If they're so common, why not incorporate into the construction project?
replyWalk through a modern subway, see bits & pieces of ancient history all over the place. Buy icecream, sit on a bench that labourers hacked out of stone 2ky ago.
> If they're so common, why not incorporate into the construction project?
replyIf it's the same one I read about, they did.
Because it's more expensive and takes longer (which then makes it even more expensive).
replyWhich is why ancient ruins in construction sites are often covered up, unreported, or even destroyed.
I visited Athens in 2006 shortly after the Olympics were held there and the city had been refreshed. The Syntagma Square subway station did exactly this, with layers of archaeology revealed behind glass as you descended the stairs. It was magnificent!
replyThey do do that? https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20260408-a-150-metro-tick...
replyThat's actually done a lot in ruin-heavy cities. For instance, here's a Lidl with bonus underfloor Viking village in Dublin: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/aungier-street-lidl-arch...
replyReminds me that story about the beach table in Bulgaria, that turned out to be a 1,700-year-old Roman tomb: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/article2...
replyI mean, it's the rest of the subway line thats the problem -- how many ancient sites do you tunnel through to reach the next stop?
replyI thought the buildings getting lower was just the ground compressing. The foundation is solid, but the ground underneath still compresses. There are circumstances like Seattle where they literally built up the city, but those are less common
replyNo. The ground does not usually significantly compress under those loads. Remember for much of human history buildings are build with wood and non vitrified bricks that readily break back-down into mud/gravel/organic matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_(archaeology)
replyMy obvious thought is why not dig deeper to build the subways?
reply