True to his international ideology, Aalto was more interested as an architect in using
industrially produced shallow-profile steel windows than Finnish-made wooden win-
dows. However, steel windows were more expensive and they needed to be imported.
At a time of recession, imports were regulated and local production was favoured. At
the early stages of the work, the Building Board had agreed on the use of steel windows
on the condition that they were made in Finland. For this reason, Aalto never invited
tenders from foreign window manufacturers, whose products he had used in his earlier
work. He mobilised the site supervisor to raise the issue of the quality of industrially
produced wooden windows and turn it into a wider question of principle regarding
the Finnish timber industry, with the likely ulterior motive of influencing the views
of the Building Board on wooden windows. When the final decision had been made
that the patient rooms would not be fitted with steel windows owing to their high cost,
Aalto developed a new type of wooden window which necessitated the use of some
steel profiles for structural reasons. This window was like the traditional ventilation
window, known as the “health window”, only this time horizontal in orientation. Rec-
ommended and well known by doctors, the health window had been used since the
early 19 th century in schools, hospitals and other public buildings. By reiterating this
concept and defining his window as a “health window”, Aalto managed to translate the
opinion of medical experts and win them over to his side. It was a question of cultural
classification of window solutions. Aalto’s unusual window design required the use of a
few steel components, which entitled him to talk about an innovation and a hybrid. A
material hybrid was for Aalto a conceptual victory over a traditional window. This was
a significant achievement for Aalto, who could now postulate his solution to his peers
in the media. In addition to other innovations implemented in the Paimio Sanatorium
project, Aalto was also an innovator of windows, and took the project in the direction
he wanted. While the outcome was not ideal from the architect’s own perspective, it
is likely to have been an acceptable compromise. Doctors had requested in their state-
ments after the architectural competition that the windows were not to reach to floor
level for reasons of hygiene. Aalto changed the windows accordingly so that the bottom
edge of all window sections was level. He also changed the shape of the floor so that
it curved upwards near the window, so that visually, the window was connected to the
floor in the final, realised version. The doctors were given the hygienic standard they
had asked for, and the architect had windows reaching to the floor. This example is
illustrative of the unpredictability of the evolution of technological solutions – it is
impossible to know at the beginning of a project, what kind of artefacts will ultimately
be realised as a result of the trials. A static artefact, in this case a window in the finalised
building gives no clues to the process of which they are the result.^814
814 See Latour and Yaneva 2008, pp. 80–89.