Chapter 4 | Conclusionswith Markelius. In reality, however, the patient wing corridor had never been intended to
be built as a curving space. The related drawing does not exist in the Alvar Aalto Museum
collection and it would appear that Aalto created it solely for the article in Byggmästaren.
For Aalto, the crux was in the idea of a curving wall, rather than its possible execution.
He wanted to demonstrate that he was up-to-date with the international discourse.^1005
Gaining publicity for modern architecture was one of the key objectives of CIAM,
and its members were expected to engage actively in the task. Based on the early cor-
respondence between Giedion and Aalto, it would appear that the exchange of ideas
was one-sided, because Aalto, as well as his Nordic colleagues, assumed a passive role in
CIRPAC and did not offer to give talks at CIAM conferences. Furthermore, Giedion
had to coax Aalto into submitting an article to the Bauwelt journal, materials for the
horizontal strip window exhibition in Brussels, a paper on the sanatorium and reports
on the activities of the Finnish CIAM contingent. We can only speculate what the
reasons for Aalto’s evasiveness were: cultural and temperamental differences, a lack of
time, and a poor financial situation. In Aalto’s case, the question was most likely not due
to any lack of interest, commitment or ideas.
Aalto responded to the call by acting locally. Examining these few articles alone con-
firms that he was quite active in introducing the ideas raised within CIAM to the debate
within both his professional circles and the mainstream press in his home country. Engaging
with his professional circles took many forms: exhibitions, articles and talks. Collaboration
between Swedish and Finnish colleagues promoted the integration of international archi-
tectural ideology locally.^1006 Generally speaking, Finnish professionals closely followed the
developments in Sweden. Aalto’s articles and the discussed exhibitions crystallised two of
CIAM’s key strategies: exerting influence and doing it through the media.
Annemarie Adams’ research shows that adaptability was an important principle in
North-American hospitals. Aalto was aware of this, and the idea was underlined in his
close collaborator Hahl’s 1933 article in Domus. However, he did not alter the dimension-
ing of the patient wing corridor as instructed by the medical experts to suit other purposes,
such as that of a general hospital. Similarly, the dispersed system of risers in the patient
wing proved immediately inflexible, even during the construction stage. The patient room,
in turn, was so small that furnishing it in any other way would have been challenging.
The frame of the building was no more adaptable, as the design solutions for each wing
had been differently tailored for different uses. It would appear that Aalto had not taken
the idea of adaptability very far. It is possible that he learnt to appreciate this aspect only
during the process of construction. Aalto attempted to use his articles to advertise his own
business and to position himself as an expert who adopted systematic working methods.
His idea was to appeal to an audience who shared his thinking and, through establishing
himself professionally, attain credibility as a leader of building projects.
1005 He adopted a similar tactic for the exhibition organised in conjunction with CIAM’s conference in Brussels, which
has been discussed in Section 2.7 “The Rational Site Planning”.
1006 Rudberg 1989a, p. 49.