Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its a cool place with a lot to see and do but its urban peer group are SP, Buenos Aires, Istanbul etc -- large cities in middle income countries.
Yes, exactly. You can't really compare Mexico City to U.S. cities. Better to compare to Sao Paulo, Bogota, Santiago, Istanbul, and the like (basically the middle income tier). Maybe add in certain cities in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
Mexico City is a fascinating place, but there isn't much "high culture" in the Western European/U.S. sense. There's a mediocre philharmonic, and basically one major concert hall.
What is South England to you? That would be too expansive and would include London (London and Greater London are the same thing unless you are trying to specify the one square mile that is the City of London in which case you're re-adding City of London numbers since London/Greater London already includes the City of London) and SE England as well as SW England and East of England which would be 26 million people. I don't think that's right in a comparison to LA, but then again your numbers have that at 16 million, so I don't know what you're trying to tabulate here. You should possibly do a recount, maybe do one for checking all of your international cities because if the London one is a bit funny, maybe there are some inconsistencies in a lot of the others.
Actually after looking back at that thread and my computer, for London I combined Greater London and Southeast England-Not South England. In fact when I originally created the thread I did state that because the Greater London figure seemed so low, I decided to combine it with SE England and here is there respective GDPs for 2010:
London £274.085 Billion
SE England £186.860 Billion Total GDP: £460.945 Billion
Which came out to about $700 Billion US per the exchange rate at tha time, regardless the amount was well below the LA CSA.
Actually after looking back at that thread and my computer, for London I combined Greater London and Southeast England-Not South England. In fact when I originally created the thread I did state that because the Greater London figure seemed so low, I decided to combine it with SE England and here is there respective GDPs for 2010:
London £274.085 Billion
SE England £186.860 Billion Total GDP: £460.945 Billion
Which came out to about $700 Billion US per the exchange rate at tha time, regardless the amount was well below the LA CSA.
That was never my contention, however Los Angeles has a larger economy than London and that is really not a matter of opinion.
I think it's a matter of how you're counting it though. You were right that Greater London's GDP is really low--because that's just the city without the metro which makes for a very lopsided comparison. You're taking the LA CSA which is a massive 33,000 square miles (and still massive even if we take out the deserts on the eastern portions of San Bernardino and Riverside) and often not that closely linked to downtown LA or the Westside while not have included the East of England (£110.783 Billion) which makes up the northern and eastern border of London proper itself.
How far off is it once you put in that other region? Also, what about commuters that go even further out given the massive transit network centered upon London (and if we get really ridiculous then we have high speed rail with frequencies of 17 or 20 runs a day from London to Paris in just over two hours, Brussels under two, and the border of France in less than one hour which is about as long and frequent and most stretched of LA metrolink commuter rail times and frequencies)? Does it stretch like New York City's CSA which includes counties that don't NYC proper or even border counties that border NYC? To be fair though, it's been acknowledged several times that these massive lists are not accurate given the very different ways that different countries or regions count their metropolitan areas. Maybe we can try to be specific if we're just doing just one comparison in trying to make the closest to US census CSA standards for London when pitting it against a US CSA. Also, maybe this should be a topic for the World or Urban Planning forum as we're wandering pretty far from Mexico City.
Besides, if this is a very important metric then Mexico City does not compare favorably against either of these cities, Paris, Tokyo, or New York.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 10-04-2012 at 11:24 AM..
And that really isnt a surprise because California's GDP is not that much less than the UKs.
Of course, California is pretty awesome in that regard--but it's not LA carrying all of the weight. The Bay Area might be smaller, but it's still very significant and its per capita GDP is very, very high. San Diego is also a sizable metro with a high per capita GDP.
Listen I don't have a problem with NYC, I think its a fine place with a lot going for it. Besides the two California beasts only NYC is the relevant cultural trendsetter remaining in the US. Off this forum and into actual life I truly do respect and admire NYC, I guess.
My problems with it are for more private reasons like weather and food. I cant stand how overhyped Chinese, Mexican, and Japanese food is in NYC. It sucks in Manhattan and no I am not going to Queens to get decent Chinese food, why make a 30 minute or longer commute across the river for something you're not going to be impressed with compared to the SF Bay Area? I've done it before and its sucked. Mexican food has absolutely sucked so bad that my vomit would likely taste better. I also cant live in a place where there's frigid weather, I can admire them sure but the cold sucks and I want none of that.
Those two things alone give Mexico City the overwhelming advantage for me (any warm weather city really), because lets face it, I'm not dreaming of living in either of them so my viewpoints are only going to be as a tourist and nothing more. As far as I'm concerned there is architecture, history, culture, food, scenery, and desirable climate (my preference) to be had in Mexico City that I can can enjoy for a couple of days visiting.
If I HAD to pick one to live in, then NYC simply because the adjustment as a non-Spanish speaker to another multicultural American city would be easier but I wouldn't be thrilled with the living adjustment from SF Bay Area to begin with. The only other places I like enough besides the SF Bay Area are San Diego and LA and maybe Seattle or Boston.
First off California is not a trendsetter. NYC is the fashion capitol of the world. Did you get that, the world. Not just in the U.S. That's where models go to model, besides a few other places. That's where clothes/ fashion are/ is created. Why do you think Cali is first in that? That is so bizzare that you think that. I don't hate California either, I personally love it. Atleast Southern california. You can have Northern California.
Secondly, why wouldn't Mexico city have better Mexican food than NYC? Duh! San Fran isn't even as good as LA. Of course half of LA is Mexicans so you really got us with that one. Japanese food is pretty good in NYC. I should know. But it should be better in San Fran since you are closer to Japan. That's just common sense.
As far as weather. I would take beautiful NYC's four seasons over cold and chilly almost all year round San Francisco. The city by the bay that nobody goes in. Why? Because it's freaking cold. You better have a wet suit. I won't mention LA, because I lived there and I love it there, but in my opinion they have better Mexican food than San Francisco by far.
The whole "cold" thing just got me laughing my arse off. San Francisco is not a hot city. You do know that don't you. NYC might have slightly colder winters, but beyond that there weather beats the **** out of that rainy misty cool air of San Francisco.
Once again back to the fashion thing, since you brought it up. Newsflash-Almost all fashion trends start in (drum roll) NYC. They're created there, made there and then brought to other areas to distribute/ make in quantitites. I wonder if you have ever been to NYC. If you're in the fashion industry even in LA which totally tops little San francisco, then if you really want to advance your career where do you go? NYC. End of subject. Plus, where was the talk about Italian food, Irish food, thai, Columbian, Argentinian, and on and on. You take the one food (since half of California is Mexican anyway-besides San fran because they price poor people out) and judge it to NYC's food. Are you just selectively nit picking your points?
You really must be dellusional to say the least. Look in every magazine cover, page, etc when a brand is on the page. Look at the bottom. Where are they always located. It will always say NYC, London, Paris, sometimes LA and sometimes San Fran. So how do you figure NYC follows anything Californian? Just doesn't make sense.
I personally think (and this isn't a jab) that you leave the confines of your little computer. Walk down the street of whatever suburb you really live in and head to the airport. You don't even have to go to NYC, but just go somewhere else. Everything doesn't start and end in San Francisco.
This whole debate has very if nothing to do with Los Angeles. I just wanted to make that clear. Only because I have too many memories/ friends/ love for that "great" city. Californias greatest gem.
Also, to the people claiming Mexico City is "warm", you don't know what you're talking about.
Mexico City is one of the coldest locations in Mexico. It's very high up in the mountains, and very rainy weather. It's super-rainy half the year, and warm (but not hot, more like 70F) the other half of the year.
Mexico City probably has fewer 85F+ days than New York. It rarely gets above 80F in Mexico City.
In comparison to first world cities, yes it is. From 15 seconds of looking at Mexico City on Google Earth:
de Los Meastros @ Mexico-Tacuba
Notice lack on ped indicators, lack of ADA compliance, lack of marked crosswalk on both sides, etc. This intersection would be considered extremely bad by US standards.
You can't judge other nations by US standards though. No matter what city you live in, you as a pedestrian have to adjust to certain traffic and other types of obstacles. Again, if you're a tourist, you'd probably find it intimidating to walk in a city of 9 million, but once you get used to it, it's really not a problem. I'm sure NYC traffic is very intimidating to someone from Des Moines.
I mean, it's not terrible, but it's definitely a problem. My company works a lot in Mexico City, and we've had two people get robbed there (both Mexicans). Nobody who works here has ever been robbed in the US. There's more to crime than murder rate.
It's a problem everywhere, but it's greatly overblown as an issue here. Petty theft is, by far, the most common type of crime. Cops are everywhere.
You can definitely get a lot more than Mexican and some of it might be pretty good, but the options are going to be a lot less widespread and varied than they are in the US. I've had Vietnamese, Bangladeshi, Malaysian, Jamaican, Nigeria, South African, etc here in Atlanta. Finding some of those cuisines would be tough in Mexico City I imagine.
Perhaps some of them, but I actually work in areas related to food/cuisine and the types of food becoming available now is growing pretty significantly. 10 years ago, you were probably more correct.
Not saying it to knock on Mexico City, but there just aren't a huge number of high rises, whatever the reason may be.
According to this site: http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/, Mexico City has the 7th most skycrapers of any city in the world. NYC is by far #1, but I imagine that has to do with space and geography limitations that force verticality.
In terms of vibrancy, transit, urbanity, Mexico City is much more like NYC than LA. Mexico City is very pedestrian friendly and dense (about the same density as San Francisco, but with nearly 9 million people instead of 850,000). It has a huge subway system and the streets are crowded and bustling.
Must not be a weekend on those images, because there are some seriously large crowds there at those times. That's actually pretty light as far as pedestrians.
Well than what is it? Half of the cities infrastructure is in shambles. 75% of the people live in slums. What is being said that is not true? It is basically a third world country. It took our armed forces to go over there to help them out. Their city is run by drug kingpins. None of the cops can be trusted. Kidnappings happen frequently. What part of all this sounds great? People are entitled to their opinions, just as you are. You can say Mexico is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Doesn't make it true. We all are entitled to our own opinion. The topography is great over there, but that doesn't override all of its other faults. And sorry if you disagree, but this was an attempt to bash NY. Many of us have seen this. Mostly from Californians (which I used to live there and still love it there/ trying to go back). It seems like because NYC wins so many polls, that it irritates many people. The thing is, it's barely ever NYC'ers themselves that overhype their city. Yeah, sure they'll step in and correct someone when false information is out there, but for the most part, they could care less about these polls. Yes, they have some homers, as does every city, but get real. Mexico city better than NYC. Do you really believe that?
I visited MC couple years ago and had a great time. I enjoyed hanging out in Polanco and Condesa (a fantastic neighborhood), loved the beautiful parks and had great food. It's a vibrant and cosmopolitan metropolis and a great destination for a short city break.
BUT.... Mexico is still a developing, third world country with a lot of poverty. You realize that as soon as you leave the airport. 80% of MC (if not more) is slums, at least by Western standards. Driving across the city is an eye opening (and exhausting) experience. Also while it may not be super-dangerous (unlike some other parts of Mexico) it is not super-safe either, that's for sure. One of the things they tell all tourists is to never hail cabs off the street, and I was told by locals not to walk around at night even in Polanco, one of their most upscale neighborhoods.
Like New York, MC is a huge and crowded city with a wealth of culture and entertainment. But that's where similarities end. A more appropriate comparison for MC would be Sao Paolo or Buenos Aires (although even that is a stretch - BA is a much better city).
Oh wait, you're serious too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
