The entries gaining second and third place, Valo and Ammon-Ra, were similar in
their basic concepts. The buildings had L-shaped floor plans within an orthogonal
coordinate system, with the wards leading off side corridors, located on different storeys
in one wing, and an open sundeck wing continuing from it. The entrances were at the
joint of the L-shaped building. The jury criticised the placing of individual functions
in the building and the dimensioning of the spaces. Also criticised was the use of rib-
bon windows on the façade of the Ammon-Ra entry, despite the fact that the building
envelope was a load-bearing structure. All the prize-winning entries had flat roofs.^574
In his competition sheet, Aalto justified the use of flat roof by pointing out that a
timber-framed tile roof with a steep gradation would be too complicated to execute
given the shape of the floor plan.^575
In February 1929, the Building Board gathered to study the drafts and jury state-
ments of the architectural competition. The Board was convinced by Aalto’s entry but,
before they commissioned him to finalise the drawings, they consulted Severi Savonen
and Niilo Mäkinen to ascertain their preferred candidate.^576 While Severi Savonen,
who was the Secretary and Ombudsman of the Finnish Association for the Prevention
of Tuberculosis and Niilo Mäkinen, the Medical Director of Takaharju Sanatorium,
supported choosing Aalto’s entry, they presented a list of comments.^577 They criticised
many details that were central to the overall architectural design, such as the outdoor
sun patios, which they did not think were fulfilling their purpose as the sanatorium
was situated in the middle of a forest and the patients could rest in the fresh air in the
woods. They also assumed that the trees to be planted in front of sun balconies would
not provide sufficient shade to the halls and the halls would therefore be too hot. Their
second point of criticism was the patient room window that reached to the floor, as it
would make floor cleaning impractical. The two doctors recommended taller windows
to secure sufficient daylight. Thirdly, the doctors recommended that the ward sisters’
rooms be moved away from the ward and to a nurses’ floor, which could be located in
the service wing. Fourthly, the Medical Director’s private office, where he could receive
guests and hold meetings with patients’ family members, was to be located next to his
surgery. The radiology department and dark room were to be located on the other side
of the Medical Director’s surgery, and the Administrative Director’s office was to be
located between radiology and the Junior Physicians’ office. Fifthly, the phototherapy
department needed to be larger, and the doctors suggested it be placed next to the bath-
ing facilities. Sixthly, a space for a stage platform was to be reserved in the lounge and
dining hall as well as a small projector room for screening films. Seventhly, the doctors
criticised the arrangement of the dining hall: “According to the drawings, unless we
have misinterpreted them, the ceiling of the dining hall partly adjoins the ceiling of the
574 Ibidem.
575 Drawing No. 50-26. AAM.
576 Building Board February 25, 1929, Section 1. PSA.
577 Severi Savonen and Niilo Mäkinen’s statement to the Building Board concerning Alvar Aalto’s competition entry
on April 4, 1929. Documents related to the Paimio Sanatorium project. AAM.