Comparison of Villa Savoye and the Pantheon (Research Paper Sample)

Research Paper Name: Tutor: Institution: Course: Date: Comparison research essay between Villa Savoye (by the architect Le Corbusier) and the Pantheon Villa Savoye is a modernized villa with its location in the outskirts of the capital Paris in France. The designing was done by Le Corbusier, a Swiss architect and Pierre Jeanneret, cousin to Le Corbusier. The building was built between the year 1928 and the year 1931. The building was built using reinforced concrete. The villa is a big representative of modernist architecture and is among the most easily recognized building of the kind. The house was at first built so that it could offer retreat to the Savoye family. The family was sent to concentration camps during the World War II by the Nazi soldiers from Germany. The Nazis used the building for storage purposes. It was later purchased by a school in the neighborhood and later became property of the state in the year 1958. The building has since survived many plans calling for its demolition. It was then declared an historic monument by the government and went on thorough renovations in the year 1985 to the year 1997. The house is always open for visitors at any time of the year. The Pantheon is the most and highly preserved historic building in Rome, Italy. The building was designed and dedicated to all the gods that existed in pagan Rome. The stamps made of brick in the wall always reveal that the building was put up around the year A.D 118 and 125. It is believed that the then emperor, Emperor Hadrian, who ruled between A.D 117-138, built the pantheon. This was meant to replace the Augustus’ friend and the other one o Commander Marcus Agrippa’s of the year 27 B.C that was burnt down in the 80 A.D. the building is written in Latin in inscription that reads “M. AGRIPPA.L.F.COSTERTIUM.FECIT” which means “Marcus Agrippa son of Lucius, having been consul made it”. It can be noted that it did not bear the name of Hadrian. This is also the same in all the other buildings that the emperor has ever built. The building has been preserved to serve the history of the people of Rome. This has been key as the history of the building has a lot to talk about. The architecture of the building has been widely talked about because of its uniqueness and how the structure has been laid. Similarities The two buildings serve as historical sites of both the countries. It can be noted that there are many people that go to visit the buildings in order to learn more on the culture of the countries. They have been one of the leading historic monuments in the regions. This is why they are really important to the people of their respective countries. They receive a lot of visitors both locally and internationally due to the importance that they have had to the people. The architecture that was used back then is very unique comparing it to the current one whereby people have computers that help them in creating them unlike in those where there were no computers and paperwork was relied on mostly so that they can build the buildings. There were a lot of flaws during the construction of the two buildings including the leaks. This was a major challenge that the two buildings encountered by the architectures who had designed the two buildings. There were also flaws in the construction and that’s why it took time for the buildings to be totally completed and engaged. Some of the flaws were very significant that the plan on construction had to be changed and the people building initiate another new game plan that will see the building structure completely changed. This was not good for both the parties as there were a lot of pressure that came from the clients and the builders had to comply and do a quick and more thorough job. The other similarity is that the architecture was renowned and very famous. This is because both clients wanted good results from them. This shoved a lot of capital or resources but the clients were capable of coping with the hefty amounts that they were to pay. This shows that the clients did not need any kind of capital assistance so that they could go on with their buildings. The architectures were therefore required to give the results that were agreed on as there was no problem with the provision of resources and other things that could hinder from the buildings going on (Strickland, Carol & Amy, 100). Both buildings were not that stable after they had been built. In the case of the pantheon, it had been projected that the building would collapse as it was not stable and did not meet the standards that would make it survive for a longer period of time. However after the structures had been repaired, they were much stronger and survived a longer period. To date they are still strong and changes are not made every day. This shows that the architectures idea was strong but when it came to the building then it did not come out as the expectations of the clients. The buildings are very strong and people always try to replicate the sense of stability that the two buildings exhibit (Gardner, Helen & Fred, 90). The buildings also took a lot of time for them to be complete. They took more than a year to be completely finished and ready for use. The buildings took this long as they were intended and big architectural marks that had to be carefully planned and put into action. Therefore it was understandable for them taking a long period of time for them to be fully complete and ready to be used. This is evident in the quality of the structures that have made it to be historical monuments which are preserved so that other architectures will be able to see them and know what they are supposed to b doing. The quality of the services can also be used to confirm that the buildings need a lot of time so that they could b totally complete. If they had taken less time then they would have already spoiled. There were also a lot of disputes that were there during the putting up of the buildings. This was majorly on the shapes and other important factors of the buildings. This process was seen to slow the process and allow time for a lot of consultations so that the buildings could be decided on what they should have. This was majorly between the architects and the clients or between the clients themselves. This was to provide quality and other needed things. The architects however went on with the work and were able to complete the buildings successfully. The disputes were however solved quickly and that gave ample time to the completion (Johnson, Bart & Kristina, 50). Differences The Villa Savoye had originally been built as a resort for the Savoye family. This is not the same as the Pantheon which was built to serve the gods of Rome, Italy. Therefore the Pantheon is spiritually related something which the Villa Savoye has nothing like. The Pantheon has spiritual attachment to the people of Rome unlike what the Villa Savoye will offer to the people of Paris. From the beginning of the building of each of the buildings there was the significant use that was intended. The intentions therefore describe the importance and the reason that each of the buildings was put up for. The pantheon carries the history of the whole of Italy while the villa Savoye only carries the history of architecture in the country. Therefore the Pantheon has more effect on the people of the region more than the Villa Savoye. The Pantheon was built as a dome while the Villa Savoye was built as a bungalow. This is the structure difference that is in the two buildings. The buildings are therefore not the same in their structure. This difference is major and can be used to identify between the two buildings. The structures are therefore significant to the buildings as they are used to identify them by many people. The other major difference that occurred between the two is that the clients of the Pantheon were happy after the construction while the Villa Savoye was not very happy with the construction. This shows that the builders followed all the necessary rules in building and designing the building. There were some unavoidable flaws that the building had but this was not that major and it augured well with the people of Roma and the Emperor. The building also underwent certain repairs and has survived all those years up to this point whereby it still strong and is used to serve many purposes. The main purpose of the building nowadays is that it is used by the Roman Catholic to carry out their services in the building. The building therefore shows that the flaws were not that major and could be contained. The villa Savoye however had to be redone as the architecture was threatened that the owner will take legal action against him. This was after he even accepted that the building was inhabitable. The owner was perplexed and threatened that he was going to take a legal action if in any way he did not redo the house again. This is not the same with the pantheon where only a few structures had to be done again. There was no need for the cause of action. The Villa Savoye also had a problem with the heating and lighting. This is because they were not fitted properly and the owner was very perplexed with this and warned the architecture about the problem too. The pantheon had a good lighting that the Emperor wanted. This is a hole that was left at the top of the dome and produced a ray of light that the emperor used when he was addressing the people. This is very significant as the archeologists up to day are always praising the kind of lighting that the architecture used in the building. The other difference is the design to the purpose of the building. Villa Savoy was intended to be a home but the design at the end makes it look like an office or a hospital. This cannot be said to the pantheon whose purpose was to be a sort of temple and the design satisfies the purpose that the building had. The pantheon has adequate space that was ...