Chapter 4 | ConclusionsLatour’s observations on descriptions of innovation, and the intertwining of forces
as events that do not lend themselves to generalised concepts, form, in my judgment,
a sound basis for electing a case study as my angle on the topic. Aalto absorbed inter-
national influences and applied them in practice in his home country, which was still
deeply agricultural and struggling in the throes of economic depression. Construction
work was local. In the case of Paimio Sanatorium, Finland was witnessing the emer-
gence of a new building type (typos); at that time efforts were made to favour local or
at least domestic products and producers; the producer organisation for the building,
the architect and his vision were unique (tectonic); as was the location (topos). The above
summary of my thought was based on Kenneth Frampton’s theory of architecture
emerging as a synthesis of these three factors.
Latour’s theoretical thinking embodies the idea of general symmetry, in which the
object is perceived as an active entity participating in the construct, and the signifi-
cance of objects in human activity is taken seriously. The effect is not one-directional.
Latour and Yaneva challenge architectural theory to tackle the “admittedly daunting
task of inventing a visual vocabulary that will finally do justice to the “thingly” nature
of buildings and, by contrast to their tired, old “objective” nature”.^1012 In the field of
architectural research, Annemarie Adams, among others, has stressed that doctors
and architects both left an imprint in hospital design and that modern hospitals in
turn shaped medical practice. As I have decided to limit my research period to the
construction stage, I had no reason to investigate the time after the completion of
the building and how the patient room shaped the daily routines of the hospital. In
line with the theme of reciprocity, I have discussed in this study how the prevailing
material reality affected the design solution.
On the issue of the concrete frame, my attention was drawn to how submissive the
Building Board acted in front of the architect and his favoured contractor. First of all, it
accepted a contract that was tens of percent higher than the most recent cost calculation
Aalto had prepared. Secondly, it was clearly convinced of the demanding nature of
the project and the imperative of a certain collaborative process, since it went on to
select only the fifth lowest quotation. A reinforced concrete building represented new
technology, which made decision-making more difficult. However, the Building Board
never once questioned the feasibility of the reinforced concrete frame and, instead, they
were convinced of the solution presented by Aalto. Aalto, as the innovator, in turn
managed to develop a viable hybrid and achieved his ambitious target.
The standards that Alvar Aalto designed for Paimio Sanatorium can be interpreted
through Latour’s theory of the locality of scientific knowledge. Firstly, Alvar Aalto
insisted on including the master drawings, cost calculations, work specification, working
drawings and the standard drawings in his design contract,^1013 which shows that it was
somehow necessary to establish the concept of the standard in relation to the client,
1012 Latour and Yaneva 2008, pp. 88–89.
1013 The contract signed between the Tuberculosis Sanatorium of Southwest Finland and architect Alvar Aalto, dated
June 28, 1929. AAM.