I voted for Machu Pichu so I’m happy to see it there. I’m not quite happy with the entire list though, like I can name at least 3 other places more deserving of the spot over the Colliseum.

Historic sites should be maintained, of course. Even maintenance, however, can be problematic. When I visited Washington, D.C. several years ago, most of the monuments were covered in scaffolding and blue plastic tarpaulins. A “study” was underway on how best to “preserve and restore” the Lincoln Memorial. The study was scheduled to take ten years. The entire monument was originally constructed in less than five! The place is destined to be an eternal construction site, in the name of “maintenance.”

The rambling Moorish castle in Sagunto, Spain, is a similar situation. Parts of it are being “restored” and made “safer” by the liberal application of concrete. The crumbling old ruined sections are quite picturesque; the “restored” sections, complete with metal guardrails, look like cement apartment buildings. It’s sad. I’m glad to have seen it before the “restoration” progresses any further.

If a historic site is rebuilt, is it still the same historic site? Or is it a replica? If an ancient site is reconstructed using modern methods and materials, and made “family-friendly” with guardrails and air-conditioning and electric lighting, is it still an ancient site, or is it a theme-park imitation?

I’ll take crumbling ruins and an interpretive sign over a multi-million dollar restoration, thank you kindly.

i though “The Pyramids of Giza in Egypt” retained its status? bakit wala siya sa list ng new wonders?