Buenos Aires was “Techniques Are the Very Basis of Poetry. They Open a New Cycle
in Architecture.” Here, Le Corbusier explained his views on the relationship between
architecture and technology. Firstly, he saw “technique” in terms of resistance of mate-
rials, physics and chemistry. Secondly, sociology meant for him a new type of dwelling
and a city that met the needs of the new era. Thirdly, economy equalled standardisation,
mass production and efficiency. All these three aspects merged together to become
architecture through poetry, that is, through a unique act of creation. Drama and pathos
were eternal values for Le Corbusier whereas “technique” was transitory.^381 In his paper,
he also discussed structures and the scale of cities, as well as ventilation systems, and
presented diagrams of their operating principles.^382 Le Corbusier did not take into
account in his technology-driven optimism a scenario in which the technocrats would
take over and sideline the human need for drama and pathos.
The impact of the Frankfurt conference was also evident in the Stockholm Exhibi-
tion of summer 1930, with the significant manifestation of Modernism in the Nordic
countries. The exhibition committee for the Stockholm Exhibition was appointed in
1928 and its chief architect was Gunnar Asplund. For Gregor Paulsson, who was the
organizer of the Stockholm Exhibition in 1930, the Weissenhof Exhibition, consisting
of a housing district, was clearly a model.^383 The Stockholm Exhibition featured a
whole urban environment with restaurants bordering the main street Corso. The main
theme of the exhibition was housing, and an architectural competition for the model
dwellings was organised prior to it. The competition was also motivated by the strong
programme that was based on teamwork and a systematic approach to resolving the
housing problem.^384 Besides new architectural thinking, the debate in Sweden also
focused on city planning.^385
The Swedish press and architects voiced opinions both for and against the radical
exhibition. Many socialist newspapers branded it as propaganda for Swedish capitalism,
while the conservative press regarded it as un-Swedish, opposing mass production.^386
Aalto had had the opportunity to follow the planning of the exhibition on the drawing
tables of his Swedish friends.^387 Aalto’s article in the Åbo Underrättelser (Turku News)
newspaper emphasised how in new architecture, design evolved from inside out, rather
381 Le Corbusier 1991 [1930], pp. 35–37.
382 Ibidem, pp. 65.
383 Rudberg 1999, pp. 20–22, p. 27 and pp. 35–37.
384 Rudberg 1981, pp. 67–73.
385 Major town-planning competitions in the districts of Gärdet and Kungsholmen were held in the late 1920s.
Swedish architects’ increasing interest in open block structures oriented according to cardinal points was evi-
dent in the proposals and was reflected in the public debate. Architect Arvid Stille’s proposal for Gärdet partly
represented a more traditional urban planning. The first prize for the Kungsholmen competition was shared
by two proposals, which were completely different from each other. One of the designs was created by Sven
Markelius and it followed the new town-planning principles of the time. The visions of many radical architects
were canonised in the early 1930s when the Social Democrats came to power. Eriksson 2001, pp. 427–435;
Hall 2009, pp. 83–90.
386 Rudberg 1999, pp. 187–193.
387 Schildt 1985, pp. 62–63.