Chapter 3 | The Building of Paimio Sanatorium3.5.5 THE INTEGRATED DESIGN OF THE
PATIENT ROOM
Aalto conceptualised the two-bed patient room as a “minimum apartment”. The room
was small in size, making space-saving design solutions necessary. Aalto multiplied
the available space by way of adding details of his own design, and by approaching
the compact dwelling as a holistic problem. To approach the design problem from the
perspective of a minimum apartment was justified by a number of factors: the serial
production – the patient room was not a singular space. Instead, it was repeated 120
times in an identical form; space-saving, which resulted in meticulous scaling and plac-
ing the radiator on the ceiling; multiplying the space through added functional features,
with the bedside table and night lamp as good examples; and emphasising individual
patients’ privacy in a twin room by various acoustic means. Aalto had addressed the
importance of acknowledging patients’ psychological and physiological needs as the
basis for design in a talk he gave in Oslo in 1931.^895 The architect meticulously studied
each individual solution for the patient room. This was the method he had called for in his
critique on the Stockholm Exhibition.^896 When the project was nearing completion, he
drew numerous diagrams analysing the functions of the space. His paradigm and work
method was also in line with current international discourse.
As the person responsible for the purchasing of patient room furnishings, Aalto’s
role in securing the overall furnishing design of the patient room was decisive. He
divided the purchases into four categories: fixtures designed by the architectural office,
freestanding furniture designed by the architectural office, standard furniture, and chairs,
which were also standard. By “standard furniture”, Aalto referred to serially produced
furniture generally available on the market.
Aalto had already for some time collaborated with Otto Korhonen and his company,
Huonekalu- ja Rakennustyötehdas (Furniture and Building Work Factory), developing
their standard collection. In this way, Aalto could with good reason propose the pur-
chase of furniture designed by himself, although it had not been specified in the design
contract as part of the architect’s remit. Separate quotations were requested for all
furnishings. Huonekalu- ja Rakennustyö tehdas and August Louhen Rautasänkytehdas
(August Louhi Iron Bed Factory) submitted quotations later than the other compet-
itors, and without exception, their prices were slightly lower than those proposed by
the others. This seemed like a conscious tactic. Aalto disclosed to his collaboration
partners the price level that would secure them the contract. Aalto excused himself
from the decision-making regarding the bed and bedside table-drawer unit because
he was the designer. However, he did not excuse himself from the purchasing decision
regarding the wardrobe, although he had designed the standard model for Huonekalu-
ja Rakennustyötehdas.
895 Anon, 1931, p. 6.
896 Aalto 1930d. pp. 119–120.