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.
I lived in Manhattan for close to a decade, and have spent a couple of weeks a year in DF for the last few years. I think it is really close and a good comparison.
I think NYC has the diversity and public transportation edge. The subway in DF, while excellent does not run 24/7. And while DF is very cosmopolitan, it is not quite as multilingual, or multi-ethnic as NYC, but there significant Asian, and increasingly African populations. Never mind that Mexico itself has huge ethnic diversity.
Scenery - a wash. I think NYC is underrated - the bay, the Hudson river, the New Jersey palisades across the river. New York has a beautiful natural setting, so does DF. The first time I visited DF, I sat on the roof of the La Condesa hotel on a beautiful Spring day, overlooking a purple sea of Jacaranda trees between the rooftops to the ring of huge mountains that surround the city, and was frankly gobsmacked by the extraordinary beauty of the city!
Architecture - slight edge DF. They are both spectacular. NYC has the better skyline by a long way, but DF has greater variety at street level. There are more 17th century Spanish buildings in DF than Madrid. There is no New York neighborhood that has the mix of serenity and vibrancy of let's say San Angel or Coyoacan. You get a few canyons like the avenues in Manhattan, but in DF, you really see and feel the historical layers of the city. New York is mostly a nineteenth and twentieth century city architecturally, a very great one, but does not have the depth or range of DF.
Climate: For me DF by a huge margin. Pretty temperate weather almost year round. Air quality has improved by leaps and bounds over the last decade. the earthquake risk is much higher in DF, but none of that vile, filthy New York freezing, thawing, refreezing slush stuff that you get in the NYC winter into Spring.
Food - probably NYC for sheer variety, but dollar for dollar, I eat much better in DF than in New York. Despite gringo terror of Mexican food, fresh produce in Mexico City is readily available, cheap and delicious. While NYC has improved in recent years, it is still on average, not great. Coffee is much better in DF. Where DF comes up very short for me is with wine. There is some, but not a lot, good Mexican wine. Imported wine is relatively very expensive, but then I have never tried to buy pulque in NYC. Street food in DF blows NYC street food out of the water.
Vibrancy - a wash. NYC has gotten quieter over the last decade. It still the city that never sleeps, but late night street life is not what it used to be. DF sleeps, but usually only between 2 and 4 in the afternoon, and even then not so much. What really surprised me is that gay life in DF is quite a bit more vibrant in DF than NYC. I think the advent of the internet has along with the decimation of the AIDS pandemic has radically diminished gay public spaces in the city. La Zona Rosa on a Saturday night makes Chelsea or Hell's Kitchen or the East Village look like Dubuque, Iowa in comparison.
Maybe because I do not know it as well, but DF, to me, feels like a more surprising city, and if quality of life is related to cost of living, I think DF is the best urban bang for your back city on the planet. Where else can you buy a 1200 square foot 2-3 bedroom apartment in a magnificently maintained and/or restored Beaux Arts or Art Deco building in the thick of things for around $300K, with a roof deck or terrace, overlooking a magnificently landscaped park a few blocks from a subway station?? Buenos Aires perhaps, but Buenos Aires is NOWHERE near as cosmopolitan as DF.
I think for the OP'S original criteria all those pages back, NYC has the edge, but it is close, and anyone who thinks that DF is not a world class city, and "a third world dump" has not spent any real time there and is relying on outdated and borderline racist stereotypes. DF went through a rough time in the 1970s and 80s, as did NYC. The city is booming now, for good and sad reasons:the narcoviolence in the North, which has not yet really affected DF has meant that there has been significant capital flight from Monterrey and other wealthy Northern parts into DF.
Chilangos are not unlike New Yorkers, impatient, a little brash, but friendly. Mexico City has been one of the largest and most powerful and important cities in the world for close to a thousand years. (Where do you think the silver that financed Europe's industrial revolution came from?) It still is.
I lived in Manhattan for close to a decade, and have spent a couple of weeks a year in DF for the last few years. I think it is really close and a good comparison.
I think NYC has the diversity and public transportation edge. The subway in DF, while excellent does not run 24/7. And while DF is very cosmopolitan, it is not quite as multilingual, or multi-ethnic as NYC, but there significant Asian, and increasingly African populations. Never mind that Mexico itself has huge ethnic diversity.
Scenery - a wash. I think NYC is underrated - the bay, the Hudson river, the New Jersey palisades across the river. New York has a beautiful natural setting, so does DF. The first time I visited DF, I sat on the roof of the La Condesa hotel on a beautiful Spring day, overlooking a purple sea of Jacaranda trees between the rooftops to the ring of huge mountains that surround the city, and was frankly gobsmacked by the extraordinary beauty of the city!
Architecture - slight edge DF. They are both spectacular. NYC has the better skyline by a long way, but DF has greater variety at street level. There are more 17th century Spanish buildings in DF than Madrid. There is no New York neighborhood that has the mix of serenity and vibrancy of let's say San Angel or Coyoacan. You get a few canyons like the avenues in Manhattan, but in DF, you really see and feel the historical layers of the city. New York is mostly a nineteenth and twentieth century city architecturally, a very great one, but does not have the depth or range of DF.
Climate: For me DF by a huge margin. Pretty temperate weather almost year round. Air quality has improved by leaps and bounds over the last decade. the earthquake risk is much higher in DF, but none of that vile, filthy New York freezing, thawing, refreezing slush stuff that you get in the NYC winter into Spring.
Food - probably NYC for sheer variety, but dollar for dollar, I eat much better in DF than in New York. Despite gringo terror of Mexican food, fresh produce in Mexico City is readily available, cheap and delicious. While NYC has improved in recent years, it is still on average, not great. Coffee is much better in DF. Where DF comes up very short for me is with wine. There is some, but not a lot, good Mexican wine. Imported wine is relatively very expensive, but then I have never tried to buy pulque in NYC. Street food in DF blows NYC street food out of the water.
Vibrancy - a wash. NYC has gotten quieter over the last decade. It still the city that never sleeps, but late night street life is not what it used to be. DF sleeps, but usually only between 2 and 4 in the afternoon, and even then not so much. What really surprised me is that gay life in DF is quite a bit more vibrant in DF than NYC. I think the advent of the internet has along with the decimation of the AIDS pandemic has radically diminished gay public spaces in the city. La Zona Rosa on a Saturday night makes Chelsea or Hell's Kitchen or the East Village look like Dubuque, Iowa in comparison.
Maybe because I do not know it as well, but DF, to me, feels like a more surprising city, and if quality of life is related to cost of living, I think DF is the best urban bang for your back city on the planet. Where else can you buy a 1200 square foot 2-3 bedroom apartment in a magnificently maintained and/or restored Beaux Arts or Art Deco building in the thick of things for around $300K, with a roof deck or terrace, overlooking a magnificently landscaped park a few blocks from a subway station?? Buenos Aires perhaps, but Buenos Aires is NOWHERE near as cosmopolitan as DF.
I think for the OP'S original criteria all those pages back, NYC has the edge, but it is close, and anyone who thinks that DF is not a world class city, and "a third world dump" has not spent any real time there and is relying on outdated and borderline racist stereotypes. DF went through a rough time in the 1970s and 80s, as did NYC. The city is booming now, for good and sad reasons:the narcoviolence in the North, which has not yet really affected DF has meant that there has been significant capital flight from Monterrey and other wealthy Northern parts into DF.
Chilangos are not unlike New Yorkers, impatient, a little brash, but friendly. Mexico City has been one of the largest and most powerful and important cities in the world for close to a thousand years. (Where do you think the silver that financed Europe's industrial revolution came from?) It still is.
Buenos Aires perhaps, but Buenos Aires is NOWHERE near as cosmopolitan as DF.
What a load of horsesh*t (excuse my french). How in the world did you come to this conclusion?
BA has more quality neighborhoods, more culture, less poverty and crime, hands down better nightlife and at least as good of a food scene (it is recognized the world over as a food mecca). On architecture I'll call it a draw even though MC's architectural gems get diluted with surrounding poverty and slums far more so than in BA.
Last but not least, one issue that gets totally lost in these discussions is the cultural sophistication of the local population. The quality of education in Mexico is poor and most of its population is not very educated. Not so in Argentina. Buenos Aires is known as the Paris of South America and feels much more cultured and sophisticated.
What a load of horsesh*t (excuse my french). How in the world did you come to this conclusion?
BA has more quality neighborhoods, more culture, less poverty and crime, hands down better nightlife and at least as good of a food scene (it is recognized the world over as a food mecca). On architecture I'll call it a draw even though MC's architectural gems get diluted with surrounding poverty and slums far more so than in BA.
Last but not least, one issue that gets totally lost in these discussions is the cultural sophistication of the local population. The quality of education in Mexico is poor and most of its population is not very educated. Not so in Argentina. Buenos Aires is known as the Paris of South America and feels much more cultured and sophisticated.
It's Mexico City, not Mexico. I'd understand if you got the roughest parts of Mexico confused with what's in Mexico City, but this ain't it. Just to be clear, you understand that the majority of Mexicans who immigrate here are from very poor socioeconomic and educational backgrounds looking for work in the US and not representative of Mexico and Mexicans as a whole, right?
There are poor areas in Mexico City, but it's not slums the way there are slums in the developing world. These poor neighborhoods have utility hookups--they have sewage, electricity, running water, etc. They're not attractive and they're poor, but calling them slums sort of doesn't make sense when they are real slums in the rest of the world.
Also, Buenos Aires and Argentina in general has sort of had some pretty awful ups and downs through the 90s and 00s while Mexico City in general has continued to get better. If you want to use metrics such as HDI, Mexico City and Buenos Aires aren't really that far apart, and overall I find Mexico City a lot more interesting.
I lived in DF for half my life. You're claiming that Mexico City is hot? LOL
No, where did I saw it was hot? I said the climate was very pleasant. It rarely ever gets hot or cold. It's probably one of the most consistent climates in the world.
Outside of Toluca, and a few extreme high altitute points, Mexico City is one of the coldest places in Mexico. It's quite cold at night, year-round. Even in springtime (hottest season in Mexico) it's quite cold at night.
Really? Because I just looked at the records for this past spring. For the entire March-May period, here is what it was:
Coldest Low: 41
Coldest High: 69
Warmest Low: 60
Warmest High: 87
Average High for the period: 78.3
Average Low for the period: 52
Average temp for the period: 65.2
Wow, frigid What's funny is that the 41 lasted less than an hour.
And remember, no heat in DF, and homes aren't insulated. It's cold when you wake up, year-round.
No, it really isn't.
Some people freeze to death in the slums most winters. This is not an unusual event. Two years ago it was especially bad.
I went back 22 years. The lowest temp during that time was 29, and it happened once. It didn't get near freezing a few years back. And unless these people are sleeping with their doors and windows open and they're not aware of clothing or blankets, it'd be hard for people to die unless they were homeless, which was probably the case. Truly cold weather in MC is about as rare as snowfall in Orlando.
Now I know you're lying and don't live in Mexico City.
lol, ask me something, anything, something only someone who lived here would know. Go ahead.
No one could live in DF without a sweater. You would be unable to leave your apartment after nightfall or before noon.
Well, now you DO sound like you're from here, as people wear thick sweaters when its 70. Scarves and coats are common below that. But for someone familiar with Northern US weather like you should be now, it's really not needed 99.99% of the time. I'm not usually up at 4am when the low tends to happen.
DF is cold at night and in the morning, year round. You will see people (especially kids going to school) wearing winter-type clothes (ski hats, gloves) year-round on the Metro (yes, even in August).
You're right about that... that doesn't make it cold, it makes people who are not used to cold weather overreact when it's not 75. I see the same thing visiting family in South Florida.
Now, granted, it gets warm in the afternoon (year-round), so those warm-weather clothes are put away, but it's cold in the morning. Remember, no heat, no insulation.
This is all BS too. It rains half the year, sometimes for much of the afternoon/early evening. And it very rarely hits 90F in DF. This is extremely uncommon. You will have far more hot days in NYC than in DF.
Again, not arguing, NYC gets hot more often, but I'm not sure why that's a good thing. Even on the hot days here, there's no humidity. It's miserably hot in NYC on a 90 degree day. And no, it doesn't rain half the year. The true rainy season is only about 4 months long, and sorry, but it hardly rains every day all day. Today was absolutely beautiful. Why isn't it raining?
I know this is the case for percentage increase, but is the same also true for absolute number increase? At current growth rates, NYC will have more Asians than any other U.S. metro (if this is not the case already).
Absolute number increase in Asian population was also higher than the hispanic population increase. 86,000 increase in Hispanic population, 180,000 increase in Asian population. I suspect a substantial number of Hispanics left the city to balance out those that moved in.
The NYC metro may already have more Asians than any other US metro. It's about tied with LA.
Quote:
Sizable Filipino presence in Northern Virginia. There's also a solid Vietnamese community in Montgomery County.
By percentage, DC's Asian population % is just sligltly below the NYC metro (by 0.5%).
What a load of horsesh*t (excuse my french). How in the world did you come to this conclusion?
BA has more quality neighborhoods, more culture, less poverty and crime, hands down better nightlife and at least as good of a food scene (it is recognized the world over as a food mecca). On architecture I'll call it a draw even though MC's architectural gems get diluted with surrounding poverty and slums far more so than in BA.
Last but not least, one issue that gets totally lost in these discussions is the cultural sophistication of the local population. The quality of education in Mexico is poor and most of its population is not very educated. Not so in Argentina. Buenos Aires is known as the Paris of South America and feels much more cultured and sophisticated.
No way is BA remotely as cosmopolitan as DF. BA is arguably the whitest major city in Latin America, close to 90%. It has nothing like the ethnic diversity of DF. There is a significant Asian presence (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Filipino), significant and long-standing Arab communities, along with close to half a million U.S. citizens, and the dazzlyingly diversity of Mexico's indigenous cultures in DF, not so much in BA, which is a charming, ersatz European city. In DF, you hear multiple languages spoken on the streets daily, including indigenous ones. While not as diverse as New York or Toronto, it is way closer to those cities in terms of a cosmopolitan population, i.e people from all over the world than BA. BA has maybe better Italian food, but for all other cuisines, DF wins, and do you really want to put Argentine cuisine up against one of the oldest, diverse and elaborate cuisines in the world. Be my guest. (Many places can make an excellent steak.)
BA is, as you point out, a more across the board middle class city, but it has nothing like the history or culture of DF. DF claims more museums than any other city in the world. There is not a museum in Argentina that can touch the shoe of Museo Nacional de Antropologia in DF. What is the Teotihuacan of BA?
I agree that BA is the Paris of South America, a mostly beautifully laid out late nineteenth/ early twentieth century city in South America, and in there lies the rub: Paris is the Paris of the world. New York is the New York of the world. Mexico City is the Mexico City of the world. Buenos Aires, which is a very fine city, is as you note, known as the Paris of South America, not unlike how Detroit used to be known as the Paris of the Midwest.
I think BA is a fabulous city, but it does not really belong in a conversation about New York and DF. It is barely half the size of either city, to start.
Last edited by homeinatx; 10-04-2012 at 06:36 PM..
It's Mexico City, not Mexico. I'd understand if you got the roughest parts of Mexico confused with what's in Mexico City, but this ain't it. Just to be clear, you understand that the majority of Mexicans who immigrate here are from very poor socioeconomic and educational backgrounds looking for work in the US and not representative of Mexico and Mexicans as a whole, right?
There are poor areas in Mexico City, but it's not slums the way there are slums in the developing world. These poor neighborhoods have utility hookups--they have sewage, electricity, running water, etc. They're not attractive and they're poor, but calling them slums sort of doesn't make sense when they are real slums in the rest of the world.
Also, Buenos Aires and Argentina in general has sort of had some pretty awful ups and downs through the 90s and 00s while Mexico City in general has continued to get better. If you want to use metrics such as HDI, Mexico City and Buenos Aires aren't really that far apart, and overall I find Mexico City a lot more interesting.
Mate, 70% to 80% of MC (by my rough estimation) is what we in the western world would call slums. It is obvious to anyone who has ever driven across MC (as I have) or even looked on Google. Lets stop dancing around the bush. Its got some affluent areas in the west, southwest and northwest but they are a small proportion of the urban area. Drop a Google street view pin pretty much anywhere else and tell me what you find.
Now I didn't say they were dirt poor slums like in India. Mexico is a middle income country. But by our standards they are slums. This is not the 70s anymore. Even most Brazillian favelas nowadays have sewage and electricity - are you telling me they should not be considered slums either?
Its true that Argentina has gone through a rough patch since their financial collapse but it still has the bones and cultural heritage of a country that was among the wealthiest in the world half a century ago. Mexico has no such heritage and has been much poorer for most of its existence, and it shows.
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.
What's funny is that the 41 lasted less than an hour. 
