The Work of the Studio Aalto Collaborators: Practice, Craft and Theory
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Work of the Studio Aalto Collaborators: Practice, Craft and Theory Miguel Borges de Araújo DATUTOP TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Miguel Borges de Araújo The Work of the Studio Aalto Collaborators: Practice, Craft and Theory DATUTOP School of Architecture Tampere University of Technology Occasional Papers 36 Series editors: Minna Chudoba Gareth Griffiths Series International Editorial Board: Sari Hirvonen-Kantola - Oulu Dörte Kuhlmann - Vienna Kimmo Lapintie - Helsinki Rachel McCann - Mississippi Raine Mäntysalo - Helsinki Ola Wetterberg - Gothenburg Publisher: School of Architecture Tampere University of Technology PO Box 600 FIN-33101 Tampere Finland [email protected] Distributor: Juvenes Print www.verkkokauppa.juvenesprint.fi Copyright © the author by arrangement with Datutop Datutop 36, 2018 ISBN 978-952-15-4198-8 (printed) ISBN 978-952-15-4199-5 (PDF) ISSN 0359-7105 Printed in Finland by Juvenes Print, Tampere aos avós Contents Introduction 15 The “Academy” 24 The background of the Studio Aalto 27 Research structure and method 33 Part I 1. Practice 45 1.1. Large commissions in post-war Finland: Helsinki University of Technology, 1949-1968 Individual and collaborative dimensions in the Studio Aalto 46 Individual and social dimensions of the architect’s work 51 1.2 Continuing changes: university planning in the 1960s in Finland Formalization of the planning administration 58 Industrialization of the building processes 61 Social emancipation 65 2. Craft 75 2.1 Tradition and Aalto: Seinäjoki Civic Centre, 1951-1988 Aalto as a master of the Modern Movement 76 An almost complete treatise 81 2.2 Aalto in the work of the Studio Aalto collaborators Ornament 85 Composition 88 Monumentality 93 3. Theory 107 3.1 Aalto’s critique of Functionalism and Rationalism: Hansaviertel atrium-apartment block, 1954-1957 A process of “elastic standardization” 109 An “architechnological laboratory” 113 3.2 The emergence of Structuralism in architecture Design methods 118 Team 10 and the PTAH group 122 Finnish Constructivism 125 Part II 4. Jaakko Kontio (and Kalle Räike): Lappeenranta University of Technology, 1969-1975 137 4.1 Clients Suburban location 142 Compactness 146 4.2 Builders Cast in-situ concrete 149 Prefabricated concrete 153 4.3 Users Open form plan 158 Unknown user 162 5. Kaarlo Leppänen: Valkeakoski Cultural and Administrative Centre, 1966-1973 171 5.1 Wall Choice and assemblage of materials 177 Technical and artistic expression 180 5.2 Room Structure and space 185 Exterior and interior 190 5.3 City Urban composition of parts 195 Building as a process of growth through time 197 6. Eric Adlercreutz (and Nils-Hinrik Aschan): Jägerbacken Housing, 1968-1973 205 6.1 Method Adlercreutz’s review of Alexander’s Pattern Language 209 Adlercreutz’s Pattern Language exercise 214 6.2 Analysis Timeless structure 219 Atriums and courtyards 223 6.3 Design Place and permanence 228 Collective process 229 Conclusion 239 Academy and practice 241 Academy and craft 244 Academy and theory 246 My academy 248 Appendix 255 Bibliography 260 Acknowledgments When I first came to Finland as an Erasmus exchange student in August 2003, I was keen to visit the various works of Alvar Aalto. I remember well my first encounter with the Helsinki University of Technology campus in Otaniemi. On close inspection, the forms and contents seemed to suggest each other: the entrance court with the classroom wing converging in the Main Hall, the precision of the construction, and the careful choice of materials. Together, these left a strong impression upon me. During the next year, I lived and studied in another campus, at the Tampere University of Technology in Hervanta. Though the planning of this suburb of Tampere had started just as the Otaniemi campus was being completed in 1967, I was unable to recognize the presence of the latter in the former when it came to my knowledge that it had been designed by one of Aalto’s collaborators, Toivo Korhonen. I had the opportunity to think about this issue, however, during the lectures in the history of architecture by Senior Lecturer (now Professor) Olli- Paavo Koponen, and I was able to discuss Aalto’s influence in the work of the collaborators with Professor Emeritus Tore Tallqvist, who had himself worked in the Studio Aalto in 1965-1972. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Professor Koponen, for his openness, understanding, guidance, and continuous support. My gratitude extends to Professor Tallqvist, for providing key insights during the planning of the thesis. I would like to thank the thesis pre-examiners, Professor Jorge Figueira, Juhana Lahti and Professor Ville Lukkarinen, for carefully reading and commenting on the manuscript; their criticism raised the level of the final work. I thank Datutop for publishing this book. I’m indebted in particular to the series editor, Gareth Griffiths, for his knowledge, commitment and patience. At an early stage of this research I had the chance to work in what used to be the Studio Aalto; the director of the Alvar Aalto Academy in 2009, Esa Laaksonen, and the people working in Tiilimäki at that time, made me feel at home. I would like to thank also the director of the Alvar Aalto Foundation Tommi Lindh, exhibition producer Mari Forsberg, and chief curator Mia Hipeli for their invitation and support in preparing the exhibition “The Work of Alvar Aalto’s Collaborators”, held at the Studio Aalto in 2014. The Lappeenranta University of Technology, the Museum of Finnish Architecture, the Valkeakoski City Archives, and the Valkeakoski Myllysaari Museum have generously provided me the rights to publish the documents from their collections. In Lappeenranta, Jaakko Nikkilä readily shared his information 9 and helped me in searching through the university archives. Among the warmest memories of my research are the interviews with Jaakko Kontio and Eric Adlercreutz. I am thankful for the enthusiasm with which they supported this project and for the freedom they granted me to explore their archives. My thanks extend to Kari Leppänen, for making his father’s archives readily available. Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to Professor Eduardo Jorge Fernandes for directing my attention to the history and theory of the modern movement; to Manuel Montenegro, for visiting Finland in 2015 and taking an interest in my work; to the late Professor Terttu Pakarinen and to Pekka Passinmäki at Tampere University of Technology for their feedback on specific points. Special thanks to my parents and my brother Pedro, to my uncle Miguel, and to Jenni. 10 Alvar Aalto, Studio Aalto, Helsinki (1954-1955, extended 1962-1963). View from the street. 11 12 Abstract In 1954 Alvar Aalto built a new and larger studio building close to his existing combined home and studio in Munkkiniemi in Helsinki. The current study complements previous studies on the work produced at the so-called Studio Aalto over the next two decades by stressing its collective dimension and examining how in turn it was appropriated by the Studio collaborators. This study is a combination of the history and theory of architecture and is structured thematically along three lines: practice, craft, and theory. The thesis as a whole is divided into 2 parts. Part I introduces and connects the work of the Studio with the work made independently by its members, a group of architects which has so far remained relatively unknown. A central question is thus whether these architects could continue the architectural profession at the level set out by the Studio. Part II concentrates on three case studies by members of the Studio: Jaakko Kontio (and Kalle Räike’s) Lappeenranta University of Technology (1969-1975); Kaarlo Leppänen’s Valkeakoski Cultural and Administrative Centre (1966-1973); Eric Adlercreutz (and Nils-Hinrik Aschan’s) Jägarbacken Housing in Ekenäs (1968-1973). The point of view of practice shows the relationship between the architecture and the circumstances, allowing for the problematization of the changes associated with the emergence of a welfare state in post-war Finland. Kontio’s experience in university campus design is examined by considering the dialogues established with other people involved in the project. The point of view ofcraft emphasizes the action of successive generations upon the same material. Aalto’s sense of tradition provoked a revision within the Modern Movement, but also contributed to the isolation of the Studio within Finnish architecture circles in the late 1960s. To contrapose the progressivist bias at that time, Leppänen’s work is presented through a combination of technological and cultural approaches. In turn, theory is that part of architecture that can be discussed through ideas. The reconstitution of Adlercreutz’s Pattern Language studies, based on those of Christopher Alexander, establishes a triangulation that clarifies the Studio’s systematic and open method, thus helping to challenge the Studio’s reputation for neglecting theory. The comparisons show that each of the collaborators combined something of their experience with Aalto with their own individual experiences, and used this combined experience, moreover, to face partly new problems. Taken bidirectionally, the comparisons encourage a reconsideration of Aalto’s work and support my broader effort to confirm the continuity of architecture. 13 Studio Aalto. AAM. Plan of the main floor. 14 Introduction This study is part of a broader effort to confirm the continuity of a profession, namely architecture. The focus on Alvar Aalto – in fact, the focus on the work of the Studio Aalto collaborators – results, however, from the careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding it. On the one hand, the study complements previous ones on an experience and a body of work too often seen in terms of a brilliant individual, and instead acknowledges their collective dimension on numerous social, artistic and scientific levels. On the other, it suggests an examination of how this experience and body of work were individually appropriated.