DOCSLIB.ORG

Third Street Storm Drain Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Third Street Storm Drain Project DRAFT INITIAL STUDY (ER 2017-00002)/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Third Street Storm Drain Project LEAD AGENCY: City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Contact: Brad Fagrell City Engineer (951) 673-3124 ext. 212 PREPARED BY: Michael Baker International 40810 County Center Drive, Suite 200 Temecula, California 92591 Contact: Mr. Darren Edgington, CEP-IT, LEED AP (951) 506-2083 April 2017 PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK City of Lake Elsinore Third Street Storm Drain TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 1 1.2 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 CONSULTATION ............................................................................................................................ 2 1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE .................................................................................................. 2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................3 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING ............................................................................................... 3 2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Discretionary APPROVALS ............................................................................................................ 4 2.4 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ............................................................................................................. 5 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 20 3.1 AESTHETICS ................................................................................................................................. 20 3.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 23 3.3 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................ 25 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 33 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 38 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................................. 42 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................................................... 47 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.................................................................................... 52 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................ 56 3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING ......................................................................................................... 61 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................. 62 3.12 NOISE .......................................................................................................................................... 64 3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ...................................................................................................... 73 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES......................................................................................................................... 75 3.15 RECREATION ............................................................................................................................... 77 3.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ....................................................................................................... 78 3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................... 82 3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................. 86 4.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 87 4.1 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL ........................................................................................... 87 4.2 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS ........................................................................................................... 88 5.0 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................... 94 6.0 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION ........................................................................................ 95 April 2017 i Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Lake Elsinore Third Street Storm Drain LIST OF TABLES Table 2.3-1: Required Permit Approvals ....................................................................................................... 4 Table 3.3-1: Construction Related Emissions ................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.3-2: Long-Term Operational Air Emissions ........................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.3-3: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions ...................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.3-4: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions ....................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.4-1, Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands .......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.7-1: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.12-1: Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment ............ Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.12-2: Existing With Project Traffic Noise Levels ................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.12-3: Future Traffic Noise Levels ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.12-4: Cumulative Noise Scenario ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.12-5: Traffic Noise Levels for a Secondary Arterial Roadway Operating at LOS C . Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.12-6: Typical Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots ...................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.12-7: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ............. Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.16-1: Existing with Project Conditions (Year 2016) Intersection Peak-Hour Levels of Service Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.16-2: Opening Year with Project Conditions (Year 2019) Intersection Peak-Hour Levels of Service ....................................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.16-3: Cumulative with Project Conditions (Year 2019) Intersection Peak-Hour Levels of Service ....................................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Regional Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 9 Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................... 11 Exhibit 3: Project Site Map .......................................................................................................................... 13 Exhibit 4: Site Photos .................................................................................................................................. 16 APPENDICES Appendix A: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Data Appendix B: Biological Studies Appendix C: Cultural Resources Assessment April 2017 ii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Lake Elsinore Third Street Storm Drain 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Lake Elsinore is planning the installation of an underground reinforced concrete pipe storm drain, a reinforced concrete box structure, and related facilities, known as the Third Street Storm Drain Project (Project). The City of Lake Elsinore (City) has determined that the Project is subject to the guidelines and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Initial Study has been prepared to address potential impacts associated with the Project, as described below. This Initial Study addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed Project. 1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS In accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 - 21177) and pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines, the City, acting in the capacity of Lead Agency, is required to undertake the preparation of an Initial Study to determine if the proposed Project would have a significant environmental impact. If the Lead Agency finds that there is no evidence that the Project, either as proposed or as modified to include the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bulletin of the American Canal Society
    AmericanCanals Bulletin of the American Canal Society www.AmericanCanals.org Vol. XLII No. 4 Dedicated to Historic Canal Research, Preservation, and Parks Fall 2013 From the President By David G. Barber Elsewhere in this issue is an article about a threat to an existing, watered section of the James River and Kanawha Canal in Richmond, VA from a concert amphitheatre. This section of the canal has been watered since its navigational use. The article says that the watered canal and a section to the west have been proposed for restoration for twenty-five years. I think that this illustrates the problem of proposed restorations that don’t happen. Eventually, The Pride of Baltimore II is one of the vessels that will attend the Old City someone one will see the unused Seaport Festival in Philadelphia on October 11-13, 2013. Story on p. 3. space and come up with other ideas that aren’t as good. We all also thinking of two sections feel that watered canals are a good of the Blackstone Canal that thing. It’s a known fact that INSIDE I am involved with. So please people like to be near water and don’t feel that I’m picking on Old City Seaport Festival p. 3 relax near water. But, our efforts others. Folks elsewhere at to preserve and restore watered Controversy in Richmond, p. 4 Camillus, New York; Delphi, canals have to be seen as moving Indiana; Lebanon, Pennsyl- Whitewater Canal mural, p. 5 forward. When the proposals vania; Great Falls, Maryland; remain in perpetual idle, they will ACS Sales, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Mccormac Amphitheater Feasibility Study MGT- 611 Fall 2014-Capstone Project
    McCormac Amphitheater Feasibility Study MGT- 611 Fall 2014-Capstone Project Prepared by: Mean Alkhanaizan, Khaled Alomary, Rachel Breslin, Carol Goolsby, Tim Hatcher, Sherrie Humbertson, Juan Perez, & Abdulaziz Shalhoob McCormac Amphitheater – Feasibility Study Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Market Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Physical Suitability....................................................................................................................................... 10 Financial Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Overall Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 15 Considerations and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 16 Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................. 17 Appendix A – Needs Survey Data Summary ............................................................................................... 18 Appendix B – Industry Comparable and Local Competitors ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Red Rocks Bridge Replacement Plan Staff Report 2021.02.06
    Community Planning and Development Denver Landmark Preservation 201 West Colfax, Dept. 205 Denver, CO 80202 p: 720.865.2709 f: 720.865.3050 www.denvergov.org/preservation STAFF BRIEF This document is the staff’s comparison of the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation, Design Guidelines for Denver Landmark Structures and Districts, the Landmark Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 30, Revised Municipal Code) and other applicable adopted area guidelines as applied to the proposed application. It is intended to provide guidance during the commission’s deliberation of the proposed application. Guidelines are available at www.denvergov.org/preservation Project: #2021-COA-045 LPC Meeting: February 16, 2021 Address: 18300 West Alameda Parkway Staff: Brittany Bryant Historic Dist/DLM: Red Rocks Amphitheatre Year structure built: C. 1946-1954 Applicant: Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. | Denver Arts & Venues Project Scope Under Review: Phase I: Mass, Form, & Context for the South Pedestrian Bridge Replacement Plan Staff Summary: The applicant, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., and property owner, the City & County of Denver – Denver Arts & Venues, is requesting to replace the South Pedestrian Bridge, a structural architectural feature of the Red Rocks Amphitheatre and Park. The existing bridge needs to be demolished due to its deteriorated state and concerns over life safety issues. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing structure with a new structure that respects the character defining features of the existing bridge structure and to provide maximum life safety. The new structure will consist of two bridge structures, a lower and upper section that extends around the eastern side of Ship Rock, cutting through Ship Rock to the southeast entrance of the Amphitheatre.
    [Show full text]
  • HERODIAN ENTERTAINMENT STRUCTURES Joseph Patrich Josephus Concludes the Description of the Dedication Feast of Caesarea, Held In
    HERODIAN ENTERTAINMENT STRUCTURES Joseph Patrich Abstract Entertainment structures constituted a signifi cant part of the Herodian building projects in Herod’s kingdom and beyond, serving his internal and external political interests. They were an important means for disseminating Greco-Roman culture, and enhancing Herod’s reputation as patron of arts and agonistics. According to Josephus, theatres were built in Jerusalem, Jericho, Caesarea, Sidon and Damascus; amphithe- atres/hippodromes in Jerusalem, Jericho, and Caesarea. Gymnasia were constructed only outside his realm, in Tripolis, Damascus and Ptolemais, and in Cos he set a yearly endowment for the gymnasiarch. In year 12 BCE, as a reward for his munifi cence in providing funds for the Olympic Games, Herod was awarded the title of perpetual president (agônothetês) of the games. In the private sphere his palaces were provided with swimming pools ( Jericho, Hyrcania, Masada), and sailing pools ( Jericho, Herodium). The remains of Herodian theatres and amphitheatres are examined here. Those at Caesarea (both inaugurated in year 10 BCE) still survive. Other extant structures, like the stadium at Samaria/Sebaste, or the Herodium course, not mentioned by Josephus, are attributed to him by archaeologists. The theatre of Caesarea, stone-built, was of the Roman type; that built earlier in Jerusalem (before 28 BCE), is believed to have been a wooden structure, following the practice prevalent at Rome at that time. Herod’s stone-built “amphitheatre” at Caesarea was a multi-purpose entertainment stadium. It was provided with starting-gates (carceres) to accommodate chariot races (hippika), in addition to the regular athletics ( gymnika). Hence the term hippo-stadium has been coined to designate this type of stadium.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantifying the Popularity of Amphitheatre Spectacles In
    QUANTIFYING THE POPULARITY OF AMPHITHEATRE SPECTACLES IN THE ROMAN WEST: DO AMPHITHEATRE SEATING CAPACITIES INDICATE POPULARITY LEVELS? BY JONATHAN LUKE HACKETT A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of MASTERS OF RESEARCH in ANCIENT HISTORY Department of Classics, Ancient History and Archaeology School of History and Cultures College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham September 2019 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT This thesis aims to determine whether it is possible to quantify the popularity of amphitheatre spectacles in the Roman West. Traditionally, amphitheatre spectacles have been regarded as having experienced widespread popularity, and there has been little in the way of a proper assessment of contemporary levels of popularity in modern scholarship. This work will attempt to tackle this issue, and the popularity of amphitheatre spectacles will be primarily explored through the comparison of amphitheatre seating capacity estimates with their corresponding urban population estimates. Through a number of case studies, this thesis will argue that, instead of the traditionally accepted widespread popularity of amphitheatre spectacles, contemporary levels of popularity were complex, and could differ greatly, depending on time period and region of the Roman West.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Wayne Riverfront Phase 1 Park Foundation Pavilion
    Project Number - 16-0864-Q Page 1 Fort Wayne Riverfront Phase 1 Park Foundation Pavilion Weekly Progress Update for Week Ending 3/24/19 Past Week of Progress * Continue Paint Finishes and Touch-Up Throughout Pavilion Space * Install Pre-Finished Black Trim at T&G Cedar Canopy Soffit * Complete Miscellaneous MEP Finishes for Overhead Inspection * Relocate Baby Changing Table in Family Restroom for Addition of ADA Adult Table * Complete Underground/Overhead Inspection for Trubble Brewery Vendor Area * Complete Installation of Firm Alarm System Finishes Next Week Look Ahead * Install Pre-Finished Black Trim at T&G Cedar Canopy Soffit * Trubble Brewery Vendor Area MEP Underground Inspection and Backfill * Pour Back Floor @ MEP Underground Rough Location @ Trubble Brewery Vendor Area * Complete Miscellaneous MEP Finishes for Overhead Inspection & Fire Alarm Testing * Delivery of Canal Timbers for Event Space Accent Wall * Cut in MEP Finishes Installed in Acoustical Ceiling Tiles Milestone Events * Start Installation of Canal Timbers @ Accent Wall Week of 4/1/19 * Fire Alarm Testing the Week of 4/1/19 Park Foundation Pavilion Progress Photos Project Number - 16-0864-Q Page 2 Fort Wayne Riverfront Phase 1 River Work North/South Shore & Misc. Site Excavation Weekly Progress Update for Week Ending 3/24/19 Past Week of Progress * Form, Prep, and Pour North Seatwall at Sweetwater Bandshell * Backfill for Ramp From Ambassador Ent. Amphitheatre to Old National Bank Plaza * Layout S7AB Upper Stairs and Landing at East Donor Recognition Seating @ Turf * Form, Prep, and Pour W3E,D,C Terraced Seating at Ambassador Ent. Amphitheatre * Form and Pour North Rill Bridge Foundation/Curbs Crossing the Kids Canal * Form, Prep, and Pour S6 Grand Stairs/Landings at Ambassador Ent.
    [Show full text]
  • Hastings Park - PNE Master Plan Program: Amphitheatre Renewal
    REPORT Report Date: June 9, 2021 Contact: Harry Khella Contact No.: 604-829-2087 RTS No.: 14537 VanRIMS No.: 08-2000-20 Meeting Date: June 23, 2021 Submit comments to Council TO: Standing Committee on Policy and Strategic Priorities FROM: City Manager, City of Vancouver President and CEO, Pacific National Exhibition SUBJECT: Hastings Park - PNE Master Plan Program: Amphitheatre Renewal RECOMMENDATION A. THAT Council approve in principle the Amphitheatre Renewal project as outlined in this report. B. THAT Council direct staff to proceed to the planning and design phase of the Amphitheatre Renewal project, and provide Council an update prior to construction. C. THAT, subject to approval of Recommendations A and B, Council approve the addition of $7.1M to the Multi-Year Capital Project Budgets and Annual Expenditure Budgets; sources of funding to be: i. $6.0M from the Capital Financing Fund to be added to the 2019-2022 Capital Plan for the planning and design work and preliminary project infrastructure upgrades associated with the Amphitheatre Renewal Project; and ii. $1.1M from the approved 2019-2022 Capital Plan funding (Hastings Park Reserve) for implementation of Hastings Park Master Plan for site-wide infrastructure renewal. Hastings Park - PNE Master Plan Program: Amphitheatre Renewal – RTS14537 2 REPORT SUMMARY The Hastings Park-PNE Master Plan seeks to renew and transform a great City space, and create a destination area for the residents and visitors of Vancouver. The renewal and upgrade of the Amphitheatre venue will create a world-class outdoor space enabling growth of community and commercial events, establish a vibrant, year-round cultural space, and increase revenues to make the site financially sustainable.
    [Show full text]
  • NIMES ARENA Nimes, Gard, France 1989
    » LIN »Press»download NIMES ARENA Nimes, Gard, France 1989 » » » photographer»:G.Fessy » NAC-01-ESS-LIN-Internal»view»of»the»Nimes»arena © LIN 2012 » LIN »Press»download NIMES ARENA Nimes, Gard, France 1989 » » » image:»LIN » NAC-02-ESS-LIN-UrbanStructure around»the» © LIN 2012 » LIN »Press»download NIMES ARENA Nimes, Gard, France 1989 » » » image:»LIN » NAC-03-ESS-LIN-Cross»ection»of»the»Nimes»arena»and»Construction»of»the»lens»for»the»roof» © LIN 2012 » LIN »Press»download NIMES ARENA Nimes, Gard, France 1989 » » » image:»LIN » NAC-04-ESS-LIN-Floor»plan»of»the»roof»structure © LIN 2012 » LIN »Press»download NIMES ARENA Nimes, Gard, France 1989 » » » image:»LIN » NAC-05-ESS-LIN-Floor»plan»of»the»roof»structure » » » » © LIN 2012 » LIN »Press»download NIMES ARENA Nimes, Gard, France 1989 » » » photographer»:G.Fessy » NAC-06-ESS-Transparency»through»the»structure © LIN 2012 » LIN »Press»download NIMES ARENA Nimes, Gard, France 1989 » » » photographer»:G.Fessy » NAC-07-ESS-LIN-Installation»of»the»canopy»over»the»arena © LIN 2012 » LIN »Press»download NIMES ARENA Nimes, Gard, France 1989 » » » photographer»:G.Fessy » NAC-08-ESS-LIN-Detail»of»the»connecting»plate» » » © LIN 2012 » LIN »Press»download NIMES ARENA Nimes, Gard, France 1989 » » » photographer»:G.Fessy » NAC-09-ESS-LIN-Process»of»inflation»of»the»pneumatic»membrane © LIN 2012 » LIN »Press»download NIMES ARENA Nimes, Gard, France 1989 » » » photographer»:G.Fessy » NAC-10-ESS-LIN-Internal»View»after»installation © LIN 2012 » LIN »Press»download NIMES ARENA Nimes, Gard, France 1989 » » » photographer»:G.Fessy » NAC-11-ESS-LIN-New»roof»amidst»the»surroundings © LIN 2012 » LIN »Press»download NIMES ARENA Nimes, Gard, France 1989 ROMAN ARENA In December 1988 the ancient arena of Nîmes is for the first time covered with temporary roofing – a lens-shaped pneumatic form commissioned for winter-season use.
    [Show full text]
  • An Aesthetic Solution for a Pedestrian Bridge
    Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov • Vol. 11 (60) Special Issue No. 1 - 2018 Series I: Engineering Sciences AN AESTHETIC SOLUTION FOR A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE L. TODUȚI1 E. PETZEK2 G. ISPĂȘOIU3 M. TODUȚI4 5 R. BĂNCILĂ Abstract: This paper presents a short overview of the process of choosing a suitable and original solution for a steel concrete composite footbridge crossing the Bega river in Timisoara. Its special shape fits harmoniously in the environment of the main project, the solid body of the bridge will be covered with COR-TEN® steel envelope. By choosing a rational and efficient solution, an economic, aesthetic and sustainable structure has emerged, having an emblematic character for the locality. Key words: pedestrian bridge, arch, integral structure, SSF-Rapid systems. 1. Introduction A pedestrian bridge is the best symbol for the art of Civil Engineering, representing the simplest and most elegant structure to pass an obstacle. Pedestrian bridges are constructions of social importance, especially in the case of historic sites and crowded part of towns. These structures will become a "witnesses of the past" [1], that is why the engineer together with the architect must conceive technical monuments with emblematic character. Then, the duty of the administration is to maintain them in service in proper conditions. Sustainable development is a fundamental objective of the European Union and it is designed to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It seeks to continuously improve the quality of life and well-being of present and future generations through an integrated approach between economic development and environmental protection [2].
    [Show full text]
  • 44 - Colosseum (Flavian Amphitheater)
    44 - Colosseum (Flavian Amphitheater) Rome, Italy. Imperial Rome. 70-80 CE., Stone and concrete Video at Khan Academy: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-art-history/ancient- mediterranean-ap/ap-ancient-rome/v/colosseum-amphitheatrum-flavium-c-70-80-c-e-rome it is the largest amphitheatre ever built and is considered one of the greatest works of architecture and engineering. constructed by emperors of the Flavian dynasty could hold, it is estimated, between 50,000 and 80,000 spectators,[6][7] having an average audience of some 65,000 used for gladiatorial contests and public spectacles such as mock sea battles, animal hunts, executions, re-enactments of famous battles, and dramas based on Classical mythology partially ruined because of damage caused by devastating earthquakes and stone-robbers [The name Colosseum has long been believed to be derived from a colossal statue of Nero nearby (in turn, named after the Colossus of Rhodes) – name started around 1000 CE Statue lasted well in the medieval era – changed heads with different emperors Was built “symbolically and precisely at the heart of Rome” Built with jewish ‘booty’ of war along with work from 100,000 jewish prisoners over 9,000 wild animals were killed during the inaugural games The interior of the amphitheater was extensively stripped of stone, which was reused elsewhere, or (in the case of the marble façade) was burned to make quicklime In 1749, Pope Benedict XIV endorsed the view that the Colosseum was a sacred site where early Christians had been martyred - - - However, there is no historical evidence to support Benedict's claim its basic exterior and interior architecture from that of two Roman theatres back to back.
    [Show full text]
  • Verona Arena Or Amphitheatre
    Greek and Roman Theatres in Mediterranean area International Seminar Tuesday 11th June | Wednesday 12th June 2019 Palazzo Badoer, Aula Tafuri Giada Cavaggion, Filippo Cecchinato, Leonardo Cosaro, and Francesco Pasinato Verona Arena or Amphitheatre The Arena of Verona is a roman amphitheatre located in piazza Bra in Verona, Italy. It is considered one of the biggest building of roman architecture and also one of the best conserved thanks to the restorations made during the VI century. It is possible to compare the Arena with the Amphitheatre of Pola as they are similar from the stylistic aspect and for the technical ones, too. Today the aspect of the monument is more different from the original one. The Ala is the only piece remained from the original façade, composed by four arches. The ala is necessary a monumental façade: its arches show empty spaces under the cavea, while the huge pillars summarize the internal line of structure. The three overlapped arches gave the idea of the existence of two galleries and a superior colonnade, while architraves completed the arches of the internal galleries. In this way the internal structure finds an esthetical and spatial expression. At the moment there aren’t any statues in the amphitheatre. All the finds are kept at the Archaeological Museum and Lapidario Maffeiano Museum in Verona. There are different opinions regarding the date of construction. Since the Arena is similar to the Amphitheatre of Pola, in act is supposed that they were designed from the same architect. The construction of Amphitheatre of Pola is dated during the Augusteo period, so it is probably that arena was made in the same period.
    [Show full text]
  • Roman Amphitheatres, Theatres and Circuses Introductions to Heritage Assets Summary
    Roman Amphitheatres, Theatres and Circuses Introductions to Heritage Assets Summary Historic England’s Introductions to Heritage Assets (IHAs) are accessible, authoritative, illustrated summaries of what we know about specific types of archaeological site, building, landscape or marine asset. Typically they deal with subjects which have previously lacked such a published summary, either because the literature is dauntingly voluminous, or alternatively where little has been written. Most often it is the latter, and many IHAs bring understanding of site or building types which are neglected or little understood. This IHA provides an introduction to Roman amphitheatres, theatres and circuses – the three principal classes of purpose-built entertainment structure in the Roman world, which are all represented in Britain. Amphitheatres are all either oval or elliptical in plan. Roman theatres, such as the Gosbecks Farm site near Colchester, are semi-circular structures. The Roman circus generally consisted of an elongated oval track surrounded by tiers of seating along both its long sides and one, curved, end. Descriptions of the asset type as well as its associations and a brief chronology are included. A list of in-depth sources on the topic is suggested for further reading. This document has been prepared by Tony Wilmott and edited by Joe Flatman and Pete Herring. It is one of a series of 41 documents. This edition published by Historic England October 2018. All images © Historic England unless otherwise stated. Please refer to this document as: Historic England 2018 Roman Amphitheatres, Theatres and Circuses: Introductions to Heritage Assets. Swindon. Historic England. https://www.historicengland.org.uk/listing/selection-criteria/scheduling-selection/ihas- archaeology/ Front cover Detail of reconstruction painting of the London amphitheatre.
    [Show full text]