# The houses that learn to breathe

- Link: https://jarlhalla.com/the-houses-that-learn-to-breathe/
- Published: 2026-07-09T16:37:58+02:00
- Author: knoksen

## 

A building seems to be standing still.

It rests against the ground with walls, windows and ceilings, measured in millimeters
and attached to the map with coordinates. Yet it is never motionless. It draws heat
from the ground, receives rain, breaks the wind, filters daylight, and lets people
in and out. Through cables, pipes and digital signals, it is connected to power 
plants, data centers, water reservoirs, roads, forests and factories. A modern building
is therefore not just a construction. It is a hub in society’s metabolism.

It is in this realization that the building regulations of the future must begin.

When we talk about TEK26, we are not yet talking about a final regulation with a
closed set of paragraphs. Rather, we are talking about a horizon: a modernisation
of building regulations, a movement towards simpler rules, clearer documentation
and greater opportunities to substantiate that new solutions actually meet society’s
requirements. In 2026, the Norwegian Building Authority has specified that analysis
can be used to develop its own solutions, and that pre-accepted services should 
not necessarily function as an invisible roof over innovation.

This may sound like a technical adjustment in the guidance of a set of regulations.
In reality, it touches on a larger question: How should a society regulate a future
it does not yet know?

### 

Building regulations have traditionally been society’s protection against the indefensible.
They are intended to prevent roofs from falling down, from fire from spreading uncontrollably,
from moisture from breaking down structures, and people from being excluded from
rooms they should be able to use. The regulations draw a legal line between what
is acceptable and what is unacceptable.

But the climate crisis, the loss of nature and the pressure on the energy system
have given this limit a new meaning. It is no longer sufficient for a building to
be safe. It must also be asked what the building requires of the world while it 
is erected, used, modified and finally dismantled.

Where did the materials come from? How much emissions occurred in production? How
much power does the building draw on the coldest morning of the year? Can the components
be repaired? Can the rooms get new functions? Can the concrete, steel, wood and 
glass be used again?

Here, Norwegian and European standards become a form of collective memory. NS-EN
15978 provides a method for assessing the environmental performance of buildings
through life cycle analysis and quantified environmental data. NS 3720 provides 
a Norwegian framework for calculating greenhouse gas emissions from all or part 
of a building’s life cycle, from material production and construction to operation,
conversion and disposal.

These standards do something crucial: They shift attention from the moment the building
is completed, to the entire time the building exists.

A building can be energy-efficient in operation and at the same time be burdened
with large emissions from the materials. Another can have a modest technical expression,
but be built for a long life, reuse and changing needs. The life cycle perspective
teaches us that sustainability cannot be photographed by handover. It must be considered
as a story with a beginning, middle section and end – and preferably with the possibility
of a new beginning.

### 

In the old energy system, the building was the end point. The electricity was produced
far away, transported through the grid and used when the resident turned on the 
stove or light.

In the new energy system, the building will be a participant.

Solar cells can turn the roof into a power surface. Batteries can shift energy use
in time. Heat pumps can obtain energy from air, sea or ground. Thermal bearings 
can preserve heat from low-load hours to high-demand hours. Digital control systems
can reduce ventilation, charging or heating for short periods of time without losing
comfort. Thus, thousands of buildings can collectively act as a distributed energy
reserve.

The NVE points out that energy-flexible buildings can contribute to better utilisation
of the electricity grid. The flexibility can lie in heating, cooling, waterborne
systems, local energy production and geothermal heating, among other things.

This changes the architecture in a way that is not always visible. The most important
new feature of a building may be the ability to wait.

It can wait to charge the car. Wait to heat the tap water. Lower the power output
during the hour when the power grid is most loaded. Use self-generated energy when
the sun is shining, and stored heat when the cold puts pressure on the system.

This ability to shift consumption is not just a matter of technology. It is a new
form of solidarity. The building does not necessarily dramatically reduce its overall
energy demand at any given moment, but it adapts to the whole. It behaves like a
responsible citizen in the energy system.

### 

As buildings are filled with sensors, they also become more readable. Temperature,
air quality, energy consumption, solar radiation, occupancy and technical condition
can be recorded in real time. When this data is connected to a digital model of 
the building, what is often referred to as a digital twin occurs.

The name may seem futuristic, but the principle is simple: The physical building
gets a digital counterpart that can be used to understand what is happening, predict
what will happen, and try out measures before they are implemented.

A digital twin can warn that a pump is using more energy than normal. It can simulate
how the indoor climate is affected if ventilation is reduced for a quarter of an
hour. It can show which building parts are nearing the end of their technical life,
and which materials can one day be dismantled and reused.

In this way, documentation can go from being a pile of static files to becoming 
a living knowledge structure.

But the digital build also introduces new vulnerabilities. Who owns our home, workplace,
and movement data? Who can change the algorithms that control heating and ventilation?
What happens when a system is no longer supported by the vendor? And how do we ensure
that an intelligent building does not become a building that only experts and technology
companies understand?

Technology can make buildings more efficient, but not automatically more democratic.

Therefore, the standards of the future must be about more than energy performance
and data quality. They must also ensure transparency, cybersecurity, interoperability
and human control. A building that teaches must still be explainable. A building
that optimizes must still be able to be overridden. A building that collects data
must be subject to clear boundaries.

### 

A more function-based and analysis-oriented building technology regulation can open
the door to solutions that today’s checklists have not foreseen. It is necessary.
No regulation can describe in advance all future materials, energy systems, facades,
forms of storage or digital control methods.

But freedom from detailed requirements is not freedom from responsibility.

When a project chooses a non-traditional solution, it must be able to document why
the solution is secure, robust and suitable. Innovation cannot be built on enthusiasm
alone. It must withstand calculation, control, criticism and verification.

Here, the standards have a dual role. They are both bridges and railings. They make
it possible to compare options, document performance, and establish a common language
between developers, architects, engineers, governments, contractors, and users. 
At the same time, they prevent words such as “smart”, “circular”, “emission-free”
and “sustainable” from being reduced to decorative labels.

In an analysis-based building culture, the question is not just whether a solution
is new, but whether it is demonstrably better.

It requires expertise. Small municipalities and smaller enterprises must have a 
real opportunity to understand and assess advanced analyses. Otherwise, function-
based rules can create a society where the largest players are given freedom of 
innovation, while the smaller ones are left with uncertainty and costs.

Technological progress must therefore be accompanied by institutional capacity. 
Education, standardisation, supervision, open calculation methods and sharing of
experiences are not administrative background work. They are the very infrastructure
for responsible innovation.

### 

The narrative about technology often points forward to what has not yet been built.
But the Norwegian social transformation will largely take place within walls that
already stand.

Office buildings will become housing. Shopping centres will house health services,
workshops and culture. Detached houses must be adapted to several generations. Materials
from demolition projects will become raw materials for new constructions. Energy
systems will be upgraded without replacing the entire building.

This requires a different conception of architecture. The building must not be understood
as a finished product, but as a structure in constant negotiation with the times.

What is optimal when opening may be unsuitable twenty years later. Floor plans, 
technical guidelines and load-bearing systems should therefore allow for change.
Flexibility becomes an environmental property because it extends its service life.
Repair becomes an energy strategy because it reduces the need for new production.
Reuse becomes a design premise because the materials are no longer considered waste,
but as temporarily placed resources.

The circular economy begins when we stop designing buildings as if they should never
be changed.

### 

It is tempting to believe that more efficient technology automatically results in
a lower overall load. History shows that the connection is not so simple. When something
becomes cheaper or more efficient, we may end up using more of it.

A better insulated house can be built larger. Efficient lighting can stay on for
longer. Digital services can reduce transport but increase the need for data centres
and electronics. Solar cells can provide cleaner energy, but also strengthen the
notion that energy consumption no longer needs limits.

Therefore, societal transformation cannot be reduced to technical optimization. 
We also need to discuss adequacy.

How much space does a good life need? How many technical systems must a building
contain? When is rehabilitation better than demolition? When should energy be used
for comfort, and when should it be released for industry, transport or other societal
needs?

The NVE has previously assessed that it is technically possible to reduce electricity
consumption in buildings significantly up to 2030, but that this requires extensive
efficiency measures. It suggests that the building sector is not just a consumer
that needs to be supplied. It is also an energy reserve that can be released.

The cleanest kilowatt hour is still the one that does not need to be produced, transported
or stored.

### 

In the industrial society, the infrastructure was often invisible. The water came
from the tap, the power from the socket and the heat from the radiator. The large
systems lay outside the everyday consciousness.

The energy transition makes them visible again.

Electricity prices vary. Solar production follows the weather. The electric car 
competes with the heating for the capacity of the house. Local energy communities
can share production and storage. Neighborhoods can balance needs across buildings.

This can give people greater influence, but also greater responsibility. The individual
citizen risks being turned into an energy manager, data administrator and technical
operations manager in their own home. If the transition is to be socially sustainable,
the systems must be understandable and inclusive. They must also work for those 
who do not have the time, finances or interest to monitor a digital energy panel.

The smart society cannot demand that all citizens become engineers.

Automation must therefore be designed as care, not as burden. Technology should 
protect people from complexity without depriving them of control. The benefits from
flexibility and energy efficiency must be distributed fairly. Otherwise, the energy
transition may reinforce the divide between those who can afford solar cells, batteries
and rehabilitation, and those who are left in draughty homes with high costs.

A regulation can set requirements for the building. A social transformation must
also make demands on justice.

### 

The most important effects of TEK26’s world of ideas may not be directly visible
in the text of the regulations. They will show up in what the construction industry
perceives as normal.

That greenhouse gas calculations are carried out early, not after the crucial choices
have been made.

That energy flexibility is treated as part of the building’s social value, not as
a technical extra.

That demountability is considered quality.

That data from operations is used for learning.

That architects ask how little needs to be built.

That engineers design for both safety and change.

That developers measure value over several decades, not just up to sale.

That the users’ experiences are included in the assessment of whether the building
actually works.

Then regulation has gone from being an external duty to becoming an internal culture.

### 

We have long considered buildings as objects: How tall are they? How much do they
cost? How many square meters do they hold? How much energy do they use per year?

In the future, we must consider them to a greater extent as relationships.

The relationship between the material and the landscape from which it was taken.
Between energy use and the power grid. Between the indoor climate and the body. 
Between the data and privacy. Between the investment today and the room for manoeuvre
of the generations that come after us.

TEK26’s deepest potential therefore does not lie in a specific insulation thickness,
energy framework or calculation method. It lies in the transition from buildings
as isolated products to buildings as responsible parts of larger systems.

A truly intelligent building is not necessarily the one that has the most sensors.
That is what understands its place.

It consumes energy when the system can handle it. It takes care of the materials
that have already been extracted from nature. It protects the people who stay there.
It can be changed without being destroyed. It can document its qualities without
hiding its weaknesses. And when one day it is no longer needed, it leaves behind
not only waste, but opportunities.

In this way, the construction technique becomes political, even when it is expressed
in tables and calculation models. It determines what resources we bind, what risks
we accept, who gets access to good spaces, and how much freedom we leave to the 
future.

A building never stands still.

It moves energy through society. It shapes habits, costs, and lives. It carries 
the materials of the past and the consequences of the future in the same constructions.

The question is therefore not only how we should build houses that satisfy the next
regulation.

The question is how to build a society worthy of the houses we have not yet erected.

The houses that learn to breathe