The New 7 Wonders Of The World !

[A_Traveller]

This programme has been running for about 6 years. there was some linkage to the UN at one stage, but it was never formalised, so they couldn't use the UNESCO list as a source, for example. Ultimately a group of international architects and specialists drafted a list of, if memory serves, some 77 which over time was publicly whittled down to the present 21(?) open for voting. Several organisations have been involved in this including the BBC. It has had a lot of coverage in Europe and in fact was criticised for being euro-centric.

Oddly enough I can't access the site today. Get 404 after the splash.

Regards

[dantilley]

This programme has been running for about 6 years. there was some linkage to the UN at one stage, but it was never formalised, so they couldn't use the UNESCO list as a source, for example. Ultimately a group of international architects and specialists drafted a list of, if memory serves, some 77 which over time was publicly whittled down to the present 21(?) open for voting. Several organisations have been involved in this including the BBC. It has had a lot of coverage in Europe and in fact was criticised for being euro-centric.

Oddly enough I can't access the site today. Get 404 after the splash.

Regards

Yeah, I think it must have been this scheme that I remember voting for before a few years ago, but back then there was the full list of 77 candidates. Site looked a bit different too.

Another thing which is odd is that they only allow one "wonder" per country. Why? It shouldn't matter where the monument is located as to it's criteria for being a 7th wonder of the world. This means that some countries littered with potential candidates, such as India and China, can only get one in each.

[Payboy]

i would've voted for suvarnabhumi - being at the centre of the universe and all, it's a pity that it's not in the list....

[Kerryd]

Another thing which is odd is that they only allow one "wonder" per country. Why? It shouldn't matter where the monument is located as to it's criteria for being a 7th wonder of the world. This means that some countries littered with potential candidates, such as India and China, can only get one in each.

Do you recall if there was more than one entry per country in the original list of 77 ?

Too bad they don't have a link to that list. Would have been interesting to see which places were weeded out.

As for the one entry per country thing. Yeah, I think ugly old politics had a hand in that again. Too many selections from one country might result in the lack of interest (and therefore revenue) from other countries.

For example, take out the Statue of Liberty (USA) and insert the Sphinx (Egypt). Much better choice in my opinion, but to do so would result in a distinct lack of interest from many Americans, and not a whole lot more interest from Egyptians (not enough to cover potential lost revenue from the decline in USA voters).

Take out the Sydney Opera House and insert the Blue Mosque in Istanbul. Same result. While it might be a better choice as a candidate, it probably wouldn't generate the same revenue (from phone calls, SMS messages and Certificate sales).

I think the Forbidden Palace in Beijing would be a better choice than the Eiffel tower as well. Not sure how well this N7W is marketed in China though.

[A_Traveller]

The two links below give an overview of the press coverage, and a Times article from 2004.

Regards

Press coverage

Times London Article

[dantilley]

Another thing which is odd is that they only allow one "wonder" per country. Why? It shouldn't matter where the monument is located as to it's criteria for being a 7th wonder of the world. This means that some countries littered with potential candidates, such as India and China, can only get one in each.

Do you recall if there was more than one entry per country in the original list of 77 ?

Too bad they don't have a link to that list. Would have been interesting to see which places were weeded out.

As for the one entry per country thing. Yeah, I think ugly old politics had a hand in that again. Too many selections from one country might result in the lack of interest (and therefore revenue) from other countries.

For example, take out the Statue of Liberty (USA) and insert the Sphinx (Egypt). Much better choice in my opinion, but to do so would result in a distinct lack of interest from many Americans, and not a whole lot more interest from Egyptians (not enough to cover potential lost revenue from the decline in USA voters).

Take out the Sydney Opera House and insert the Blue Mosque in Istanbul. Same result. While it might be a better choice as a candidate, it probably wouldn't generate the same revenue (from phone calls, SMS messages and Certificate sales).

I think the Forbidden Palace in Beijing would be a better choice than the Eiffel tower as well. Not sure how well this N7W is marketed in China though.

Yes, there definitely were multiple entries for some countries in the list of 77 before. In fact I saw the full list only yesterday, can't find the link now though unfortunately.

In India you could have Jantar Mantar in Jaipur, and for sure the Teracotta Army in China would be a contender, as well as the Forbidden City (Palace?) you mentioned. But these can't be in because of the (admittedly also very worthy, of course) Great Wall and Taj Mahal.

[Tinkelbell]

i would've voted for suvarnabhumi - being at the centre of the universe and all, it's a pity that it's not in the list....

Payboy, You're just joking around right ?

... LOL , we need a good laugh in the middle of summer heat. Thanks.

[Jet Gorgon]

Ya, well this group is out of Lisbon, Kerryd. I would have thought Xian and the terra cotta warriors besides the GW.

[Payboy]

i would've voted for suvarnabhumi - being at the centre of the universe and all, it's a pity that it's not in the list....

Payboy, You're just joking around right ?

... LOL , we need a good laugh in the middle of summer heat. Thanks.

i'm not joking - of course!

it's also the only steel, glass & concrete structure that shrunk after the 1st rains - so why isn't it in the guiness book?

[keebone]

Nothing in Thailand to stand even a remote chance of being a true 7 wonder of the world site.

Hagia Sophia has to be among the favourites, it was the most advanced building in the world by far when built some 1500 years ago. Just a shame how it was desecrated so barbarically in 1453 and subsequently.

[Kerryd]

Still 2 days to go before the voting closes. Their link to the current rankings is also broken

Makes me wonder just how "honest" the final scoring will be. If we could see the rankings as the days go by, it would be kind of hard for the "selection committee" to announce a different set of "winners".

With the rankings page link out of order, come the 7th of July, they can announce who ever they want as being the top vote getters, and who's to know any different ?

[mrbojangles]

I see The Rovers Return (Coronation Street) didn't make the list again

I agree about the Forbidden City (Beijing)

[Zeid]

PETRA JORDAN

i had to write it in big maybe to grab some attention, even though i am not on good terms with my country i still have to give Petra the right of way on the 7 wonders why?

it is a city carved in stone all by hand by the nipties, and when the romanians tried conquering it they could not because teh seek that is about 3km long is teh only passage into petra and it only fits a few people side by side so no army could go in.

now teh source of water was magnificent on the side of the side of the seek you will see little canals that used to get the water to teh city, and there was also another well in eth back of the city, anyway after many months the romans figuered it out and cut the water off and then it fell down, so now it combines the original working of king rebel and teh roman architecture.

there are a few pics of when my wife was there. her first time ever on a camel and a horse.

http://nabataea.net/petra.html

http://www.visitjordan.com/

and many more on google and indaina joans has filmed there Last crusade

if any are interested to see the lines of the carvings i have soem detailed picture that show that. also that last pis is to show teh structure of the stone.

[Kerryd]

PETRA JORDAN

i had to write it in big maybe to grab some attention, even though i am not on good terms with my country i still have to give Petra the right of way on the 7 wonders why?

Thanks for the background on Petra. I remembered it from the movie, but didn't know much about it.

I would certainly rank Petra higher than many of the other "candidates" currently on the list.

While it's too late to change the list of candidates being voted on, I do think I will write some "strongly worded" letters to the selection committee. By adding recent examples of (fairly) modern architecture to the list, it kind of debases the whole aura of the 7 Wonders.

I don't think anyone, anywhere would look at the Statue of Liberty, the Eiffel Tower or the Sydney Opera House with the same kind of awe and wonder as they would looking at the Pyramids, Angkor Wat or a place like Petra.

edit/ to fix sizing error in quoted post

Edited July 5, 2007 by Kerryd

[Kerryd]

Voting has closed now, and the story was in CNN this morning.

Apparently there was such a flurry of last-minute voting that the website crashed a couple of times.

The "winners" are supposed to be announced at the "star-studded" gala tonight in Lisbon (early Sunday morning Thai time ?). Some of the guests/performers at this gala include Jennifer Lopez, Chaka Khan, Hilary Swank, Ben Kingsley as well as Bollywood star Bipasha Basu.

CNN Story: Countdown begins for new 7 wonders of world

(wang-kers, the "count-down" began a long time ago. We're just waiting for the results now)

Just looked at the N7W webpage, in one spot, they have this:

"Our world is full of cultural and natural wonders. Bookmark this page and come back to New7Wonders as we are planning a new exiting campaign." (my bolding and underlining)

A "new exiting" campaign ? Sounds like they are planning on taking the money and running !

Maybe a new "exciting" campaign is what they meant. What next ? The New 7 Not So Great Wonders of the World ? (Got to keep it going until the Statue of Liberty wins some kind of award) !

[dantilley]

Results are in. The New 7 Wonders of the World are:

Chichén Itzá, Mexico

Christ Redeemer, Brazil

The Great Wall, China

Machu Picchu, Peru

Petra, Jordan

The Roman Colloseum, Italy

The Taj Mahal, India

Can't really argue too much with that list, glad that unworthy contenders such as the Eiffel Tower and the Sydney Opera House didn't make it. It's a shame Angkor Wat didn't get in though - I'd put that instead of Christ Redeemer, perhaps, to make it a near perfect list.

Edited July 8, 2007 by dantilley

[Mobi]

I'm no expert on this kind of thing, and don't want to get into a big debate, but I have been to Chichen Itza, The collosium, The Taj Mahal and also some of those that didn't make it, including Stone Henge, the Eiffel Tower and Sydney Opera House.

Chichen Itza is quite incredible, especially bearing in mind how old it is, and may well deserve to be in the list.

But IMHO, I can't see how the Angkor complex cannot also be included. When all is said and done, Chitchen Itza is a single structure, whereas Angkor a whole city absolutely swarming with incredible structures covering an area of 77 square miles. It took 600 hundred years to build, and is truly the most incredible thing I personally have ever seen. It is Chitchen Itza times about 100.

MY understanding is that the Mexican, and some other governments, campaigned like crazy for their candidates to be included and conducted huge PR campaigns to persuade their populace to vote over and over again.

I doubt whether too many people in Cambodia even knew what was going on.

But there again - maybe it's just as well, as Angkor is already being ruined by out of control tourists and unscrupulous tour operators.

[dantilley]

But IMHO, I can't see how the Angkor complex cannot also be included. When all is said and done, Chitchen Itza is a single structure, whereas Angkor a whole city absolutely swarming with incredible structures covering an area of 77 square miles. It took 600 hundred years to build, and is truly the most incredible thing I personally have ever seen. It is Chitchen Itza times about 100.

It was just Angkor Wat on the original contenders list, not all the rest of the Angkor Temples. I think each wonder had to be one site, or one "thing" - Bayon, Tha Phrom, etc. are all really separate sites from the main one, Angkor Wat, which is the one you could vote for. I think Angkor Wat on its own is definitely worthy though.

[chinthee]

But IMHO, I can't see how the Angkor complex cannot also be included. When all is said and done, Chitchen Itza is a single structure, whereas Angkor a whole city absolutely swarming with incredible structures covering an area of 77 square miles. It took 600 hundred years to build, and is truly the most incredible thing I personally have ever seen. It is Chitchen Itza times about 100.

It was just Angkor Wat on the original contenders list, not all the rest of the Angkor Temples. I think each wonder had to be one site, or one "thing" - Bayon, Tha Phrom, etc. are all really separate sites from the main one, Angkor Wat, which is the one you could vote for. I think Angkor Wat on its own is definitely worthy though.

I agree completely and would drop Christ Redeemer. I've seen both, there is no comparison. But, again, I guess it's a representative population advertising thing too.

[dantilley]

But IMHO, I can't see how the Angkor complex cannot also be included. When all is said and done, Chitchen Itza is a single structure, whereas Angkor a whole city absolutely swarming with incredible structures covering an area of 77 square miles. It took 600 hundred years to build, and is truly the most incredible thing I personally have ever seen. It is Chitchen Itza times about 100.

It was just Angkor Wat on the original contenders list, not all the rest of the Angkor Temples. I think each wonder had to be one site, or one "thing" - Bayon, Tha Phrom, etc. are all really separate sites from the main one, Angkor Wat, which is the one you could vote for. I think Angkor Wat on its own is definitely worthy though.

I agree completely and would drop Christ Redeemer. I've seen both, there is no comparison. But, again, I guess it's a representative population advertising thing too.

Yeah, with a country the size of Brazil all voting for it, it couldn't really fail to make the top 7. Not really the correct way to do things though, of course: if I was back in the UK I wouldn't have been clamouring to vote for Stonehenge as I don't think it's impressive enough to be a wonder of the world, and I wouldn't be blindly voting for it just because it's British. Seems not everyone shared that opinion though...

So, a slightly flawed survey, but still 5 or 6 of the 7 are definitely amazing monuments that deserve to be on the list. Not a bad ratio really.

Edited July 8, 2007 by dantilley

[Kerryd]

Good to see that most of the ones I voted for (6 of 7) made it.

I too would have preferred Angkor to Christ Redeemer, but as previously mentioned, politics and national sentiment seemed to have a higher value than cultural and historic significance.

Interesting to read in one article that 3 of the worst choices (Eiffel Tower, Statue of Liberty and Sidney Opera House), were pretty much at the bottom of the lists all the way through. Wonder if they'll take that into consideration when they plan their "next exciting campaign" ?