I personally think the problem with most modernist buildings is that they are not done well, not modernism per-se. Years ago there was a great article in the NY Review of Books comparing Corbusier’s Chandigarh and Louis Kahn’s IIM in Ahmedabad. The big difference, it argued, was not that Kahn was less of a modernist, but that he was less arrogant about his modernism – visiting the site, using local materials, etc. whereas Corbusier insisted that he could do the whole thing from Paris (he didn’t) because “a grid is a grid.” There is nothing in modernism which says you have to disregard the needs and lifestyle of the inhabitants. I’d be interested to know what the process was of planning and building Tapiola?