It depends on what you are comparing it to. From a modem perspective it would be almost impossibly filthy, with very little understanding of sanitation. But from a premodern perspective, given its size, not so bad, actually. The aqueducts provided a large amount of fresh water, and the system of water castles moved this water to all sectors of the city. For street cleaning, the fountains may have provided a degree of "flushing", there were well built sewers, and there was a degree of civic concern your street cleaning.

Now, it really cannot be stressed enough that this is still very far from Copenhagen. It's less "good" than "could be worse".

In Rome, bathing was considered an activity of leisure and entertainment. By 400 C.E. Rome had over 1000 public bath houses, it was common for most towns to have at least one public bath house. Many private residences would maintain private bathing areas, whose size was cause for comment. Seneca the Younger who lived a little closer to the time period you are mentioning visited Scipio Africanus 250 year old house and was surprised by how "tiny and dingy it was" representing to him the older values of Rome where comfort and ease was not encouraged. It was said during Scipio's time you only needed to wash your arms and legs every day because those were the only things that got dirty from farm work, everything else could be washed once a week.

By 100 CE Bath houses had become incredible structures often sponsored by the emperors and becoming lavish areas. They would contain grassy areas to wrestle and exercise, eating areas, places to drink, prostitutes, hot baths, cold baths, steam rooms. In 100 CE right around the time you asked about, Emperor Trajan built The Baths of Trajan which he converted from Nero's palace on Oppian Hill.

Source: As the Romans did : a source book in Roman social history />Jo-Ann Shelton.New York : Oxford University Press, 1988. Source: The inadequacy of Scipio Africanus' baths, Seneca the Younger Letters.