Mexico City vs Buenos Aires (quality of life, transportation/infrastructure, economy, beauty) (crime, best)

[sf_arkitect]

How do the 2 largest Spanish speaking metropolis' of the Americas, Mexico City and Buenos Aires, stack up to one another in the following categories:

1-Infrastructure (public transportation, connectivity with country/wider region, street/neighborhood layout & organization)

2-Economy (which is a more competitive and more influential economic center in Spanish speaking Americas)

3-Architecture (aesthetic beauty of both historic and modern building stock, preservation of historic buildings, etc.)

4-Overall quality of life (cost of living, income equity/or inequity, crime)

5-Access to nature and green space within the city limits and also environs

I am considering possibly moving to either of these cities to learn Spanish and work professionally for a design firm. I have been to Buenos Aires already and I thought it was impressive. I have not yet been to Mexico City and would like to know how these 2 cities compare.

Any insight would be much appreciated.

Thank you!

[marlaver]

If you're an US expat, i think you will fit better in Mexico City. Overall two very even major latin metropolis.

1) MXC has the better metro; BA a way bigger light rail network and a more complex bus system. Both cities are equally well connected with their most populated regions, but BA has a more friendly geography. BA layout is somewhat more organized.

2) Both are economic powerhouses in the region, but i would say MXC is more business friendly.

3) Both have among the best architecture you will find in LA. Obviously MXC has a longer-lived arch legacy. Both have nice modern areas, too.

4) Cost of living comparisons are very complex to find out. But definitely MXC is cheaper whilst BA has higher salaries. BA is somewhat safer.

5) MXC is very near to National Parks full of forests, wich is a plus. In the other hand, BA is in the shore of perhaps the widest river in the world and has the nice delta of Parana north of the metro.

[pigeonhole]

You go to Paris, you've seen central Buenos Aires (same architecture). For me as an European it's not interesting to fly 20 000 km to see the same sights. So MC it is.

[Warszawa]

Originally Posted by pigeonhole

You go to Paris, you've seen central Buenos Aires (same architecture). For me as an European it's not interesting to fly 20 000 km to see the same sights. So MC it is.

This, altho Buenos Aires has a much nicer climate and a bit of a "Latin" flavor. I really liked the vibe of the city too, and it is arguably the most developed city in LA

[sf_arkitect]

Originally Posted by pigeonhole

You go to Paris, you've seen central Buenos Aires (same architecture). For me as an European it's not interesting to fly 20 000 km to see the same sights. So MC it is.

But couldn't the same thing be said of any other major European capital? Vienna within the Ringstrasse features similar 19th century architecture as Paris (and yet so many people want to go to Vienna). Or the same could be said of Budapest (major landmarks from the 19th century like Fisherman's Bastion or it's Gothic Revival parliament). Or even the 19th century architecture of London or St. Petersburg that was built during the Fin De Siecle.

My point is that the architecture of Buenos Aires, while certainly influenced by European Beaux Art Architecture - is not of a lesser caliber just because it is not in Europe. Nor does it detract from the uniqueness of the buildings that were constructed in Buenos Aires during the late 19th and early 20th century.

I have been to Paris and Buenos Aires and I would strongly recommend a visit to the latter because the South American capital has plenty of architectural landmarks and neighborhoods with tremendous aesthetic value and history that sets it apart from Europe.

[Milky Way Resident]

Originally Posted by Warszawa

This, altho Buenos Aires has a much nicer climate and a bit of a "Latin" flavor. I really liked the vibe of the city too, and it is arguably the most developed city in LA

I thought Santiago was the most developed city.

[Warszawa]

Originally Posted by Milky Way Resident

I thought Santiago was the most developed city.

Buenos Aires is better in some ways. Buenos Aires has free wi-fi almost everywhere. Santiago doesn't. Buenos Aires has a really modern and first world metro, whereas in Santiago you have to line up for the metro in rush hours, which signifies a lack of development/coordination. But I might be biased as a tourist. Santiago has some nasty areas right to the west and the south of Downtown, whereas in Buenos Aires you have to go a long way to get to the undesirable parts. Buenos Aires has a lot more insecurity tho, the murder rate there is 2x of Santiago

[iMarvin]

Mexico City may be better (easier) for learning Spanish due to the Argentine accent.

I've never been to Buenos Aires but you can't go wrong with Mexico City. Great weather, people, food, easy to get around, and so much to do. And extremely affordable.