Tapani was bound to be dissatisfied with the Standard Apartment House in that
the structural solution created by Aalto and Henriksson was not based on utilising
the qualities of the concrete bricks that Juho Tapani had developed and marketed.
The selection process of the concrete frame contractors in Paimio is a testimony to
Aalto’s skills, ability and willingness to manoeuvre things to his benefit. Individuals
who were interconnected in many ways promoted each other and thereby their
own goals. Selecting Arvi Ahti as the contractor was in Aalto and Henriksson’s
own interest. In the Building Board’s view, Ahti as a Turku-based builder was a
preferable choice for the Building Board rather than the Helsinki-based Tektor,
who was the initial contractor poised to win the contract. The innovativeness of the
concrete structure also had a bearing when selecting the contractor in another way:
the Building Board did not hold official discussions on the discrepancy between
the cost estimate made by Aalto in 1930 and the final costs. Owing to provincial
protectionism in a time of recession, local labour and construction materials were
to be preferred at the construction site.^738
Comparison between Aalto’s competition-stage design and the final building
shows that the most significant change is in the increased scale of the patient wing.
The structural solution of the imposing sundeck wing underwent three development
stages until it acquired its final shape in an apparently close collaboration between the
architect and the structural engineer. A number of details, such as the canopy above the
main entrance, the cantilevered balconies of the sundeck wing and the highlighting of
certain concrete structures, were finalised during the summer and autumn of 1930 as
construction work progressed. Aalto was able to keep the suspended interim floor in
the dining hall, which had been unanimously criticised by the medical experts before
the actual design process began. Once execution was underway, the issue was no longer
raised for discussion.
How useful were Latour’s concepts of actor-network theory when studying the real-
isation of the Paimio Sanatorium reinforced concrete frame? There were a large number
of documents covering this central building system, variable in quality, which made it
easier to understand the different dynamics of relationships affecting the work. Arti-
cles written by Aalto, which were discussed in Chapter 2, revealed the architect’s deep
engagement in creating the concrete structure, a challenge he found inspiring. Firstly,
he translated the interests of the Building Board so that it would favour a structural
designer, with whom he was close, by pleading the merits of using the designer’s inde-
pendence and expertise instead of allowing the contractor to make the structural calcu-
lations, which was a more commonplace practice at that time. As an innovator, he took
an active role in the contracting negotiations with the reinforced concrete contractor,
even if this tested the boundaries of his own integrity. The conract negotions were simply
738 Contract on constructing the reinforced concrete frame for the Tuberculosis Sanatorium of Southwest Finland
signed by the Building Board and Building Supervisor Arvi Ahti, June 17, 1930. Work and contractor contracts
1929–1951. PSA.