2.8 Building Paimio Sanatorium in the Media
A
alto’s article on Paimio Sanatorium was published in Byggmästaren
(The Master Builder) in late spring 1932 under the editorship of Uno
Åhrén, a member of CIAM. The article was published in the architecture
supplement^482 shortly before Helsinki hosted the Nordic Building Forum in July
- By publishing the arcticle, Aalto and his Swedish colleagues wanted to attract
colleagues from the neighbouring countries to join an excursion to the Paimio San-
atorium building site. A group of Nordic delegates, including Gunnar Asplund,
visited Paimio in conjunction with the event.^483
The article runs across four pages and begins with text. The illustrations include
10 diagrams and one photograph with the caption: “Betongstomme till solarium”
(Concrete Frame for the Sundeck). The image is dramatically simplified. The graphic
presented the key elements of Aalto’s design solution: the floor plan of the third
floor and a site plan which acquired its final shape regarding the workers’ residential
building only after this. Sections of A, B, and C wings as well as the arrangement
of the “standard patient room” were also presented. At this stage, the fixed desk in
front of the patient room window was made of concrete. The diagram also explained
the structure of the external corridor wall and the acoustic surface materials of the
partition walls between patient rooms. The ideas of ceiling radiators in the patient
room and the use of the ceiling surface for reflecting overhead light were introduced,
but their solutions had yet to take on their final shape. The patient room wardrobes
were also still work in progress and not finalised. The article in Byggmästaren also
included a diagram of the curving wall and the eastern end of the patient wing, illus-
trating the acoustic control in the space, with the caption: “...The rounding transmits
sound waves that travel longitudinally towards the wall section absorbing them (with
blankets and fur sleeping bags hanging on the wall)”. However, the corner of the
corridor was not eventually built as a curve. This difference raises the question: what
in fact was Aalto intending to build at that time and what message was he trying to
convey? If Aalto knew that the corner was never going to be built as a curve, did he
nonetheless wish to present this interior acoustic solution to his colleagues? If this
was the case, he clearly considered the idea more important than the actual outcome.
The press was used for creating a parallel reality to what was taking place on the build-
ing site. If Aalto, on the other hand, believed that the corner could be built as a curve,
other documentation provides no clues as to the stage at which the designs were
changed, why they were changed and on whose initiative. Since the rounded corner
is only presented in the drawing of the article, it is likely that this was merely the
architect’s idea that he rejected or was compelled to reject for one reason or another.
482 Aalto 1932a.
483 Schildt 1985, p. 86.