Paris vs. Buenos Aires (best city, living, cost of)
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.
This isn't to knock B.A., but as Paris is a Top 10 global city and considered by some the most romantic city and visitor friendly city in the world, it will come ahead of B.A. on many head to head measurables (I won't name because they would seem redundant/obvious). Paris also generally has a location closer to more things, and a more scenic topography.
That being said, B.A. is in all likelihood the most pleasant/enjoyable urban experience in South America (possibly Latin America, but I haven't been to Mexico City yet so I can't comment on that). I'd rank it in a group of the 5 Big Cities that are must sees in the Western Hemisphere (at least among those I've seen so far). The amount of things for a visitor to see and do there is dizzying. The food and high culture/street culture is outstanding. Beautiful gardens, and cemeteries (Recoleta), and it even has some cool modern design amongst all of its history (back to the 1500s). Some other pluses for B.A. include the weather, and the cost of traveling there is very much a bargain (and many of its best attractions are free). One more thing to note, Buenos Aires serves as a major city gateway to Iguazu Falls, Patagonia, and even Antarctica. Not many cities are main hopping off points for places that incredible.
Overall, if someone were asking me where to visit as a first timer, or where to relocate for long term, I would tell them Paris. That being said, B.A., while hard to get to, is a much better bargain travel destination, and is higher on my list for living abroad (I would like to live in a city like it and learn Spanish at some point), and would make for a great visit. If only it were closer to some of the outstanding natural places on other sides of its country. Imagine what a city, a Buenos Aires, with the natural setting of a Cusco, or a Rio would be...
I have been to both. BA's most elegant neighhourhoods would resemble Paris somewhat, but the city obvious has budget issues to fix a lot of things. You can immediately see it is a city well past its peak. Paris is a lot more dense, vibrant, interesting and wealthy.
Has anyone ever been to both cities? Does anyone care to elaborate the similarities and differences these two cities have?
Buenos Aires is often called the "Paris of the South", but in fact their similarities rely mostly in architecture and in the cultural life. But Buenos Aires, as it's located in Argentina, also suffers with the typical problems of Latin America, such as unsafety and slums, and much more graffiti than Paris. Indeed, Buenos Aires (and Argentina in general) is still the destination in South America which most resembles Europe.
Buenos Aires is often called the "Paris of the South", but in fact their similarities rely mostly in architecture and in the cultural life. But Buenos Aires, as it's located in Argentina, also suffers with the typical problems of Latin America, such as unsafety and slums, and much more graffiti than Paris. Indeed, Buenos Aires (and Argentina in general) is still the destination in South America which most resembles Europe.
Would you say that's the case? Which other places would you say are close? Sao Paulo seems to be dense, but more high-risey and less about the street culture/old than B.A. Rio felt very, very not European to me, though to be fair, when I was in the city I spent a scant amount of time in Centro/CBD, and never made it over to Santa Teresa. Santiago and Montevideo had bits and pieces that were historic/walkable/Euro feeling (more than Rio), but didn't ostensibly feel that way like B.A. did. I haven't been anywhere else, but I understand that Quito, Bogota and Lima have a reasonably sized historic core, though not as big as the one in B.A.. Cusco and Cartagena would seem to have the most walkable cores overall of any S.A. city, but then maybe not as European feeling as a whole as B.A. perhaps largely due to differences in immigration/population makeup (B.A. seemed to keep it's old world ties around longer). How accurate would you say all that is?
Well, all those cities that you listed have european architecture. Maybe for european, you mean not colonial, but rather neoclassical european, the style in wich BA excels.
BA is often called the "Paris of SA", but i find that not accurate at all. BA has certain spots wich resembles Paris a lot, but overall is an ecclectic city with an unique flavour. In fact, it looks more like Madrid in more spots, and Puerto Madero on a cloudy day resembles Canary Wharf, wich is...english.
Let's be honest: BA is one of the most beautiful LA big cities (along with Rio, Mexico City and Santiago IMO), but Paris is just on another level, to me the most beautiful city in the world alongside with NYC at most.
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
I have been to both. BA's most elegant neighhourhoods would resemble Paris somewhat, but the city obvious has budget issues to fix a lot of things. You can immediately see it is a city well past its peak. Paris is a lot more dense, vibrant, interesting and wealthy.
I agree with the bolded, but i don't see Paris to be more dense or vibrant than BA, aside of the top touristic landmarks, where of course the number of tourists is overwhelming. BA is VERY vibrant, the people goes out a lot here, just like in Naples, you know (a region with big cultural influence over this country). In fact, it is one of the most pointed things about the city among the foreigns who come to visit or live here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabio SBA
Buenos Aires is often called the "Paris of the South", but in fact their similarities rely mostly in architecture and in the cultural life. But Buenos Aires, as it's located in Argentina, also suffers with the typical problems of Latin America, such as unsafety and slums, and much more graffiti than Paris. Indeed, Buenos Aires (and Argentina in general) is still the destination in South America which most resembles Europe.
What you have stated is somewhat true. However, there is a main difference btw BA an other metros in LA of similar size/population. In BA there are a lot of slums, but almost none of them lies within the "touristic corridor" of the city, an area wich also is certainly HUGE (only Rio comes close in this regard). There is basically only one major slum (Villa 31) in that big area, and even that one is partially isolated. In the other hand, Rio, Sao Paulo, Bogota, Mexico City or Lima, all have slums or poor areas filled within their more touristic areas, even accesible by doing a short walk. In particular in Rio (wich also has more slums than BA to begin with) you even can see them because of the morros despite not being actually there.
So, that's the reason why usually the tourists leave BA with the impression that there are hardly any slum here.
In the other hand, Rio, Sao Paulo, Bogota, Mexico City or Lima, all have slums or poor areas filled within their more touristic areas, even accesible by doing a short walk. In particular in Rio (wich also has more slums than BA to begin with) you even can see them because of the morros despite not being actually there.
Indeed, the population of the slums of Buenos Aires is integrated to the city. The slums may not be visible, but they do exist. I have to agree that Buenos Aires is still the best city of South America; I am from São Paulo and have no problems to admit this. But a comparison with Paris other than the architecture and cultural life is still unfair. I can state this because I visited both cities.
Would you say that's the case? Which other places would you say are close? Sao Paulo seems to be dense, but more high-risey and less about the street culture/old than B.A. Rio felt very, very not European to me, though to be fair, when I was in the city I spent a scant amount of time in Centro/CBD, and never made it over to Santa Teresa. Santiago and Montevideo had bits and pieces that were historic/walkable/Euro feeling (more than Rio), but didn't ostensibly feel that way like B.A. did. I haven't been anywhere else, but I understand that Quito, Bogota and Lima have a reasonably sized historic core, though not as big as the one in B.A.. Cusco and Cartagena would seem to have the most walkable cores overall of any S.A. city, but then maybe not as European feeling as a whole as B.A. perhaps largely due to differences in immigration/population makeup (B.A. seemed to keep it's old world ties around longer). How accurate would you say all that is?
But it's exactly what I said.
Keep in mind that Rio and São Paulo don't claim to be european-like.
Rio's efforts are to be the visit card of Brazil, and São Paulo aims to be a world city, open to europeans, asians, africans and other latin americans.
Well, all those cities that you listed have european architecture. Maybe for european, you mean not colonial, but rather neoclassical european, the style in wich BA excels.
BA is often called the "Paris of SA", but i find that not accurate at all. BA has certain spots wich resembles Paris a lot, but overall is an ecclectic city with an unique flavour. In fact, it looks more like Madrid in more spots, and Puerto Madero on a cloudy day resembles Canary Wharf, wich is...english.
Let's be honest: BA is one of the most beautiful LA big cities (along with Rio, Mexico City and Santiago IMO), but Paris is just on another level, to me the most beautiful city in the world alongside with NYC at most.
I agree with the bolded, but i don't see Paris to be more dense or vibrant than BA, aside of the top touristic landmarks, where of course the number of tourists is overwhelming. BA is VERY vibrant, the people goes out a lot here, just like in Naples, you know (a region with big cultural influence over this country). In fact, it is one of the most pointed things about the city among the foreigns who come to visit or live here.
What you have stated is somewhat true. However, there is a main difference btw BA an other metros in LA of similar size/population. In BA there are a lot of slums, but almost none of them lies within the "touristic corridor" of the city, an area wich also is certainly HUGE (only Rio comes close in this regard). There is basically only one major slum (Villa 31) in that big area, and even that one is partially isolated. In the other hand, Rio, Sao Paulo, Bogota, Mexico City or Lima, all have slums or poor areas filled within their more touristic areas, even accesible by doing a short walk. In particular in Rio (wich also has more slums than BA to begin with) you even can see them because of the morros despite not being actually there.
So, that's the reason why usually the tourists leave BA with the impression that there are hardly any slum here.
Where are the slums in the touristy areas of Lima? Miraflores and San Isidro are the touristy areas and the only poor area I could think of is Surquillo and even that area really isn't that poor plus it is separate from Miraflores because of a highway that passes through there.
You have the city center but I wouldn't say you have slums in the city center. Sure some parts are gritty like Avenida Abancay but I wouldn't exactly call them slums either.
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.
