HN Explorer

20 comments

[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 31.2 ms ] thread
rsynnott
> When most cities build metro systems, they simply blast through rock.

I'm not sure that this is true (ignoring the bit about blasting, which hasn't been a standard way to build metro lines for a very long time, of course); there was a lot found when London's Crossrail was built, say.

(While it's not made totally clear, I assume they're mostly finding stuff building stations, not tunnels. The tunnels are ~20m below ground, but the stations have to go all the way to the surface.)

Really, any old city, anytime you build anything you may find something. For instance, here's a supermarket with bonus Viking ruins in Dublin: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/aungier-street-lidl-arch...

stavros
Thessaloniki had the same issue, and now there's a stop where you have walkways above the ruins.

Some photos of the "before" here:

https://www.thessalonikiguide.gr/metro-thessalonikis-mia-arx...

pjmlp
As one of the cities I spend part of my life, the new metro experience is great, and how they integrated the stations into old Greek infrastructure.

I only morn the loss of jobs that could have been part of the metro, if the wagons weren't robots.

riffraff
I believe Athens was the first city to do this some decades ago.

Once again Romans taking "inspiration" from the Greeks :)

sleepyguy
It's quite interesting to see how much earth is typically above ancient ruins. Cities built upon cities for 1000's of years where a street or building was once at ground level and now is 2-4 stories beneath our modern world.

While visiting Vienna, there are ruins on display in Michaelerplatz (central Old City), so cool.

foxglacier
I've always been confused how this works. Did people shovel soil on top of buildings then build new buildings on that? Why? Did it accumulate naturally perhaps during periods when a site was unoccupied? Would some buildings be higher than their older neighbors, with entrances above street-level until everyone else caught up?
gignico
For reasons, I used to go to Rome quite frequently in the 2010s, and the construction of Metro C was already a meme. But now some of the stations are quite interesting indeed.
maurotdo
You know the meme, "they found ruins of metro C while building the metro C"
gunsle
As a casual Rome enthusiast give us the lore drop
argomo
Okay, I'll say it: is it really worth encumbering the movements of millions of people for decades in order to make a few boring history exhibits? If you want to see some the bone comb that belonged to somebody's great^100-grandmother, there are dozens of museums that already have one on display.
440bx
Yes. I travel around the world looking for such things.
hnlmorg
The problem isn’t the present tense. The problem is once those artefacts are destroyed then they’re destroyed forever.
INTPenis
They might find some important writing that can shed light on history.
readthenotes1
Those people live in a museum-- Rome would be nearly empty if not for the tourist attractions, as it was for so many centuries.
dyauspitr
In a place like Rome with layers and layers of deep history they should just think of building elevated metro systems.
crooked-v
I have to wonder sometimes what an ancient Roman would think of modern Rome. What artifacts would be they grateful to see preserved, and which by contrast would have them thinking 'haha, you dorks care about that?'
maurotdo
Lot of rumours, truth is it's unmotivated, the station is underwhelming compared to similar stations in Europe and - most important - it's already falling apart and encrusted in dirt, with mafia and corruption handling maintenance and cleaning