11–20 of 73 posts
The city is too old.
Just new enough that you can usually safely dig without too many delays, though. A problem with tunnel construction in very old cities, in places like Italy and Greece, is that you have a high probability of running into an interesting archaeological site, and then you have to pause construction and decide what to do about it. E.g.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21743758
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a little like looking at a baby who was born a year ago and calling it old because of another that was born earlier today.
London is a Roman town, much older than England (edit: and that's just name, as the poster below mentions the city has existed much longer). the queen still has to ask permission to enter the City (now called the square mile). The underground (aka the Tube) is new, but the city itself is very, very old.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
God forbid people get paid for their work
I wouldn't care if it wasn't an article posted on HN. IMO when someone posts an article that's behind a paywall, he should at least put something like [paywall] in the title.
The city is too old.
Just new enough that you can usually safely dig without too many delays, though. A problem with tunnel construction in very old cities, in places like Italy and Greece, is that you have a high probability of running into an interesting archaeological site, and then you have to pause construction and decide what to do about it. E.g.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21743758
It's just way bigger than its ancient self, so you are less likely to find archeological sites.
The city is too old.
I don't know about 'too old', but it is old. It states in the article that..." the London Underground, opened in the city 150 years ago.: The county I am living in currently, will be celebrating only its 42 birthday tomorrow...think about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a little like looking at a baby who was born a year ago and calling it old because of another that was born earlier today.
London is a Roman town, much older than England (edit: and that's just name, as the poster below mentions the city has existed much longer). the queen still has to ask permission to enter the City (now called the square mile). The underground (aka the Tube) is new, but the city itself is very, very old.
The city is too old.
Just new enough that you can usually safely dig without too many delays, though. A problem with tunnel construction in very old cities, in places like Italy and Greece, is that you have a high probability of running into an interesting archaeological site, and then you have to pause construction and decide what to do about it. E.g.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21743758
Why are archaeological sites are so far underground? Are ancient cities actually getting higher in altitude as old ruins get covered up?
Why Pompeii was buried is clear. I am more curious about continuously occupied cities like Rome. How did the ruins get underground there?
The best answer I could find was this:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/813/how-come-archae...
It says that abandoned ancient cities have in fact risen in altitude over the centuries becoming "mounds". But it also says that Rome's famous ruins are at surface level, but doesn't explain ruins that have been found deep underground. So I'm left wondering if Rome and cities like it have gotten a lot higher or not.
There are lots of secret MOD tunnels as well. Some of them run out of London across the country with rail tracks to nuclear bunkers that were to be used when nuclear war broke out. To put the scale of it in perspective, one if the tunnels runs to a bunker in Wales south of Aberystwyth.