I find it amusing that the US statue of liberty was a contendor when the original (and several other 'knock-offs') are in Paris.

I don't see what the big deal about the colosseum in Rome is. I would put Angkor Wat in its place. I can't say for anything else since I haven't seen them.

quote:

Originally posted by chrissy2k5:
I find it amusing that the US statue of liberty was a contendor when the original (and several other 'knock-offs') are in Paris.

Which "original" do you mean? The famous Parisian statue by the Eiffel Tower went up three years after the one in NYC. There are apparently smaller models which may predate the NYC statue, but it's pretty obvious why these wouldn't be candidates for the list ... they're roughly 1/50th scale.

Then there's that whole urban legend thing ...

The Statue of Liberty has a globally-understood symbolic value that its sisters (and even Cristo Redentor) lack.

quote:

Originally posted by Continental Op:
The Statue of Liberty has a globally-understood symbolic value that its sisters (and even Cristo Redentor) lack.

And that too, of course!

One that I think doesn't really belong is Machu Picchu (although I'm not implying the other 6 belong or that lists like this are even valid).

Machu Picchu is really just ruins of a primitive settlement that from an engineering standpoint were WAY behind the times. The things that make them interesting are the breathtaking location, their remoteness combined with the romantic notion that hiking into a place makes it more special than driving to the same place, and the fact that they were hidden for a couple centuries (just like loads of other ruins).

If those ruins were on the outskirts of Lima they would barely make it in the guidebooks. But if you add in all the things that have nothing to do with their age or the structures themselves, people go crazy for the place.

Hi

I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusion when it comes to Machu Picchu. Some of the stones that are used up there are huge and I don't think they came from the site where Machu Picchu is located. And the Inca walls are also beautiful and the rocks are put on top of each other with great precision. Well, I was impressed by it when I was there but yes, the location does make it into something spesial :-)

Eh. It was built in the 15th century CE, so it doesn't exactly shine next to its contemporaries. Even if you compare the site to societies from similar periods of development (35th century BCE Mesopotamia, Bronze Age Greece, 5th century CE China, etc), it isn't impressive.

It is the romantic allure surrounding the site's location and rediscovery that makes it a wonder. It is certainly a wonderful archaeological treasure. I've always enjoyed it.

i think i have to stand up for chichen itza a bit. its the only one of the 7 that i have been to so far. i saw it on my first trip when i was 14 in mexico. its a pretty impressive place. but im definately biased, because that trip, and seeing chichen itza are a huge part of my interest in travel. it was eye opening.

This is one reason why Machu Picchu wins...












As for Cristo...signs like this -- this one at the largest church in Sao Paulo




silly contest...

Wow! If only a few of those organizers had been around to help out with the last few US elections...

They were pushing Chichen Itza hard when I was there a few months ago, too. (Am I the only one who expected it to be more impressive than it was?!)

I think the list is a cool idea (esp for us, since we love travel and talking about it) but meaningless. Even if that place in Mali was the greatest wonder in the world, it still would have lost.

quote:

Originally posted by Felix:
As much as I love Rio, there's no way Cristo Redentor belongs on the list. It's an ugly, crude, poorly-executed concrete statute on a hill. No artistic genius to it, nothing other than brute force to get it there; the entire beauty of the thing derives from its natural location.

The thing is that it represents the Creator of that location