dining hall windows be made from oak^783 and requested an offer from Huonekalu- ja
rakennustyötehdas (Furniture and Building Work Factory).^784 Aalto did not, however,
bring the oak alternative to the attention of the Building Committee.
Changes were made to several windows during the course of the building work.
The steel-profile staircase windows were realised as single-glazed, except for staircase
A windows, which had double-glazing. The entrance lobby windows were realised as
single-glazed and in addition some fixed windows were changed to opening ones and
vice versa.^785 The orders for steel windows were placed in summer 1931 and they were
installed in the autumn of the same year. The Building Board discussed with some
indignation the delayed deliveries by Crichton-Vulcan and the exceeded cost estimates
during an economic low.^786
The delivery of wooden windows from Kolhon Saha (Kolho Sawmill) at Vilppula
was also not completed without problems. Building inspector Ilmari Ahonen from
Turku^787 paid a visit to the site and, as a result, requested that the building site foreman
inspect the delayed delivery from the sawmill. Clerk of works Kilpi took note of the
poor quality of the timber. In his opinion, a professional should know immediately
from the architectural drawings that the designs required premium quality timber. The
features Kilpi was referring to included coupled sashes, the double rebate on the frames
and tall mullions. All the frames delivered to the site were made of young timber and
the heartwood was visible in nearly all boards. Some of the material was excessively
tarry, some coarse-grained and overall it was too knotty. To conclude, Kilpi wrote: “We
regret the state of the Finnish timber industry as it is not looking after its own inter-
ests regarding the quality of products, even now as the iron industry is already gaining
ground in the window frame and sash markets.” 788
The Building Board decided to demand Kolhon Saha to replace the inferior quality
frames it had delivered with new ones and reserved the right to claim for damages.^789
Kolhon Saha delivered part of the wooden windows for the sanatorium.^790 The fittings
of the wooden windows were not included in the delivery, and the Building Board
obtained them as a separate purchase. In August 1931, the Building Board gave both
the wooden and steel window glazing contracts exclusively to a Turku-based company
783 Drawing No. 50-748 of the large wooden windows is dated May 29, 1931. AAM.
784 The dining hall windows, if made of oak, would have cost FIM 2,000 each. A letter from Huonekalu- ja Rakennus-
työtehdas, signed by Otto Korhonen, to Alvar Aalto, dated May 30, 1931. Documents related to the Paimio Sana-
torium project. AAM.
785 Window types IR 17, 18 and 20 would be realised without an opening window while IR 19 would be realised with
one. Window types IR 8, 9, 10a, 10b, 5u, 5s, 6 and 28 would be realised as based on D-63. The drawing in question
has not survived and was not available in the AAM archive.
786 Building Board October 17, 1930, Section 7. PSA.
787 The City of Turku contributed to the project with a substantial share and this probably made it necessary for
Ahonen to pay inspection visits to the sanatorium building site. Ahonen had multiple connections to the sanatori-
um project. He had been intended to be one of the participants in the invited competition and he had served as
the secretary for the final inspection of the concrete frame contract.
788 Kaarlo Kilpi’s statement, June 27, 1931. Documents related to the Paimio Sanatorium Project. AAM.
789 Building Board July 4, 1931, Section 3. PSA.
790 Aalto 1933b, p. 91.