The new 7 wonders of the world

Jul 7th, 2007, 03:34 PM
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,260
The new 7 wonders of the world

The new 7 wonders of the World:
The Great Wall (China)
City of Petra (Jordan)
Statue of Christ Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
Machu Picchu (Peru)
Pyramid of Chichien Itza (Mexico)
Colosseum of Rome (Italy)
Taj Mahal (India)
This is a UN sponsored initiative, voted by more than 100 million around the world in the 1st global initiative of this kind.
The results were revealed today in a great show today in Benfica Stadion (Lisbon)
lobo_mau is offline  
Jul 7th, 2007, 04:01 PM
  #2  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,400
Well, I've only seen 2 of the 7 (Great Wall and Colosseum) so I guess seeing the rest is something to aim for!
Kristina is offline  
Jul 7th, 2007, 04:06 PM
  #3  
rex
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,194
I thought about posting a question on this recently, asking "have you voted?"

Ultimately, over-analyzing as I am wont to do... I decided not to vote, because it felt too much like continents pitted one against each other. I wanted them to have a seven wonders for _each_ continent - - though admittedly, I was hard impressed to think what would be the candidates from Africa (Egypt notwithstanding)... and...gasp! - - from North America!

Anyhow... Euro-phile brethren... what do you think about only one candidate from Europe "making it"? What might have been on your "other six" list for Europe? My eyes rolled at the nomination of Stonehenge (which I have not visited) and Neuschwanstein (which I have).

(the other four from Europe were Eiffel Tower, Acropolis, Alhambra and Kremlin/St Basils Cathedral).

Two of my nominations would have been Versailles and Koelner Dom (Cologne Cathedral)... but also maybe the Pantheon (Rome, not Paris) and/or St Peters Basilica. Or why not the entire city of Venice?

Do we have _any_ candidates in the US (Statue of Liberty was a nominee... Golden Gate Bridge? Hoover Dam? Hearst Castle? Biltmore Estate?)

Inquiring minds may or may not give a hoot about this...

Best wishes,

Rex
rex is offline  
Jul 7th, 2007, 04:13 PM
  #4  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,977
I have seen all of those listed. What amazed me was the fact that the Taj Mahal stands on river mud. Built in the 17th century, this building and its equally stunning outlying structures show no sign of settling or cracking.

Where is The Great Pyramid of Egypt?

Where is the Eiffel Tower?

Where is the Panama Canal?

Where is the fortress at Sachsehuaman?

Where is the central temple of Angkor Wat?

Very subjective, very incomplete.
USNR is offline  
Jul 7th, 2007, 04:28 PM
  #5  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,227
The great Piramyds of Egipt were not in the bid They are the only ones remaining from the "Seven Wonders of the Ancient World" so..they are still wonders
I haven't voted..I feel it an unfair "competition". I would have prefer that art and history experts would have chosen them. They way they have elected them..the bigger the country...the bigger the votes.
I personally think the Statue of Rio and the Colosseum shouldn't be there.
If Italy has to be, as rex says, the Pantheon would have been much more suitable. But I miss more Stonehenge and the Pascua Island statues.
I knew Alhambra wasn't going to be there. This event is not about uniqueness or artistic or historic value.
kenderina is offline  
Jul 7th, 2007, 04:44 PM
  #6  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 965
I can't understand why the Eifel Tower and the Sydney Opera House were among the finalists!!!

I am Portuguese and before the New 7 Wonders of the World show we had an election of the Portugal 7 Wonders. I can tell you that many of them could easily be among the finalists of the New 7 Wonders of the World!
( without any kind of patriotism, just my judging) .

Anyway, I agreed with all of the new wonders except for the Chichen Itza. I think Angkor Wat should have been elected.
Tere is offline  
Jul 7th, 2007, 08:39 PM
  #7  
PMB
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 81
Why wouldn't the Grand Canyon be considered a natural wonder over the Eiffel Tower or other man made wonders?
PMB is offline  
Jul 7th, 2007, 11:00 PM
  #8  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 21,205
This is a UN sponsored initiative.

Absolutely not. UNESCO was against this initiative. And since multiple voting was allowed, the list is a sham.

How could Angkor Wat not be on such a list?
kerouac is offline  
Jul 7th, 2007, 11:33 PM
  #9  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 506
I am not thrilled with the list either. The Colosseum? Nah. Statue of Christ? Nah. I would prefer to see the Alhambra, Grand Canyon and Angkor Wat.
SloJan2 is offline  
Jul 8th, 2007, 02:56 AM
  #10  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,135
Ok, I am from Brazil, but has anybody here been to Corcovado, where the Statue of Christ the Redeemer stands? The view of Rio from there is just gorgeous, marvelous, a wonder in itself, let alone all the trouble of building the huge statue on top of a mountain back in the early 1930's.

Besides the Rio Statue and the Pyramids of Egypt, which are "hors concours", the only other "wonder" I have had the pleasure to visit was the Colosseum of Rome. I loved it, but mainly for its historical, rather than its architectural value, though it is also magnificent in that way.

I am hoping to get to Machu Picchu next year. Have been to the `yramids of the Sun and Moon in Tula, and to the one in Cholula, Mexico, but still have not made it to Chichen Itza. Would love to see the Taj Mahal and the Great Wall, maybe someday...
Brazilnut is offline  
Jul 8th, 2007, 03:05 AM
  #11  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 965
Brazilnut, congratulations for the election of the Cristo Redentor. I was in Rio de Janeiro twice and I loved it. Only being there can one see its beauty, so it was one of my favourites.
Tere is offline  
Jul 8th, 2007, 03:56 AM
  #12  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,838
The problem with this was always that nationalism gets in the way of objectivity. I believe there were major campaigns to get schoolchildrn to vote for "their" nations wonder.

I also objected to the reports of the Vatican complaining of an "anti christian bias" because the Sistine chapel was not included.

My own biased view says that Cichien Itza is not nearly as impressive as the great pyramids in Egypt. That Manchu Picchu is merely a ruined town in a pretty setting.

Christ the redeemer is another interesting statue in a great setting - probably less impressive as a creation then the Statue of Liberty.

willit is online now  
Jul 8th, 2007, 05:26 AM
  #13  
ira
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,111
7 wonders of the Modern world?

Great Wall built between 5th Cty BC and 17th AD. Most famous part about 200 BC.

Petra built from 800 BC to 100 AD

Machu Picchu built about 1460 AD

Chichien Itza built 12th Cty AD

Colosseum of Rome built in 1st Cty AD

Taj Mahal built in 1630


How about some modern wonders?

The Netherlands Dikes

Mount Rushmore
Empire State Building
Golden Gate Bridge
Gateway Arch in St. Louis

Eiffel Tower
Grande Arche de la Défense
(Although I don't care for either.)

The Millenium Dome
The London Eye
(It's a wonder that they haven't been torn down.)

Taipei Financial Center - 1670 ft high

Itaipú Dam: The world's largest hydroelectric plant

etc, etc, etc

ira is offline  
Jul 8th, 2007, 05:55 AM
  #14  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,067

I'd expect that we're all, of course, likely to lean towards the sites we've seen. Same reasons we chose to go see them. That bias admitted, I do admit I had a hard time fathoming how Angkor didn't make the list and Rio's Christ the Redeemer statue did. While it's location may not be everyone's cup of tea, it is the largest religous structure ever built, it's covered head to toe in elaborate handmade carvings, was built by multitudes in only *20 years* and was the center of a major empire.

So using 20th century technology to build a large, but fairly simple statue (from all the photos and films I've seen) on top of a pretty view doesn't quite create the same sense of wonder. Not in my mind at least. May have to go someday and see if I still feel the same way.

However, I am kind of glad Angkor didn't make this popularity driven list. It's really a fragile environment and wouldn't benefit well (although the people might, short term) from a big increase in foot traffic. In the end, it may be best that far more Brazilians own and use computers than do Cambodians. Not sure that theory holds up if the question of why the Statue of Liberty or the Opera House didn't make it, except to say that I'd hope people would have better sense that pick one of those over the alternatives!

Clifton is offline  
Jul 8th, 2007, 06:15 AM
  #15  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,260
These lists are subjective in it's nature but, IMHO if only one European wonder had to be elected, this should be Acropolis (Greece).
My very favourite was Petra, and it was selected.
Even if UNESCO didn't sponsored the initiative (may be I had a wrong selection of words) at least UN gave the initiative a moral sponsorship.
I think the next years will show some more initiatives os this kind, maybe the 7 natural wonders of the world, or the 7 wonders of engineering or the 7 wonders of human achievement.
I don't feel shocked to think that Jordanian royal family of President Lula from Brazil promoted "their" wonders.
As Dulce Pontes and Jose Carreras sung yesterday, there is one world and one people, and it was nice to such different persons on stage promoting the common world culural heritage.
lobo_mau is offline  
Jul 8th, 2007, 07:27 AM
  #16  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 21,205
It is clearly just a marketing operation to get more tourists, but it would have carried more weight if there had been voting restrictions.
kerouac is offline  
Jul 8th, 2007, 07:30 AM
  #17  
rex
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,194
I'm a bit puzzled by mentions of the Grand Canyon. Lists can be anything anyone wants them to be, but they aren't meaningful if they don't have criteria. The criteria in this particular _promotion_ were that the structures were built by humans.

There are plenty of natural wonders of our world - - some suitable for touristic promotion: Grand Canyon, Great Barrier Reef, any of a number of mountains (Everest, Matterhorn, Denali, Fuji, Kilimanjaro) or waterfalls, Ayers Rock, Yosemite Valley, etc...

...and perhaps far more important are those that cannot be visited:

...the atmosphere (and all its subcategory phenomena - - precipitation, winds, currents, lightning, etc), the magnetic pole system of the earth, the oceans and the oceanic biosphere, the tectonic plates, the tilt of the earth's axis, the world's petroleum reserves, magma and the creation/alteration of landforms through vulcanism... and many dozens of different ways to refer to terrestrial life... the most fascinatingly unique "feature" of our planet.

You can expand the criteria to go outside the planet, and make an entirely new list.
rex is offline  
Jul 8th, 2007, 08:54 AM
  #18  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,136
Been to four: Cristo the Redeemer, Colosseum, Chichen Itza and Great Wall.

All the rest are on our trip lists.

There are so many places to choose from, it's hard to narrow it down!

tripgirl is offline  
Jul 8th, 2007, 11:27 AM
  #19  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 965
The New 7 Wonders of Nature started today. You can vote here: http://www.new7wonders.com/
Tere is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy -

FODOR'S VIDEO

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:50 AM.