Chapter 3 | The Building of Paimio Sanatoriumthe trial. It is apparent that the relations between Aalto and Radiator deteriorated as a
result of the decision, based of the tone of correspondence regarding billing. Aalto had
probably specifically contacted the owner and director of Radiator, Arthur E. Nikander,
who had contributed to the design by expending his know-how and had trusted in the
gentleman’s agreement with Aalto regarding the contract.
Aalto and a major Finnish plumbing company Huber had probably clashed in the
course of their earlier collaboration, the innovative installation systems at Turun Sanomat
Newspaper Building, as Huber elected not to submit a tender in either contracting rounds.
Huber would have been able to provide Aalto with the necessary expertise as early as 1930.
Another unusual detail is that no ventilation design was made at any stage, and
it simply emerged as part of the heating plan. The building was initially to be
installed with a central vacuum system, but this was never designed or realised.
Aalto requested quotations on low current devices but he had no interest as a
designer in these systems. In terms of electricity, his interest was limited to the
light fittings as functional design objects.
In the early 1930s, the depression and unemployment rates reached unprecedented
levels. The developer of the sanatorium was a federation of municipalities and since
local authorities were responsible for the livelihoods of the poor, the federation did its
utmost to favour the local workforce and local manufacturers. The next best option was
a Finnish-made product and only then an imported product. This principle marked all
contracting and purchasing processes. The only exception to favouring domestic pro-
duction were the lifts. Here, the Finnish manufacturer quoted a much higher price than
a foreign supplier of a product that was made under licence in Finland.
With regard to Paimio Sanatorium’s district systems, it is questionable whether
Aalto can be attributed with the role of an innovator. He invited no tenders for the
systems, and tenders were to be addressed directly to the secretary of the Building
Board. Aalto was not capable of steering the development of heating, water and sewage
systems to the degree that he would have liked, at least in terms of selecting contractors.
By then, he may have exhausted his social capital in connection with the contracting
negotiations for the reinforced concrete frame. When in Aalto’s opinion the “wrong”
water, sewage and heating piping contractor was selected, the architect seems to have
lost interest in developing this area any further. Even the electrical installations, such
as high and low-voltage systems, which were abstract in nature and which saw a rapid
improvement in the early 1900s, were not of special interest to him. The only excep-
tions to this are the light fittings and lifts. Although Aalto wrote in his 1932 article
“Bostadsfrågans geografi” (The Geography of the Housing Problem) about the division
of Europe into the town and the country, he had not really grasped the character and
potential of district systems. Perhaps he had not personally seen any real examples of
architectural treatment of infrastructural systems. Perhaps it was this lack of vision that
led him to abandon the role of an innovator in this instance. For example, in Paris, Le
Corbusier had shown great creativity in designing an electronically operated wall for