Article

Paimio Sanatorium under

Construction

Marianna Heikinheimo

Special Issue
Technological Progress as a Basis for Modern Architecture
Edited by
Dr. Atli Magnus Seelow

https://doi.org/10.3390/arts7040078
 arts

Article
Paimio Sanatorium under Construction
Marianna Heikinheimo 1,2
1 School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Aalto University, 02150 Espoo, Finland;
marianna.heikinheimo@arkbyroo.fi
2 Ark-byroo Architects, 00500 Helsinki, Finland




Received: 30 August 2018; Accepted: 7 November 2018; Published: 9 November 2018


Abstract: Alvar Aalto created innovative architecture in his breakthrough work, Paimio Sanatorium,
located in Southwestern Finland and designed between 1928 and 1933. This empirical case study
looked at the iconic piece of architecture from a new angle by implementing the actor-network theory
(ANT). The focus was on how the architecture of the sanatorium came to be. A detailed description
of the chronology and administration of the building process enabled observing on the role of the
agency of the architect. The study surveyed the cooperation, collaboration, and decision making
of the agency during the construction period. The first part of this paper focused on the relations
and conditions of producing the sanatorium and analyzed the building through drawings and
archive material; the second part linked to the actor-network theory of Bruno Latour and included
a discussion on how Aalto managed to bring along the other actors. The study clearly showed the
importance of a collaborative effort in a building project. The most special architectural solutions for
Paimio Sanatorium, a demanding institutional building project, came into being in circumstances
where the architect managed to create a viable network that merged collective competence with
material factors.

Keywords: Alvar Aalto; Modernism; Paimio Sanatorium; Finland; Bruno Latour; actor-network
theory; history of technology; history of architecture; building history

1. Introduction
Alvar Aalto created innovative architecture in his breakthrough work, Paimio Sanatorium,
located in Southwestern Finland and designed between 1928 and 1933 (Figures 1 and 2).
His fellow Siegfried Giedion canonized the sizeable institutional building by evaluating it
as one of the three most important of the inter-war period in the extended edition of the
Time, Space and Architecture (Giedion [1941] 1949).
This empirical case study was an attempt to look at the iconic piece of architecture from a new
angle by implementing the actor-network theory (ANT) to architectural research. The focus was on
how the architecture of the sanatorium came to be. A detailed description of the chronology and
administration of the building process by using archive material enabled observation on the role of
the agency of the architect. The paper surveyed the cooperation, collaboration, and decision making
of the agency of the architect. The focus was on the construction period, between the initial design
stage and the completed building project. The first part of this paper focused on the relations and
conditions of producing the sanatorium and analyzed the building through drawings and archive
material; the second part linked to the actor-network theory of Bruno Latour and included a discussion
on how Aalto managed to bring along the other actors.

Arts 2018, 7, 78; doi:10.3390/arts7040078 www.mdpi.com/journal/arts

Arts
Arts2018, 7, 7,
2018, x; x;
doi: FOR
doi: PEER
FOR REVIEW
PEER REVIEW 2 of 1919
2 of

solving
solvingpractical
practicalproblems
problemsand
andisisconcurrent
concurrentwith
witharchitecture
architecture(Colquhoun
(Colquhoun1962).
1962).Hence,
Hence,both
both
architecture
Arts 2018, 7, 78
and a building designs are inevitably cultural objects, tied to time and place.
architecture and a building designs are inevitably cultural objects, tied to time and place.
2 of 19

Figure
Figure1.1.1.Site
Figure Siteplan
Site planshowing
plan showingthe
showing themain
the mainbuilding
main buildingand
building anditsits
and itswings
wings(A–D),
wings (A–D),the
(A–D), theJunior
the JuniorPhysicians’
Junior Physicians’and
Physicians’ and
and
Administrative
Administrative Director’s
Director’s terraced
terracedhouse
house facing
facingthe
thehospital
hospital entrance
entrance(E)
(E)and
and workers’
workers’
Administrative Director’s terraced house facing the hospital entrance (E) and workers’ apartment apartment
apartment
building
building
building (F). Detail
(F).
(F). ofof
Detail
Detail drawing
of drawing
drawing No. 50-759,
No.
No.50-759,the
50-759, drawing
the drawing
the has
drawing been
has edited.
been
has Alvar
edited.
been Alvar
edited. Aalto
Aalto
Alvar Museum.
Museum.
Aalto Used
Used
Museum.
by permission.
by permission.
Used by permission.

Figure
Figure2.2.2.The
Figure Themain
The mainbuilding
main buildingground
building groundfloor
ground floorplan
floor planofof
plan ofthe
thecompetition-stage
the competition-stagedesign
competition-stage designofof
design ofthe
thePaimio
the Paimio
Paimio
Sanatorium
Sanatoriumfrom
Sanatorium from 1929.
from1929. The
1929.The
The patients’
patients’
patients’ rooms
roomsrooms were
werewerelocated
located
located along
alongalongthe
the the100-m
100-m100-m long
longlong corridor
corridor
corridor of the
theA-A-
of theofA-wing.
wing.
wing.
The The B-wing
The B-wing
B-wing housed
housed housed mostly common
mostly common
mostly common functions
functionsfunctions such
such as the as
suchdiningthe dining
as thehall
dining hall and the
halldoctors’
and the doctors’
and thereception
doctors’
reception
reception area.
area.The
Thetop
topC-wing
C-wing was
wasawing
aserving
serving wing withwithaand
akitchen and a astaff
staffdormitory. Drawing
area. The top C-wing was a serving with wing
a kitchen kitchen
a staff and
dormitory. dormitory.
Drawing No. Drawing
50-25.
No.
No.50-25.
50-25. Alvar Aalto Museum. Used
Usedbyby permission.
Alvar AaltoAlvar Aalto
Museum. Museum.
Used by permission. permission.

This study attempted to mobilize ANT to discuss the relationship between architecture and
technology. Architecture as an applied form of art expresses itself symbolically. A building is a
Arts 2018, 7, 78 3 of 19

“resulting construct of many heterogeneous ingredients, a long process, many trades and subtle
coordination necessary to achieve such a result” (Latour 2003, p. 87). It also forms a framework
for solving practical problems and is concurrent with architecture (Colquhoun 1962). Hence,
both architecture and a building designs are inevitably cultural objects, tied to time and place.
Aalto drew influences from the culturally-radical Modernist discourse during the sanatorium
design period and got an invitation to join CIAM in 1929. He aimed to incorporate the international
intellectual culture into his professional domain (Pelkonen 2003, p. 9). Since the beginning of his
career, Aalto was an active writer. Even so, CIAM made a profound impact on Aalto as he now
became acquainted with the already renowned ideologists such as Walter Gropius and Le Corbusier.
Aalto started domesticating new concepts both in the architectural media and in the daily press in his
home country. Also, his style of life, which he brought up in some articles, emphasized modernity.
Through these actions, he became considered a spokesperson for the new Continental architecture
trends in Finland in the turn of the 1930s.
Certain technological systems in construction, such as the concrete frame, electricity,
air conditioning, and lifts, developed rapidly in the inter-war period in Europe, and architects faced
new challenges. The areas of expertise of engineers and architects began to differ from each other.
However, architects still held the position of top experts in the major building projects.
The client of the Paimio Sanatorium project, the Federation of Municipalities of Southwestern
Finland, had set a Building Board and Building Committee to take care of the decision-making
processes during the construction period. Aalto became a specialist member of these decision-making
bodies and a supervisor of the highest rank. Additionally, his agency signed a contract for the
architectural and interior design work. In this dominant role, Aalto also contracted some of the notable
specialist engineers and manufacturers directly. In some cases, the designing engineers became part of
the process through contractors.
In the 1930s, Aalto had promoted the project vigorously in the architectural press. Aalto’s articles
and design efforts revealed his areas of interest, whereas the close reading of the minutes of the
Building Board and Building Committee meetings of the project exposed the critical questions that
caused debates. These two matters shaped the direction of this study.
Few researchers of architecture have mobilized actor-network theory. Latour himself,
together with architecture professor Albena Yanneva, co-edited an article dealing with the problem of
buildings looking desperately static. Their article aimed to make visible the movement of architecture,
meaning the view of a structure as a series of transformations. They also made a point on “the Euclidean
space of drawings being a subjective and knowledge-centered way of grasping entities, which does no
justice to the ways humans and things get by in the world.” (Latour and Yanneva 2008). The Norwegian
design historian and professor Kjetil Fallan made several essential distinctions in his discussion of
the potential of ANT in architectural research. He summarised that the most apparent site for action
in architecture is in planning, design, and construction, and the other would be architecture in use
and mediation (Fallan 2008, pp. 81, 93). The Swedish architect professor Mattias Kjärrholm has
pointed out the duality of spatial artifacts, such as buildings, in his dissertation. Spatial objects
can be seen both as networks or actants. In the first case, they are outcomes of translations made
within a system of actors. In the second one, they have an active role for example in shaping social
processes (Kjärrholm 2004, pp. 124–54; Fallan 2008, pp. 84–87). Similar remarks of the dual roles of
architecture have been made by other scholars of architectural history and theory, only outside the
framework of the ANT (e.g., Adams 2008, p. xvii; Forty 1984, pp. 61–93). Kjärrholm also criticised
Latour’s preoccupation of controversies as the location of dynamics and suggested that ANT could be
a helpful perspective to study the ordinary (Kjärrholm 2004, p. 152; Fallan 2008, pp. 84–85). Latour’s
research fellow Michael Callon’s term translation focuses on the communication strategies in the
construction of facts and artifacts (Callon 1986). The concept has inspired the Norwegian political
scientist, professor Marianne Ryghaug, in her study of green architecture. She could provide detailed
knowledge of the values and actions of architects in design and building projects. She has also pointed
2. Producing the Sanatorium

2.1. The Reinforced Concrete Frame

Full structural systems of reinforced concrete were not commonplace in public buildings in the
early 1930s
Arts 2018, 7, 78in Finland. Aalto’s articles revealed his deep engagement in working with the relatively 4 of 19
new material (See for example Aalto 1928, 1933). The winning competition entry of the Paimio
Sanatorium project embraced reinforced concrete structures and was one of the first distinctly
Modernist winners of
out some outcomes ofany
lessarchitectural competition
successful translations in Finland.
(Ryghaug TheFallan
2002; tectonic challenge
2008, was Swedish
p. 86). The sublime
for a young architect (Figure 3). As architects were not trained to make the structural calculations,
professor in architectural history and theory Claes Caldenby recently emphasized the need to consider
Aalto neededand
architecture to find a skillful alongside
engineering collaborator in the
with the extensive sanatorium
humanities and socialproject. Aalto
sciences convinced
in the researchtheof
Building Board to contract an independent expert as a structural designer. Allowing the contractor
construction history in Nordic countries.
to make the structural calculations was a more widespread practice at that time.
2. Producing the Sanatorium
The previous joint projects of Aalto and the construction designer Emil Henriksson had been
successful. The professional
2.1. The Reinforced respect must have been mutual, as Aalto’s innovative projects had
Concrete Frame
allowed Henriksson to show his skills and present the outcomes in the media. Henriksson’s article
on steel
Fullconcrete slabs
structural without
systems beams showed
of reinforced pride
concrete in their
were collective work
not commonplace in on the Turun
public Sanomat
buildings in the
newspaper building (Henriksson 1927). Henriksson, in turn, was well connected in the business
early 1930s in Finland. Aalto’s articles revealed his deep engagement in working with the relatively new
circles of Turku, where Aalto had only recently moved. The influential contractor Arvi Ahti was
material (See for example Aalto 1928, 1933). The winning competition entry of the Paimio Sanatorium
Henriksson’s
project embraced business partner,
reinforced and they
concrete had collaborated
structures and was one onofseveral major
the first developments
distinctly Modernist inwinners
Turku.
Moreover, the men were brothers-in-law.
of any architectural competition in Finland. The tectonic challenge was sublime for a young architect
Aalto’s
(Figure 3). Asagency contracted
architects were notHenriksson in May
trained to make the1930 directly,
structural after the Aalto
calculations, Building Board
needed had
to find
approved a budget for the work. It is possible that Henriksson had consulted Aalto already during
a skillful collaborator in the extensive sanatorium project. Aalto convinced the Building Board to
the competition 18 months earlier. The contract tender round followed some weeks after contracting
contract an independent expert as a structural designer. Allowing the contractor to make the structural
the designer.was a more widespread practice at that time.
calculations

Figure
Figure 3.
3. The
Thepatient
patientwing
wingbuilding
buildingsite in in
site autumn 1930.
autumn TheThe
1930. A-wing pillars
A-wing on the
pillars onexternal wall line
the external wall
were cast cast
line were in situ andand
in situ protected by by
protected a bricklayer. Photographer
a bricklayer. Alvar
Photographer Aalto
Alvar Aalto ororAino
AinoMarsio-Aalto.
Marsio-Aalto.
Photo
Photo No.
No. 50-003-079.
50-003-079. Alvar
Alvar Aalto
Aalto Museum.
Museum. UsedUsedbybypermission.
permission.

In May
The 1930, the
previous jointBuilding
projects Board published
of Aalto a call for tenders,
and the construction andEmil
designer received nine bids
Henriksson hadofbeen
the
construction of the reinforced concrete skeleton. It decided to base its decision on the most economical
successful. The professional respect must have been mutual, as Aalto’s innovative projects had allowed
price and started
Henriksson negotiations
to show withpresent
his skills and three contractors.
the outcomes A contractor
in the media.whoHenriksson’s
shared the third place
article was
on steel
concrete slabs without beams showed pride in their collective work on the Turun Sanomat newspaper
building (Henriksson 1927). Henriksson, in turn, was well connected in the business circles of Turku,
where Aalto had only recently moved. The influential contractor Arvi Ahti was Henriksson’s business
partner, and they had collaborated on several major developments in Turku. Moreover, the men
were brothers-in-law.
Arts 2018, 7, 78 5 of 19

Aalto’s agency contracted Henriksson in May 1930 directly, after the Building Board had approved
a budget for the work. It is possible that Henriksson had consulted Aalto already during the
competition 18 months earlier. The contract tender round followed some weeks after contracting
the designer.
In May 1930, the Building Board published a call for tenders, and received nine bids of the
construction of the reinforced concrete skeleton. It decided to base its decision on the most economical
price and started negotiations with three contractors. A contractor who shared the third place was
left out of the talks. Tektor, a significant company, had made the most economical bid. In the contract
negotiations, which Aalto led, it came out that Tektor had not taken into account the masonry work of
the chimney and would need to raise the bid. Still, Tektor’s revised proposal was the least expensive
and the Board decided to accept it. At this point, the building contractor and master builder Arvi Ahti,
whose bid had been placed fifth, informed that he had made a mistake in his calculations by including
the masonry work, and was interested in lowering the price. The Committee considered that Ahti’s
announcement did not lead to further measures. Aalto continued the negotiations with Tektor until it
turned out that the concrete work of the rear wall of the sun balcony was not included in their bid as
it was only presented in Aalto’s final drawings. The minutes do not reveal whether Aalto presented
new plans at this point. When no agreement was reached, the negotiations ended. Finally, the Board
accepted Ahti’s proposal, as it was feasible in their view (Heikinheimo 2016, pp. 174–81).
The construction of the reinforced concrete frame commenced and was completed in November.
The frame construction was based on architectural drawings, work specification, and structural
drawings, which were made after the contract was signed. Henriksson’s design work proceeded
simultaneously with the molding of the reinforced concrete frame. Aalto and Henriksson supervised
the work as fully authorized representatives of the client (Heikinheimo 2016, pp. 174–81).
The Building Board did not debate the fact that the reinforced concrete frame exceeded its budget
quite substantially. After all, Aalto’s solution, which allowed sunlight to flood deep into the building
frame, appealed to the medical experts. He used section drawings to show medical experts how rays
of sun reached the farthest corner within the structure (Figure 4). As Aalto had succeeded in first
persuading the medical specialist of the superiority of his concrete frame design, the lay members of
the Building Board voiced no doubts on this issue. The solution became consolidated. Interestingly,
another illustration exemplifies the architectural intention of making a cutting-edge structural solution;
in other words, another aspect of the same design (Figure 5).

2.2. The Horizontal Health Window

The patient room windows were an essential and salient architectonic feature in the sanatorium
for the legislator. A new Act which guaranteed 50 percent state financing to public sanatorium projects
came into force in 1930, and the Paimio Sanatorium, officially the Sanatorium of South-Western
Finland, was one of the first ones to receive this subsidy. The patient room window design underwent
a complete overhaul and changed from a steel window to a hybrid wood and metal window. Aalto also
developed the window as a holistic concept from the competition phase onwards. Aalto’s approach
was comprehensive, and he integrated both the heating and ventilation systems into the solution.
The floor-reaching structure also allowed for amounts of daylight, benefiting the patient. In Aalto’s
words, the patient room window had the following characteristics, among others: “Morning sun on
the patients’ beds; afternoon sun on the front part of the room, in front of the window. Double-glazed
windows in wood with L-shaped frames, with permanent ventilation through glass panes with vertical
openings. Exposure to the sun can be adjusted using external blinds . . . ” (Aalto 1932a, p. 80). In the
same article, Aalto discussed the idea of continuous ventilation, albeit the timber-framed window was
not designed to be kept continuously open in Finnish weather conditions. With this rhetorical gesture,
he wanted to demonstrate his expertise in the overlapping trends in healthcare and architecture.
building frame, appealed to the medical experts. He used section drawings to show medical experts
how rays of sun reached the farthest corner within the structure (Figure 4). As Aalto had succeeded
in first persuading the medical specialist of the superiority of his concrete frame design, the lay
members of the Building Board voiced no doubts on this issue. The solution became consolidated.
Interestingly,
Arts 2018, 7, 78 another illustration exemplifies the architectural intention of making a cutting-edge
6 of 19
structural solution; in other words, another aspect of the same design (Figure 5).

Figure
Figure 4.4.Aalto
Aaltocould
couldconvince thethe
convince skeptic medical
skeptic experts
medical of the
experts ofquality of hisof
the quality design by using
his design by ausing
section
a
drawing. In the diagram, sun rays penetrate deep into the building frame of the B-wing
section drawing. In the diagram, sun rays penetrate deep into the building frame of the B-wing and leave no dark
corners.
and leave Asno sunlight and freshAs
dark corners. airsunlight
were part of the
and cure
fresh airfor lung
were tuberculosis
part of the curepatients,
for lungAalto’s solution
tuberculosis
seemed a purpose-built concept. Drawing No. 50-764. Alvar Aalto Museum. Used by permission.
patients, Aalto’s solution seemed a purpose-built concept. Drawing No. 50-764. Alvar Aalto Museum.
Arts 2018,
Used 7, by
x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW
permission. 6 of 19

Figure 5. The
Figure 5. The perspective
perspective drawing
drawing illustrates
illustrates Aalto’s
Aalto’s architectural
architectural intention,
intention, aanew
newkind
kindofofhanging
hanging
reinforced concrete slab
reinforced concrete slab of
of the
the dining
dining hall.
hall. The
The wall
wall of
ofthe
themezzanine
mezzaninefloor
floorfacing
facingthe
thedining
dininghall
hallwas
was
composed
composed of of glass,
glass, which
which made
made the
the structure
structure look
look cantilevered,
cantilevered,floating
floatingand
andweightless.
weightless.Drawing
DrawingNo. No.
50-226 detail. Alvar Aalto Museum. Used by permission.
50-226 detail. Alvar Aalto Museum. Used by permission.

2.2. The Horizontal

Aalto was moreHealth Windowin using industrially-produced, shallow-profile steel windows than
interested
standard wooden
The patient windows
room windows were6a,b
(Figure and Figure
an essential 7).salient
and In thearchitectonic
early stages of the work,
feature in thethe Building
sanatorium
Board had agreed on the use of steel windows on the condition that they were Finnish.
for the legislator. A new Act which guaranteed 50 percent state financing to public sanatorium However,
Finns needed
projects came to import
into forcethe
in steel
1930,profiles,
and theand in the
Paimio recession ofofficially
Sanatorium, the earlythe
1930s, the publicofprojects
Sanatorium South-
had to favor the local production and workforce. For this reason, Aalto never invited
Western Finland, was one of the first ones to receive this subsidy. The patient room window tenders from
design
underwent a complete overhaul and changed from a steel window to a hybrid wood and metal
window. Aalto also developed the window as a holistic concept from the competition phase onwards.
Aalto’s approach was comprehensive, and he integrated both the heating and ventilation systems
into the solution. The floor-reaching structure also allowed for amounts of daylight, benefiting the
patient. In Aalto’s words, the patient room window had the following characteristics, among others:
 Arts 2018, 7, 78 7 of 19

window manufacturers abroad, whose products he had used in his former work. Made-to-order steel
windows manufactured in Finland out of imported profiles too expensive. When the final decision
was made not to equip the patient rooms with steel windows, Aalto developed a new type of wooden
window
Arts 2018, 7, x;that employed some steel profiles. The window resembled remotely a traditional ventilation
Arts 2018, 7,doi: FORFOR
x; doi: PEER REVIEW
PEER REVIEW 7 of 719of 19
window, known as the “health window,” only this time it was horizontal in orientation.

(a) (a) (b) (b)

Figure
Figure6. 6.
Figure (a) The
6.(a)
(a)Thevignette
The image
vignette
vignette ofofthe
image
image of competition-stage
thethe competition-stage
competition-stage asymmetrical
asymmetrical
asymmetrical design
design
design in1929
in 1929
in 1929depicts thefirst
depicts
depicts the the
first version of the patient room window. Detail of drawing No. 50-655,
first version of the patient room window. Detail of drawing No. 50-655, the drawing has been
version of the patient room window. Detail of drawing No. 50-655, the the
drawing drawing
has has
been been
cropped.
cropped.
cropped.
AAM; AAM;
(b) AAM;
One (b)step
One stepstep
(b) later
One later
in indesign
later
the the design
in the process,
design
process, the the
process, standard
the standard drawing
standard
drawing shows
drawing
shows thatthat
shows the the
that bottom
the
bottom bottom
edge
edge of
ofedge the window
of the window
the window section
sectionsection was level.
wasThe
was level. The
level. architect
The architect
architect also changed
also changed
also changed the shape
theof
the shape of
shape the floor
of the
the floor so
sofloor that it it
that itsocurved
that
curved
upwardsupwards
curved upwards near the
near the window. window.
near the Visually Visually
window.the the
Visually
window window
the window
reached reached
thereachedthe floor. Drawing
the floor.
floor. Drawing Drawing
50-395; 50-395; the
50-395; has
the drawing the
drawing
drawing
been hashas
been
cropped. cropped.
been
Alvarcropped.
AaltoAlvar Aalto
Alvar
Museum. Museum.
Aalto
Used Museum.Used by permission.
Used
by permission. by permission.

Figure 7. The
Figure working drawing shows the the
realized version of the patient room window. T-profiles
Figure 7.7.The
The working
working drawing
drawing shows
shows realized
the realized version
version ofofthe
the patient
patient room
room window.
window. T-profiles
T-profiles
supported the
supported two
the mullions
two of
mullions the
of middle
the row
middle of
row the
of nine-section
the window.
nine-section In
window. the
In top
the and
top bottom
and rows,
bottom rows,
supported the two mullions of the middle row of the nine-section window. In the top and bottom rows,
the the
mullion ran
mullion through
ran the
through structure.
the Drawing
structure. DrawingNo. 50-321.
No. The
50-321. drawing
The has
drawing been
has edited.
been Alvar
edited. Aalto
Alvar Aalto
the mullion ran through the structure. Drawing No. 50-321. The drawing has been edited. Alvar Aalto
Museum.
Museum.Used by permission.
Used by permission.
Museum. Used by permission.

TheThe
medical specialists
medical of the
specialists sanatorium
of the sanatorium project preferred
project health
preferred windows,
health windows, which architects
which architects
hadhad
used in schools, hospitals, and other public buildings since the mid-19th century. By reiterating
used in schools, hospitals, and other public buildings since the mid-19th century. By reiterating
thisthis
concept andand
concept defining his his
defining window
window as aas“health window,”
a “health window,” Aalto managed
Aalto managed to affirm thethe
to affirm opinion of of
opinion
medical experts. Aalto’s unusual window design required the use of a few steel components,
medical experts. Aalto’s unusual window design required the use of a few steel components, which which
entitled himhim
entitled to talk about
to talk an an
about innovation
innovation andand
a hybrid.
a hybrid.TheThe
material hybrid
material hybridwas, for for
was, Aalto, a a
Aalto,
Arts 2018, 7, 78 8 of 19

The medical specialists of the sanatorium project preferred health windows, which architects
had used in schools, hospitals, and other public buildings since the mid-19th century. By reiterating
this concept and defining his window as a “health window,” Aalto managed to affirm the opinion
of medical experts. Aalto’s unusual window design required the use of a few steel components,
which entitled him to talk about an innovation and a hybrid. The material hybrid was, for Aalto,
a conceptual victory over a traditional wooden window. Inventing a new concept made the solution
interesting to the profession of architects. The media was a must-win battle for an architect wanting to
position himself as an avant-gardist. The Spanish-American architectural theorist Beatriz Colomina
found in her
Arts study
2018, that
7, x; doi: FOR the
PEERproduction
REVIEW of architecture shifted from the building site to the8 of immaterial
19
domain of the media (Colomina [1994] 1998, pp. 14–15). The Paimio example showed that Aalto
to position himself as an avant-gardist. The Spanish-American architectural theorist Beatriz
consciously used media to mediate his understanding of architecture.
Colomina found in her study that the production of architecture shifted from the building site to the
While the final window was not ideal from the architect’s perspective, it is likely to have been
immaterial domain of the media (Colomina [1994] 1998, pp. 14–15). The Paimio example showed that
an acceptable compromise.
Aalto consciously Doctors
used media had requested
to mediate that the
his understanding unsymmetrical steel windows not be
of architecture.
to reach to While
floor thelevel final
forwindow
reasons wasofnot ideal from
hygiene. the architect’s
Aalto changedperspective,
the windows it is likely to have been
accordingly so that the
bottoman acceptable
edge compromise.
of all window Doctors
sections hadlevel
was requested that6b).
(Figure the unsymmetrical
He also changed steel the
windows
shapenot ofbe to floor so
the
reach to floor level for reasons of hygiene. Aalto changed the windows accordingly
that it curved upwards. Visually, the window reached the floor in the realized version. The solution so that the bottom
edge of all window sections was level (Figure 6b). He also changed the shape of the floor so that it
fulfilled the hygienic standards of the doctors, and the architect could preserve some essential design
curved upwards. Visually, the window reached the floor in the realized version. The solution fulfilled
features.theThis example
hygienic is illustrative
standards of how
of the doctors, designers
and the architectwork: Aalto reframed
could preserve the problem
some essential and found an
design features.
This example
unexpected new solution,is illustrative
whichofcombined
how designers work: different
seemingly Aalto reframed the points.
starting problemThe andcase
found anshowed
also
unexpected newofsolution,
the unpredictability which combined
the evolution seemingly different
of technological startingthe
solutions—at points. The case of
beginning also
a showed
design project,
the unpredictability
it is impossible to know the of the evolutionBesides,
outcome. of technological
withoutsolutions—at
understanding the beginning
how thingsof a design
came project,
to be, the final
it is impossible to know the outcome. Besides, without understanding how things came to be, the
artifact, in this case, the window, gives no clues to the process of which they are the result (Figures 6–8).
final artifact, in this case, the window, gives no clues to the process of which they are the result
We need to look profoundly to the process to unveil the motives.
(Figures 6–8). We need to look profoundly to the process to unveil the motives.

Figure Figure
8. The8.window
The window looked
looked likelike a traditional double-glazed
a traditional double-glazed system, but but
system, was was
materially a hybrid
materially a hybrid
combining wood and metal. Also, the horizontality of the ventilation system was unusual. Photo No.
combining wood and metal. Also, the horizontality
50-003-360. Alvar Aalto Museum. Used by permission.
of the ventilation system was unusual. Photo No.
50-003-360. Alvar Aalto Museum. Used by permission.
Arts 2018, 7, 78 9 of 19

2.3. The Integrated Patient Room

When taking a look at the patient room, the overall design comes across as a most harmonious
one. One is tempted to think that the Building Board commissioned Aalto for the interior design,
including all its parts. However, close reading of the archive material revealed that this is not the
case. For example, the client split the furniture purchases into parts with no holistic idea (Table 1).
This chapter disclosed Aalto’s tactics used to bring about the coherent whole.
The concept of “minimum apartment” inspired Aalto to study the needs of the patients in this
hospital project. In line with the Fordian ethos, Aalto was conscious of the role of the users of health
care services, the patient-consumers, and placed them in his design focus. Therefore, Aalto’s creation
was socially more radical than other Finnish hospitals built in the same period. His original solutions
created a sense of individuality to enrich the everyday environment in an empathetic manner.
In the small room of two patients, making space-saving design solutions was necessary.
Aalto multiplied the available space by design: he used multi-function artifacts such as the bedside
lamps, and objects that overlap spatially, such as the bedside table. In short, he approached the small
dwelling as a holistic problem. He also created several standard drawings related to the patient room.
Again, the harmonious image of the furnished hospital room tells nothing of the process that preceded
the result (Figures 8 and 9).

Table 1. Patient room furnishings.

Loose
Built-in-Furniture Loose Furniture Chair
Furniture
Furniture Commissioned Commissioned Purchased Manufacturer
Purchased
from the Architect from the Architect Standard
Standard
The wardrobes Huonekalu- ja
×
(Figure 10) rakennustyötehdas 1
The table Huonekalu- ja
×
(Figure 10.) rakennustyötehdas 1
The bedside table
Huonekalu- ja
& cupboards ×
rakennustyötehdas 1
(Figures 9 and 11)
The bed August Louhen
×
(Figures 9 and 12) rautasänkytehdas 1
The chair Huonekalu- ja
×
(Figure 13) rakennustyötehdas 1
1 The two companies, Huonekalu- ja rakennustyötehdas, and August Louhen rautasänkytehdas (The Steel Bed
factory of August Louhi), were collaborators among them and with Alvar Aalto already before the Paimio
Sanatorium project.

Aalto was responsible for purchasing the furnishings of the hospital. He divided the furniture
into four classes in the acquisition programme. Only some of these categories were part of the design
remit of Aalto’s office. The Building Board’s aimed at an appropriate and economic result. In principle,
it was not interested in an artistically-coherent whole. In the spirits of the Frankfurt housing schemes,
Aalto was keen to realize the patient room, including the tiniest of details.
 In the small room of two patients, making space-saving design solutions was necessary. Aalto
multiplied the available space by design: he used multi-function artifacts such as the bedside lamps,
and objects that overlap spatially, such as the bedside table. In short, he approached the small
dwelling as a holistic problem. He also created several standard drawings related to the patient room.
Again,
Arts 2018,the
7, 78harmonious image of the furnished hospital room tells nothing of the process 10 that
of 19
preceded the result (Figures 8 and 9).
Arts 2018, 7, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19

Table 1. Patient room furnishings.

Built-in-
Loose Furniture Loose
Furniture Chair
Commissioned Furniture
Furniture Commissioned Purchased Manufacturer
from the Purchased
from the Standard
Architect Standard
Architect
The
Huonekalu- ja
wardrobes ×
rakennustyötehdas 1
(Figure 10)
The table Huonekalu- ja
×
(Figure 10.) rakennustyötehdas 1
The bedside
table &
Huonekalu- ja
cupboards ×
rakennustyötehdas 1
(Figures 9 and
11)
The bed
August Louhen
(Figures 9 and ×
rautasänkytehdas 1
12)
The chair Huonekalu- ja
×
(Figure 13) rakennustyötehdas 1
1 The two companies, Huonekalu- ja rakennustyötehdas, and August Louhen rautasänkytehdas (The

Figure
Steel9.9.Bed
Figure AA newly completed
factory
newly patient
of August
completed room
Louhi),
patient is harmonious
were
room andamong
collaborators
is harmonious holistically
themdesigned.
and with
and holistically Photo
AlvarNo.
designed. 50-003-
Aalto
Photo already
No.
361. Alvar Aalto
before theAlvar
50-003-361. Museum.
Paimio Used
Sanatorium
Aalto by permission.
Museum.project.
Used by permission.

Figure
Figure 10.10.
TheThe wardrobe
wardrobe andand
thethe fixed
fixed table
table photographed
photographed in the
in the museum
museum room
room of the
of the sanatorium
sanatorium in in
2015. Photo Ark-byroo Architects. Used by permission.
2015. Photo Ark-byroo Architects. Used by permission.
Arts 2018, 7, 78 11 of 19
Arts 2018, 7, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19

Figure
Figure 11.
11. The
The bedside
bedside table
table and
and cupboard.
cupboard. Photo
Photo Ark-byroo
Ark-byroo Architects.
Architects. Used
Used by
by permission.
permission.

Figure
Figure 12.
12. The bed design
The bed design was
wasmore
morenuanced
nuancedthan
thanthe
therealized
realizedversion,
version, which
which is visible
is visible in in Figure
Figure 5
5 on
on page 7. Drawing 50-182. Alvar Aalto Museum. Used by permission.
page 7. Drawing 50-182. Alvar Aalto Museum. Used by permission.
 Arts 2018, 7, 78 12 of 19
Arts 2018, 7, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure13.
13.(a)
(a)The
Thehybrid
hybridchair
chairwith
withsteel
steeltube
tubelegs
legsand
andaabent
bentplywood
plywoodseat
seatisisAalto’s
Aalto’sdesign
designfrom
fromthe
the
late 1920s. Aalto used this Modernist chair with a cantilevered structure in his standard; (b)
late 1920s. Aalto used this Modernist chair with a cantilevered structure in his standard; (b) Photo No. Photo
No. 105890.
105890. AlvarAlvar
AaltoAalto Museum.
Museum. UsedUsed by permission.
by permission. (b)small,
(b) The The small, stackable
stackable armchair
armchair of the
of the patient
patient room
room was ofwas of wood,
wood, which which as amaterial
as a local local material was cheaper
was cheaper than metal.
than metal. PhotoPhoto No. 105931.
No. 105931. AlvarAlvar
Aalto
Aalto Museum.
Museum. UsedUsed by permission.
by permission.

Aalto was the

Realizing responsible for purchasing
holistic design required the furnishings
a great of thefrom
deal of effort hospital. He divided
the architect from the furniture
these starting
into
points. By maneuvering the purchasing processes, he was able to support his intentions by design
four classes in the acquisition programme. Only some of these categories were part of the always
remit of Aalto’s
invoking the lowestoffice.
priceThefromBuilding Board’s manufacturers.
the preferred aimed at an appropriate
Aalto knewand the economic
rules, and result. In
it was his
principle, it was
job to invite not interested
tenders. In additionin antoartistically-coherent
this position and the whole. In theofspirits
resources of the Frankfurt
his architectural housing
office, he also
schemes, Aalto
formed part ofwas
many keen
localto collaborative
realize the patient room,which
networks, including
had the
takentiniest
shapeof during
details.previous projects.
Realizing
Therefore, for the holistic
instance, thedesign requiredofathe
manufacture great deal wardrobes
model of effort fromfor the
the architect from these
patient rooms starting
at Huonekalu-
points. By maneuvering(the
ja Rakennustyötehdas the purchasing
Furniture and processes,
Building heWork
was able to support
Factory) his intentions
was completed by always
in record time.
invoking the lowest price from the preferred manufacturers. Aalto
Aalto showed great creativity in mobilizing his social networks and physical means. knew the rules, and it was his job
to invite tenders.
Aalto’s In addition
underlying to this
strategy position
was and his
to launch the furniture
resources intoof his architectural
serial office, he also
production—something
formed
that previous research had already suggested, and the present study further confirmedprojects.
part of many local collaborative networks, which had taken shape during previous (See for
Therefore, for instance, the1992a,
example Standertskjöld manufacture
1992b).ofInthe model wardrobes
Paimio, Aalto aimed fortothe patient
use rooms at Huonekalu-
standardized products for
jahospital
Rakennustyötehdas
purchases, and (the Furniture
at the andtoBuilding
same time Work
design the veryFactory)
standards. wasRegulated
completedproducts
in record bytime.
other
Aalto showed great creativity in mobilizing his social networks and physical
manufacturers were available, but they did not pass muster with Aalto. His likely motive was to means.
Aalto’shisunderlying
introduce designs into strategy was to launch
serial production and his furniture into
get continuous serialfrom
income production—something
manufacturing industries. that
previous research had already suggested, and the present study further confirmed (See for example
Standertskjöld
2.4. The District1992a, 1992b). In Paimio, Aalto aimed to use standardized products for hospital
Infrastructure
purchases,
On the andtimeline,
at the same the time to design
building designthepreceded
very standards. Regulated ofproducts
the composition district bysystems,
other
manufacturers were available, but they did not pass muster with Aalto.
including heating, water, sewage and electricity. No engineers with knowledge of these rapidly His likely motive was to
introduce
evolving his designs
fields into serial
participated production
in the and get
early, decisive continuous
stages incomeThe
of the project. fromexpertise
manufacturing industries.
of the architectural
agency and the hospital specialists of the State Medical Board, who played an essential role in the
2.4. The District Infrastructure
stabilizing of the design solution, was of general nature. As the different ways out of the district
On the
systems weretimeline, the building
not assessed design
in the early preceded
stages the composition
of the building of district
project, later no real systems, including
alternatives existed.
heating, water, sewage and electricity. No engineers with knowledge of these rapidly evolving fields
participated in the early, decisive stages of the project. The expertise of the architectural agency and
 The Building Board had initially requested offers on water, sewage, and heating systems,
without a reference plan. The poorly-prepared first contracting round resulted in non-comparable
bids and no contract. Instead, the Building Board commissioned a program for the water, sewage,
and heating systems from one of the contractors. The second round of tendering was useful as it was
based
Arts 2018,on
7, 78the plan. However, another company, Plumbing Company Onninen, got the contract. 13 of 19

Collaboration between the architect and Radiator, who designed the water, sewage, and heating
systems,
None had
of the been productive
stakeholders (Figure
demanded 14).the
that Ininstallation
turn, the poor cooperation
systems between
be designed Aalto and with
concurrently Onninen
the
resulted in excess billing about many details, such as the water traps for the washbasins
architectural design. As a result, the knowledge of different specialists was not at the disposal of the and spittoons
in the patient
architect rooms.
until the The architect
construction had seemed
progressed to have lost his interest in developing this area any further
to execution.
when he needed to work with a partner without mutual
The Building Board had initially requested offers on water, understanding.
sewage, andNo new ideas
heating emerged,
systems, without anda
the focus was on performance only.
reference plan. The poorly-prepared first contracting round resulted in non-comparable bids and no
Interestingly,
contract. Instead, thetheBuilding
electricalBoard
installations, which saw
commissioned a rapid improvement
a program for the water,insewage,
the earlyand
1900s, were
heating
not of interest to Aalto in this project, except for the light fittings and lifts. However,
systems from one of the contractors. The second round of tendering was useful as it was based on Aalto was sensitive
to the
the architectural
plan. use of light
However, another (Norvasuo
company, 2009). Company
Plumbing Another unusual
Onninen,detail
got is
thethat the ventilation
contract. design
Collaboration
quietly emerged as part of the heating plan. Nobody specifically designed it. Although Aalto was aware
between the architect and Radiator, who designed the water, sewage, and heating systems, had been
of the division of Europe into town and country (Aalto 1932b), in the Paimio project, he did not grasp
productive (Figure 14). In turn, the poor cooperation between Aalto and Onninen resulted in excess
the potential of district systems. Perhaps he had not personally seen any real examples of the
billing about many details, such as the water traps for the washbasins and spittoons in the patient
architectural treatment of infrastructure systems. The one-year delay of the overall schedule was
rooms. The architect seemed to have lost his interest in developing this area any further when he
unfortunately due to the prevailing confusion in the design of the district systems.
needed to work with a partner without mutual understanding. No new ideas emerged, and the focus
was on performance only.

Figure14.
Figure 14.AAradiator
radiatordesign
designby
byAlvar
AlvarAalto
Aaltoproves
proveshis
hisinterest
interesttotolook
lookatatthe
thetechnological
technologicalapparatus
apparatus
andinstallations
and installationsmore
moreprofoundly
profoundlyand
andtotounderstand
understandthetheway
waytheytheyfunction.
function.This
Thisradiator
radiatordesign
design
continued the
continued the work
work Aalto
Aaltohad
hadstarted
startedwith
withthethe
designing contractor
designing Radiator.
contractor Drawing
Radiator. 50-202.
Drawing Alvar
50-202.
AaltoAalto
Alvar Museum. Used Used
Museum. by permission.
by permission.

It was more natural

Interestingly, for Aalto
the electrical to treat thewhich
installations, installation
saw a technology—the
rapid improvement water,in sewage,
the earlyheating,
1900s,
ventilation,
were and electrical
not of interest to Aaltosystems—on theexcept
in this project, same scale as light
for the the patient
fittingsroom, rather
and lifts. than onAalto
However, that of the
was
entire building
sensitive or district. use
to the architectural Theofresolution of the question
light (Norvasuo of installation
2009). Another systems
unusual detail on the
is that level of the
the ventilation
design quietly emerged as part of the heating plan. Nobody specifically designed it. Although Aalto
was aware of the division of Europe into town and country (Aalto 1932b), in the Paimio project, he did
not grasp the potential of district systems. Perhaps he had not personally seen any real examples of
the architectural treatment of infrastructure systems. The one-year delay of the overall schedule was
unfortunately due to the prevailing confusion in the design of the district systems.
It was more natural for Aalto to treat the installation technology—the water, sewage, heating,
ventilation, and electrical systems—on the same scale as the patient room, rather than on that of the
entire building or district. The resolution of the question of installation systems on the level of the
building or the area created difficulties, mainly because the client assumed that the architect would be
able to plan the building-level solutions on his own from the very beginning of the design process,
Arts 2018, 7, 78 14 of 19

and without input from experts or discussion of the options to hand. In other words, the architect
received no specialist support in this area until a later stage of the process. There was no readiness
to identify any alternative ways of organising the installation systems until some of the decisions
had already been made, thus reducing the remaining options. The installation systems, as distinct
systems, were therefore developed for the building, without any architectonic treatment based on
mutual interaction, except for a few isolated cases of collaboration.

3. Mobilizing ANT

3.1. Creating Hybrid Networks

As the “captain” of his team, Aalto took an active role in the contracting negotiations of the
sanatorium project. He clearly understood the weight of collaboration.
He managed to contract partners that worked well together in the demanding task of erecting
the reinforced concrete structure. It was not simple to create the cooperation pattern. Aalto needed to
maneuver and stretch the limits of the integrity of the building project to gain his goals. He succeeded
in bringing in some of his trusted partners, but as a consequence, he lost some of the Building
Board’s trust.
Aalto, with his architectural vision; Henriksson, with his understanding of reinforced concrete
structures; Ahti, with his track record as a builder of concrete structures; and reinforced concrete
as the material, formed a network that was capable of action. The process was carried out as a
joint undertaking by the three specialists, in good spirits and according to schedule, producing an
impressive tectonic outcome. The operation succeeded in integrating knowledge of the material into
the architectural expression.
A design benefits from inspiring ideas that are tested and subsequently adjusted. The story of
Paimio Sanatorium also revealed that the water, sewage, and heating pipe systems, alongside the
electrical and ventilation installations, were relatively new to Aalto, and he could not manage their
design without input from specialists.
Action, according to ANT, is taken by a hybrid network consisting of both social and material
actants. In architecture, an engineer’s knowledge of how a material behaves, and an architect’s
understanding of its character, are both essential ingredients in architectural creation. Latour’s abstract
thinking embodies the idea of general symmetry, in which the object is an active entity participating in
the construct. According to Latour, the effect is not one-directional.
In line with the theme of reciprocity, this study discussed how the current material reality affected
the design solution. For example, the Building Board was convinced of the demanding nature of the
realization of the reinforced concrete frame and the imperative of a collaborative process, since it went
on to select only the fifth-lowest quote. A reinforced concrete building represented new technology,
which resulted in more challenging decision-making. However, the Building Board never once
questioned the feasibility of the reinforced concrete frame or the final price, which exceeded the budget
by 40 percent.
Latour’s view that a project will never amount to anything if its idea remains pure is also
fascinating from the perspective of architecture, as it is totally opposite to le Corbusier’s thinking
(Colomina [1994] 1998). For Latour, a plan can only materialise if it is exposed to and intermingles
with other elements. Only when the resulting artifact becomes unquestionably established, so that this
synthesis is forgotten, can an idea be perceived as “pure.” When examining the relationship between
architecture and technology, sticking to the sphere of ideas purely would mean forgetting about the
collaboration and the materiality.

3.2. On the Locality of Knowledge

The set of Paimio Sanatorium standard drawings can be interpreted through Latour’s theory of
the locality of scientific knowledge (Latour 1993). First, Alvar Aalto insisted on including standard
Arts 2018, 7, 78 15 of 19

drawings among the working drawings in his design contract. It was somehow necessary for him
to establish the concept of the standard to the client, as the idea was, in this context, in all likelihood
entirely new for the latter. The architect created many standard drawings in conjunction with the
design work for Paimio Sanatorium; a practice that the contract thus legitimised, and which he had
already earlier started.
Aalto’s intention behind this course of action was to bring an exciting phenomenon, the task
of developing a universal solution to a design problem, into his own designer’s studio and under
his scrutiny. Latour has described Pasteurs’ socially successful method in parallel terms. In this
way, he, the scientist, could control the circumstances before taking the findings out of the laboratory.
In Pasteur’s case, it was essential to reproduce the laboratory practices outside the laboratory in
favorable, still half-controlled circumstances to show the desired results. In Aalto’s case, the next step
was to take the designs out from the studio to a trusted producer, not just any manufacturer.
Neither Pasteur or Aalto could know in advance if their invention would work in circumstances
they did not fully control. In Aalto’s case, entering large-scale industrial production would have
been the ideological climax. Latour’s thesis of the locality of knowledge and knowledge management
seemed to be highly accurate in the Paimio Sanatorium (Latour [1982] 1999, pp. 141–70, especially p.
167).

3.3. The Hidden Collective

During the Paimio years, Aalto was in constant interaction with CIAM. He became an ambassador
for the international scientific design methodology in Finland. He was, for example, rapid to apply
his learnings of the 1929 CIAM conference in Helsinki to an exhibition called “The Dwelling for
Minimum Existence” held in 1930. Albeit the Paimio project was socially innovative in many aspects,
Aalto’s writings were not as radical as, for example, the Czech Karol Teige’s, who advocated for a
collaborative design method (See for instance Teige 2001; Mumford 2000, p. 53).
Aalto himself first promoted the Paimio project and his other designs in the Finnish professional
and daily media, and also in the Nordic press. Aalto and his like-minded colleagues together were
successful in defining and stabilizing the meaning of this building in the architectural press. The news
considered the sanatorium as something unique in the design of institution buildings, albeit during the
construction phase there was no discussion of whether the environment was better for curing patients
than other tuberculosis sanatoriums.
Aalto managed to position himself as a specialist of modern architecture. Due to an amplifying
snowball effect, he soon became recognised for his work simultaneously both domestically and
internationally. Aalto was keen to make sure that the press reported the progress of his hospital project
in a favorable light. Aalto became a celebrated figure, while the other participants to the project did
not actively appear in the publicity, although Aalto mentioned some of them.
Still, a unique institutional building could only emerge from the interplay between many views
and the existing material conditions. The impact of the collective is particularly interesting in the case
of a structure that holds a canonised status. When discussing Aalto’s buildings, we often fail either to
see or to understand the input of other designers and specialists. In a Latourian reading, the collective
of the Paimio Sanatorium became visible through its innovator. The significant contributions of the
different stakeholders were forgotten. The credit for the success, which was the result of the work by
the entire collective, went to Aalto alone. Latour’s description of the organisation was well-suited
for the case study, as in architecture, the role of the designer is traditionally, and often disturbingly,
assigned to a single individual. Anyone familiar with the field will know how necessary it is to view
architecture as a collective and an applied undertaking.

3.4. Translating Meanings

Michel Callon’s concept of translation offered a framework to understand why the architect
justified his design solutions differently to different audiences. Aalto’s method was simple—he
Arts 2018, 7, 78 16 of 19

was smart to differentiate between the relevant target groups. He only needed to understand what
motivated each group and to accordingly interpret the same design differently each time.
The design contracts signed between Aalto and the Building Board did not guarantee that the
interiors would be furnished with pieces designed by Aino and Alvar Aalto. The Building Board’s
decision to select the furnishings of the patient room was not aesthetic but pecuniary. Therefore,
the artistically-accomplished designer was not successful merely because of his superior sense of the
aesthetic, but also for his resourcefulness. For the Building Board of the Paimio Sanatorium project,
the ends justified the means, so they gave Aalto considerable latitude to maneuver, which enabled him
to bring in, one contract at a time, his old business partners as suppliers to the hospital project.
In the case of the dining hall mezzanine floor, Aalto used drawings for translation. A section
proved to the medical experts the benefits of the solution for the treatment, whereas the perspective
drawing of the same room showed the architectural articulation.
ANT has been criticized for lacking an understanding of the irrational and symbolic
(Vandenberghe 2002). However, architecture is a system of symbolic expression. The study of the
Paimio Sanatorium shows that Aalto could achieve his artistic goals by translating the meaning in
an appropriate way for each group of stakeholders. Similarly to the study of Marianne Ryghaug,
(Ryghaug 2002), this survey also revealed unsuccessful translations, which were as exciting as the
successes from the research point of view.

4. Materials and Methods

Latour has urged the researcher to observe the details in light and map out the chain of events.
His example directs our attention to what networks reflect of themselves to the outside world. One of
the critical issues is to delimit the object of study.
The anthropological approach applied in this inquiry enabled the research object itself to direct
the researcher to the salient themes of study. By analyzing Aalto’s writings as well as his drawings,
the researcher formed an opinion on which aspects of the design were vital for the architect from
the perspective of architectural theory. The study also tracked the decision-making processes of
the Building Board and identified many topics that it discussed intensely, and that caused conflict.
The study followed these points of disconnect, which Latour has dubbed as trials.
From the perspective of the execution of hospital designs, one of the two archives of vital
importance was the archive of the hospital itself. The minutes of the Building Committee and the
Building Board were records of decision-making during the building process. Aalto’s drawings and
photographs from the construction period and of the finished building, as well as his correspondence,
were kept in the Aalto archive, which was the second of the two principal sources of information.
The file also contained certain other documents in addition to those produced by the architects, such as
engineers’ drawings and product catalogues.
The study compiled a robust description of each building component, or technological system,
from the basis of the minutes of the Building Board and the Building Committee, the written contracts,
and the inspection records, in chronological order. The researcher looked more profoundly to each
building part and compared its narration with other source materials, such as drawings, specifications,
and the building itself. The minutes revealed, among other things, the intentions of different parties,
and answered questions such as who proposed what, whether someone objected to something,
whether the administrative bodies altered the plans, in what way the solutions and decisions evolved,
and who was entitled to act as the representative of these bodies in different situations.
Architectural drawings and other design documents were grouped into categories to match the
focal points in the study, such as the designs relating to the windows. The categories included drawings
from the competition phase to working drawings, and from elevation drawings to the smallest details
and standard drawings. The researcher arranged the material in chronological order. This method
was useful for understanding the development and its challenges. As the next step, the researcher
juxtaposed these considerations against the analysis of the minutes and the workshop drawings.
Arts 2018, 7, 78 17 of 19

Through this method, the study traced which building parts the architect afforded the most design
effort to, and who participated in the process.
One of the gains of this study was to point out what the controversies of the building period
were. Besides, it was in the confrontations which made the stakeholders reveal their intentions
explicitly. The research revealed when the architect needed to mobilize his power and the tactics
he used. Understanding the controversies helped to construct an idea of the interests of the actants.
Following this interaction uncovered the breakpoints between architecture as an expressive and a
building as merely a problem-solving system.

5. Conclusions
ANT proved a functional perspective to review architecture in a case study context. An exciting
building enabled discussion on the relation between architecture and technology, as it was not necessary
to question the architectural quality of the building. This survey focused on the design and construction
phase, and especially the agency of the architect. The actors influencing the solutions were both social
and material. The material came across the solutions, for example, through the know-how of engineers
and the local circumstances. Another equally important potential viewpoint would be to regard the
building after its completion when users modify it, and how the structure changes the social practices
and experiences of its users.
Architecture as an applied art that combines ethical, ideological, social, economic and material
pursuits seems to be a potential ground to mobilize ANT. The ANT lens made it possible to open
new perspectives even on a canonised piece of architecture. Now we understand better how these
architectural solutions came into being. The agency of the architect did not lead to integration
of large technological systems into architecture evenly. Good cooperation was a prerequisite for
innovative solutions.
The study clearly showed the importance of a collaborative effort in an architectural project.
Latour refers to strong networks formed by social and material actors that together possess the capacity
to act. The more in-depth insight into the prerequisites for successful architecture that the study has
provided could be useful today. The most famous architectural solutions for Paimio Sanatorium,
a demanding institutional building project, came into being in circumstances where the architect
managed to create a viable and robust hybrid that merged collective competence with material factors.
Creating such a context today could lead to successful innovation of the current environments.

Funding: The article based on the doctoral dissertation “Architecture and Technology: Alvar Aalto’s Paimio
Sanatorium” at Aalto University in 2016 of the author (available online at https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/
123456789/19607). The National Post-Graduate Programme for Architectural Research, the Finnish Ministry of
Education, and the Finnish Cultural Fund funded the research.
Acknowledgments: This paper was derived from the Aalto University doctoral dissertation “Architecture and
Technology: Alvar Aalto’s Paimio Sanatorium” by the author. The work in progress was commented by Simo
Paavilainen, to whom the author gratefully thanks. Architect Noora Laak also provided the writer with useful
remarks. Editing this article was useful to sharpen the perspective of the dissertation.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to
publish the results.

References
Aalto, Alvar. 1928. Mitä arkkitehti Aallolle kuuluu? (How is Architect Aalto Doing?). Sisä-Suomi (Inner-Finland)
189: 3.
Aalto, Alvar. 1932a. Sanatorium i Paimio, Finland (Paimio Sanatorium, Finland). Byggmästaren (The Master Builder)
14 S5: 80–83.
Aalto, Alvar. 1932b. Bostadsfrågans geografí (Geography of the Housing Problem). Arkitektur och samhälle,
Spektrum (Architecture and Society, The Spectrum) 1: 86–92.
Aalto, Alvar. 1933. Paimion parantola (Paimio Sanatorium). Arkkitehti (The Finnish Architectural Journal) 6: 79–91.
Arts 2018, 7, 78 18 of 19

Adams, Annemarie. 2008. Medicine by Design. In The Architect and the Modern Hospital, 1893–1943. Architecture,
Landscape, and American Culture Series; Minneapolis and London: University of Minneapolis Press.
Callon, Michel. 1986. Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the
Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. First published in J. Law, Power, Action and
Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London, Routledge, pp. 196–223. Available online:
http://www.vub.ac.be/SOCO/tesa/RENCOM/Callon%20%281986%29%20Some%20elements%
20of%20a%20sociology%20of%20translation.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2018).
Colomina, Beatrix. 1998. Privacy, and Publicity, Modern Architecture as Mass Media, 1st pbk. ed. Cambridge: The MIT
Press. First published 1994.
Colquhoun, Alan. 1962. Symbolic and Literal Aspects of Technology. Architectural Design November: 508–9.
Fallan, Kjetil. 2008. Architecture in action: Traveling with actor-network theory in the land of architectural
research. Architectural Theory Review 13: 80–96. [CrossRef]
Forty, Adrian. 1984. The Modern Hospital in England and France: The social and medical uses of architecture.
In Buildings and Society. Edited by Anthony D. King. Essays on the Social Development of the Built
Environment. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 61–93.
Giedion, Sigfried. 1949. Space, Time and Architecture, 2nd, rev. and enlarged ed. Eighth Printing. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press. chp. IV. First published 1941.
Heikinheimo, Marianna. 2016. Architecture and Technology: Alvar Aalto’s Paimio Sanatorium. Doctoral’s
dissertation, Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland. Available online: https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/
123456789/19607 (accessed on 28 October 2018).
Henriksson, Emil. 1927. Palkittomat rautabetonikatot (Steel Concrete Slabs without Beams). Rakennustaito
(The Finnish Construction Magazine) 4: 49–51.
Kjärrholm, Mattias. 2004. Arkitekturens Territorialitet: Till en Diskussion om Territoriell Makt Och Gestaltning
i Stadens Offentliga Rum. Doctoral’s dissertation, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. Available online:
http://portal.research.lu.se/portal/en/publications/arkitekturens-territorialitet--till-en-diskussion-om-
territoriell-makt-och-gestaltning-i-stadens-offentliga-rum(b4590478-222c-4df9-8c8d-2aee4051bdb8).html
(accessed on 30 October 2018).
Latour, Bruno. 1999. Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Move the World. In Science Studies Reader. Edited by
Mario Biagioli. London: Routledge, pp. 141–70. Available online: http://www.bruno-latour.fr (accessed on
28 October 2018). First published 1982.
Latour, Bruno. 1993. The Pasteurization of France, 1st paperback ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Latour, Bruno. 2003. Promises of Constructivism. In Chasing Technoscience—Matrix for Materiality. Edited by
Don Ihde and Evan Selinger. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, p. 28. Available online: http://www.
bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/87-CONSTRUCTIVISM-GB.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2018).
Latour, Bruno, and Albena Yanneva. 2008. “Give Me a Gun and I Will Make all Buildings Move”: An ANT
view of Architecture’. In Explorations in Architecture: Teaching, Design, Research. Edited by Reto Geiser.
Basel: Birkhauser, pp. 80–89. Available online: http://www.bruno-latour.fr (accessed on 29 October 2018).
Mumford, Eric. 2000. The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.
Norvasuo, Markku. 2009. Taivaskattoinen huone. Ylävalon tematiikka Alvar Aallon arkkitehtuurissa 1927–1956
(A Room with a Sky Ceiling. On Top Lighting in Alvar Aalto’s Architecture 1927–1956). Land Use Planning
and Urban Studies Group Publications. Ph.D. thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland.
Pelkonen, Eeva-Liisa. 2003. Empathetic Affinities. Alvar Aalto and His Milieus. Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University,
New York, NY, USA.
Ryghaug, Marianne. 2002. Towards a Sustainable Aesthetics: Architects Constructing Energy Efficient Buildings.
Doctoral’s dissertation, NTNU—Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Available online: https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/20642487 (accessed on 30 October 2018).
Standertskjöld, Elina. 1992a. Alvar Aalto and Standardisation. In Acanthus. Edited by Riitta Nikula, M.-R. Norri
and K. Paatero. Helsinki: Museum of Finnish Architecture, pp. 74–88.
Standertskjöld, Elina. 1992b. Alvar Aalto’s Standard Drawings 1929–1932. In Acanthus. Edited by Riitta Nikula,
M.-R. Norri and K. Paatero. Helsinki: Museum of Finnish Architecture, pp. 89–111.
Arts 2018, 7, 78 19 of 19

Teige, Karel. 2001. The Minimum Dwelling. Translated by Eric Dluhonsch. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press,
Originally published as 1932, Nejmenší byt. Prague: Václav Petr.
Vandenberghe, Fédérik. 2002. Reconstructing Humans: A Humanist Critique of Actant-Network-Theory.
Theory, Culture and Society 19: 51–67. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).