The New 7 Wonders

micky wrote: actually.... the Coloseum was not partially destroyed by time.  In the 16th Century the aristocratic families of Rome used sites like the Coloseum as 'quarries' for their own homes.  It wasn't time that partially destoyed it.

I believe that's how the Great Wall of China has been partially destroyed, too. 

cuncuna wrote: Ok, so time is kicking my behind... ¿Am I complainig?... and, ¿people all over the world is worried about it?. No. ¿Why don't you prog archives people take the issue of my destruction more seriously and quit thinking about this random list of things that are worth seeing, listed or not?.

hmmmm....I love this game...

are you.....

the amazon rainforest?

Philéas wrote: I couldn't vote because the site didn't work for me. But these are pretty good choices, except for Colosseum, which I don't agree with really.

It's always amazed me that the Colosseum gets all the attention, yet a larger and better preserved amphitheatre such as that in El Djem, central Tunisia has always been ignored:





We've have been there a few times, and it's spectacular; Vicky maintains the state of preservation far exceeds that of it's more famous counterpart in Rome, with the added bonus of virtually no tourism & certainly no traffic. One of the great forgotten monuments...

micky wrote: Philéas wrote: I couldn't vote because the site didn't work for me. But these are pretty good choices, except for Colosseum, which I don't agree with really. oh really.... how many  years has that stood... nearly 2000 years a wonder of world indeed ...a testament to Roman engineering.

Myself I find the Colosseum as being at the middle of the road between a pile of rocks and an architectural monument. Just look at it. On the other hand, there's the Pantheon. A huge building, that would be difficult to build even with today's technology. It massively displays a fundamental architectural element that was invented by the romans and testifies their engineering genius: a dome. And unlike the Colosseum, it's perfectly preserved, despite having this much more complex, and theoretically fragile, structure.

   

andu wrote: micky wrote: Philéas wrote: I couldn't vote because the site didn't work for me. But these are pretty good choices, except for Colosseum, which I don't agree with really. oh really.... how many  years has that stood... nearly 2000 years a wonder of world indeed ...a testament to Roman engineering. Myself I find the Colosseum as being at the middle of the road between a pile of rocks and an architectural monument. Just look at it. On the other hand, there's the Pantheon. A huge building, that would be difficult to build even with today's technology. It massively displays a fundamental architectural element that was invented by the romans and testifies their engineering genius: a dome. And unlike the Colosseum, it's perfectly preserved, despite having this much more complex, and theoretically fragile, structure.

I was blown away seeing that ... nice post.

Probably didn't have the 'pizaz' factor. Even some cat down in North Carolina would recognize the Coloseum for what it is... while some might think the Pantheon was the state house in Raleigh

micky wrote: I was blown away seeing that ... nice post. Probably didn't have the 'pizaz' factor. Even some cat down in North Carolina would recognize the Coloseum for what it is... while some might think the Pantheon was the state house in Raleigh

Thank you, but the credit is due to the romans rather than the post.
You do have a good point - there aren't many things that resemble the Colosseum, like so many neo-classical or pseudo-classical buildings resemble the Pantheon.
Anyway, my personal choice would have been the Saint Sophia in Constantinopole: pretty old (6th century, late Roman era), great architectural solution (a dome over a basilic) and very difficult to achieve (actually it was so difficult, that the first attempt failed - the first dome crashed after the opening) with the time's technology, very beautiful to the eye (superb mosaics included), and with high spiritual relevance for now two, not just one, major religions.

7 seems a bit of an arbitrary number to restrict a list of wonders to. Stonehenge beats Christ the Redeemer by a long chalk in my book. Why? Well, lets face it, the latter was built last century out of re-enforced concrete and soapstone. Whoopee doo. What couldn't we do by then? Piece of p*ss. The former was built some 5000 yrs ago out of stone dragged from Wales to England over hill and dale (not to mention the river Severn) and to top it all, the ancient Brits managed to work out how to set it up to be the greatest astronomical device of pre-history, marking the equinoxes to this day. Does it get a look in? No, some bloody great monument to the most imperial religion ever manages to keep an iconic paganist structure from its rightful place. Not for the first time either.

Edited by emdiar - July 11 2007 at 15:15