Rome on the other hand is an amazing city, one of the top in the world if not a bit crowded.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
To my mind, his question surfaced some good observations from others on what actually is impressive about the Colosseum versus a modern quotidian office building, and deeper insights about historical versus modern accomplishments. Unfortunately, he may be discouraged from raising such an interesting contrast in future
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.