A Tribute to the Memory of

Sven Markelius and Uno Åhrén

by Eva Rudberg, PhD. Dr. Tech. architect, associate professor and former researcher at Arkitekturmuseet (museum of architecture)

Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences (IVA) 1 2 A Tribute to the Memory of

Sven Markelius and Uno Åhrén

Presented at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences

by Eva Rudberg, PhD. Dr. Tech. architect, associate professor and former researcher at Arkitekturmuseet (museum of architecture)

3 The Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences (IVA) is an independent, learned society that promotes the engineering and economic sciences and the development of industry for the benefit of Swedish society. In cooperation with the business and academic communities, the Academy initiates and proposes measures designed to strengthen Sweden’s industrial skills base and competitiveness.

For further information, please visit IVA’s website at www.iva.se. Published by the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences (IVA), Eva Rudberg, Phd. Dr., architect, associate professor and former researcher at Arkitekturmuseet (museum of architecture)

IVA, P.O. Box 5073, SE-102 42 Stockholm, Sweden Phone: +46 8 791 29 00 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.iva.se

IVA-M 490 • ISSN 1102-8254 • ISBN 978-91-7082-964-2

Editor: Anna Lindberg, IVA Translation: Diane Hogsta Layout and production: Hans Melcherson, Grafisk Form, Stockholm, Sweden Photos: ArkDes, Lennart Nilsson, Lennart Olsson, Bo Törngren, Karl Schultz, Barbro Soller Printed by Pipline, Stockholm, Sweden, 2017 4 Foreword

Each year the Royal at Kungs­träd­gården park in Stockholm. Swedish Academy of He planned suburbs such as Björkhagen, Engineering Sciences Högdalen and Vällingby while serving as (IVA) produces a book­ urban planning director in Stockholm. He let commemorating a was also an active debater, including with person whose scientific, Uno Åhrén and others in a radical pam­ engineering, economic or industrial phlet they published called “acceptera” achievements were of significant benefit to (accept). Uno Åhrén took the initiative to the society of his or her day. The person to create an urban plan for Årsta Centrum, be recognised in the booklet must have one of the first neighbourhood centres, been born at least 100 years ago. The which was built based on inspiration from Commemorative Booklet ­is published in British neighbourhood planning. He had conjunction with the Academy’s Annual many strings to his bow. In addition to be­ Meeting. ing an architect and urban planner, he was This year two architects, Sven Marke­ also a designer of furniture and wallpapers. lius and Uno Åhrén, are being honoured Through their contributions, Uno for their groundbreaking achievements in Åhrén and Sven Markelius are now consid­ urban planning and the development of ered the main figures in bringing function­ Swedish functionalism. Both men helped alism to Sweden and as such have had had create numerous well-known buildings an inestimable influence over urban devel­ and contributed fresh ideas on how cities opment in this country. should be planned to achieve attractive liv­ We wish to extend our sincere thanks ing environments. Among Sven Markelius’ to Eva Rudberg, the author and PhD. Dr. creations are the Helsingborg Concert Tech., for the extensive and involved work Hall, a number of well-known single-fami­ she devoted to this year´s commemorative ly homes and Sverigehuset (Sweden House) booklet.

Björn O. Nilsson Arne Kaijser President of the Academy Chairman of the Medals Committee

5 Sven Markelius and Uno Åhrén, pioneers in the new architectural and urban planning ideal in 20th century Sweden

The new architectural and urban planning (1889–1972) and Uno Åhrén (1897–1977). ideal that emerged in the 1920s in Sweden Both men were greatly committed to func­ has been both celebrated and criticised. tionalism and the new urban planning ide­ The era of modernism, or functionalism as ology. They were active during a period of it would be called in Sweden, began in the sweeping changes in society – from a Swe­ first decade of the 20th century in Europe. den where poverty was widespread to the The movement was linked to rapid devel­ “Swedish middle way” (Swe: folkhem, opments in science, philosophy, art, poli­ middle ground between socialism and tics and technology in the first two dec­ capitalism) and the welfare state. Both ades of the 1900s. Markelius and Åhrén had an impressive Functionalism is characterised by fas­ breadth of experience in the profession – tidious design, emphasising the function from designing interiors, furniture, tex­ and structure of the buildings. Construc­ tiles and individual buildings, to urban tion in this style typically involved open and master planning. They were also very plan solutions, light and airy room con­ active as writers, speakers and debaters, nections, a study of functions, experimen­ and had a strong commitment to housing tal methods, rationality and new materi­ policy. als. In urban planning there was an Sven Markelius, whose father was a emphasis on sunlight and green and open master painter and mother a seamstress, spaces as an alternative to crowded urban grew up in Södermalm in Stockholm. His environments. A social commitment to surname was Jonsson but when he en­ building better homes in a Europe rife rolled at the Royal Institute of Technology with poverty influenced many architects. (KTH) and realised that there were two Two central figures in this break­ other students with the same name, he de­ through in Sweden were Sven Markelius cided to change it to Markelius. He took

6 the name from the farm named Mark in Sven Markelius Östergötland where his great grandfather Studying architecture at the Royal Insti­ had been a crofter. tute of Technology (KTH) was a way of Uno Åhrén’s father was active in the incorporating an artist’s freedom. Mar­ Adventist movement and was the editor of kelius, who was eight years older than his its magazine “Tidens tecken” (Sign of the future colleague, began his studies in 1909 Times) in Stockholm. Åhrén himself never and graduated with flying colours four had an interest in religion, but the move­ years later. The architectural style of the ment’s commitment to ethics and society time was national romanticism, and it was made an impression on him and these as­ in the spirit of that era that he entered a pects came to the fore in his role as an ar­ competition for students at KTH to design chitect. Åhrén’s mother died when he was a new student union building. He won the ten. competition the same year as he graduat­ Thus neither of the two architects had ed, 1913. But construction of the student any connection to the profession to which union building was postponed for finan­ they would go on to devote their lives. cial reasons. When a new competition was Both were skilled at drawing. Åhrén pro­ announced in the 1920s, his entry, this duced impressive oil paintings while still a time in partnership with Uno Åhrén, won teenager. Both were also gifted and suc­ again, but now in a brand new guise: func­ cessful students, but given their family tionalism. backgrounds, trying to make a living as an Markelius’ success as a student at artist was not an option. KTH led to two years of architecture

Markelius’ student union building design proposal 1913

7 study at the “Mejan” art academy. There architects, including Ivar Tengbom, whose he was awarded a royal medal for an aca­ architecture firm was the largest in Swe­ demic project. Meanwhile he was facing a den at the time. He was also head of the difficult choice: as a talented baritone he carpentry design office for the standardi­ had applied and been accepted to study sation commission, the purpose of which opera. He decided to dedicate himself to was to use standardisation and rationali­ architecture while still keeping his interest sation to lower construction costs. He also in music alive. This is reflected in the thea­ worked at the urban planning office of the tre and concert hall projects he would lat­ government agency for building and prop­ er be involved in. erty. Meanwhile he participated success­ As a new architecture graduate Mar­ fully in several urban planning competi­ kelius’ first job was with the architecture tions in the 1910s and 1920s. firm of Ragnar Östberg. While there, he By 1920 Markelius had opened his was involved in designing Stockholm City own firm. In 1925 he won the urban plan­ Hall. Later he would work for a number of ning competition for Bygge och Bo (an or­

Bygge och Bo 1925

8 ganisation that organised housing exhibi­ won first prize for his submission, a repre­ tions) on the island of Lidingö, where he sentation of 20th century classicism, also also designed ten detached houses. This called Nordic classicism. But the late was an architectural turning point. Many 1920s saw the rise of functionalism and architects had left behind national roman­ Markelius adjusted his competition sub­ ticism in favour of a more classical ideal. mission to the new style. When the build­ Markelius’ area on the island of Lidingö is ing was officially opened in 1932 it was a fine example of this “1920s classicism,” considered the best example of functional­ and this was also where he made a name ism in Sweden. for himself as an architect. Markelius first encountered the new The Concert Hall in Helsingborg was, architecture in 1927 when he won a schol­ however, his most important break­ arship and embarked upon a six-week trip through. It began with a competition in around Europe to study airports. He trav­ 1925 in which he won third prize, and elled through Germany and visited Walter later another competition. This time he Gropius, the architect and founder of the

Markelius’ Helsingborg Concert Hall 1932

9 Bauhaus School. Markelius saw the new dent union invited him to give a lecture in homes built in the style as well as the fa­ Åbo on the topic of rationalisation in mous school building in the city of Des­ modern architecture. sau. Gropius’ modernist architecture and vision of the role of the architect made a Uno Åhrén strong impression on Markelius and the When Uno Åhrén enrolled in the Royal In­ two men became good friends. He also stitute of Technology (KTH) in 1913, visited the Weissenhof Exhibition in Stutt­ Markelius had already graduated. Åhrén gart the same year. This was the first ma­ had made an impression as a student of jor manifestation of the new architecture technology for his design of a one room at which many renowned architects pre­ flat for the 1917 ideal home exhibition ar­ sented their plans for homes. They includ­ ranged by Svenska Slöjdföreningen (Swed­ ed Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Hans Scha­ ish Society of Crafts and Design) in the roun, and – not least – Le Corbusier. After new Liljevalchs art gallery in Stockholm. Markelius’ travels in 1927, he whole- The aim of the exhibition was to promote heartedly embraced the new architecture. the creation of well-functioning homes He had forged many relationships with and everyday items for the general public. well-known architects and arranged a trip Åhrén designed wallpaper that was well to Stockholm for Gropius the following received at the exhibition and would be year during which the German architect reprinted many years later. In subsequent held lectures for Markelius’ colleagues. Le years he won numerous assignments to de­ Corbusier also made a similar trip to Åhrén’s wallpaper 1917 Stockholm. Markelius’ international network of contacts expanded when in 1929 he was the first Scandinavian to become a mem­ ber of the influential think-tank Congrès Internationaux d´Architecture Moderne (CIAM), in which Le Corbusier was a cen­ tral figure. Based on a recommendation from Markelius, Alvar Aalto from Finland and Poul Henningsen from Denmark were also inducted as members and shortly thereafter, Uno Åhrén as well. Markelius had met and become friends with Aalto when in 1928 the Finnish architecture stu­

10 Åhren’s room at the exhibition 1917 in Stockholm sign furniture and other items, mostly for wrote an enthusiastic article in the journal the Swedish design firm Svenskt Tenn. of the Swedish Society of Crafts and De­ Åhrén was introduced to modernism sign in which he repudiated the overbur­ in 1925. This was the year that he and a dened interior design on display at the number of other Swedish architects were Paris Exhibition and instead called atten­ invited to take part in a major architecture tion to Le Corbusier’s building, saying: exhibition in Paris. His interior design in “Here there is no risk of stepping straight the style that was called “Swedish grace” into an artistic composition in which one was a success and won awards. But Åhrén might only disrupt the delicate balance himself was more fascinated by Swiss ar­ with one’s presence. There is room to chitect Le Corbusier’s L’Esprit Nouveau move, to talk at will about serious topics pavilion which featured the new architec­ or to joke; empty walls on which to hang ture. He sought out Le Corbusier, one of art work, free floor space to group furni­ the most important theorists of modern­ ture however one has a mind to.” His en­ ism, and was probably the first Swedish counter with Le Corbusier’s architecture architect to meet him in person. Åhrén was a turning point for Åhrén. A few years

11 Student Union Building in Stockholm 1930 . Photo: Karl Schultz later, Gotthard Johansson, a writer who mined that the financial criteria had not covered culture for the Svenska Dagbladet been met, but the jury named Markelius’ daily newspaper, would call Åhrén Swe­ and Åhrén’s proposal the winner and it den’s foremost theorist in functionalism was purchased for SEK 1,000. The archi­ and “the spearhead of the new move­ tects continued to work on their design ment.” and the building was officially opened in There were only about 300 architects 1930. in Sweden in the 1920s and they all knew The union building was one of the first their colleagues. It was therefore no sur­ functionalist buildings in Sweden and had prise when Markelius and Åhrén, who clear examples of the features of the new shared a commitment to the new architec­ architectural style: flat roofs, well-defined, ture, started collaborating. When KTH’s right-angled buildings with stairwells pro­ financial situation improved and was able truding forming separate spaces, horizon­ to organise a new design competition for tal rows of windows, sun terraces, pent the union building in 1928, the two men roofs over external steps up to entrances, decided to submit a joint entry. No first unadorned light plaster facades and func­ prize was awarded because the jury deter­ tional interior divisions.

12 The Stockholm Exhibition 1930 – light, airy exhibition buildings. The main functionalism’s breakthrough in attraction was the Paradise restaurant. Sweden The lead architect for the exhibition was The Stockholm Exhibition in 1930, ar­ Gunnar Asplund who had overall respon­ ranged by the Swedish Society of Crafts sibility and, with his colleagues, was re­ and Design, marked a major breakthrough sponsible for most of the buildings. Gre­ for functionalism in Sweden. On the is­ gor Paulsson was the Director of Svenska land of Djurgården in central Stockholm Slöjdföreningen and Commissioner of the various Swedish products were presented: exhibition. Numerous architects partici­ means of transport, homes, furniture, pated, including Markelius and Åhrén. light fittings, printing equipment etc. in Markelius was responsible for the hospital

The Stockholm Exhibition 1930

13 section as well as a detached house and a kelius wrote: “In order to get as much as flat, and Åhrén for a detached house and a possible out of a small volume, it is of terraced house. Both men were involved in course important to first establish the furniture design and each of them de­ most pressing needs; to refine the task signed a piano. through objectivity.” This is where the The home section of the exhibition functionalists saw their mission: to study was an important project. The housing and refine the functions that a home situation in Sweden was problematic; should have, quantify them and create a homes were cramped, standards low and well-functioning whole. But with limited rents high. Designing blocks of flats had economic resources available, as was the not been high up on the list of priorities case for the most inexpensive dwellings, for architects. But this was now more ur­ this was actually an impossible task. This gently needed than ever. Through their was also evidenced in many of the designs designs for the exhibition, the architects presented at the Stockholm Exhibition. were attempting to present well-planned, The kitchen was often of minimal propor­ functional homes in various price ranges, tions to allow room for at least two bed­ including the low income bracket. Mar­ rooms and a bathroom within the small

Markelius’ flat from the Stockholm Exhibition 1930

14 space. Many of the architects would con­ tween two, three or four rooms. His flat clude that the housing problem was not a consisted of three rooms on two floors technical but a political one and that a with a very compact kitchen space. new housing policy was required. Åhrén’s terraced house was unusual Markelius’ detached house at the exhi­ for the day, although there were examples bition was interesting in that the bedroom of this type of home in Sweden already. section had moveable walls making it flex­ The open plan ground floor of the terraced ible so that occupants could choose be­ house was a solution the functionalists fa­

Åhrén´s terraced house, the Stockholm Exhibition 1930

15 voured if space allowed. The bedrooms also wrote in Svenska Dagbladet, but he were on the second floor. Åhrén’s detached had a different view: “We are looking at house design was for the low-income cat­ the greatest and most fundamental de­ egory. It had a relatively traditional floor­ struction of the most precious and price­ plan in which three of the family members less values in our urban landscape...” A were expected to sleep in the living room. commonly expressed opinion was that this The Stockholm Exhibition was a pop­ was not “Swedish,” despite the fact that ular event boasting more than 4 million the exhibition was produced in Sweden. visits – an impressive number bearing in This opinion echoed the German Nazis’ mind Sweden’s total population at the view of modernism in Germany – that it time of around 6 million. It received much was not “German.” praise but also harsh criticism. Gotthard Johansson wrote in the Svenska Dagb­ Scientific approach, social ladet newspaper that Asplund “has shown engagemen that it is possible to create poetry as easily The criticism prompted the architects be­ in glass, iron and fibre cement as in a clas­ hind the Stockholm Exhibition in 1930 to sical style through columns and minarets. author a polemical pamphlet called “ac­ He has shown that plain cubes and sur­ ceptera” (accept). In it they argued the faces can be constructed to form a radiant case for the new architecture, addressed architectonic poem of celebration.” The the perception of it not being Swedish and leading art critic of the day, Carl Laurin, highlighted the social development issues

The authors of acceptera, from right to left: Gregor Paulsson, Wolter Gahn, Eskil Sundahl, Gunnar Asplund, Uno Åhrén and Sven Markelius.

16 they believed to be important: “Accept the Kritisk Revy in Denmark, Plan in Nor­ reality that exists – only then will we be way, Fönstret and Morgonbris and in able to conquer it, to cope with it, to Spektrum’s Arkitektur och Samhälle (Ar­ change it and create a culture that is a use­ chitecture and Society). The latter was ful life tool. We have no need for the out­ published from 1932 to 1935 and Mar­ grown designs of an old culture to bolster kelius was its editor. Spektrum was started our self-esteem.” The pamphlet was writ­ by the authors Karin Boye, Gunnar ten by Gunnar Asplund, Wolter Gahn, Ekelöv, Erik Mesterton and Joseph Ri­ Sven Markelius, Gregor Paulsson, Eskil wkin, and many of their co-authors were Sundahl and Uno Åhrén during a week fellow members of the socialist organisa­ spent in Vaxholm in the Stockholm archi­ tion Clarté. Numerous other radical pelago and was published by the publish­ groups existed in which Markelius and ing house Tiden 1931. Wolter Gahn had Åhrén were members. They were made up participated as an architect in the exhibi­ of economists, architects, writers etc. and tion, as had Eskil Sundalh who was the were what today we might call interdisci­ chief architect for the Kooperativa För­ plinary organisations. Both Markelius bundet (federation of consumer co-opera­ and Åhrén were also very involved in the tives) architectural firm. Uno Åhrén de­ anti-Nazi movement and helped Jewish scribed it as an enjoyable and creative refugees during the war. week. He was already one of the most pas­ sionate authors on the subject and was 1930s buildings – social and also the person who coined the term technical experiments “functionalism,” which much to his dis­ Sven Markelius’ own home in Nockeby may became known as “funkis” in Swed­ was completed the same year as the Stock­ ish. None of the so-called functionalists holm Exhibition. It had a distinctive func­ actually liked the term because it suggest­ tionalist style in the spirit of Le Corbusier. ed that this would merely be a new style. He had also designed a number of other They instead saw it as a whole new meth­ houses around Stockholm, including one od within architecture and urban plan­ for building contractor Olle Engkvist. But ning based on a scientific and social ap­ his ambitions reached beyond this. The so­ proach. cial experiment introduced by Markelius Both Markelius and Åhrén were in the 1930s was the “kollektivhuset” (in­ skilled writers and wrote about the new dividual flats with common services in the architecture in daily newspapers and jour­ building). He designed the project in coop­ nals such as Byggmästaren (where Åhrén eration with Alva Myrdal who was work­ served as editor for a number of years), ing with child and family issues and had

17 Markelius’ house in Nockeby, Stockholm 1930 written articles about the collective hous­ angled buildings with collective services in ing idea. The idea was to create joint solu­ the form of restaurants, a library, club­ tions for child-minding, food preparation house and areas for children. The debate and cleaning etc. to enable women who turned violent and he was accused of wanted or needed to go out to work to do wanting to split families and separate chil­ so. There were a few previous examples of dren from their parents. The project was blocks of flats with a central kitchen and far too large and controversial for anyone common spaces. But Markelius developed to dare to invest in it. As a result, Mar­ this further and wrote enthusiastically kelius went on to design a smaller collec­ about the idea. In 1932 Yrkeskvinnornas tive building containing 57 flats on John klubb (club for professional women) held a Ericssonsgatan in Stockholm. Completed meeting attended by Markelius. The same in 1935, the building contained a restau­ year he presented a project in Alvik con­ rant and dumb waiters to the apartments sisting of three ten-storey, 100-metre long, as well as a day care centre for children.

18 People were employed to clean and do laundry. The flats were small – one or two rooms with a kitchen alcove and bath­ room. There were two larger flats as well and Markelius and his family occupied one of them. Many radicals moved into the building, including several fellow ar­ chitects. Another of his main projects was the Stockholms Byggnadsförening (The Central homes prevent divorce? Stockholm Building Society) building from 1937. Here Markelius had more Markelius’ Collective house in Stockholm 1935 scope and developed a softer form of func­ tionalism which greatly emphasised mate­ rials and design. An affinity with the ar­ chitecture of Alvar Aalto was clear and the two men, who were colleagues and

Markelius’: Stockholms Byggnadsförening (The Stockholm Building Society) 1937 Markelius’ house in Nockeby, Stockholm 1930

19 friends, enjoyed exchanging ideas. The ing design architect of the two in the Stockholms Byggnadsförening building 1930s, while Åhrén by 1932 had involved was highly regarded and Gunnar Asplund, himself in urban planning in Gothenburg. a world famous architect and professor at But Åhrén also designed a number of KTH, sent his students to study it. buildings in the early 1930s. Two of his Developments in aviation generated most important projects were completed architectural assignments. Markelius had, at that time: a block of flats in Södermalm as mentioned earlier, studied airports in in Stockholm which was also home to the Europe at the end of the 1920s, and in Flamman cinema, and the Ford Motor 1930 he designed a hangar for seaplanes at Company building in Frihamnen. Flam­ Lindarängen in Stockholm. Four years man was one of the first functionalistic later he entered a competition to design cinemas in Sweden with a light blue inte­ Bromma Airport. He submitted a complex rior in which the narrow concrete pillars proposal, but did not win. Another assign­ defied gravity. The ceiling of the foyer had ment was the Swedish pavilion at the New many small light bulbs and the luminosity York Exhibition of 1939. It was consid­ was enhanced by the shiny metal surface ered a breath of fresh air, particularly the of the walls and ceiling. This was the op­ garden section adjacent to the pavilion. To posite of the old cinema style which aimed quote an American architect: “Inviting, for exoticism and mystery. The Ford Mo­ noble, direct – timeless beauty.” tor Company building had a steel skeleton Markelius was the most prolific build­ with glazed facades. The space in which

Åhren’s Flamman cinema, Stockholm 1930

20 the latest models of the Ford cars were dis­

Åhren’s Ford Motor Company, Stockholm 1931

21 played as well as the stairwell exuded architects Walter Gropius, Bruno Taut modernist elegance. (Today the building and Martin Wagner were also influential. houses the Stockholm Stock Exchange.) The new urban planning required resi­ Also in the 1930s Åhrén was commis­ dential areas to be light, airy and spacious sioned by Sweden’s largest housing coop­ and have green spaces. The quality of indi­ eration, HSB, to design a block of flats and vidual homes was important as was sun­ terraced houses. light being allowed in – preferably from two directions, east and west. The impor­ New urban planning ideal tance of sunlight was emphasised as a The new architecture encompassed a new means of combatting the dreaded tubercu­ vision for urban planning. Although the losis. The buildings in the innercity areas main inspiration came from Le Corbusier, were built so close together that the flats the many residential areas built in Berlin were often dark. The idea now was to during the Weimar Republic designed by place the buildings in a parallel formation with green spaces in between. In 1928 Åhrén showed how it was possible, using Åhren: Example of urban planning 1928 the same amount of land as for the cramped city blocks, to achieve the same amount of living space in rows of low-rise buildings with space in between. His ideas had a strong influence on the expansion of suburbs, especially in Stockholm. Most of the suburban blocks of flats were three or four storeys high. Both Markelius and Åhrén entered ur­ ban planning competitions in the 1920s and beginning of the 1930s. Markelius’ 1927 plans for Kristineberg in Stockholm show his transition from more traditional blocks of buildings to open plans and large green spaces. He shared first prize for his proposal. Åhrén and some of his colleagues presented a urban planning proposal to HSB with the motto “Hus i park” (Homes in Park) in 1932. It includ­ ed a proposal for blocks of flats with vari­

22 Markelius’ design proposal for high-rises at Gärdet, Stockholm 1928 ous depths and layouts. In his new plans residential buildings of varying heights for Gärdet in Stockholm in 1928, Mar­ were grouped together, but the proposal kelius refined the idea to include residen­ did not win a prize. tial buildings with either twelve or twenty The new urban planning law adopted floors. He also allocated a large part of the in 1931 contained many objectives that area as parkland. The proposal was of coincided with the functionalists’ desire course controversial and when the Gärdet for open city plans. The law stated that buildings, designed by architect Arvid city districts should be planned as whole Stille, went up in the 1930s, the more tra­ entities, that land use plans should not ditional style in terms of symmetry and merely include streets and city blocks, but monumentality prevailed, even though the space for parks, sports fields etc., and that blocks of flats were eight storeys high and industrial and residential areas should be detached. Åhren’s submission to the com­ separated with “protective” space in be­ petition involved plans where low-rise tween. Many of the provisions in the new

23 law were based on existing hygiene and Åhrén wanted to produce a master safety requirements which the functional­ plan for Gothenburg – a cohesive vision ists developed further. But these require­ for the city. Master plans had been pro­ ments were developed at the cost of the duced from time to time in the past, but it quality of cities in which buildings, streets was not until 1947 that building law and and squares provided compact areas with statutes were established and the munici­ character. The many low-rise residential pal authorities were required to produce building plans produced in the interwar cohesive plans. Åhrén was a pioneer in the years in Sweden offered high quality in the area and in 1937 a master plan was creat­ form of green spaces and unspoiled na­ ed for the Lundby neighbourhood in ture, and in particular small, but well- Gothenburg. The city purchased land and planned flats. There was, however, little planned for strong growth and expansion. scope for variety. The new urban planning The idea was to find a way to apply a new came to resemble dogma. urban planning idea – the linear city – which had an industrial zone along a river, Uno Åhrén the urban planner a residential zone running parallel to the Uno Åhrén shifted his focus from theory north and an open park area in between. to practice when in 1932 he became first This idea, which had been developed and city engineer and later city planning direc­ used in the Soviet Union, involved separat­ tor in Gothenburg. He helped to reorgan­ ing the residential area from noisy indus­ ise and expand the urban planning office tries while also shortening commuting and the work carried out there. During his times. Åhrén would take on master plan­ tenure in Gothenburg several older plans ning assignments many more times in his for the city were reviewed and traditional career. city blocks were replaced with open low- Åhrén remained at the helm of urban rise buildings. Examples of this are Övre planning in Gothenburg until 1943. Dur­ Johanneberg and Bagare­gården. There ing his tenure he welcomed numerous was also a proposal to tear down the old young architects who came to the urban wooden buildings in the Haga neighbour­ planning office to further their education. hood and replace them with buildings in Urban planning programmes were still the new style, but these plans were never very limited at KTH. He also had ambi­ implemented. To create better homes he tions to educate the public. While in commissioned studies on suitable types of Gothenburg he held lectures for 55 differ­ buildings, linking them to land transfer ent associations and organisations, rang­ requirements – an idea that would later be ing from housewives associations to trade developed through new legislation. unions and local preservation societies.

24 He was also one of the people behind the housing/social approach. Myrdal and Sociological Society in Gothenburg. Soci­ Åhrén agreed. This marked the beginning ology was emerging as a subject to study of comprehensive and extensive work by in Sweden at the time. Åhrén wanted to the commission that would continue until promote research that could be used in ur­ 1947 and result in a new housing policy in ban and community planning contexts. post-war Sweden. Myrdal and Åhrén were Åhrén made another of his important ex-officio members of the government’s contributions while in Gothenburg in housing community commission, “Bos­ 1932. He worked with Gunnar Myrdal, tadssociala utredningen”. the internationally renowned economist, social democratic member of parliament Neighbourhoods and and later Minister for Trade, to develop an community centres initiative to study housing conditions in During the war years and afterwards the the city. They wanted to influence the idea of neighbourhood units developed housing policy debate. Ernst Wigforss, the among urban planners. The functionalists Minister of Finance in the social demo­ cratic government, was receptive to their ideas and by the following year the two men presented the results of the study. They showed that living conditions were extremely cramped and that rents were high. The two men believed that it was es­ sential to start properly planning housing production. Their report was published by the Kooperativa Förbundet printing house under the title “Bostadsfrågan såsom so­ cialt planläggningsproblem” (The hous­ ing issue as a social planning issue), ena­ bling the ideas to reach a wide audience. Their relationship with Gustaf Möller, Minister of Social Affairs who was con­ sidered “the father of Sweden’s social wel­ fare state”, led to a new, important com­ mission of inquiry being formed. Minister Möller asked if they would like the name of the commission to reflect the combined

25 were engaged in the housing issue and this suburbs close to city centres. They would led to discussion on what residential areas include meeting halls and municipal and should contain. They took a self-critical commercial services. look at the residential areas built in the Uno Åhrén was given the opportunity 1930s. In his 1942 book, Architecture and to put his ideas into practice when in 1943 democracy, Åhrén wrote: “The assump­ he was appointed head of Svenska Riks­ tion was that all flats should have plenty of byggen in Stockholm. This was a compa­ sunlight. Residential areas were therefore ny started in 1940 at the initiative of trade planned so that low-rise buildings were unions in the construction industry to lined up in a row. But we were forgetting boost construction activity which had two important things. Firstly, these areas been at a low ebb during the war years. tended to be uniform and boring; there The head office, located in Stockholm, was very little emphasis on creating an en­ was a hub and support centre for technical vironment in which people would be hap­ expertise. The company also arranged for py. Secondly, we planned the area as if it loans and local associations were created were only a matter of placing a certain around the country. number of people in a certain number of A long-term residential construction flats. We forgot that beyond merely having programme with specific objectives re­ an abode, people had various ways of in­ quires planning. Åhrén’s aim during his teracting and living together. We over­ time at Svenska Riks­byggen was to get the looked the need to arrange buildings in municipal authorities to produce five-year groups around central areas where people residential construction plans. The Gov­ could interact, where there would be play­ ernment’s housing community commis­ grounds, club houses, a place for study sion, in which he was a member, was circles to meet, assembly rooms, libraries, thinking along the same lines. cinemas etc.” Concrete plans, based on Åhrén’s ide­ The inspiration for the idea of a neigh­ as, were produced to expand the Stock­ bourhood and community centre came holm suburb of Årsta. Svenska Riksby­ from England, where self-sufficient “new ggen had obtained land on which to build towns” were being planned and divided homes. Åhrén saw an opportunity to ap­ into smaller neighbourhoods and centres ply the neighbourhood and community in the outskirts of London. The idea was centre idea. He conveyed his ideas to the to move residences and workplaces out of municipal authorities and was commis­ the innercity areas and at the same time sioned to develop a proposal for a social create efficient small communities. centre in Årsta. He used a new planning In Sweden most of these were smaller method by involving sociologists in the

26 Årsta Centrum, Stockholm 1954 process to conduct interview surveys on The school was in a separate area outside housing and living conditions and to find the centre. Plans for multiple buildings for out what leisure interests people in Årsta various purposes in the smaller neigh­ had. He also produced a draft of plans for bourhoods never materialised but were a town with small neighbourhoods con­ instead replaced by the larger common fa­ sisting of homes, playgrounds and assem­ cilities in the central area. Work began in bly halls for the young and old. 1943 and Årsta centrum was officially He turned to architects Erik and Tore opened a decade later. Since then the age Ahlsén to design the larger centre. The demographic and needs have change. But brothers created Årsta centrum as an ar­ the social ambitions and the somewhat chitectural whole with a theatre, cinema, challenging colour scheme of the buildings library, meetingplaces/assembly halls, was a milestone in Swedish urban plan­ shops and offices with municipal services ning history. Visitors still come to see the – all gathered around a central square. results today.

27 planned community building were used by the commission. The urban planning com­ mission resulted in master and regional planning being introduced into law. The location of workplaces and homes was an important aspect, and society’s control over land was a key issue. It was impor­ tant for the municipal authorities to be able to establish long-term goals for where, when and how buildings should be built, and this was made possible when the municipal plan monopoly became law in 1947. This clearly limited land develop­ ment opportunities of private land own­ Community planning 1944 ers. The new law also established that the supply of homes was the responsibility of One of the most important papers the municipal authorities. There were oth­ Åhrén authored was “Ett planmässigt er committees of inquiry relating to urban samhällbyggande” (Planned community and community planning in progress at building). It was annexed to the Govern­ the time. The Land Committee (Mark­ ment commission’s final report in 1945. In kommittén) referred to Åhrén’s work in it he summarised his vision for community Gothenburg and to his papers. Åhrén par­ planning – from plans for neighbourhoods ticipated in a municipal cooperation com­ and centres to his master planning objec­ mittee and a committee formed for the re­ tives in which he saw an expanded role for organisation of the urban planning agency. architects. He advocated for limiting the He was an authority in this area and growth of metropolises and recommended helped to produce the new legislation. building smaller and medium-sized com­ Åhrén was able to focus on many of munities. His vision centred around the these issues when he became a professor of social aspects where plans were based on urban planning at KTH in 1947. This was studies of people’s needs and habits. A the first professorship in the subject in government urban planning commission Sweden. In addition to teaching under­ (Stadsplaneutredningen) was in progress graduates, he spent a lot of time teaching alongside the housing community com­ professional development courses and mission. Åhrén was not involved in that, speaking at conferences where architects but the ideas he outlined in his paper on and professional urban planners could ex­

28 pand their knowledge in areas such as both an overview as well as detailed master and regional planning. Åhrén also knowledge – a goal that also reflected the produced compendiums on the subject dilemma of urban planners. There was which were not only used in in educational still a shortage of both knowledge and ex­ contexts but also by consultants in the in­ perience of solving the new planning prob­ dustry. One of the more well-known ones lems at this point. was “Bilstaden” (Car Town). The com­ Alongside his work as a professor, plete separation of motorists and pedestri­ Åhrén had his own firm where he conduct­ ans was the goal. This was based on faith ed numerous master and regional plan­ in forecasts and on the assumption that ning studies. He retired as a professor in the effects of technical development would 1963 and a few years later he also closed only be positive and applied in many un­ his firm and moved to his cottage in Värm­ critical solutions. There was a huge expan­ land. He was awarded an honorary doc­ sion of the subject of urban planning dur­ torate from the Royal Institute of Technol­ ing Åhrén’s time. His aim was to have ogy (KTH) and was an honorary member

Bilstaden (Car Town) plans 1960

29 of SAR, Sweden’s national association of the lower Norrmalm area of central Stock­ architects. But he had had enough of big holm and the growth of the city’s suburbs. city life and felt pessimistic about how Plans to change lower Norrmalm and the things were developing. He had always Klara area had been in the pipeline for a been interested in nature and the out­ long time. In the decade starting in 1910 doors. He also started painting again. the city had been buying properties in Later Åhren was involved in the project preparation for major clearance work. In “Rädda din stad” (Save your Town) when 1932 a competition was announced for a motorway and demolition were threat­ proposals for lower Norrmalm. It received ing the town of Arvika. more than 350 submissions, including ones from Alvar Aalto and Le Corbusier. Sven Markelius, urban Many of the proposals included very tall planning director and architect high-rise buildings. None of these would Sven Markelius would apply the new ur­ come to fruition. It was when Markelius ban planning ideas in his role as urban took over as director of urban planning planning director in Stockholm in the that the plan to build the five high-rises years 1944–1954. The two large tasks he between Hötorget and Sergelstorg came had to grapple with were the renewal of about. Architect David Helldén at the ur­

Markelius’ urban plan model for Stockholm city. Photo: Lennart Nilsson

Hötorget high-rises.

30 31 ban planning office was responsible for ronment, but it has also been admired for the concept involving buildings that would successfully achieving a uniform whole, ultimately be 18 storeys high. City Com­ consistency and architectural rhythm in a missioner for urban planning, Yngve Lars­ new milieu. son, called them “The five trumpet blasts.” Master planning was, as mentioned Markelius would himself design the third earlier, quite a new phenomenon in Swe­ of the five high-rises after leaving his posi­ den at the time. Under the 1947 building tion as urban planning director. The code municipalities were required to pre­ transformation of lower Norrmalm is one pare master plans in order to make long- of the largest of the first generation of term assessments of their expansion needs, modern cityscapes to be built in the post- particularly in terms of residential con­ war years in Europe. It has been criticised struction. In Stockholm this sort of plan­ for wiping out an old and traditional envi­ ning was under way even before the new

Markelius’ concept drawing of suburbs 1945.

C = Main central area

H = Blocks of flats

R = Terraced houses

LC = Local centres

V = Single family homes

I = Industrial estate

32 law entered into force. Preliminary master jacent to a central area for commerce, so­ planning work in the form of a report cial facilities and premises for common called “Det framtida Stockholm” (Stock­ leisure and social activities. A belt of park­ holm of the Future) was presented the land surrounding this central area should same year as Markelius took up his new include space for schools, child day care, post. This would later form the basis for playing fields, playgrounds and sports fa­ the master plan for Stockholm produced cilities. Outside the parkland belt there in 1952. It was never formally adopted, would be terraced houses with local, but would be a crucial document in the ex­ smaller centres that include small grocery pansion of the Stockholm suburbs. It in­ shops, garages, small industrial enterpris­ cluded ideas about neighbourhood plan­ es, nursery schools etc. Single family ning similar to those of Åhrén. Markelius homes would be located further out in the writes in 1945: “Blocks of flats built rela­ peripheral areas.” tively close together should be located ad­ Markelius’ ideas were developed into a

Vällingby, Stockholm 1954

33 master plan. The suburbs were laid out ground for extremist movements. But the like a string of pearls alongside the main consideration in neighbourhood planned underground metro system, sepa­ planning was that residential areas should rated from each other by green areas. This have municipal and commercial services idea of a totality involving a residential and community facilities. neighbourhood with a large central area The report “Generalplan för Stock­ for services was embraced when Vällingby holm” (Master Plan for Stockholm) from was planned in the 1940s and officially 1952 is extensive, containing broad but opened in 1954. The new idea of work­ accessible content. Many had participated places, homes and a central service area in producing it, including urban planners, creating a cohesive whole materialised in architects, traffic technicians, economists Vällingby. The idea of traffic separation and sociologists. Few reports provide such was an obsession of Markelius and he be­ a clear picture of the principles of the ur­ lieved that terraced houses and detached ban planning ideology that existed in Swe­ houses were superior as family residences den in the post-war years, in which neigh­ than blocks of flats. He also stressed that bourhoods were designed to have homes, the areas must be large enough to provide schools, and services, with an emphasis on enough business for the commercial enter­ green spaces, traffic planning and work­ prises and other services. place location. This was not only a pro­ Neighbourhood planning was an ex­ gramme for the expansion of Stockholm, pression of a political ambition. It could it was also a coordinated instrument for be seen as a concrete expression and man­ the implementation of the plans. The city’s ifestation of Per Albin Hansson’s various administrative entities were forced “folkhem” ideas. The suburbs, which to work together on building the new sub­ were the result of these ideas, were given urbs. The strength and realism in the mas­ their own identity and character, and ter plan gave the city’s leaders an opportu­ formed enclaves in which nature and nity to realise a well thought-out and greenery were important elements. One comprehensive vision. The consensus that frequent topic of discussion, and one of the planners and politicians had reached the ideas in the master plan and also in permitted a comprehensive approach to articles written by both Markelius and the expansion of Stockholm. Åhrén, was that neighbourhoods should While serving as urban planning di­ create and promote a sense of community. rector in Stockholm, Markelius also This would remove the anonymity which worked on his own projects. The colleague many believed was present in big cities and he worked most closely with was Bengt which was also believed to be fertile Lindroos. Markelius’ own house from

34 Markelius’ house in Kevinge 1945. Photo: Bo Törngren

35 Markelius’ Folkets hus, Norra bantorget, Stockholm. Photo: Lennart Olsson

36 Markelius’ Eco Soc Chamber in the UN building, New York, 1951

1945 in Kevinge became famous and local needs as well. In 1951 construction graced the pages of architectural maga­ began and it was officially opened in 1960. zines in other countries. Folkets hus in Markelius also received international rec­ Linköping was one of his assignments. It ognition, including the highest distinction was started in 1941 and completed in of being the only Scandinavian architect 1953. The Folkets hus building at Norra to be invited to take part the project to Bantorget in Stockholm was a similar build the UN building in New York. Ten project. He had worked on the designs architects, five of them from Europe, as­ since 1935 but was formally assigned the sembled for a few months in 1947 at the project in 1945. The building was com­ Rockefeller Center in New York to discuss plex; many functions were to be housed in the plans. Among the most famous par­ a limited space. Skilfully, Markelius man­ ticipants were Le Corbusier and Oscar aged to include a conference room, thea­ Niemeyer. Markelius’ assignment was to tre, restaurants and spaces to meet other design the Economic and Social Council

37 region, which included Vällingby. The same year he received the RIBA (Royal In­ stitute of British Architects) Gold Medal as well as several Swedish distinctions. In his final years he continued to run his ar­ chitecture firm, accepting assignments both in Sweden and abroad. One of his fi­ nal projects was Sweden House at Kung­ strädgården park in Stockholm. After the client realised that a marble facade would be too expensive, Markelius experimented and created a surface in which grooves were carved into the concrete to give the building character. Sweden House was completed in 1969. Markelius worked un­ til the end of his life on a proposal for a theatre to be located at the heart of Stock­

Markelius’ textile design Pythagoras, 1950ies holm at Slussen; it was a source of both happiness and frustration which in the (ECOSOC) Chamber in the UN head­ end never materialised. quarters, which was completed in 1951. Markelius had many talents and he used The pioneers one of them to design the textiles which Sven Markelius and Uno Åhrén were pio­ would be used in Folkets hus buildings in neers in the breakthrough of functional­ Sweden. His most famous pattern was Py­ ism and the new urban planning ideal in thagoras, originally designed for Folkets Sweden. They worked as architects and hus in Linköping, but later also used in urban planners applying interdisciplinary several of his buildings. Today this design and scientific methods. They created some can also be seen in the ECOSOC Chamber of the purest and most expressive exam­ in the UN building. ples of buildings in the spirit of function­ Markelius retired as urban planning alism. They analysed methods for study­ director in 1954. In 1962 he and his suc­ ing functions for the purpose of creating cessor in that position in Stockholm, good homes. They developed and applied Göran Sidenbladh, received the Patric Ab­ urban planning ideas involving open are­ ercrombie Medal for renewal of Stock­ as, green spaces and sunlight, based on holm’s innercity area and the Stockholm the vision of “buildings in parks.” They

38 Sven Markelius in Sverigehuset, Stockholm Uno Åhrén. Photo: Barbro Soller incorporated neighbourhood planning and community planning have become and sociology in the post-war era city more complex; architecture firms have be­ plans. Åhrén helped shape the new hous­ come larger and have expanded their fo­ ing policy and zoning laws of the post-war cus but individual architects are usually years, in which local authorities were giv­ more specialised. The commitment to so­ en the right to decide where, when and cial issues shown by many of the architects how to build within their municipalities. of Markelius’ and Åhrén’s day; the broad Markelius developed and implemented the network of contacts in other professions idea of collective housing and created in­ and their ambition to educate, write and novative architectural solutions. In other debate is not an obvious aspect of the ar­ words, they tackled “the realities of the chitecture profession today. Today’s archi­ day” as they wrote it in their manifest “ac­ tects can learn a lot and gain much inspi­ ceptera.” ration from the past to inform the current The interdisciplinary and broad ap­ debate on the quality of architecture and proach that they both took is unusual to­ the built environment – both within the day. Residential construction and urban profession and in the public debate.

39 References

Asplund Gunnar et al: acceptera (Tidens förlag 1931)

Arkitektur och samhälle 1932-35 (Spektrums förlag)

Myrdal Gunnar and Åhrén Uno: Bostadsfrågan såsom socialt planläggningsproblem (SOU 1933:14)

Åhrén Uno: Arkitektur och demokrati (Stockholm 1942)

Åhrén Uno: Ett planmässigt samhällsbyggande (annex to SOU 1945:63)

Markelius Sven et al: Det framtida Stockholm (Stockholms stadsplanekontor 1946)

Ny stadsplan för nedre Norrmalm (Stockholms stadsplanekontor 1946)

Generalplan för Stockholm 1952 (Stockholms stadsplanekontor 1952)

Rudberg Eva: Uno Åhrén (thesis, KTH 1981)

Rudberg Eva: Sven Markelius, arkitekt (Arkitektur förlag 1989)

Rudberg Eva: Stockholmsutställningen 1930 (Stockholmia förlag 1999)

.

40 IVA-M 490 • ISSN 1102-8254 • ISBN 978-91-7082-964-2 41 42