‘Modern’ (density) vs ‘classical' (density )

While reading Rem Koolhaas’s take and observation of New York and its density, I couldn’t help but compare it to classical architecture and the density of these cities especially Rome’s.  

He makes the observation of metropolitan architecture (New York’s) and how the structures are divorced from their functions - the building might look one way or another but anything could be happening inside the walls. This is an interesting contrast to what I would call the ‘purity’ of classical architecture where ‘what you see’ is what it is. This is true for both materiality and function where one can look at a church and know it’s a church or a school and know it’s a school. This compared to the skyscrapers of New York, where one might be a residential building, office building or both - but you couldn’t tell from just looking at it. That being said, I am appreciative of the different possibilities that this type of construction has allowed to achieve, but I do still wonder whether there isn’t a world where both these types of structures can exist.

Another comparison that comes to mind is between New York City’s density compared to that of Rome’s. I find it interesting that while both cities are on a grid and were meticulously planned, they achieve very different levels and feels of density. Yes, New York is more on the Wild side with its atmosphere, but Rome does provoke a sense of wonder and surprise.