Mexico City vs Santiago De Chile (quality of life, safety, public transit, environs, etc) (cost, jobs)

[SenseofPlace]

Originally Posted by cavsfan137

I see what you’re saying, but at the same time I’m not sure that something like that ends up having that much of an impact on the QOL of country’s residents.

Chile generally speaking I think has QOL advantage over Brazil which seems to really have major issues to sort out. And, while this may not be the best example, Scandinavian countries like Copenhagen/Denmark, Finland/Helsinki, etc, all have very high capital-national ratios yet people outside still have high standard of life.

I suppose there are certainly advantages, if you have multiple economic hubs that is generally good, but perhaps what some of these other places have is a certain economies of scale that helps commerce, governance, communicate more effectively and less corruptly.

That said, Brazil’s ability to have multiple major centers is why it and not Mexico is the largest economy in the LatAm region.

Oh I agree completely. Chile is really on a different level than Brazil when it comes to development, social issues such as inequality and crime. The list goes on.

I am a bigger fan of places like Argentina and Chile versus Brazil, but I also like the idea of having larger cities scattered around which can make a place more interesting. Travel, commerce, infrastructure, if connected well, can make a country an appealing place if there are more than one major city. Countries like Mexico, Chile or Argentina have some great smaller cities, but cities that have a bigger impact like Rio and Sao Paulo have a completely different feel to them and add immensely to the character of Southeastern Brazil.

[iron_stick]

Originally Posted by sf_arkitect

You taking Mexico's overall GDP and dividing on an per capita basis has no relevance nor does it refute the fact that Mexico City is a global center.

Mexico is ranked at the same level as Los Angeles, Chicago, Madrid, Milan, and Toronto according to the Global and World Cities Research Network 2018 data.

Los Angeles, Madrid, Milan and Toronto attract numerous immigrants which is an important features of being a global city. If MC is a "global city" with a "tremendous amount of wealth" as you claim, then you'd expect to see numerous immigrants heading there, specially from neighboring Central American countries who are notoriously desperate to leave their homelands. Having a common language, and a very similar culture and a reasonable distance would only make it a logic choice.

Yet, Mexico seems to be to Central Americans what the Yellow brick road is to Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz: a mere path to some land of wonders (note that I'm not American and don't have particular appreciation for the country). Most rather go home than settle there if they can't make it to the US. In fact, there are more Central Americans in faraway tiny Spain than in big Mexico.
How do you explain the lack of love for the Mexican global city?

[sf_arkitect]

Originally Posted by iron_stick

Los Angeles, Madrid, Milan and Toronto attract numerous immigrants which is an important features of being a global city. If MC is a "global city" with a "tremendous amount of wealth" as you claim, then you'd expect to see numerous immigrants heading there, specially from neighboring Central American countries who are notoriously desperate to leave their homelands. Having a common language, and a very similar culture and a reasonable distance would only make it a logic choice.

Yet, Mexico seems to be to Central Americans what the Yellow brick road is to Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz: a mere path to some land of wonders (note that I'm not American and don't have particular appreciation for the country). Most rather go home than settle there if they can't make it to the US. In fact, there are more Central Americans in faraway tiny Spain than in big Mexico.
How do you explain the lack of love for the Mexican global city?

Mexico City does attract immigrants but not to the degree that New York or Los Angeles or Buenos Aires have.

Most of Mexico City's explosive growth from the 1930's to the 1990's was due to large scale internal migration from rural areas or smaller towns to the capital. Mexico City is not a magnet for Central American migrants because the wealth gap is no better than their home country.

Yes, Mexico City is extremely wealthy, but that wealth does not equate to vast employment opportunities for most of it's inhabitants. Again, this has to do the tremendous inequality along side several other factors (monopolies, corruption, low wages, weak labor unions, exploitation of labor, etc). Sadly, a result of this is the jarring fact that nearly half the work force in the metropolitan area works in the informal economy (!!!!!)

The US and Canada do not have as high a gini coefficient as Mexico (the US isn't there just yet ) and both countries have stronger institutions to enforce laws and ensure safety of their citizens. Mexico has weak institutions and therefore weak rule of law.

Some images below of the distressing level of inequality in Mexico City:

[sf_arkitect]

Some more images of Mexico City's rich vs poor:

[iMarvin]

Originally Posted by iron_stick

Los Angeles, Madrid, Milan and Toronto attract numerous immigrants which is an important features of being a global city. If MC is a "global city" with a "tremendous amount of wealth" as you claim, then you'd expect to see numerous immigrants heading there, specially from neighboring Central American countries who are notoriously desperate to leave their homelands. Having a common language, and a very similar culture and a reasonable distance would only make it a logic choice.

Yet, Mexico seems to be to Central Americans what the Yellow brick road is to Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz: a mere path to some land of wonders (note that I'm not American and don't have particular appreciation for the country). Most rather go home than settle there if they can't make it to the US. In fact, there are more Central Americans in faraway tiny Spain than in big Mexico.
How do you explain the lack of love for the Mexican global city?

Do you have any proof of this or are you just making it up as you go?

[theurbanfiles]

I'd agree with the point you make also Sense of Place-particularly as a lover of travel, it is good to have a place with so many environments, personalities, etc., that it feels like it would take a while to figure the place out, and Brazil is definitely one of those kinds of places! Culturally too. I'd venture beyond what you said, places like Manaus, Salvador, etc. would have radically different feel too.

[AntonioR]

Avenida Masaryk is the most luxurious shopping street in Latin America and one of the most luxurious in the Spanish-speaking world (it’s the second most spoken language in the world). Needless to say this is one of my most favorite avenues in Mexico City. Just strolling down its sidewalks is a pleasant experience.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by cavsfan137

I don't think you can go wrong with either one, but while I enjoyed Santiago reasonably well and could see myself going back, the depth of CDMX is incredible. Arguably the favorite city I've ever visited.

I haven't been to CDMX but I have been to Santiago. Based on what I've read it's one of the safer and more pleasant large metro areas in Latin America for everyday living. However, having visited there, it's kind of boring and lacks a lot of unique or interesting culture. I call it the San Jose of South America (after San Jose, CA, which is also pleasant but boring).

[AntonioR]

One of the world´s greatest archeological museums is in Mexico City.

[UrbanLuis]

Originally Posted by AntonioR

One of the world´s greatest archeological museums is in Mexico City.

This is probably one of the greatest museums in the Americas, period.