Why don't we build like the ancient Romans anymore? (Blog 5)

The only surviving written work on architecture from ancient times is De Architectura by the architect and engineer Vitruvius, written around 25 BCE. In it, he wrote about the three main principles and aspirations of architecture: firmitas (durability), utilitas (utility), and venustas (beauty). At its purest form, architecture still strives to fulfill these three requirements. Well, where does the firmitas, durability, of ancient architecture come from, and why don't we build houses that can last for thousands of years anymore?

From De Architectura by Vitruvius, 25 BCE.

The Roman use of formwork and casting techniques laid the foundation for concrete construction, which, however, is significantly less long-lasting in modern times. The concrete used by the Romans and the secret to its durability have been studied, revealing self-healing mechanisms that, at best, could provide insights for the development of modern construction. Although the concrete produced today is practically eternal, the embedded iron, as well as the technology and insulation solutions, are not. 

However, it should be noted that modern comforts such as heating, running water, and changing air are prerequisites for the quality of life we want to maintain and make accessible to as many people as possible. The era of antiquity is characterized by splendor, eternity, and luxury, but during its construction, it served only the wealthiest aristocracy. Behind ancient monuments and palaces as well as many other surviving structures from later periods, there is an immense amount of slave labor, lost lives, misery, and death serving only the rulers and the elite. I always remind myself of this whenever I yearn for "old, good building practices".

The idolization and replication of the past have sparked enthusiasm and criticism among the architectural community and the general public throughout history. As a city dweller, it can be difficult to comprehend the inhuman proportions of some contemporary architecture when you can see beautiful and exemplary historical buildings nearby. However, even with modern techniques, replicating the past can never achieve the same outcome, partly due to changing regulations and partly to lost knowledge. On the other hand, the question of authenticity and originality divides opinions. Are replicated monuments of ancient elements truly valuable, or do they represent awkward imitations that only remotely imitate their historical prototypes? 

A real-size replica of the Parthenon in Nashville, Tennessee.

Personally, I believe that instead of replication, the focus should be on preserving and cherishing the old. Creating something new should be approached much more critically, considering the growing awareness of the climate crisis and the impact of construction on carbon emissions. I hope that the new generation of designers will be able to bring an end to the era of "wow" architecture. The durability, utility, and beauty represented by Vitruvius will never go out of fashion. Buildings that embody these principles are considered significant, and therefore, they are desired to be preserved.

What do you think makes a building significant?