air. According to Aalto, the radiator heaters where therefore an economic alternative
for a tuberculosis sanatorium, where rooms were frequently aired. He also referred to
the positive opinion of the State Medical Board. A long debate on the matter ensued^918 ,
after which the Building Board decided to vote between two alternatives. According
to the first proposal, three patient rooms on each floor would be installed with Rayard
radiators in addition to conventional radiators. According to the second proposal, all
patient rooms would be fitted with Rayard radiators and the contractor would set up a
security note at the bank as a guarantee that the radiators would function as efficiently
as conventional radiators and that the heating fuel costs would not be higher than with
conventional radiators. As an additional condition for the second proposal, the Building
Board required that the State Medical Board did not oppose the use of Rayard radi-
ators. The latter proposal won by a narrow margin.^919 Aalto’s objective in the contract
negotiations was to engage the designer of the radiator concept to also win the contract.
Using the ceiling-mounted radiator heaters was, after all, an idea that originated from
Radiator. Aalto attempted to exclude other competitors by demanding that ceiling
radiators be used. The tactic was not successful, as other plumbing companies were also
relying on the same technology and were prepared to give the necessary guarantees. As
a result of the round of negotiations, Vesijohtoliike Onninen’s tender proved slightly
less expensive than that of Radiator. The third tender was considerably more expensive
than the other two.^920 Aalto was in favour of selecting Radiator as the contractor and
suggested that contract negotiations be started with the company. Aalto’s opinion was
influenced by design collaboration with Radiator, during which questions and solutions
relating to water, drainage and heating pipes had taken shape. Aalto had benefited from
a number of new ideas from Radiator, which were particularly valuable for the designer.
The Building Committee decided to give the contract to Vesijohtoliike Onninen,^921
918 Mayor Ranta took a sceptical view on the radiator heaters on account of the quality of the sanatorium and the
lack of user experience with the radiator type. He was supported by Saarinen, Thomander and Pyysalo. Ranta
considered it possible, however, that the smaller number of Rayard radiators as mentioned in the work specifica-
tion would be implemented. Farmer Rantasalo suggested that the discussion be continued with the companies
supplying radiators to agree on lower prices and that radiator heaters could be introduced at least partially. Bank
manager Saarinen suggested that the State Medical Board be asked for a statement on the matter. Master builder
Thomander, in turn, opposed requesting such a statement, but said that one could be invited, should the State
Medical Board be prepared to provide one. In his opinion, Rayard radiators could be tried with a small number
of radiatiors. Farm owner Raita seconded inviting a statement from the State Medical Board, but was skeptical
whether such a statement would be obtained. Aalto suggested that the decision depended on the recommenda-
tion of the State Medical Board hospital unit. Farmer Pilppula predicted the Building Board vote would result in a
tie, so he suggested that if the notes of securities at the bank as discussed were obtained and the State Medical
Board were in favour of the Rayard radiators, they should be used in the patient rooms but not in any other rooms.
According to Mayor Ranta, the Building Board had to make a decision on the matter. He proposed that the deci-
sion be left on the table, if the Building Board was not prepared to make a decision on the matter. Master builder
Thomander seconded this opinion. Farm owner Raita believed that the matter should be decided without further
delay. Building Board April 1, 1931, Section 2. PSA.
919 The Building Board voted evenly five against four. Building Board April 1, 1931, Section 2. PSA.
920 The bid of Vesijohtoliike Onninen was finally FIM 3,111,000, the bid of Radiator FIM 3,150,000 and the bid of Kes-
kusosuusliike Hankkija FIM 3,350,000. A sum FIM 15,000 was to be paid to Radiator for its design work, in case
it was not selected. The sum had to be added to the bids of Onninen and Hankkija for comparison. PSA. Building
Committee April 7, 1931, Section 1. PSA.
921 Medical adviser Sukkinen considered the bids of Radiator and Onninen equal, whereas the farmers Raita and
Pilppula considered Onninen’s bid better. PSA. Building Committee April 7, 1931, Section 1. PSA.