The medical experts influenced the design solutions at the competition stage and
when the actual design work began by giving quite detailed instructions on how the archi-
tectural designs needed to be changed. However, Aalto took only some of these demands
on board, as he was able to argue in favour of his own opinions based on the very rationale
behind the doctors’ recommendations and translate their interests, as happened with the
case of the suspended intermediate floor in the dining hall. Medical experts seemed to
support Aalto at critical stages of the construction process, and Aalto in turn relied on
their expertise to sway the opinion of the Building Board. Time after time, Aalto man-
aged to persuade the State Medical Board to back his proposed solutions. Apparently,
the medical experts were impressed by Aalto’s competence. Their opinion of Aalto was
partly influenced by the fact that Jussi Paatela, Aalto’s colleague, was head of the building
department of the State Medical Board Hospital Unit from 1930 onwards.^996
A successful furnishing of the patient room, in the way the architect hoped, speaks
of Aalto’s ability to operate in a social context and to direct the other actors’ actions and
even, when necessary, to exceed the limits of his own role as an architect. Through these
trials, Aalto as the innovator succeeded in steering the process and translating the inter-
ests of the Building Board to persuade them to favour his ideas. The client reached its
goal, which was to save costs as much as possible, while achieving sufficient quality. For
the Building Board, this justified the means, so they gave Aalto considerable latitude
to manoeuvre, which enabled him to bring in, one contract at a time, his old business
partners to the hospital project as suppliers. In this way, Aalto in his role of innovator
created a highly viable hybrid in which know-how and collective experience came to
fruition. Aalto’s pursuits were both aesthetic and ethical. By appealing to aspects that
were considered important by the Building Board, he managed to push through his own
design goals. In other words, the furnishings in the patient room were not manufactured
because the Building Board considered them superior for their design but because they
met the quality criteria and were the least expensive option. Representatives of the state
supervisory body, the State Medical Board, found it easy to support Aalto’s solutions,
which were justified by medical factors. Their approach also confirms that, architecture
in Finland was seen as forming part of the treatment of tuberculosis and that the archi-
tect was highly aware of this and utilised this as leverage to achieve his own goals.
Based on my observations on Aalto’s media tactics, Aalto was highly aware of the
architectural press as a domain for creating meanings. Aalto’s article published on New
Year’s Day in 1928 in Uusi Aura (New Dawn) newspaper owed much to Le Corbusier,
particularly in the polemic choice of illustrations and their contrast with the copy. Soon,
however, Aalto’s articles took on a less agressive tone and he began to use foreign words
that gave the text a scientific air. In autumn 1932, Sven Markelius commented on Aalto’s
draft of the article “Bostadfrågans geografi” (The Geography of the Housing Problem)
suggesting that Aalto should use scientific-sounding vocabulary, but also to explain the
concepts, so that “profanum vulganus” would also understand what was being discussed.
996 Henttonen 2009, p. 343.