In August 1932, Sven Markelius had persuaded Aalto to write in the architectural
October issue of the new Spektrum magazine, the theme of which was architecture and
society. Markelius was himself planning to write about collective housing, Åhrén on
functionalist form, and Poul Henningsen would also contribute as an editor. Markelius
hoped that Aalto would submit an illustrated article, stating that “pages in high-grade
paper can be added as necessary”. The writer would be allowed to choose his own
subject and a small financial compensation was also promised.^436 Aalto wrote back
to Markelius saying that he would write on the differences between the city and the
countryside from the perspective of rationalisation of housing design. Aalto decided to
study housing design on a scale that was new to himself but highly topical at the time.
Aalto complained about lack of funds in the correspondence regarding the arti-
cle, and he was to receive no further remuneration for Paimio Sanatorium. He used
this as an excuse for not travelling to the opening of Helsingborg Concert Hall, to
which Markelius had invited him in his previous letter.^437 It would appear that the
friends were becoming more distant.
In October, Markelius sent Aalto a letter thanking him for the article and asking for
illustrations for it.^438 In the next letter, he commented on Aalto’s use of language. Mar-
kelius claimed that Aalto had used words that did not sound scientific. Since the article
was aimed at the general public, certain expressions needed to be further explained,
Markelius wrote, and continued: “In places, there are also differences in the ways we
express ourselves on either side of the Bothnian Bay. I have added some comments in
the margins where I think you ought to pay some attention to ensure the passage is
comprehensible to ordinary people”.^439 Aalto may have been offended by Markelius’
comment, which explains why the correspondence became critical in its tone.
Aalto’s article “Bostadsfrågans geografi” (The Geography of the Housing Problem)
discusses geography and technological systems in the context of the housing ques-
tion. According to Aalto, the metropolis and the countryside, the A and B Europe,
were polar opposites in terms of lifestyle. Industrial development had to some degree
levelled out the differences, as modern conveniences had reached rural areas. The
beginning of the article is highly reminiscent of Gropius’ paper for the Brussels con-
ference, although Gropius did not use the terms “A and B Europe”. The same terms
had been used a year earlier in Acceptera, in the Chapter “Kultursituation” (Cultural
Situation). Acceptera gave insight on the concept which originated in Francis Delais’
work Les deux Europes (The Two Europes) published in 1929.^440
436 A letter from Markelius to Aalto August 25, 1932. Signum 10313, correspondence. AAM.
437 Aalto’s letter to Markelius s.a. Correspondence, Signum 25530. AAM.
438 Markelius’ letter to Aalto October 13, 1932. Signum 10316, correspondence. AAM.
439 Markelius’ letter to Aalto October 19,1932. Signum 10317, correspondence. AAM.
440 Asplund et al. 1931 pp. 15–25; Pelkonen 2009, p. 106.