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.
since I am talking to a wall and you keep taking it to another level, us two are done talking
You haven't been able to really prove your position- that a single characteristic or area is fully representative of a whole city. If the poorest areas up in the mountains are all that Mexico City should be known for, then why not Chicago only known for it's violent South Side, or Vegas only known for its garish, gaudy Strip? Why is it okay for you to do this, but no one else?
No but that's pretty much what you are doing with Mexico City.
you can't be more wrong and that is hogwash. I never went against the pluses of MC but stated that the slums and runned down areas are such a HUGE part of the city and a good majority of people are poor that it should not only be overlooked, as many have, but EMPHASIZED! One slum alone has four million people....... I am not about to repeat my points there are found above....
You can't combine that and compare with the strip because first of all they are two completely different cities and that is NOT what I am doing in the first place. The strip is only three miles and is what the tourists see and the slums of MC are many many square miles which the tourists don't see.
You and others are twisting things around and making MC shine where it shouldn't.
Last edited by WildWestDude; 05-08-2017 at 01:44 PM..
"Historically, urban segregation in Mexico City was caused by topography and colonial land use, with the flood-prone areas to the east of the city being occupied by the lower classes. With high immigration and birth rates during the greater part of the 20th century, the city’s population grew to 18 million, of which over 60 per cent are currently considered to be ‘poor’ or‘moderately poor’. The built-up area expanded from 23 square kilometers to 154,710 square kilometers between 1900 and 2000, engulfing surrounding towns and villages and invading steep hillsides and dried-up lake beds on which slums developed. Initially, highly crowded one- or two-roomed rented tenements, called vecindades, provided housing for the poor. With intensive industrialization and concurrent urbanization after 1940, peripherally located colonias populares – irregular settlements comprised of self-built and mainly owner occupied dwellings – emerged as the leading lower-middle and low-income housing option.
The immense scale of Mexico City’s housing poverty and the highly complex, dynamic processes preclude general official or unofficial definitions of slums comparable to the English word. Instead, terms such as colonias populares (lower class neighbourhoods) are used."
"Many public housing projects throughout the city are becoming slums. Inadequate self-administration of these projects has led to lack of maintenance, invasion and degradation of public space, structurally dangerous alterations and bad neighbourhood relations. All of this is aggravated by the original cheap construction, low space standards and the increasing impoverishment of their working-class occupants, smitten by unemployment, alcohol and drug dependency, social violence and high crime rates."
The article written by UN Habitat gets into more details........mexico
Last edited by WildWestDude; 05-08-2017 at 01:30 PM..
^^ Since C-D welcomed ALL NA cities into city vs city and general US threads. Mexico City and others rarely make it in. It is time the size and scope of MC be recognized. It is much more European in look. Its older Architecture proves it.
You really can't compare a Las Vegas to a Mexico City and lessen MC for aspects of slums in NA. When its nicest places are bigger then All Vegas. At least in population. I still see MC is under-represented on C-D. Even in the US? It's rarely touted as a tourist destination despite its cultural and European vistas.
My knowledge of MC is low. But to demean it too far is what some find unfair. All agree the slums are no plus. But far too much to this city's offerings..... then that to use against it.
you can't be more wrong and that is hogwash. I never went against the pluses of MC but stated that the slums are a huge part of the city and a good majority of people are poor. One slum alone has four million people....... I am not about to repeat my points there are found above....
You can't combine that and compare with the strip because first of all they are two completely different cities and that is NOT what I am doing. You and others are twisting things around and making MC shine where it shouldn't.
Mexico City shines as an interesting place to visit...certainly on the level of Chicago and Toronto. That is all we were saying.
^^ Since C-D welcomed ALL NA cities into city vs city and general US threads. Mexico City and others rarely make it in. It is time the size and scope of MC be recognized. It is much more European in look. Its older Architecture proves it.
You really can't compare a Las Vegas to a Mexico City and lessen MC for aspects of slums in NA. When its nicest places are bigger then All Vegas. At least in population. I still see MC is under-represented on C-D. Even in the US? It's rarely touted as a tourist destination despite its cultural and European vistas.
My knowledge of MC is low. But to demean it too far is what some find unfair. All agree the slums are no plus. But far too much to this city's offerings..... then that to use against it.
This a very valid point!
Yes CDMX has milions of poor people. BUT it is also the nerve center of the Mexican economy and the nation's elite and middle class are disproportionately concentrated in and around the valley of Mexico.
Wildwestdude has been focusing solely on the cities marginalized peoples - believing that that is the most emblematic facet of the city. AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY NOT! He seems to dismiss the magnitude of historical and cultural significance that CDMX can claim over the other 2 N.A. cities being compared.
Yes CDMX has milions of poor people. BUT it is also the nerve center of the Mexican economy and the nation's elite and middle class are disproportionately concentrated in and around the valley of Mexico.
Wildwestdude has been focusing solely on the cities marginalized peoples - believing that that is the most emblematic facet of the city. AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY NOT! He seems to dismiss the magnitude of historical and cultural significance that CDMX can claim over the other 2 N.A. cities being compared.
Funny post. Can't escape the vastness of the slums and runned down areas PERIOD.! Can't argue with the UN Habitat report. The other two cities just because of that factor alone are far superior
Last edited by WildWestDude; 05-08-2017 at 03:01 PM..
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.
.
