This line of thought echoes Le Corbusier’s paper delivered at the Frankfurt am
Main conference. For Aalto, biological equalled dynamic, as it was the polar opposite
of the static, more precisely the static frame. He used the phrase “biodynamic”. Aalto
explained that families were more mobile than before and the mechanical qualities
of objects reflected this new reality. Aalto was referring to the feeling of experiencing
the modern environment, the modernity. Aalto declared that a large-sized dwelling
was not an advantage but a disadvantage. He studied the concept of the minimum
dwelling by adding to its functional features. This led him to the concept of “general
dwelling”, which was functionally superior to an “inorganic”, unfeasible entity. By
organic, he was referring to a well-functioning environment. Aalto maintained that in
a functional, comfortable home moving from one task to the next could happen with-
out difficulty and disruption as the acoustic qualities and lighting in the space were
good. A scientifically designed apartment was to be neutral and non-discriminatory.^395
Next, Aalto explained the concept of culture using an ocean liner as an allegory. For
example, a mechanical engineer and his working environment with all the machinery
formed an organic entity. The engineer was probably oblivious to the style of his bed, as
long as it was comfortable. Aalto argued that housing had become a problem because
the values on which housing was based, had changed. Aalto called for a scientific solu-
tion to the housing problem. He felt that housing at the minimum income level should
be studied to determine the parameters for a standard dwelling in a classless society. He
thought that research should be targeted at the criteria that a dwelling should meet to
offer a balanced setting for social life.^396
Aalto’s text was substantially similar in its analysis regarding the arrangement of the
dwelling to Le Corbusier’s paper for the Frankfurt am Main conference. Le Corbusier
had emphasised the importance of the right research questions: selecting the appro-
priate problems was crucial. This thinking showed in Aalto’s article. Aalto supported
his theoretical ideas with his own empirical observations and images such as a resident
doing his morning exercise in a small apartment. Aalto’s text is fluent and readable. His
request for research methods on the minimum apartment and “social positivity” were
in turn direct loans from Gropius. Aalto returned in his article to the necessities of
“biological” human existence: air, light and the sun. Air was a question of ventilation to
him, and its quality was a matter of great importance. Deliberating on the role of light
and the sun led him to criticise planning practices. Aalto argued that in a dwelling of 50
square metres there was no room for chance, and each angle in which light fell on the
dwelling had to be studied and carefully designed. He would address the need for fresh
air in the apartments of a block of flats collectively instead of resorting to the concept
of the garden city, which he found “sentimental”. Collective arrangements were suitable
for families, too, if the mother worked outside the home.^397
395 Ibidem.
396 Ibidem.
397 Ibidem.