4 ms·

I have to ask what is impressive to you if you call Colosseum "just a bunch of rubble".

ThalesX 6y ago
I was recently thinking about this as they built a state of the art office building nearby. It has around 15 floors, looks amazing, it appears well built based on what I could tell. It’s going to house hundreds if not thousands of humans, will be perfectly equipped to handle climatization, waste disposal, cleanliness. This is an amazing feat, and one that I personally did not really give proper thought. Basically what I’m arguing is that any modern office building is so much more impressive than the colliseum was, maybe even at inception. More specifically, to answer your question directed at OP, I’m hard pressed not to find anything modern that’s less impressive than the Colosseum. I’m interested in what you find so special about the bunch of rubble that warrants lack of intervention? Edit: really I had no idea this would bring me to negative points. Would love someone explaining what I’m missing in these downvotes.
- wdb 6y ago
  Personally, I prefer the older buildings as most new buildings at least here in London are soulless and bluntly said ugly. Disrupts the skyline
- Strom 6y ago
  The Colosseum had wine & water on tap as part of its design. So you don't have to leave the building and can just unblock the tap and refill your cup. The concrete "piping" is still there today. I'd say that feature alone makes it amazing. Also the complex system of elevators and trap doors it had below the fake stage floor is more complex than any broadway stage today. Granted the stage floor has not survived, but plenty of the under-the-floor mechanisms are still there.
- dylan604 6y ago
  Let's see if that "modern office" builidng is still recognizable as a building in 5000 years
  - ThalesX 6y ago
    If that is our definition for a building being impressive, sure, modern office buildings will not hold the test of time without maintainance as well as the Colosseum...
  - sfblah 6y ago
    Isn't at least part of that because an amphitheater, by the nature of its shape, is more likely to survive for millenia than an enclosed, rectangular office building?
    - bonzini 6y ago
      Reinforced concrete isn't really meant to last.
      - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
        True. On the other hand, Roman concrete is pretty damn amazing stuff.
    - gpderetta 6y ago
      Stone will last much more than concrete and steel.
- arcticfox 6y ago
  Regarding your edit, since the rule is to assume good faith on HN, I'll try my best: - the Colosseum is a remarkable building for its time, only a handful of large buildings of that age are still standing - even by modern standards, the remaining architecture is striking IMO - objectively, 7 million people per year visit the Colosseum, making it one of the most popular sites in the world. So even if you don't think it's special on at least some metrics, you're wrong by definition.
  - rendall 6y ago
    > Regarding your edit, since the rule is to assume good faith on HN, I'll try my best Why would it be such a struggle to assume good faith even with the unedited original? It was a politely expressed confusion over why the Colosseum received so much attention. No guideline transgression, just an opinion.
- chadash 6y ago
  > really I had no idea this would bring me to negative points. Would love someone explaining what I’m missing in these downvotes. I downvoted you and I'll give some insight as to why. - "I’m hard pressed not to find anything modern that’s less impressive than the Colosseum". Yeah, if we judge the colosseum by today's standards, it's not impressive. What's impressive is that it is 2000 years old. - "I’m interested in what you find so special about the bunch of rubble that warrants lack of intervention?" It isn't a pile of rubble. It's a full standing building in reasonable shape. There are plenty of piles of rubble that are 2000 years old and they simply don't get much attention, because they are piles of rubble. - When you go to the colosseum, you get a sense of what life was like 2000 years ago in one of the greatest empires the world has ever known, and the one upon which Western Civilization is built. The historical value is probably more remarkable than the technical achievement. - There are very few structures of this scale that are this old and in reasonable shape. - I've been to the colosseum and it isn't even my favorite ancient building in Rome. That honor goes to the Pantheon, which I think is a far more impressive technical achievement. I've also been to Petra, the Pyramids, Hagia Sophia and the temples at Luxor and I personally like all of those better. But that doesn't make the colosseum bad or meaningless. - The 15 floor office building in your neighborhood is unlikely to last 2000 years without much maintenance. It is certainly not a huge achievement for it's day. It probably has little cultural value compared to other buildings in your city.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - rendall 6y ago
    I don't think a downvote is meant for expressing disapproval of an opinion. Using it that way means that people may not express themselves, or only do so if they think it's consensus I try to use downvotes sparingly, only for posts that have violated the guidelines, particularly when the post is mean or dismissive. If it's an opinion I disagree with, I might reply, but I won't otherwise downvote
    - chadash 6y ago
      I generally don't downvote because I disagree. I downvote because I think a comment is detracting from the discussion. It's my opinion (and feel free to disagree with me) that saying that your local 15 floor office building that was built a year ago is more impressive than the Colosseum doesn't add much to the conversation.
Fargren 6y ago
Not the OP. I found the Palatino ruins to be extremely impressive, and the Colosseum to be a "just a bunch of rubble". It's just not a good looking building, and the areas that are open don't let you see anything that I found particularly interesting. It's big, and well built, and it's interesting how similar it is to a modern day stadium. But it's just a stadium. Vising the Forum and the temples on the other hand has fascinating, and made think about how life in antiquity would have been.
- ThalesX 6y ago
  I feel the same way, the most fun experience at the Colosseum was enjoying a glass of wine and a sandwich in a park nearby. Rome on the other hand is an amazing city, one of the top in the world if not a bit crowded.

I was recently thinking about this as they built a state of the art office building nearby. It has around 15 floors, looks amazing, it appears well built based on what I could tell. It’s going to house hundreds if not thousands of humans, will be perfectly equipped to handle climatization, waste disposal, cleanliness. This is an amazing feat, and one that I personally did not really give proper thought. Basically what I’m arguing is that any modern office building is so much more impressive than the colliseum was, maybe even at inception. More specifically, to answer your question directed at OP, I’m hard pressed not to find anything modern that’s less impressive than the Colosseum. I’m interested in what you find so special about the bunch of rubble that warrants lack of intervention? Edit: really I had no idea this would bring me to negative points. Would love someone explaining what I’m missing in these downvotes.

wdb 6y ago
Personally, I prefer the older buildings as most new buildings at least here in London are soulless and bluntly said ugly. Disrupts the skyline
Strom 6y ago
The Colosseum had wine & water on tap as part of its design. So you don't have to leave the building and can just unblock the tap and refill your cup. The concrete "piping" is still there today. I'd say that feature alone makes it amazing. Also the complex system of elevators and trap doors it had below the fake stage floor is more complex than any broadway stage today. Granted the stage floor has not survived, but plenty of the under-the-floor mechanisms are still there.
dylan604 6y ago
Let's see if that "modern office" builidng is still recognizable as a building in 5000 years
- ThalesX 6y ago
  If that is our definition for a building being impressive, sure, modern office buildings will not hold the test of time without maintainance as well as the Colosseum...
- sfblah 6y ago
  Isn't at least part of that because an amphitheater, by the nature of its shape, is more likely to survive for millenia than an enclosed, rectangular office building?
  - bonzini 6y ago
    Reinforced concrete isn't really meant to last.
    - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      True. On the other hand, Roman concrete is pretty damn amazing stuff.
  - gpderetta 6y ago
    Stone will last much more than concrete and steel.
arcticfox 6y ago
Regarding your edit, since the rule is to assume good faith on HN, I'll try my best: - the Colosseum is a remarkable building for its time, only a handful of large buildings of that age are still standing - even by modern standards, the remaining architecture is striking IMO - objectively, 7 million people per year visit the Colosseum, making it one of the most popular sites in the world. So even if you don't think it's special on at least some metrics, you're wrong by definition.
- rendall 6y ago
  > Regarding your edit, since the rule is to assume good faith on HN, I'll try my best Why would it be such a struggle to assume good faith even with the unedited original? It was a politely expressed confusion over why the Colosseum received so much attention. No guideline transgression, just an opinion.
chadash 6y ago
> really I had no idea this would bring me to negative points. Would love someone explaining what I’m missing in these downvotes. I downvoted you and I'll give some insight as to why. - "I’m hard pressed not to find anything modern that’s less impressive than the Colosseum". Yeah, if we judge the colosseum by today's standards, it's not impressive. What's impressive is that it is 2000 years old. - "I’m interested in what you find so special about the bunch of rubble that warrants lack of intervention?" It isn't a pile of rubble. It's a full standing building in reasonable shape. There are plenty of piles of rubble that are 2000 years old and they simply don't get much attention, because they are piles of rubble. - When you go to the colosseum, you get a sense of what life was like 2000 years ago in one of the greatest empires the world has ever known, and the one upon which Western Civilization is built. The historical value is probably more remarkable than the technical achievement. - There are very few structures of this scale that are this old and in reasonable shape. - I've been to the colosseum and it isn't even my favorite ancient building in Rome. That honor goes to the Pantheon, which I think is a far more impressive technical achievement. I've also been to Petra, the Pyramids, Hagia Sophia and the temples at Luxor and I personally like all of those better. But that doesn't make the colosseum bad or meaningless. - The 15 floor office building in your neighborhood is unlikely to last 2000 years without much maintenance. It is certainly not a huge achievement for it's day. It probably has little cultural value compared to other buildings in your city.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rendall 6y ago
  I don't think a downvote is meant for expressing disapproval of an opinion. Using it that way means that people may not express themselves, or only do so if they think it's consensus I try to use downvotes sparingly, only for posts that have violated the guidelines, particularly when the post is mean or dismissive. If it's an opinion I disagree with, I might reply, but I won't otherwise downvote
  - chadash 6y ago
    I generally don't downvote because I disagree. I downvote because I think a comment is detracting from the discussion. It's my opinion (and feel free to disagree with me) that saying that your local 15 floor office building that was built a year ago is more impressive than the Colosseum doesn't add much to the conversation.

Fargren 6y ago

Not the OP. I found the Palatino ruins to be extremely impressive, and the Colosseum to be a "just a bunch of rubble". It's just not a good looking building, and the areas that are open don't let you see anything that I found particularly interesting. It's big, and well built, and it's interesting how similar it is to a modern day stadium. But it's just a stadium. Vising the Forum and the temples on the other hand has fascinating, and made think about how life in antiquity would have been.

ThalesX 6y ago
I feel the same way, the most fun experience at the Colosseum was enjoying a glass of wine and a sandwich in a park nearby. Rome on the other hand is an amazing city, one of the top in the world if not a bit crowded.