ETT NATIONALROMANTISKT MISCHMASCH En analys av debatten kring ISTs huvudkontor

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine an architectural debate surrounding two planned buildings in Växjö, Sweden. The different views of architects and non-architects come into focus. Critical discourse analysis is used to examine texts in Swedish press as well as technical journals. The study focuses on answering two main questions: (1.) What arguments are used and how are they used? And (2.) Which architectural elements are the focus of the critiques (and which are not)? The first part of the study gives an introduction by discussing previous research, explaining the method used and giving background to the planned building-project. The analysis is split up in two parts. First, key-texts from the debate are analysed closely and individually using critical discourse analysis. Second, the debate is analysed more in its entirety. Different themes are identified and discussed. Lastly, the analysis is summarized. The results and the analysis are not separated but are entwined throughout the study. The study concludes that there are many differences between the views and ideas of architects and non-architects. Generally, the non-architects appreciate new traditional architecture and among architects it is considered tabu. This outcome aligns with previous research on the subject. The architects that partake in the debate generally use arguments based in the materiality of the buildings while the non-architect also use arguments involving human emotional experience. Architecture is very much discussed as something that is mainly about exteriors, not interiors. Discussions about sustainability is exceptionally absent while discussions about aesthetical and technical aspects are present throughout the debate.