4.2 The Locality of Construction
E
ventually, my research question became: how did Aalto manage to reconcile
international ideology and local building culture in a country where the degree
of industrialisation in the building sector was relatively low? Many of Pamio
Sanatorium’s technological solutions that clearly had a bearing in overall expression,
such as the reinforced concrete frame, evolved during the period between the compe-
tition win in 1929 and the inauguration of the building in 1933. The process by which
the solutions evolved, particularly their critical points, was of particular interest for this
study. However, I am aware that an architectural idea may merely emerge without it ever
being realised as a physical construct and without any input from others.
My intention was to follow the process of construction and pay special attention to
the central role of the architect, the innovator of the building process. In line with Latour,
the technological process will either stand or fall with its innovator, who initiates action
and attempts to steer the technological process. I argued that the architect had to convince
other stakeholders of the viability of his solutions, and that the process of realisation, the
interaction with the other stakeholders, had an impact on his designs. I also argued that
the architect learnt from the process. I focused my attention specifically on the process
rather than the outcome, which, as we know, is a fabled masterpiece of modern archi-
tecture. My research question was: how did Aalto manage to steer the process so that it
enabled him to realise his architectural vision, and, furthermore, was the outcome entirely,
genuinely, in line with his vision? In the empirical discussion, I described the construction
of the concrete frame, the windows, the patient room and the installation technology.
From the perspective of architectural history, my research design was conventional,
as it was limited to the birth of the building with an emphasis on the architect himself.
What was new about my approach is the acknowledgement and analysis of the interaction
between the actors, including both the social and material ones. As has been shown in
previous research, modern hospitals were the result of bringing into play the influences of
many stakeholders, and the role of physicians’ discourse, in particular, has been stressed. The
input of other contributors, such as designers, contractors and building part manufacturers,
and the direct impact of the budget on the design solutions and the architect’s actions
during the construction stage have not been previously examined to the same degree. I
excluded the patients and the staff from my analysis because these two groups played no
active role in the design stage. In the Building Board, their views were represented by
doctors and architects to the best of their ability. However, I have explained the role of
the State Medical Board and discussed the direct participation of medical experts in the
building process. Emphasising certain angles, I have naturally also ruled out others. I have
introduced the organisation behind the building project and aimed to shed critical light on
the mutual contacts and collaborations of the builders participating in different projects.
The main task of the Building Board appointed by the participating local authorities
was to manage the building project. A major part of their attention was focused on
raising the funds and controlling the budget. Aalto’s role was to represent the highest