paimio sanatorium

(Jacob Rumans) #1

opinion should be entirely dedicated to patient rooms and lounges. In Horelli’s opinion,


the place for the nurse’s room was not on the ward, neither should they live in a


special unit, which according to him would be an unpopular arrangement. He opposed


the four-bed room as these were exactly twice the size of a twin room and therefore


would not add space or bring savings. He pointed out that the patient rooms had no


ventilation channels and that they were difficult to place in the small space that the


drawings allowed.^582 Neither was Horelli content with the doctors’ surgery section nor


with the workshops, which were too small. He criticised the ceiling of the second-floor


dining hall and called for windows on the northern wall as well as a film projection


room. He would have situated the stage in the lounge and spaced out the central pillars


to accommodate this. He also suggested the addition of a kitchen manager’s office, and


noted that the kitchen was cramped and the service staff dining room far too small.


The kitchen was placed too far from the dining hall and particularly the wards, making


the distance between the kitchen and a room approximately 100 metres. He suggested


that the food-serving pantry in each ward could be replaced by a service trolley. In


his view, the number of lifts needed to be reduced from seven to three. The nurses in


the third hall did not need a dining room, but a lounge and a reading room allocated


for their use would be appropriate. The kitchen maids’ rooms, which were twin rooms,


seemed confined. He also thought it advisable to move the House Officer’s residence


away from the nurses’ unit.^583


The architect was expected to take into consideration the critique provided by the


experts. Many of the issues mentioned by the doctors were central to Aalto’s architec-


tural design. Adjusting the design in accordance with the demands that the doctors


had made was a challenge. The Tuberculosis Sanatorium of Southwest Finland and


architect Alvar Aalto signed two separate contracts. The design contract governed


the execution of drawings, work specifications and cost calculation^584 against a fee


of FIM 300,000. Master drawings and the cost calculations were to be completed


by December 1, 1929, after which the Building Board reserved the right to submit


them for review by expert physicians. The architect was expected to make alterations


to the drawings without separate remuneration, if the expert physicians’ statements so


required, and the developer unanimously concurred. A similar procedure was applied


in case the State Medical Board required alterations to the drawings as a condition


for their approval or for granting state aid. The developer paid the fee in instalments.


The first three instalments, FIM 170,000 in total, were to be paid against master


drawings, cost calculation, work specifications and the standard working drawings.


The remaining fee was to be paid on the completion of working drawings.^585


582 Ibidem.
583 Ibidem.
584 The students had to prepare cost calculations and a work specification as parts of their diploma work at Helsinki
University of Technology at the time Aalto was a student in 1916–1921. Härö 1992, p. 215.
585 Contract No. 1 between the Building Board of the Sanatorium of Southwest Finland and architect Alvar Aalto on
June 28, 1929. Documents related to the Paimio Sanatorium project. AAM.
Free download pdf