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.
One can strongly argue that Buenos Aires has just about an equal amount of British-influenced buildings and entire subdivisions, given the extensive British financial influence in Argentina around the turn of the 20th century. Buenos Aires could thereby be called the "London of South America" perhaps almost as much as the "Paris of South America". A good example of British architecture for much of an entire neighbourhood can be found in Palermo R. Just look up "Palermo R" on Google Images.
A good example of British architecture for much of an entire neighbourhood can be found in Palermo R. Just look up "Palermo R" on Google Images.
British architecture isn't even a thing. There's the traditional; Georgian, Victorian, Tudor, Tudorbethan, Queen Anne style. And the international; Gothic, English baroque, Palladian and Neoclassical styles that exist in all major western European cities and Buenos Aires as well. As the latter is more predominant in London and Buenos Aires than Bogota, then yes it can be said Buenos Aires is more like London.
However, if you're talking about Tudorbethan architecture (more predominant outside of London) then Bogota is more representative of that style. Palermo R pales in comparison to Teusaquillo in Bogota for traditional British architecture.
Also Bogota has the same climate classification as much of the UK due to similar levels of humidity, rain and average temperatures. It lacks the seasons obviously.
so too Chile has had relative institutional and democratic strength compared to the rest of South America (notwithstanding some civil wars, the Pinochet regime, etc.)
LMAO, oh just civil wars, Allende and the Pinochet regimes.
You do know which country has had the longest standing democracy in Latin America? (weak but continuous). Look it up.
One can strongly argue that Buenos Aires has just about an equal amount of British-influenced buildings and entire subdivisions, given the extensive British financial influence in Argentina around the turn of the 20th century. Buenos Aires could thereby be called the "London of South America" perhaps almost as much as the "Paris of South America". A good example of British architecture for much of an entire neighbourhood can be found in Palermo R. Just look up "Palermo R" on Google Images.
Buenos Aires falls short in comparison. It mostly portrays Neoclassical architecture inspired in French trends. There may be examples of British architecture but they are not quite as common.
British and British-influenced architecture are to be found anywhere in Bogota, notably in the Teusaquillo and Chapinero localities which are made up of countless neighbourhoods.
Weather and widespread use of brick and even stone in some cases reinforce the idea. Also note that British architecture was part of a movement that favoured this kind of architecture in the mid-20th century just like Parisian architecture was promoted in Buenos Aires. Bogotanos look up to Britain whereas Bonaerenses look up to France.
No, all of these are American countries with its own, unique culture, which is the result of its influences (European, Native American, Asian, African, etc) but also something new, completely different.
Take, for one, tango music, an unique blend of European, American and African music born in the arrabales of South American ports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yofie
.. Chile has had relative institutional and democratic strength compared to the rest of South America (notwithstanding some civil wars, the Pinochet regime, etc.)
The Pinochet regime proved that Chilean institutions were not so strong after all. Meanwhile, countries like Mexico, Colombia or Costa Rica, preserved their democratic institutions during most of the XX century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davy-040
I don't think there is anything like the Netherlands in South America. Maybe some parts of Uruguay.
Meanwhile, countries like Mexico, Colombia or Costa Rica, preserved their democratic institutions during most of the XX century.
To unequal extents, though. Mexico was a one-party "democracy" until 2000, and Colombia was unable to contain the leftist guerrillas and drug cartels for the longest time despite its "democracy"; of these three, only Costa Rica has managed to be a true continuous democracy along First World lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joacocanal
Suriname?
That's like saying that Guyana is the "England of South America" and French Guiana is the "France of South America". I'm not counting the Guianas; even though they're on the South American continent, they're more like an extension of the Caribbean culturally. I mean, really, South America minus the Guianas.
To unequal extents, though. Mexico was a one-party "democracy" until 2000, and Colombia was unable to contain the leftist guerrillas and drug cartels for the longest time despite its "democracy"; of these three, only Costa Rica has managed to be a true continuous democracy along First World lines.
Actually Colombia was able to contain the leftist guerillas and drug cartels as none ever ascended into public office. Corruption and violence sure, but corruption has been palpable in practically every country in the western hemisphere bar Canada and to a lesser extent Uruguay.
Also there is a parallel between the Northern Ireland peace process & IRA and the Colombia peace deal and insurgent groups. The IRA even had strong links to the FARC which have been well documented. Colombia also has the similarity of the Gran Colombia, like Great Britain, except the countries took different paths in the 19th century. Instead of staying together like England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, they separated into Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Panama (the three former still conserving the same flag).
Colombia's political system is also traditionally conservative just like the UK and the fluctuations to the left are minimal, just like the UK also.
In Colombia they even speak Caribbean English in the Caribbean regions of San Andres and Old Providence and homemade Anglo-Caribbean pop culture has some presence in the country just like Jamaican pop culture has a presence in the UK.
Not saying Colombia is like the UK but just as many if not more parallels exist between Colombia and the UK than Chile, which just shows that the notion of Chile being the UK of South America as substantially far-fetched.
To unequal extents, though. Mexico was a one-party "democracy" until 2000, and Colombia was unable to contain the leftist guerrillas and drug cartels for the longest time despite its "democracy"; of these three, only Costa Rica has managed to be a true continuous democracy along First World lines.
but these countries still remained more democratic than Chile.
Besides having a coastline and knowledge of the Dutch language i don't see any similarities.
Nearly 80% of Suriname is forest, its not dense, doesn't have many cities, has a tropical climate, corruption more widespread, average income is a lot lower, most people are black, they are a lot more religious and have a large hindu culture.
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.
in population sure but not in landscapes.
