PhD in Architecture. History and Project | Politecnico di Torino
A+ Lectures 2025|07 Practicing the Marshall Plan: How a Sack of Wheat Becomes a Building|ÓSKAR ÖRN ARNÓRSSON
Wednesday 7 May 2025| 2.30 – 4.00 PM Lingotto Room 201|Recordings on YouTube
Contacts
7 thoughts on “A+ Lectures 2025|07 Practicing the Marshall Plan: How a Sack of Wheat Becomes a Building|ÓSKAR ÖRN ARNÓRSSON”
Devanshi Thakuriya
The lecture threw light on the Marshall plan also known as the European Recovery Plan and how the effect of one sector affects the other like the cyclicity of international currencies was carried with the help of selling trucks and wheat in order to boom the real estate construction from the finance circulated. It also highlighted the fact that architecture speaks on the behalf of those who commissioned it. The debate of social housing projects and the discussion on basements vs no basements were pretty interesting as it highlighted the inter relation of political technical and design world and how it impacted the humanity in totality. To conclude, the dollars paid to the farmers in the Us centre land became architecture and that’s how a sack of wheat grains became building which highlights we live in a close knit economy.
This lecture by Óskar Örn Arnórsson offered an eye-opening perspective on the material and ideological impact of the Marshall Plan on postwar European reconstruction, a topic I was not previously familiar with. What stood out most was how architecture was entangled with economic policy, how something as simple as a sack of wheat could result in tangible housing projects through counterpart funds and development planning. The ECA-funded settlements and refugee housing initiatives illustrated the deep interconnection between political agendas and built environments. I found it particularly compelling how U.S. authorities viewed these architectural programs as functional housing solutions and vehicles for social integration and soft power. The suggestion that American planners also learned from European construction techniques subverted the usual one-way narrative of “aid.” Overall, this lecture challenged my assumptions about postwar recovery and showed how architecture can serve as a lens through which to view broader geopolitical strategies.
The title of the lecture was very intriguing for me and I didn’t know much about the Marshall Plan beforehand. Óskar gave insightful explanations on the economical functioning of the plan and also unboxed some specific housing programs/projects, which helped to get the evolution through the years and the ideas behind it. The United States government didn’t give money directly to the countries, they provided services and delivered goods to the participating countries, which then sold the goods to individuals and businesses who payed the value in their local currency (counterparts). These counterpart funds were the ones that allowed the realization of the housing programs, showing in fact how the initial sack of wheat would later become a building.
What was very interesting to me about the housing programs is that they had american projects built by germans, allowing experimentations that they couldn’t do in the US and testing if it would be possible to build outside german traditions. They were learning and evolving from each project and it was possible to see how they didn’t realize initially that american construction was inferior compared to german, that’s why they resented the first project, since it was very german.
Óskar Örn Arnórsson’s lecture was my first exposure to the Marshall Plan that is officially known as European Recovery Program (ERP) and I found surprisingly fascinating. Previously I saw post war reconstruction as a pure economic process but this lecture unfolded how the U.S. used Marshall Plan as a tool to influence their ideologies and culture in the European countries. Through the projects funded by America such as ECA and MSA, American administrator’s tried to impose unfamiliar construction traditions such as eliminating the basements for lost cost housing projects, implementing district heating on west German housing, cost reduction in functional requirements. These architectural decisions were debated, they aimed to change the lifestyle of the Germans, promote mobility and make houses less self-sufficient. Even the absence space for things like potato gardens, or storage for the potatoes dictated their lifestyle and increased dependence. The analysis done by Arnórsson has made me think differently about what “aid” means and revealed how this aid was subtly used as a mechanism to control, embedding political intent within the very houses of everyday life.
I really enjoyed Örn Arnórsson’s detailed study of the ERP (European Recovery Plan), better known as the Marshall Plan. It was particularly interesting to see how those funds shaped the way people lived and later opening a new era in the so-called “Glorious Thirty” years, especially through propaganda and lifestyle influence. One thing that stood out was how the shift to houses without basements affected workers in the Ruhr area, changing their habits and pushing them towards a more consumer-driven lifestyle (from storing goods in basement pantries to relying on modern appliances in more “innovative” homes). Also interesting was the comparison between the Marshall Plan’s funding and China’s actions over the past decade (2013–2025), especially in Africa. The scale is completely different: around $1,000 billion compared to the $175 billion of the Marshall Plan and U.S. aid to Ukraine.
Óskar Örn Arnórsson’s lecture on “Practicing the Marshall Plan: How a sack of wheat becomes a building.” brought attention to the topic of Marshall Plan, also called European Recovery Plan. Although the discussion was based on its economic and bureaucratic processes, I focused my attention on the housing programmes in Germany including the “Schleswig Holstein.” Being one of the three German housing programmes, Schleswig Holsten provided new shelters in Kiel – a city where 80% of its infrastructure was destroyed by war. The standardised housing models were intended to host refugees and victims suffering from shortage caused by war damage. Its design was clear and practical, giving architects the possibility of adjustment to various family models and its needs. Overall, this topic allowed to me immerse myself in the history of early post-war European architecture.
Óskar Örn Arnórsson’s lecture reframed the Marshall Plan as more than economic recovery—it was a tool of soft power, shaping postwar Europe through architecture. By showing how U.S.-supplied goods generated local funds for housing programs, he traced how everyday spaces became sites of ideological influence. From eliminating basements to introducing standardized layouts, American models sought to reshape European lifestyles and promote consumer culture. Yet these projects also revealed a mutual exchange, with U.S. planners learning from German construction methods. The lecture offered a compelling reminder that architecture can reflect—and enforce—broader political agendas.
The lecture threw light on the Marshall plan also known as the European Recovery Plan and how the effect of one sector affects the other like the cyclicity of international currencies was carried with the help of selling trucks and wheat in order to boom the real estate construction from the finance circulated. It also highlighted the fact that architecture speaks on the behalf of those who commissioned it. The debate of social housing projects and the discussion on basements vs no basements were pretty interesting as it highlighted the inter relation of political technical and design world and how it impacted the humanity in totality. To conclude, the dollars paid to the farmers in the Us centre land became architecture and that’s how a sack of wheat grains became building which highlights we live in a close knit economy.
This lecture by Óskar Örn Arnórsson offered an eye-opening perspective on the material and ideological impact of the Marshall Plan on postwar European reconstruction, a topic I was not previously familiar with. What stood out most was how architecture was entangled with economic policy, how something as simple as a sack of wheat could result in tangible housing projects through counterpart funds and development planning. The ECA-funded settlements and refugee housing initiatives illustrated the deep interconnection between political agendas and built environments. I found it particularly compelling how U.S. authorities viewed these architectural programs as functional housing solutions and vehicles for social integration and soft power. The suggestion that American planners also learned from European construction techniques subverted the usual one-way narrative of “aid.” Overall, this lecture challenged my assumptions about postwar recovery and showed how architecture can serve as a lens through which to view broader geopolitical strategies.
The title of the lecture was very intriguing for me and I didn’t know much about the Marshall Plan beforehand. Óskar gave insightful explanations on the economical functioning of the plan and also unboxed some specific housing programs/projects, which helped to get the evolution through the years and the ideas behind it. The United States government didn’t give money directly to the countries, they provided services and delivered goods to the participating countries, which then sold the goods to individuals and businesses who payed the value in their local currency (counterparts). These counterpart funds were the ones that allowed the realization of the housing programs, showing in fact how the initial sack of wheat would later become a building.
What was very interesting to me about the housing programs is that they had american projects built by germans, allowing experimentations that they couldn’t do in the US and testing if it would be possible to build outside german traditions. They were learning and evolving from each project and it was possible to see how they didn’t realize initially that american construction was inferior compared to german, that’s why they resented the first project, since it was very german.
Óskar Örn Arnórsson’s lecture was my first exposure to the Marshall Plan that is officially known as European Recovery Program (ERP) and I found surprisingly fascinating. Previously I saw post war reconstruction as a pure economic process but this lecture unfolded how the U.S. used Marshall Plan as a tool to influence their ideologies and culture in the European countries. Through the projects funded by America such as ECA and MSA, American administrator’s tried to impose unfamiliar construction traditions such as eliminating the basements for lost cost housing projects, implementing district heating on west German housing, cost reduction in functional requirements. These architectural decisions were debated, they aimed to change the lifestyle of the Germans, promote mobility and make houses less self-sufficient. Even the absence space for things like potato gardens, or storage for the potatoes dictated their lifestyle and increased dependence. The analysis done by Arnórsson has made me think differently about what “aid” means and revealed how this aid was subtly used as a mechanism to control, embedding political intent within the very houses of everyday life.
I really enjoyed Örn Arnórsson’s detailed study of the ERP (European Recovery Plan), better known as the Marshall Plan. It was particularly interesting to see how those funds shaped the way people lived and later opening a new era in the so-called “Glorious Thirty” years, especially through propaganda and lifestyle influence. One thing that stood out was how the shift to houses without basements affected workers in the Ruhr area, changing their habits and pushing them towards a more consumer-driven lifestyle (from storing goods in basement pantries to relying on modern appliances in more “innovative” homes). Also interesting was the comparison between the Marshall Plan’s funding and China’s actions over the past decade (2013–2025), especially in Africa. The scale is completely different: around $1,000 billion compared to the $175 billion of the Marshall Plan and U.S. aid to Ukraine.
Óskar Örn Arnórsson’s lecture on “Practicing the Marshall Plan: How a sack of wheat becomes a building.” brought attention to the topic of Marshall Plan, also called European Recovery Plan. Although the discussion was based on its economic and bureaucratic processes, I focused my attention on the housing programmes in Germany including the “Schleswig Holstein.” Being one of the three German housing programmes, Schleswig Holsten provided new shelters in Kiel – a city where 80% of its infrastructure was destroyed by war. The standardised housing models were intended to host refugees and victims suffering from shortage caused by war damage. Its design was clear and practical, giving architects the possibility of adjustment to various family models and its needs. Overall, this topic allowed to me immerse myself in the history of early post-war European architecture.
Óskar Örn Arnórsson’s lecture reframed the Marshall Plan as more than economic recovery—it was a tool of soft power, shaping postwar Europe through architecture. By showing how U.S.-supplied goods generated local funds for housing programs, he traced how everyday spaces became sites of ideological influence. From eliminating basements to introducing standardized layouts, American models sought to reshape European lifestyles and promote consumer culture. Yet these projects also revealed a mutual exchange, with U.S. planners learning from German construction methods. The lecture offered a compelling reminder that architecture can reflect—and enforce—broader political agendas.