Chapter 3 | The Building of Paimio Sanatoriumlower-cost alternative to iron-windows.^774 The tender was based on two architect’s
drawings,^775 although the architectural drawings and the workshop specifications did
not fully correspond to each other. The second of the drawings had the word “rejected”
added to it in handwriting, probably at a later time, although the drawing largely cor-
responded to the realised window.^776 The drawing that fully corresponded to Aalto’s
realised window design was made after Crichton-Vulcan’s tender had been accepted
and the architect had discussed the design with the workshop.^777 The previous version
was crossed out at this stage. The variation was indicative of Aalto’s aim to develop a
window for the patient room that would in some manner make use of steel profiles.
Negotiations with Crichton-Vulcan’s highly competent staff allowed for the architect
to develop the technical solution for the window that satisfied all parties. The wooden
window designed as a result eventually had only a fraction of the intended steel profiles.
The Building Committee placed the hybrid window that had resulted from the col-
laboration under competitive tender with other manufacturers, although Crichton-Vul-
can had quoted a clearly lower price for them than the steel windows. The Building
Committee decided to order the patient room windows from Turun Puutyötehdas Oy,
as its quotation was only one-fourth of the price quoted by Crichton-Vulcan.^778 From
a financial perspective, this was a sound decision. However, Crichton-Vulcan, which to
all intents and purposes was the developer of the window, in reality ended up handing
over its specialist expertise for which it received no remuneration.
The Building Committee ordered a number of steel windows from Crichton-
Vulcan.^779 Aalto requested an offer from Crichton-Vulcan for the steel windows for the
rinsing and linen storage rooms^780 , six for each.^781 The Building Committee decided to
also order the doors and windows for the staircases, balconies and ground-floor lobby
from the Crichton-Vulcan workshop. At the same time, the dining hall and lounge
windows were ordered from the same workshop following a number of changes made
to the offer, as requested by Aalto.^782 Aalto had in the same regard suggested that the
774 According to the first option, the double-glazed windows, measuring 2,200 millimetres x 2,500 millimetres would
include three opening section, measuring 350 millimetres x 1,700 millimetres, and be fixed with glazing putty.
Each window would weigh 212 kilograms. In the second alternative, the windows would be otherwise similar but
fixed with pitch-pine glazing beads fastened with brass screws. In both options each window would be fitted with
12 bronze fittings. The cost of the former was FIM 2,670 and that of the latter FIM 2,920. The difference in price
being FIM 250. In the third alternative, the windows were made of iron and wood as specified in the architect’s
drawings. Its size was 2,200 millimetres x 2,550 millimetres and they had three opening sections, each 650 milli-
metres x 1,700 millimetres in size. The glass panes were fixed with glazing putty. The price excluding fittings was
FIM 1,650 and the fittings were separately priced. Cost estimate No. 6161/T-1079. Offer of Ab Chrichton-Vulcan Oy,
April 7, 1931. Work, location and material specifications and cost estimates. Contract agreements. PSA.
775 Drawings Nos. 50-380 dated April 2, 1931, and 50-196 dated April 3, 1932. AAM.
776 Drawing No. 50-380. AAM.
777 Drawing No. 50-321. AAM
778 Building Board May 5, 1931, Section 4. PSA.
779 Building Committee May 5, 1931, Section 2. PSA.
780 Window types IR 12 and IR 13. Drawing No. 50-328. AAM.
781 Request for offer addressed [by Aalto’s office] to Mr. Nylund of Crichton-Vulcan dated May 15, 1931. Documents
related to the Paimio Sanatorium project. AAM.
782 Building Committee May 30, 1931, Section 6. PSA.