Plenty of room? You’re very, very wrong. Go to Google Maps, use the satellite view and see how crowded the area around the Colosseum really is. Unless you want to completely destroy one of the historic parks or build ON TOP OF THE RUINS OF THE FORUM, you are out of luck. Not to mention, the whole area is an archeological goldmine. To build a modern structure on top would be a travesty. If someone wants to build a complete replica of the Colosseum on the outskirts of Rome, more power to them. Seems kind of pointless to me, especially as we already have restored Roman arenas. But to build in downtown ancient Rome is completely nuts. This is history, not Disney World.
People thinking that this is possible should say if they’ve ever been there. The entire floor is gone, and you can see right into the lower levels.
If anyone has money, they should spend it to stabilize things. Parts of Pompeii are collapsing, after all.
The Roman theatres in Orange and Arles are still used for events, as well.
Rome is one of the most crowded cities I’ve seen, and nearly every inch of it is steeped in history. As others have already noted, I don’t think it’d be possible to build anything the size of the Colosseum without destroying some other historical artifact or landmark.
Although I suppose they could raze the typewriter building. It’s ugly.
There’s a fair bit of space to build on the site of the Circus Maximus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circus_Maximus - which to my memory is nothing but a drab dog-walkers’ park these days. Though some people might object.
Do you realize that the Colosseum doesn’t even have a floor? The floor of the Colosseum was planking over the underlying brick structures, covered with sand. If you look into the present Colosseum you see the underlying honeycomb of brick with its corridors and the sketchy remains of old mechanisms. No one would dare erect a new base atop those two-millenia-old brick pylons. And that’s without looking at what has become of the original seating areas.
I’ve been in ancient amphitheaters – you can still use those without a problem, because they were banks of semicircular stone benches cut into a hillside, with a flat base as the stage. But the Colosseum was a large and active structure of which we currently only have the guts.
Those are classical theaters. An amphitheater is like two of those put together to make a complete enclosure–like the Colosseum.
Only in basic shape – as I note, the Colosseum has no floor, and I believe most of the interior seats are gone, too. In the classical theater (are there any amphitheaters?) the base and seats are solid.
I could see the stadium at Pompeii being restored and used – it has a solid base and seats, IIRC.
In the classical sense, “theater” and “amphitheater” are terms of basic shape. They are descriptions of the arrangement of the watchers relative to the performance. The details of particular constructions aren’t relevant. The original theaters were just hillsides of the right shape, with no built structure at all. The Colosseum is most certainly an amphitheater, possibly the most widely-cited example of one.
And I don’t understand why the present absence of a floor is mentioned as an obstacle to a hypothetical rebuilding of the Colosseum, or any such structure (unless simply as a cost factor). The original had a floor, any reconstruction would have a floor.
The underlying structures - the honeycomb of tunnels and cells now visible and exposed - are themselves in ruins and cannot support a new floor. There are modern walkways built over them now, but building a new floor would probably require gutting the archaeologically priceless hypogeum underneath.
I can’t believe we’re arguing over the floor of the Colosseum, which would surely be the easiest part to restore. Throw up a couple thousand wooden columns in between the honeycomb of cells, slap a wooden floor down and you’re done. It doesn’t have to be strong enough to support a tank.
More importantly, there’s nowhere to sit! How are you going to have tiers of seats with only the ruins to support them? Not to mention the outer ring is almost completely gone.
Yeah, heh. The floor is the least of the issues.
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Here’s a good aerial picture of the Colosseum that shows what you’d be dealing with and how much of the structure is actually gone.
That’s a reasonable response to all posts from Susanann.
On the other hand, it also shows how much remains after two thousand years! (Dammit, I now want to go to Rome!!)
I disagree. We should be ecstatic that she’s posting in a thread not dealing with immigration or Obama. It’s actually quite refreshing.
[Moderator Note]And this is an unreasonable response to someone in IMHO. Knock off the personal attacks.[/Moderator Note]
As noted above, the old place would just be a money pit. Building a replica in Rome would also be problematic; start digging a foundation & you run into ancient ruins. Archaeologist descend upon you with legal notices to stop work…
Obviously, some US city needs to build a New Colosseum. (Colosseum Novum?) After all, Nashville has its Parthenon.