I still remember the 2007 vote on iconic global monumentsand the moment the “Seven New Wonders of the World”were finally released. The campaign gathered an authoritative jury， chaired by former UNESCO General Secretary Dr. Federico Mayor Zaragoza of Spain and featuring international renowned architects such as Zaha Hadid of the U.K.， Tadao Ando of Japan， Cesar Pelli of the U.S.， Yung Ho Chang of China， Harry Seidler of Austria and Aziz Tayob of South Africa. Final voting was broadcast live on the internet， and Endemol， the world’s largest TV company， produced a series about it. All in all， voting lasted a year and swept throughout the world.
　　The 21 landmarks to reach the final vote included the Acrop-olis of Athens in Greece， Alhambra of Granada in Spain， Angkor Wat in Cambodia， Chichen Itza in Yucatan， Mexico， Rome’s Colosseum and the Great Wall of China. Except for Paris’s Eiffel Towel， which could be considered a “modern structure，” everything else on the list was historic. This forms a sharp contrast with a phenomenon in many parts of China， where people prefer “new， modern landmark structures” over the preservation and protection of cultural heritage and historical monuments.


　　In recent years， many structures with “landmark” magnitude have popped up throughout the country. Some are by no means“classical，” but appear important in terms of tourism or other angles， because they attract eyeballs and inspire pride in local officials. Following this logic， some cities or towns still lacking a new “native landmark” feel as if they are lagging behind， so become pressured to follow suit. The trend results in more resolutions to allocate greater investment to the construction of high- rises. Severalhundred high-rise projects remain ongoing. Of the current 15 tallest buildings in the world， already nine are found in China. The battle for the “top skyscraper” has been waging quietly. Before long， China will top every other country in total number of skyscrapers.
　　Since the majority of China’s municipal resources are concentrated in hands of city managers. City officials often make a blueprint of their own idea of a modern city， even if their sense of “modernity” remains unclear. Some investigation reveals that even some small， elegant and graceful towns in the south are busy building skyscrapers. Whether residents like it or not， so-called“landmarks” pop up abruptly one after another， trapping locals in their shadows. A city that neglects its heritage and historical monuments which set it apart from others will ultimately lose its singularity and flavor. 　　Actually， modern skyscrapers are usually a less-than-idealchoice for blossoming cities because they’re closed and isolated systems with all activities concentrated inside. Cities have to continuously pay for the choices they make. To solve a similar problem， municipal officials in Los Angeles renovated the city by building pedestrian bridges between high-rises to open them up and minimize the destructive influence the closed circuits have on the city. Some officials may not even be aware of the impact of skyscrapers and major operating costs， mistaking tall buildings as immortal testaments to the age， like stone tablets of history. They are more than willing to pay for the symbolic meaning and hope that people conform to their sense of beauty. However， many seem to despise the “architectural monsters.”
　　As high-rises transform skylines around the country， criticism emerged from experts as well as from the public. Peng Peigen and Zhou Ganzhi， both academicians at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Chinese Academy of Engineering， are architectural heavyweights in China. Peng denounced the monumental National Center for the Performing Arts as “a half-breed dropped from outer space” and “a stinky egg，” and suggested “replacing it with a greenbelt or a park.” Peng and Zhou assert that the large domed building is not only a potential safety hazard， but also detrimental to the surrounding cultural and natural environment– incompatible withtraditional Beijing’s cultural ambience. Besides， it blocks the view of other things. In the eyes of the pair of highly respected 70-years-olds， the “modern buildings” growing like weeds throughout the country are “monsters making threatening gestures” and “pedestrians on the street in stage costumes.”
　　The scholarly anger parallels many unsatisfied public voices， but builders were also surprised that international architectural authorities also agreed.
　　Indian architect Charles Correa has designed many of the world’s architectural masterpieces. In 1974， he was featured in a Time magazine cover story on New Leadership as one of 150 influential people from around the world. In 1979， he was named honorary fellow of the American Institute of Architects； in 1984， he received the Royal Institute of British Architects’ Gold Medal. In 1999 when he attended the World Congress of Architects in Beijing， he opined that urban construction in China’s capital should build shorter buildings densely instead of high-rises sprinkled throughout the city. Only in this way can the skyline of an ancient city be preserved and the structure of the city maintained. He disliked high-rises in China.
　　Echoing Correa， Japanese architect Tadao Ando and many other global master architects value local characteristics， and pay great attention to climate and environmental impact. In fact， all of Asia is striving to revive esteem and self-confidence in their culture， and China is no exception. One thing city managers must begin pondering is that although urban space is limited， the public tolerance for skyscrapers is ever more limited， and returning to the local flavor is a sure path to smiles on local faces.