FatherJack wrote:Actually, they're all rather impressive, but shouldn't a "modern seven wonders" be modern things?
Depends on what you mean by "seven modern wonders". Could be taken to mean seven wonders that are modern, or it could mean seven wonders that are in the modern world. Just because something is in the modern world doesnt mean it has to be new.
Besides, you would then have an even dafter argument about what "modern" means. Ok, something built 3 years ago can be thought of as a modern construction, but what about 20 years ago? or, come to that, 200 years ago: its modern compared to the pyramids.
There were some truly appalling buildings of this type on my undergrad campus... they fit really nicely with the classical Victorian architecture and the two gleaming new Norman Foster buildings...
Think yourself lucky, most of the Leicester Uni buildings were big blocks of concrete. The
Attenborough Tower was particularly special, as it also had a
Patternoster lift (Worst. Idea. Evar.) and "self cleaning windows" that dont. Of course, because the windows are supposed to clean themselves, there also isnt any way for a regular window cleaner to get to them, so most of them are filthy.