6 ms·

Ancient Rome was full of 5-7 story apartment buildings and had a population of around a million. Higher density than a whole lot of modern cities, the vast majo

by opencl 8y ago

Ancient Rome was full of 5-7 story apartment buildings and had a population of around a million. Higher density than a whole lot of modern cities, the vast majority of which are not seas of skyscrapers.

raverbashing 8y ago
7 seems like a stretch, "modern" liftless buildings (think 18/19th century European buildings) are usually around 3/4 floors, some go to 5 but it's not the majority
philipodonnell 8y ago
Suprised me to learn that the top floors were the cheapest because the buildings were made of wood with no organized fire service and burned down all the time, so being upstairs was a death sentence.
- iguy 8y ago
  Indeed. But not only fire risk -- stairs are a pain. I believe that the upper floors of all the pretty buildings in Paris were cheaper before elevators, too. (Perhaps the streets were quieter then too.)
  - JackFr 8y ago
    Top floors in 5 story walkups are definitely cheaper in NYC this minute. Apart from the stairs being a pain, your water pressure is also weak.
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      Is it? I lived in the 13th floor of a communism-era building my whole childhood and it was completely OK. Are US standards different than European?
      - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
        Water will never make it up to the 13th story of a building just with the pressure from the water mains, so those building will need to do something to increase pressure on higher floors. In a five story building, the water can get that high just with pressure from the mains, though the pressure will be much weaker than on lower floors, so the building doesn't need to have any mechanism for increasing the pressure. It probably wouldn't be done for newer buildings, but when the older walk-ups were constructed it would have been considered acceptable as a way of keeping costs lower.
      - JackFr 8y ago
        NYC municipal water pressure is guaranteed to (I believe) the 6th floor. They may do better than that depending on the elevation of the neighborhood. Any higher than that, and the building needs to have a water tank on the roof or a high floor. My understanding is that this was fairly standard in tall buildings everywhere.
  - etiennemarcel 8y ago
    Upper floor apartments were cheaper because they were meant for working-class people. The ground level and first floor were for shops and shopkeepers. The 2nd floor (that would be the 3rd flood in American terms) was the "noble" floor for rich people, with high ceilings and big balconies. The last floor under the roof was for housekeepers and cooks of the rich people below. Obviously there were no elevators.
    - iguy 8y ago
      Well, I think the causality is the other way. The builders had good reason not to build giant penthouse apartments with views at the top: they knew their customers' preferences!
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > Suprised me to learn that the top floors were the cheapest because the buildings were made of wood with no organized fire service and burned down all the time, so being upstairs was a death sentence. The top floors in most prewar walkups in NYC are the cheapest today, even though all have sturdy fire escapes. People don't want to walk up 5 flights of stairs every day, and they also get swelteringly hot on the top floors during the summer, whereas lower floors stay cooler.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    >People don't want to walk up 5 flights of stairs every day, and they also get swelteringly hot on the top floors during the summer, whereas lower floors stay cooler. Being on the top floor of a building without A/C can definitely be an issue with respect to heat. However, while having to lug a bunch of groceries (or whatever) up multiple flights of stairs can be an pain, is "walking up 5 flights of stairs a day" really a big issue? [Obviously for some people with infirmities it will be.] I work--well, when I commute--in a 4 story office building and most people, including myself, take the stairs when we move between floors for meeting, cafeteria, etc. We at least used to have signs encouraging taking the steps.
    - sethhochberg 8y ago
      Its much more of a hassle concern than it is a realistic inability to climb multiple flights of stairs. Manhattan would be a really, really terrible/uncomfortable place to live if you couldn't physically navigate at least a few flights of stairs at once between subway stations, split-level stores and restaurants, residential buildings, etc, etc. Just thinking anecdotally, myself and many of my neighbors in NYC are probably dealing with a dozen or more flights or stairs up and down on a daily basis (two flights down out of the apartment building, half a flight up to the street level from the sunken entrance, another 2 flights back down into the subway station, 2 flights up on the other end of the train ride, a flight in the grocery store, two flights at the gym, etc, etc, etc). Escalators are often present, but many people walk up those anyways. I'd feel comfortable saying people living here are generally in far, far better stair-climbing-shape than most of the country.
    - 8y ago
- pradn 8y ago
  Another fun fact: commoners in Rome mostly ate out at cafes all around the city - like soup kitchens. Having a kitchen and cooking was reserved for wealthier people.
  - simonsarris 8y ago
    Reading letters from the late 1800's and early 1900's this was true in European cities at least among some classes of people. There might be one(?) kitchen in the building. I think every single apartment having its own kitchen and every person having their own set of cutlery/dishware/pots/pans/etc is very, very new.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  Everything that went up, or down, from the flat had to take the stairs. Or an equivalent route. People. Furnishings. Possessions. Food. Water. Waste. If something didn't move independently, you moved it personally. Privies tended to be outside, at ground level. Pisspots were standard items. Gardyloo! https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/gardyloo https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/gardyloo
chimeracoder 8y ago
> Ancient Rome was full of 5-7 story apartment buildings and had a population of around a million. Higher density than a whole lot of modern cities, the vast majority of which are not seas of skyscrapers. This isn't really true - the Aurelian walls were about 14 square kilometers, but a significant portion of the city's 1 million people lived outside the Aurelian walls. We don't have a good sense of how many people lived within the Aurelian walls, but number that's often cited (1 million people/14 square km = 70,000 people/square km, 2.5 times the most dense city in the world today) is not actually representative of what ancient Rome looked like at any period in history.

by opencl 8y ago

raverbashing 8y ago

7 seems like a stretch, "modern" liftless buildings (think 18/19th century European buildings) are usually around 3/4 floors, some go to 5 but it's not the majority

philipodonnell 8y ago

Suprised me to learn that the top floors were the cheapest because the buildings were made of wood with no organized fire service and burned down all the time, so being upstairs was a death sentence.

iguy 8y ago
Indeed. But not only fire risk -- stairs are a pain. I believe that the upper floors of all the pretty buildings in Paris were cheaper before elevators, too. (Perhaps the streets were quieter then too.)
- JackFr 8y ago
  Top floors in 5 story walkups are definitely cheaper in NYC this minute. Apart from the stairs being a pain, your water pressure is also weak.
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    Is it? I lived in the 13th floor of a communism-era building my whole childhood and it was completely OK. Are US standards different than European?
    - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
      Water will never make it up to the 13th story of a building just with the pressure from the water mains, so those building will need to do something to increase pressure on higher floors. In a five story building, the water can get that high just with pressure from the mains, though the pressure will be much weaker than on lower floors, so the building doesn't need to have any mechanism for increasing the pressure. It probably wouldn't be done for newer buildings, but when the older walk-ups were constructed it would have been considered acceptable as a way of keeping costs lower.
    - JackFr 8y ago
      NYC municipal water pressure is guaranteed to (I believe) the 6th floor. They may do better than that depending on the elevation of the neighborhood. Any higher than that, and the building needs to have a water tank on the roof or a high floor. My understanding is that this was fairly standard in tall buildings everywhere.
- etiennemarcel 8y ago
  Upper floor apartments were cheaper because they were meant for working-class people. The ground level and first floor were for shops and shopkeepers. The 2nd floor (that would be the 3rd flood in American terms) was the "noble" floor for rich people, with high ceilings and big balconies. The last floor under the roof was for housekeepers and cooks of the rich people below. Obviously there were no elevators.
  - iguy 8y ago
    Well, I think the causality is the other way. The builders had good reason not to build giant penthouse apartments with views at the top: they knew their customers' preferences!
chimeracoder 8y ago
> Suprised me to learn that the top floors were the cheapest because the buildings were made of wood with no organized fire service and burned down all the time, so being upstairs was a death sentence. The top floors in most prewar walkups in NYC are the cheapest today, even though all have sturdy fire escapes. People don't want to walk up 5 flights of stairs every day, and they also get swelteringly hot on the top floors during the summer, whereas lower floors stay cooler.
- ghaff 8y ago
  >People don't want to walk up 5 flights of stairs every day, and they also get swelteringly hot on the top floors during the summer, whereas lower floors stay cooler. Being on the top floor of a building without A/C can definitely be an issue with respect to heat. However, while having to lug a bunch of groceries (or whatever) up multiple flights of stairs can be an pain, is "walking up 5 flights of stairs a day" really a big issue? [Obviously for some people with infirmities it will be.] I work--well, when I commute--in a 4 story office building and most people, including myself, take the stairs when we move between floors for meeting, cafeteria, etc. We at least used to have signs encouraging taking the steps.
  - sethhochberg 8y ago
    Its much more of a hassle concern than it is a realistic inability to climb multiple flights of stairs. Manhattan would be a really, really terrible/uncomfortable place to live if you couldn't physically navigate at least a few flights of stairs at once between subway stations, split-level stores and restaurants, residential buildings, etc, etc. Just thinking anecdotally, myself and many of my neighbors in NYC are probably dealing with a dozen or more flights or stairs up and down on a daily basis (two flights down out of the apartment building, half a flight up to the street level from the sunken entrance, another 2 flights back down into the subway station, 2 flights up on the other end of the train ride, a flight in the grocery store, two flights at the gym, etc, etc, etc). Escalators are often present, but many people walk up those anyways. I'd feel comfortable saying people living here are generally in far, far better stair-climbing-shape than most of the country.
  - 8y ago
pradn 8y ago
Another fun fact: commoners in Rome mostly ate out at cafes all around the city - like soup kitchens. Having a kitchen and cooking was reserved for wealthier people.
- simonsarris 8y ago
  Reading letters from the late 1800's and early 1900's this was true in European cities at least among some classes of people. There might be one(?) kitchen in the building. I think every single apartment having its own kitchen and every person having their own set of cutlery/dishware/pots/pans/etc is very, very new.
dredmorbius 8y ago
Everything that went up, or down, from the flat had to take the stairs. Or an equivalent route. People. Furnishings. Possessions. Food. Water. Waste. If something didn't move independently, you moved it personally. Privies tended to be outside, at ground level. Pisspots were standard items. Gardyloo! https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/gardyloo https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/gardyloo

chimeracoder 8y ago

> Ancient Rome was full of 5-7 story apartment buildings and had a population of around a million. Higher density than a whole lot of modern cities, the vast majority of which are not seas of skyscrapers. This isn't really true - the Aurelian walls were about 14 square kilometers, but a significant portion of the city's 1 million people lived outside the Aurelian walls. We don't have a good sense of how many people lived within the Aurelian walls, but number that's often cited (1 million people/14 square km = 70,000 people/square km, 2.5 times the most dense city in the world today) is not actually representative of what ancient Rome looked like at any period in history.