Chapter 3: Contemporary Applications of Folkhemmet Chapter 3 will outline the influence of Asplund and Aalto on contemporary public spaces in Scandinavian interior architecture, beginning by tracing the journey of Folkhemmet to the co-living movement in the early 1930s spearheaded by Sven Markelius (Vestbro 2008). Followed by how the democratic ideology of home impacted the design of two contemporary case studies. Sweden is built upon a socio-political foundation concerned with the wellbeing of its people and an understanding of the importance of adequate housing for everyone. Widespread improved living circumstances for all members of the public resulted in a distinct lack of social class disputes creating a favourable climate for the perpetuation of Folkhemmet (Czarny 2018: 199). As a proponent of the Folkhemmet movement functionalist architect Sven Markelius wanted to construct housing that could affect people's way of life and create more fulfilled citizens (Vestbro 2008). Markelius' 1935 co-living apartment block, John Ericsonsgatan 6, was the first modernist co-living space, whose effects can be seen in co-living spaces today. Following his involvement in the Stockholm exhibition, Sven Markelius went on to apply functionalist principles to his social housing projects (Lindvall 1992:73). Concerned with rationally organising society, and maximising productivity Markelius erected the first modernist collective house in 1935, a mode of living based on the Swedish model of Kollectivhus – housing with common spaces and shared facilities (Vestbro, 2010) – together with social scientist Alva Myrdal (Vestbro 2008). In the book Acceptera, it was forecasted that the future of housing would see, large percentages of household duties organised collectively. As stated by Myrdal in the 1932 magazine Tiden,
"Urban housing, where twenty families each in their own apartment cook their own meatballs, where a lot of young children are shut in, each in his or her own little room – doesn't this cry for an overall planning, for a collective solution?"
The utopian vision of Markelius and Myrdal saw residents of the collective house improving their mental and physical health with increased socialisation and participation in sports, study circles and political meetings. The size of private apartments would be minimised in favour of larger common and outdoor areas (Vestbro 2008). A further catalyst for the collective house was to divide and simplify housekeeping, freeing women from the duties of home, allowing them to contribute to the business and public sectors (Blomberg & Kärnekull 2019).
30
