4 ms·
Would they really? Sure, having an old Colosseum or Aqueduct to look at is nice, but do you really want to live in a place where every single square inch of us
by hannasanarion 4y ago
Would they really?
Sure, having an old Colosseum or Aqueduct to look at is nice, but do you really want to live in a place where every single square inch of useful ground in the whole country is occupied by an ultra-resilient building that somebody thought would be useful 2000 years ago?
We have all of these examples of nice long-lasting roman architecture because those are the examples that survived. Romans didn't live in the Colosseum and the aqueducts. The Romans built hundreds of thousands of other buildings that fell down on their own or were demolished for any number of reasons over the millennia.
- oldgradstudent 4y agoYou can always demolish unneeded structures. The Golden Gate bridge was opened 85 years ago. Is there any sane reason to demolish it in 15 years?
- tinsmith 4y agoIn support of this, we can even see the rapid changes in structural demands over half a century in a culture like the US. Suburban sprawl eats up spaces with any viable flexibility in a matter of years, and things like shopping malls fade out of fashion just as quickly as they entered it. In a relatively short time, we are left with brick & concrete hellscapes that are largely being abandoned because developers find it easier (and probably cheaper) to work with fresh land. This Disposable Mentality gets us into obviously environmental and economic messes so often that I am still flabbergasted that the US at large has not adopted a more Reusable Mentality, and incorporated some long-term thinking into their suburban planning.
- trashtester 4y agoI said 500+, not 2000. If, 500 years from now, the best 25% of structures built by us remain standing, I think that's a good thing.