# The city's future in Latin America



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

I(L)WTC said:


> *Sao Pablo = 100 km aprox.*


Wrong! :nuts:

Currently *São Paulo* has *458.8 km* of subway and commuter rail (384.5 km + 74.3 km).

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1565993
http://www.metro.sp.gov.br/empresa/historia/azul/historia.shtml

Commuter rail network in São Paulo is being expanded and will increase from 384.5 km to 533.3 km in a few years with new works, and the construction of high-speed train between Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro to be completed in 2020.

São Paulo's Subway is being expanded from the current 74,3 km to 540 km by 2017, with an investment of US$ 26 billion.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1476600&page=47

São Paulo is also building the largest world's *Monorail* line to be completed this year.



















Until 2017 São Paulo will have around 1.004,5 km of subway lines, commuter rail and monorail.

In addition to rail transportation, São Paulo has the largest airport in Latin America is expanding to 53.5 million passengers / year until 2014.

Before you say something about Brazil, please report 

Here are some threads about the development of transport in Brazil and São Paulo:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1476600
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1348885&page=8
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1580431
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1580431
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1397572
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1357999
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=768474



I(L)WTC said:


> +1
> Buenos Aires subte and commuter rail = 899 km aprox.


*Commuter Rail*: 815 km (https://sites.google.com/a/estudiosuizo.com/dfamba/) 
^^Full of problems, accidents and deaths every year.
The last killed 49 and left 600 injured (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17129858)

*Subway*: 55 km (http://www.sbase.com.ar/)

Total: *870 km*


----------



## italiano_pellicano (Feb 22, 2010)

for sure is in brazil


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

sebvill said:


> So? Brazil always comes in the last positions regarding infraestructure in every ranking in the matter.
> 
> Think about this: While Limas metro system serves 30% of the Peruvian population or Buenos Aires one serves 35% of the Argentinian people, metro systems in Brazil top 10 cities (if they exist) serves only 28% of the Brazilian population all together. Brazil has to do massive investments due to its geographical, economical and population size, probably 10 or 15 times more than its neighbours.
> 
> Besides Lima, Theres only one other city in Peru over 1 million people so its not viable to build 10-15 metro systems in the country, despite that there are cities like Huancayo with just 400 thousand people that have tram systems.


Actually, according to the 2010 Census, the Top 10 makes up 66 million people or 34% of the population. 

In any case, smaller cities don't need a metro system to work very well as the examples I've mentioned in my first post.




I(L)WTC said:


> +1
> 
> Buenos Aires subte and commuter rail = 899 km aprox.
> Sao Pablo = 100 km aprox.


Wrong. São Paulo's subway (Metrô) and train (CPTM) systems are about 400 km handling almost 8 million passengers daily.


----------



## I(L)WTC (Jan 30, 2010)

So? 400 km < 900 km :nuts:


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
We ask you: "so"? We're not "competing", only correcting you.


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

I(L)WTC said:


> So? 400 km < 900 km :nuts:


What use having 870 km of commuter rail if they are full of problems and killing people every year? :nuts:


----------



## Alex Roney (Apr 22, 2007)

sebvill said:


> So? Brazil always comes in the last positions regarding infraestructure in every ranking in the matter.
> 
> Think about this: While Limas metro system serves 30% of the Peruvian population or Buenos Aires one serves 35% of the Argentinian people, metro systems in Brazil top 10 cities (if they exist) serves only 28% of the Brazilian population all together. Brazil has to do massive investments due to its geographical, economical and population size, probably 10 or 15 times more than its neighbours.
> 
> Besides Lima, Theres only one other city in Peru over 1 million people so its not viable to build 10-15 metro systems in the country, despite that there are cities like Huancayo with just 400 thousand people that have tram systems.


I just told you why, lots of those figures are based on flawed parameters like percentage of unpaved highways or kilometers of highways per person. This is inherently biased against a huge country like Brazil with low population density and the Amazon covering 40% of the territory.

Btw your math is amusing and it kinda makes your reasoning flawed. Actually looking at all 3 counties about 30% of the population in each country has access to the metro. But that says nothing about service. Everyone knows the BA metro is more extensive than Lima, but due to the constriction of one line now it's equal solely measuring on having a metro system??

Lol Lima just got a metro a few years ago. Before that most people got around in unlicensed vans. Suddenly with one metro line it has superior transportation to Brazil?? lol

The funny thing is in Brazil medium size cities have more adequate transportation than their Peruvian counterparts. Honestly lets make a comparison between medium size cities like Cuiaba, Santos, Goiania, Feira de Santana, Maceio ect all with less than a million they are building either BRT or light rail. Where is the equivalent of modern transport outside of Lima??

Only Lima has a BRT service with many cities in Brazil under 1 million boasting that.

How many cities in Peru boast light rail??


----------



## Alex Roney (Apr 22, 2007)

FAAN said:


> Wrong! :nuts:
> 
> Currently São Paulo has 458.8 km of subway and commuter rail (384.5 km + 74.3 km).
> 
> ...


My main point is, it's not even the big cities which have projects, but medium size cities to. Cities like Cuiaba, Santos, Maceio and Feira de Santana. In places like Peru when it comes to urban transportation it's Lima and that's it.


----------



## mexico15 (Jan 21, 2009)

ummm Atotonilco el Alto, Jalisco?

Brazil is so overrated!


----------



## alesmarv (Mar 31, 2006)

Panama city simply because of the panama canal. Investors will always feel secure because the city will always be propped up by the outside world and never allowed to get in to any sort of instability. The country and city are too important to countries that matter.


----------



## KristoF:) (Mar 19, 2007)

FAAN said:


> What use having 870 km of commuter rail if they are full of problems and killing people every year? :nuts:


If there was a single accident of relevance, for many years there is one, the rest are suicides and follies. Despite having some problems the transportation system in Buenos Aires is one of the best in Latin America, you should find out more.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
How many people Buenos Aires' system handles every day?


----------



## gaucho (Apr 15, 2003)

sebvill said:


> So? Brazil always comes in the last positions regarding infraestructure in every ranking in the matter.
> 
> Think about this: *While Limas metro system serves 30% of the Peruvian population *or Buenos Aires one serves 35% of the Argentinian people, metro systems in Brazil top 10 cities (if they exist) serves only 28% of the Brazilian population all together. Brazil has to do massive investments due to its geographical, economical and population size, probably 10 or 15 times more than its neighbours.
> 
> Besides Lima, Theres only one other city in Peru over 1 million people so its not viable to build 10-15 metro systems in the country, despite that there are cities like Huancayo with just 400 thousand people that have tram systems.


 R u joking? One metro line that serves 30% of the peruvian population... :nuts:


----------



## Cobucci (Jun 30, 2005)

gaucho said:


> R u joking? One metro line that serves 30% of the peruvian population... :nuts:


His comparison was ridiculous. Lima and Buenos Aires concentrate the majority of their respective country's population. Brazil is not a concentrated country. Although São Paulo has 20 million inhabitants, it only represents circa 10% of Brazililian population. And this thread is about cities, not about continental countries. Brazil is huge and it's obvious that São Paulo and Rio is far more advanced than cities in the middle of nowhere. We know that cities like BA, Lima, Santiago and Bogotá are great cities too. I'm not able to compare them and, due to my limitation, I gave my opinion in the beginning of this thread only about Rio, not comparing with any other city, because I don't know entire Latin America.

It's ridiculous to compare a city of 6 million people, like sebvill did, in a country of 16 million people, with São Paulo and Rio, respectively with 20 million and 12 million people, in a country of 200 million. Obviously Santiago will attend much more of Chilean population than Brazilian megacities will do, proportionally. A huge part of Brazilian population lives in middle-sized cities, which don't need an urban rail transportation system.


----------



## Gatech12 (Feb 6, 2013)

I think Monterrey can be a city of the future in Latin America because it has a high standard of living and higher pib per capita than most of the Brazilian cities or other Mexican cities with a population of its size. There is a lot of foreign investment in that city because of its proximity with the United States and there is so much construction right now.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

Gatech12 said:


> I think Monterrey can be a city of the future in Latin America because it has a high standard of living and higher pib per capita than most of the Brazilian cities or other Mexican cities with a population of its size. There is a lot of foreign investment in that city because of its proximity with the United States and there is so much construction right now.


Monterrey is very North American with its economy and culture.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

Gatech12 said:


> I think Monterrey can be a city of the future in Latin America because it has a high standard of living and higher pib per capita than most of the Brazilian cities or other Mexican cities with a population of its size. There is a lot of foreign investment in that city because of its proximity with the United States and there is so much construction right now.


What's the GDP per capita of Monterrey metro area?


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

Gatech12 said:


> I think Monterrey can be a city of the future in Latin America because it has a high standard of living and higher pib per capita than most of the Brazilian cities or other Mexican cities with a population of its size. There is a lot of foreign investment in that city because of its proximity with the United States and there is so much construction right now.


I also think Monterrey can become one of the most promising cities in Latin America.

Just do not agree with this part:



> Latin America because it has a high standard of living and higher pib per capita than most of the Brazilian cities or other Mexican cities with a population of its size


Considering the metropolitan area:

GDP

Brasília: US$ 160 billion
Monterrey: US$ 102 billion

Population

Monterrey: 4,150,000
Brasília: 3,839,856

GDP per capta

Brasília: US$ 41,668
Monterrey: US$ 24,578

HDI:

Brasília: 0,911 (2000)
Monterrey: 0,887 (2005)

https://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/imagelibrary/downloadMedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=1562

http://www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/espanol/soc/int/nav/sem/08/nl/c19039.xls

http://www.ibge.gov.br/english/pres...cia_visualiza.php?id_noticia=1497&id_pagina=1

http://www.mi.gov.br/orgaoscolegiados/coaride/index.asp


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

edit


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

FAAN said:


> I also think Monterrey can become one of the most promising cities in Latin America.
> 
> Just do not agree with this part:
> 
> ...


Your numbers are off, the difference is nowhere near that large and Monterrey's economy is growing faster and is 25% manufacturing economy due to is location in north america building stuff for the N.A. market. Brasilia is only 2% manufacturing and the economy is mostly because of being the capital not because they are producing anything. Being a manufacturing city I think Monterrey does have the challenge that it has to remain cheaper than building stuff in China or in the US to keep all its US companies and a prolonged drug war could scare off new US investment.

GDP
Brasilia $139B...(+1.6%)...$36,175 per capita
Monterrey $130B...(+2.1%)...$31.051 per capita

$Billions brookings

http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

Anyway, my point is to say that the status of Monterrey isn't something very different from what happens in cities of the same size in Brazil, as in the case of Brasilia that has more wealth and quality of life.

If is to talk about investments, why not talk to Rio and São Paulo?


----------



## italiano_pellicano (Feb 22, 2010)

Monterrey not is a nice city


----------



## Gatech12 (Feb 6, 2013)

During the last couple of years Brazil's economy has been struggling. Hopefully it will start to growth more. But Mexico's economy has been rising, and Monterrey has been on the good side of that growth. It wont take that long for Monterrey to surpass Brasilia. Especially if they keep cutting the the economic growth every two months fro Brazil it was 3.5 and then 3.2 and now 3.0. What is next 2.8


----------



## Alex Roney (Apr 22, 2007)

Gatech12 said:


> During the last couple of years Brazil's economy has been struggling. Hopefully it will start to growth more. But Mexico's economy has been rising, and Monterrey has been on the good side of that growth. It wont take that long for Monterrey to surpass Brasilia. Especially if they keep cutting the the economic growth every two months fro Brazil it was 3.5 and then 3.2 and now 3.0. What is next 2.8


Mexican growth is also on the down, growth of 3.9% isn't exactly booming especially since the years before saw such severe contraction.


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

Gatech12 said:


> During the last couple of years Brazil's economy has been struggling. Hopefully it will start to growth more. But Mexico's economy has been rising, and Monterrey has been on the good side of that growth. It wont take that long for Monterrey to surpass Brasilia. Especially if they keep cutting the the economic growth every two months fro Brazil it was 3.5 and then 3.2 and now 3.0. What is next 2.8


Due to Monterrey is a city with a strong industry and highest population, I also believe that in a few years can overcome Brasilia.

You speak of weak growth in Brazil, and "strong" Mexican growth, but you must remember that Mexico entered recession in 2009 and still is recovering, but Brazil despite the low growth during the 2008-2009 crisis did not entered in recession and in 2010 and rebounded quickly to grow 7.5% and the economy had to be curbed by government measures to curb inflation.

The final growth forecasts for Brazil were only 1% in 2012, but in fact the country grew by around 1.5% with the even weak growth was above expectations due to a faster pace of growth in the last quarter already has consolidated this year. Brazilian economy is still slowly recovering but steadily and can surpass France till 2015, with growth forecast of 3.3% for this year and up 4% in 2014.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

Where are the sources for Monterrey's GDP? Doesn't Mexican Statistical Office publish those numbers?




Alex Roney said:


> Mexican growth is also on the down, growth of 3.9% isn't exactly booming especially since the years before saw such severe contraction.


Exactly. They've got a 6% contraction in 2009, if I'm not mistaken, while Brazil shrunk only 0.3% to grow 7.5% in 2010. 

Also, Mexican population grows considerably faster than Brazilian's, so the country should always grow more in order to keep their GDP per capita on the same levels.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT

On Wikipedia, there are two sources for *Nuevo León*'s GDP. It makes up 7.5% of Mexican GDP. So, as 2010, *US$ 77.7 billion* meaning *US$ 16,700 per capita*. The figures posted here so far seems to be very off.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

Every year, I organize a list with GDP for American and Brazilian metro areas. The latest one:



Yuri S Andrade said:


> (...)
> 
> Dados de *2010* - IBGE (Brasil) e do BEA/US Department of Commerce (EUA). Cotação usada *US$ 1,00 = R$ 1,76*:
> 
> ...



From there, the *GDP per capita 2010* for the main Brazilian metro areas:

São Paulo, SP -- US$ 20,100

Rio de Janeiro, RJ -- US$ 13,100

Belo Horizonte, MG -- US$ 13,900

Recife, PE -- US$ 8,600

Porto Alegre, RS -- US$ 15,600

Brasília, DF-GO-MG -- US$ 24,500

Salvador, BA -- US$ 11,700

Fortaleza, CE -- US$ 7,900

Curitiba, PR -- US$ 16,800

Campinas, SP -- US$ 19,900

Goiânia, GO -- US$ 10,400

Belém, PA -- US$ 6,600

Manaus, AM -- US$ 14,800


^^
São Paulo, Brasília and Campinas with GDP per capita higher than Monterrey's.

Of course, as I mentioned on my first entry here in this thread, the best of Brazil are the cities in hinterland São Paulo/southern states, and none of them has a GDP per capita way above national average. On the other hand, they have a middle class way bigger than national average, poverty rates are way smaller, consuming way bigger. 

GDP could be very problematic as it can be distorted in smaller areas: a seat of government, a big oil refinery, could give a high GDP per capita for a rather poor area. For instance, Porto Alegre is way wealthier than Manaus, but their GDP per capita is pretty much the same. GDP is a very important index, but it should come together with other indicators with the point is to determine how prosperous a given area is.


----------



## Gatech12 (Feb 6, 2013)

In 2010 the Mexican economy bounce back to growth 5.5%, and for the last couple of years it has been growing steady close to 4%. This year it might growth between 3.5% to 4%. But in 2014 it is suspected that the Mexican economy can growth to 4.5%. Actually you can also see how the stock markets are performing. The Mexican stock market has received more investment and the last couple of years and it had close the gap between Bovespa and BMV. Moreoever, it is important for the region for these two economies to growth steady that way it can also benefit the other Latin American countries.


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

FDI in Brazil (US$66.7 billion the 5th highest in the world) is more than 3 times higher than Mexico (~US$ 20 billion). Bovespa is by far the most valuable stock exchange in Latin America and fourth in the world. And as I said the mexican economy is recovering from a decline of 6% in 2009.


----------



## Gatech12 (Feb 6, 2013)

Really the last time that i check the Bovespa stock was around 58 billion and the Mexican stock market was about 45 billion.


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

I really wanted to know where you get this information. BTW, are still 13 billion more.


----------



## Gatech12 (Feb 6, 2013)

Bloomberg. Is still 13 billion more, but the BMV is shortening the gap. Brazil depends a lot on commodities. Maybe by the end of this year it will be less than 10 billion. The Mexican stock market is outperforming Bovespa


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
Brazil is not depending on commodities. People keep repeating this, but it's just a bad cliché. 

Exports make only 10% of Brazilian GDP as 2011, and everything is there, including airplanes. Brazil's economy is completely focused on internal consumption. Also a minor thing like Brazilian stock market is not representative of the overall economy.


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

Industry represents 30% of the Brazilian economy and 31% of the Mexican economy. Brazil has the largest aerospace and automotive industry in Latin America.

Another thing that is worth noting is that Mexico relies heavily on the USA for who sells 90% of its exports.


----------



## Gatech12 (Feb 6, 2013)

80% of Mexico's exports goes to the United State. Also, Mexico has signed 44 free trade agreements more than any country in the world which, according to The Financial Times, is more than twice as many as China and four times more than Brazil. Today, Mexico exports more manufactured products than the rest of Latin America put together. Moreover, the Mexican automotive industry is the 4 exporter in the world, and is also closing the gap between the Brazilian automotive industry, is one of the reasons why Brazil had to take protective measures of the Mexican automotive imports toward its country.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
Mexico is way more dependent on international trade than Brazil, and its portfolio of clients it's extremely narrow.

Also, commodities are a much more safe bet than relying on manufacturing goods. Everyone can make a car, but iron and soybeans can't find everywhere and the demand for them will be always larger and larger. That's why Mexican economy is way more exposed than Brazilian's.


----------



## Gatech12 (Feb 6, 2013)

Isn't that one of the reasons why Brazil's economy has been struggling because of the commodities. Also Brazil is dependent on China for its demand on commodities. China's economy has been slowing for the last couple of years which reflected on the Brazilian economy


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
No, it's not the reason. As I pointed out, commodities exports are only a tiny part of GDP (and China's share on it is even smaller), and their prices are as high as usual. Also, Brazilian exports grew 17% in 2011, so for one thing they helped the country.

Brazil was/is depending too much on families consumption and they're indebted due government's agressively incentives post-crisis. Investments are low, taxes high, infrastructure poor, industry problematic. Brazil grew on late 2000's despite those problem, but it seems it reached a roof for now. That's why the poor performances on 2011 and 2012. The country needs to tackle this issues in order to keep growing.


----------



## Gatech12 (Feb 6, 2013)

Like i said before both countries need to growth steady in order to benefit the region. Mexico just sign a trade agreement with Colombia, Peru, and Chile. It also sign another trade agreement the TPP.


----------



## Cobucci (Jun 30, 2005)

This discussion is going nowhere.

MIMIMI BRAZIL IS BETTER THAN MEXICO
NO, MEXICO IS DEVELOPED MIMIMI

Stop it.

Also, you're not discussing economics. You're giving data and more data with no theoretical basis. Stock market value, recent economic data, cities' GDP etc. have nothing to do with the main purpose of this thread or with social development at all.


----------

