are three irregular exhibition spaces that project from the main gallery along the path.


















Concrete forms the central wall and a number of the columns. The building is situated in response to the landscape, which Aukrust was known for drawing. Against this landscape Fehn placed “a line of monumental pillars against the untouched valley beyond.” These pillars, which sit along the north side of the building, are composed of sawn lumber laminated together to form the ovoid shape. Birch shingles are used on the exterior of the polygon shaped auditorium. This reinforces the separation of the auditorium from the main gallery. In a similar way, Fehn uses stacked stone to distinguish the irregular gallery spaces to the north from the main gallery axis. The whole building is raised on a stacked stone base. Fehn comments, “At the end of the journey [through the country side to the site] the building had found its materials; stone for the dry walls, sand for the structural concrete elements and the ground concrete floor, pine for the wood work. Between all this glass stretches like a transparent skin. “

2: The Iron Age and the Bishopric

Iron Age Farm, 500 B.C. - 800 A.D. Ullandhaug, Rogaland

In the early stages of the Iron Age the dwellings were similar to those found in the Bronze Age. But with the spread of iron tools, modifications came. For instance, by the time iron tools are wide spread we see a change from the round, unworked posts of the Bronze Age to a squared-off post. This indicates a level of workmanship and use of tool that was not economically possible or desirable in the Bronze Age. Further, there was a change in the climate with wetter, cooler summers leading to changes in the built environment. The construction and material use becomes more sophisticated. Wattle and daub gives way to wooden walls. In some case these walls were protected by stones. In others, the wooden wall was exposed. A shallower sod roof supplants the steep thatched roof. However, some building ideas remain. Most notably in the use of the dwelling. The space is still occupied by both domicile and byre. But now, wall separations and separate entrances better define the spaces. It is in this way that the long house is developed. The people are becoming more sophisticated agrarians, and while hunting and gathering is undoubtedly pursued, most sustenance is from field and livestock. The single farm model continues to be the norm with several single-family farms associated with one landlord.


The Iron Age farmer continues to use the same structures to house both his family and his livestock. However, the spaces take on individual definition with the addition of interior walls that separate the domicile from the byre. As in the Bronze Age hut, this dwelling has three isles. However, because the space is narrower, the outer isle is transformed into a bench. This doubles as seating and sleeping area. The center of the space continues to be used for the hearth, with several different pits being used throughout the length of the living area. Above the hearths are openings in the ceiling to evacuate smoke. There is the added benefit of letting in additional light through these smoke holes. In addition there were several entrances, most likely separate by gender.




The acquisition of iron tools dramatically changes the way materials are used. Specifically wood. The harder iron tools allow the vernacular builder to develop skills in shaping wood. This is seen in the squared off posts, something not economically possible with the bronze axe. In addition, the wood siding of the interior wall is fitted into notches in the upper and lower sill.





Stone is used to create the outer wall. This adds insulation and protects the wooden inner wall. The stones were stacked in such a way as to draw water away from the inner wooden wall.



There is a decking laid over the rafters and purlins. This decking is covered in birch bark and sod is laid on top of that. The roof pitch is significantly shallower in the Iron Age due to the use of sod. At 27 degrees the sod remains in place and allows water to drain from the roof. Special branched sections of tree limbs were used to provide additional security for the sod.





Although the dwellings contain both humans and animals, we begin to see multiple buildings used in a single farm. These are arranged to form a yard in which daily activity would have taken place.



The Iron Age is a refining of the dwelling that we will see developed through the Viking age and into the Middle Ages.

There is still no known construction of ceremonial buildings in the Iron Age. Like the Bronze Age, spiritual commune was most likely performed in nature (forest groves or special stone formations) or in the home.



Archbishopric Museum of Hamar + Addition, Hamar, 1967-79, 2006

This museum is an architectural intervention into a Bishop’s residence that was built on top of a medieval farm. The Bishop’s residence was left to ruin and in there was an excavation of the site in the 60’s. Fehn’s intervention holds the artifacts from various periods in time. The main feature of the museum is the path. You enter the museum through the original gates of the Bishop’s residence. After purchasing a ticket you pass into the inner courtyard. Here you see remnants of the various periods of the sites history. The path begins here with a ramp that leads up in a sweeping arc up though the courtyard and back into the museum. Here you encounter your first exhibit. A revolving space that also is the upper portion of the auditorium. The Auditorium drops down from this third floor into what was the barn. From here you descend a spiral staircase to the continuation of the past. But also here is an Iron Age exhibit in a room below the Auditorium seating. The path moves back toward the main gate. However it is an elevated tray. Over either side of the tray you can look down onto the excavation of and see the layers of the site and building as they move up through the architecture. There are two floating boxes along this portion of the path, which hold relics from the excavation. Following this you are lead to the folk museum, which is a series of trays that hold various folk artifacts from medieval times through the 19th century.





















The original intervention was begun in 1967 and completed in 1979. Fehn has recently completed two additions to the museum. The first is a large pavilion over where the servant’s quarters use to be. This is characterized by the large wooden trusses that span the ruins here.





The other is an entrance to an as yet unfinished expansion of the museum into another building. Both of these additions suffer for there closeness to the original intervention.




Some of the details in the additions are not as elegant as what Fehn had done 30 years ago. There are unresolved intersections and a forced nature to the materials and execution. These things, in a building of it’s own, would have made little difference. But in connection with arguably one of the most important buildings in Norway, they are made to look shabby.