The new seven wonders or are they?

Well, to the new Seven wonders. I was a little heartened when UNESCO criticised the initiative by the Swiss businessmen saying it would do nothing for preservation, merely encouraging tourism; not being admitted to vote rankling a bit for me. But it fades. I was struck by the commercialisation of the website, offering me a choice of voting or voting and for two dollars getting a tatty replica of a 'wonder' of my choice. I went for the free route.
Furthermore, a list of only 20? Okay, maybe a limit has to be imposed, but where are the great medieval cathedrals beyond St. Basil's? No bridges (e.g. Golden Gate) or dams (e.g. Three Gorges)? No Forbidden City? Nothing from St. Petersburg? No modern skyscrapers? Okay, so under pressure from the Egyptian government the pyramids were removed from the voting list and made an honourary new seventh wonder, but why not replace it with Ramesses II's rock-cut temple at Abu Simbel or the Valley of the Kings? Richard Rogers and Norman Foster have certainly put up some eye-catching structures. The list is essentially arbitrary.

However, putting this to one side, on to the meat of why I chose: Hagia Sophia, the Great Wall, the Taj Mahal, Angkor Wat, the Eiffel Tower, the Kremlin/Red Square/St. Basil combo and Neuschwanstein Castle. A wonder is a feat of prodigious construction and craftsmanship effort. I didn't go for Stonehenge since a group of Welsh blokes heaving around a few monoliths doesn't really compare to the Great Pyramid at Giza and its fellow pyramids. So, the Welsh druids had a knowledge of astronomy that enabled them to find the right spot to engage the summer solstice, but the Egyptians were a bit handy themselves, the three pyramids said to represent the alignment of Orion's Belt.
The same goes for the Easter Island Statues. That their construction led to deforestation to provide log rollers and the subsequent fall of the civilisation counts heavily against them.

I had no time for the Acropolis for although a masterpiece of the ancient world (and tragically abused since then), it didn't make the original seven wonders cut (on all the lists) and if not good enough in those times, then not now either, unless the new seven wonders are meant to be a sort-of second tier of wonders. Built in 450 B. C., the original compilers of the seven wonders knew plenty about it being Greek themselves and they obviously thought it not worthy of inclusion.

The original seven wonders were monuments, not cities (a clear factor) so I discounted Petra, Kyoto and Timbuktu (though the latter intrigued me). Macchu Picchu is also technically a city. Though a fascinating architectural site, it is mostly ruins which detracts from its wonder status. Anyway, Peruvians and their forebears are used to building at high altitude. I did not go for the Colosseum (AKA the Flavian Amphitheatre) because it could only seat 30,000-40,000 whereas the Circus Maximus built earlier could squeeze in 150,000. The Sydney Opera House is a deservedly famous building, but just looking quirky cannot support wonder status.

I liked the Statue of Liberty as a modern Colossus, but she was knocked up so easily after being shipped across the Atlantic like so much mechano and is not really a substantial structure in the age of mass industrialisation and construction. What the Rhodians did was far more impressive for their time.
Sadly, the Rhodians' hearts were broken when an earthquake snapped the Colossus at its ankles and toppled it into the harbour of the town it built at. A soothsayer advised them not to re-erect it, wisely since in a region prone to large tremors, the next time it might fall on the town, instead of into the sea.
Christ the Redeemer probably is closest to the Colossus in that it welcomes people into Rio de Janeiro, a bustling port, and is a symbol of religious devotion (the original Colossus was that of Apollo; around the later Roman Empire, many colossuses of emperors were established). It fits nicely but if this, why not the Angel of the North, which actually is made of bronze? The ancient compilers did not go "pyramids, tick, colossus, tick," and neither should we. No cities, otherwise Athens and Alexandria would have been bigged up, but the new seven wonders should stand out on their own merits; if they approximate to the function of an ancient wonder so much the better, but they must qualify in their own right.
The same with Chichen Itza, a maginficient pyramid, much like in Egypt (and some radical historians say inspired by the latter) but not only does have to beat off the competition, but could you vote for something that was used for blood sacrifice? I thought about voting for the Alhambra Palace in spain, but I honestly did not know enough about it and so could not commit myself to it. If one day I saw it, I might be disappointed and not think it a wonder.

So to my choices. Remember, prodigious construction and craftsmanship. Hagia Sophia was always going to be for me. My love of the Oriental mystique of the Byzantine Empire and that at the time of its construction in the 530s A.D. it was the greatest church in Christendom, stands the Church of Holy Wisdom in good stead.
Angkor Wat is an amazing temple complex reflecting the medieval Cambodian/Buddhist view of the cosmos. It never ceases to fascinate.
The Great Wall is prominent not just for its length but how it overcame unforgiving, undulating terrain, something one can only appreciate by standing on it, and this ranks it highly. This is a structure that has evolved over 2,500 years. The most visible parts are of the Ming era and the task was gruelling since countless workers died on constructing it and were built into the wall - the grandest of all tombs. I am also happy to include it, for as a bonus, it reflects one of the original wonders of the world - the Great Wall of Babylon, Ishtar Gate and all (displaced by a later compiler to include the Pharos or Lighthouse of Alexandria, which had not been built at the time of the first list).
Next, with the Eiffel Tower, this is a far more impressive monument than the Statue of Liberty. Incredibly, it was only meant to be a temporary building, to be taken down once the 100th anniversary celebrations of the 1789 French Revolution were over. It survived again in 1914 when explosive charges were laid to blow it up were the Germans to take Paris. It might have been dwarfed had British plans to build a tower three times taller at Wembley come to fruition, though bankruptcy of the company prevailed after only the first stage had been built and Wembley Stadium was built instead. La Tour Eiffel is one of the pre-eminent structures of the industrial and any age.
Then we come to the Taj Mahal, a building and gardens that are achingly beautiful. Built for a Mughal emperor as a tomb to honour his dead wife, it reflects the Mausoleum of Mausollus, but stands on its own greatness and is something that is instantly recognised across the world, even without the Indian media campaign to enure its inclusion in the new list. Well worth wonder status.
The last two I was not so sure about, but by a process of elimination, they stood out. Neuschwanstein Castle, the fairytale fort surrounded by dense forest and crystal lakes, certainly arrests the eye. It is the product of whimsical genius. Sadly, Prince Ludwig II of Bavaria, whose brainchild this was, barely got to live in it. The Kremlin/Red Square/ St. Basil complex is a lot smaller in real life than one imagines it, as I can testify to, but it is the jewel of Moscow, full of interest with stunning architectural vistas abounding.

The popular vote went to: the Great Wall, the Taj Mahal, the Colosseum, Petra, Christ the Redeemer, Chichen Itza and Macchu Picchu. Not all my choices as in the reasons given above, but I'm sure people had their own motivations.
And so after a Wonders analysis, I end a blog that is a mini Wonder in itself.