[Canuck 36]

If they use quality materials and make it historically accurate - why not? I say go for it.

When in Rome...

 

[ganjavih]

It's nice to look at the Colosseum and know you're looking at a 2000 year old structure. If they finish it, you'll be thinking "hmmm, is this the new part or the old part... gee, I really like this section, I wonder if it was built 2000 years ago or last year... whoa, those statues are nice, I wonder if they're real or fake..." It spoils everything.

 

[Canuck 36]

What function does it serve now? Tourist shrine? Post-card focus? The subject of a History Channel Marathon???

I admire the idea of having a long sense of permanence and purpose; such as knowing this structure was used 2,000 years ago and is used still to this day. I like the thought of sitting in the Colosseum and seeing a show/performance/human sacrifice and wondering if this is how it was those centuries ago.

Why wait for it to start to crumble before taking action? Why not give it a new sense of place and restore it. Keep in mind I'm only in favour of this if: They use good materials (making it insanely expense I bet, meaning it's unlikely to happen), it's historically accurate (so far as they can make it; though maybe we don't need full working dungeons), and it's actually used by Romans and Italians for purposeful events rather than as a drop off point for tourists on their bus tour.